I Feel Sorry For Democrats

[Ray From Cleveland]

Truncating Ray's statement ("The problem is half of our country is not paying. In fact, the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay close to 70% of all collected income taxes") not only changed its meaning to suit your nefarious purpose, it's as disingenuous as it is dishonest.

I had a higher opinion of you and have defended you in the past.

As to your demand for proof of truth ... you don't know how to use GOOGLE?
Those loony lib HACKs at CNBC authored the following based on a study by the "non-partisan Tax Policy Center":

"The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available).

The bottom 80 percent of Americans are expected to pay 15 percent of all federal income taxes in 2014, according to the study. The bottom 60 percent are expected to pay less than 2 percent of federal income taxes."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAEahUKEwj5sZ-stpbJAhUCQD4KHUATAnc&url=http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html&usg=AFQjCNFRfY5H7lgBzlfWCQ78qUviILkkvg

First & foremost .... for the official record .... I really don't give a flying fuck what any conservative thinks of me.

That out of the way ....

Again, he said ...

"The problem is half of our country is not paying."​

I took that to mean what he said ... that "the problem is half of our country is not paying."

As far as the link you kindly provided ... nothing in there says 48% of income earners pay no federal income tax.

Wanna try for best out of 3?

They updated that figure to more like the 45% range. Still, that's nearly half of the wage earners in this country and even more when you add in the millions of people not working.

Again .... prove it. That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing it more like 47% of households pay no federal income tax.

What would you like me to prove; be specific.

The claim that [roughly] half of wage earners pay no federal income tax.

Yep, and that's the truth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure I do. When the government takes money from other people than yourself, you have absolutely no problem with that at all. Take money from you, and you would be kicking and screaming all over this forum.

Well now you've not only shown me you have no fucking clue what you're talking about but you also demonstrate you are completely wrong as well.

Oh, I see, then you have no problem with giving more of your money to the federal government? You know, the IRS accepts personal checks and credit cards. You can contribute as much as you like.

I have no problem paying more if the my tax bracket goes up and everyone in it pays more.

That may be, but the Democrats are not talking about your tax bracket, they are talking about the people that pay nearly all of the federal income tax. As I stated, I wouldn't mind paying more either. I think we need a federal consumption tax....... at least until we get our debt under control.

It a) bothers me not if folks in higher brackets than my own pay more just as it wouldn't bother me if my own bracket was increased; and b) I would imagine for many folks in those brackets, it also would bother them for the same reason I wouldn't be bothered about increases to my own taxes.

But the more salient point is ..... how the fuck does that indicate to you what I earn??

Thus far, I haven't read that you think your taxes should increase until I brought it up, only those at the top. It's reasonable to assume of course you (as myself) are not at the top.

 

[Faun]

First, prove the trend of any of those began under Obama's leadership..... since that is your claim.

Okay, here you go:


View attachment 54952

So? What do you think that means in terms of the health of the job market?

I think it's rather obvious. You have an entitlement President with more people that feel entitled.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that employers can't fill. People on their SNAP's cards and Obama phones just don't want to work. Others won't give up smoking pot to secure a job.

In my industry alone, we will be short 45,000 workers by the end of this year because employers can't find people to work. My father is a retired bricklayer. They got so desperate for new bricklayers that the union sent him a letter asking their retirees to find drug-free people interested in joining the trade. They found interested people, but none that could pass a drug test. Yes, it's hard work, but my father made a pretty good living off of it.

Again, since you didn't answer .... what does the labor force participation rate have to do with the health of the job market? Your anecdotal explanations don't cover it.

I'll even help you out this time ... keep in mind, the labor force participation rate was lower in the 1950's, meanwhile, the job market was quite healthy. Same for the 1960's.

The labor force participation rate is influenced heavily by demographics, not the health of the job market.

And again, I challenged you to cite any one of those reasons as being one which began under Obama. By your inability to find even one, I can only conclude you agree that they all started under Bush, though the trends certainly did continue under Obama.

Not at that pace it didn't. Look at the chart again. Under Bush, the participation rate dropped during the recession. It began to increase a few years before the housing burst which led to the next recession. During the housing bubble, the trend of working Americans increased.

There is no increase or flat line under Obama. No matter what the circumstance, it's a descending line all the way down to record lows.

It also dropped under Bush before the housing boom. But one of the leading reasons for the drop has been the increase of baby boomers retiring and that increased dramatically around 2008-2009, when baby boomers first began hitting the retirement age of 62. Some 10,000 per day, though roughly 25-30% of them retired.

 

[Faun]

First & foremost .... for the official record .... I really don't give a flying fuck what any conservative thinks of me.

That out of the way ....

Again, he said ...

"The problem is half of our country is not paying."​

I took that to mean what he said ... that "the problem is half of our country is not paying."

As far as the link you kindly provided ... nothing in there says 48% of income earners pay no federal income tax.

Wanna try for best out of 3?

They updated that figure to more like the 45% range. Still, that's nearly half of the wage earners in this country and even more when you add in the millions of people not working.

Again .... prove it. That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing it more like 47% of households pay no federal income tax.

What would you like me to prove; be specific.

The claim that [roughly] half of wage earners pay no federal income tax.

Yep, and that's the truth.

Then prove it.....

 

[Hancock]

If ISIS attacks DC as they are advertising, I may begin to feel sorry for the dems. They probably wouldn't win another election in my lifetime if that happens....

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They updated that figure to more like the 45% range. Still, that's nearly half of the wage earners in this country and even more when you add in the millions of people not working.

Again .... prove it. That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing it more like 47% of households pay no federal income tax.

What would you like me to prove; be specific.

The claim that [roughly] half of wage earners pay no federal income tax.

Yep, and that's the truth.

Then prove it.....

TPC Tax Topics | Who Doesn't Pay Federal Taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, here you go:


View attachment 54952

So? What do you think that means in terms of the health of the job market?

I think it's rather obvious. You have an entitlement President with more people that feel entitled.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that employers can't fill. People on their SNAP's cards and Obama phones just don't want to work. Others won't give up smoking pot to secure a job.

In my industry alone, we will be short 45,000 workers by the end of this year because employers can't find people to work. My father is a retired bricklayer. They got so desperate for new bricklayers that the union sent him a letter asking their retirees to find drug-free people interested in joining the trade. They found interested people, but none that could pass a drug test. Yes, it's hard work, but my father made a pretty good living off of it.

Again, since you didn't answer .... what does the labor force participation rate have to do with the health of the job market? Your anecdotal explanations don't cover it.

I'll even help you out this time ... keep in mind, the labor force participation rate was lower in the 1950's, meanwhile, the job market was quite healthy. Same for the 1960's.

The labor force participation rate is influenced heavily by demographics, not the health of the job market.

And again, I challenged you to cite any one of those reasons as being one which began under Obama. By your inability to find even one, I can only conclude you agree that they all started under Bush, though the trends certainly did continue under Obama.

Not at that pace it didn't. Look at the chart again. Under Bush, the participation rate dropped during the recession. It began to increase a few years before the housing burst which led to the next recession. During the housing bubble, the trend of working Americans increased.

There is no increase or flat line under Obama. No matter what the circumstance, it's a descending line all the way down to record lows.

It also dropped under Bush before the housing boom. But one of the leading reasons for the drop has been the increase of baby boomers retiring and that increased dramatically around 2008-2009, when baby boomers first began hitting the retirement age of 62. Some 10,000 per day, though roughly 25-30% of them retired.

The article I posted earlier by MSNBC seems to disagree. What we have are a lot of college kids that don't work. In the past, college kids worked all the time. They were trying to work themselves through school and perhaps lessen the burden of school loans.

But as we all know, the federal government took the lions share of those loans and now they are not being repaid. Again, the entitlement society.

Demographics of those working (and not working) in America:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

 

[jasonnfree]

If ISIS attacks DC as they are advertising, I may begin to feel sorry for the dems. They probably wouldn't win another election in my lifetime if that happens....

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Why wouldn't dems win elections afterward? The greatest attack on American soil was accomplished under cheneybush/ who refused to look into all the warnings of an impending attack, yet republicans are still winning elections. Of course they've had a little help with winning aids like voter caging, redistricting, etc.

 

[Faun]

Well now you've not only shown me you have no fucking clue what you're talking about but you also demonstrate you are completely wrong as well.

Oh, I see, then you have no problem with giving more of your money to the federal government? You know, the IRS accepts personal checks and credit cards. You can contribute as much as you like.

I have no problem paying more if the my tax bracket goes up and everyone in it pays more.

That may be, but the Democrats are not talking about your tax bracket, they are talking about the people that pay nearly all of the federal income tax. As I stated, I wouldn't mind paying more either. I think we need a federal consumption tax....... at least until we get our debt under control.

It a) bothers me not if folks in higher brackets than my own pay more just as it wouldn't bother me if my own bracket was increased; and b) I would imagine for many folks in those brackets, it also would bother them for the same reason I wouldn't be bothered about increases to my own taxes.

But the more salient point is ..... how the fuck does that indicate to you what I earn??

Thus far, I haven't read that you think your taxes should increase until I brought it up, only those at the top. It's reasonable to assume of course you (as myself) are not at the top.

You also haven't read me post about having pets. Does that mean...

a) I have no pets
b) I do have pets
c) you have no fucking clue if I have pets or not.



I'm going with (c). You?

 

[Hancock]

Because the "JV" just pulled a varsity attack in Paris and are threatening that DC is next. All the while, Barry's failing strategy to deal them is not changing. He's a minimalist, leading from way behind. On top of that, he can't ship these refugees over fast enough. Refugees we know absolutely nothing about, btw. If he forces them on the American people, I believe that will cost his party the White House. If they get here and an attack takes place, the dems will lose the few seats they still hold.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Again .... prove it. That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing it more like 47% of households pay no federal income tax.

What would you like me to prove; be specific.

The claim that [roughly] half of wage earners pay no federal income tax.

Yep, and that's the truth.

Then prove it.....

View attachment 54956

TPC Tax Topics | Who Doesn't Pay Federal Taxes?

I challenged you to prove the claim that [roughly] half of income earners pay no income tax; not to prove what I said, that [roughly] half of U.S. households pay no income tax.



households ≠ income earners.

Try harder.

 

[jasonnfree]

Because the "JV" just pulled a varsity attack in Paris and are threatening that DC is next. All the while, Barry's failing strategy to deal them is not changing. He's a minimalist, leading from way behind. On top of that, he can't ship these refugees over fast enough. Refugees we know absolutely nothing about, btw. If he forces them on the American people, I believe that will cost his party the White House. If they get here and an attack takes place, the dems will lose the few seats they still hold.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Barry the minimalist leading from behind? Oooohh, deep - did you invent that one? Anyways, the guys that weren't minimalists leading from behind (cheneybush), allowed this country to suffer the greatest attack on it's soil in it's history, despite their receiving many warnings about an impending attack. It was real amateur hour that day. This is what will go down in the history books.

 

[Hancock]

It's Bush's fault...you're right, that's way deeper than my comment. Barack Obama is the president now son, not Bush. I don't doubt that you would like to ignore the last eight years, like most Americans. But he's had eight years of failed foreign policy and looks completely in over his head with ISIS. I know, I know... you'll probably just skip his chapter in the history books, just like you are willing to ignore his foreign policy the last eight years. Doesn't change the fact he failed just because you don't acknowledge it

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

So? What do you think that means in terms of the health of the job market?

I think it's rather obvious. You have an entitlement President with more people that feel entitled.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that employers can't fill. People on their SNAP's cards and Obama phones just don't want to work. Others won't give up smoking pot to secure a job.

In my industry alone, we will be short 45,000 workers by the end of this year because employers can't find people to work. My father is a retired bricklayer. They got so desperate for new bricklayers that the union sent him a letter asking their retirees to find drug-free people interested in joining the trade. They found interested people, but none that could pass a drug test. Yes, it's hard work, but my father made a pretty good living off of it.

Again, since you didn't answer .... what does the labor force participation rate have to do with the health of the job market? Your anecdotal explanations don't cover it.

I'll even help you out this time ... keep in mind, the labor force participation rate was lower in the 1950's, meanwhile, the job market was quite healthy. Same for the 1960's.

The labor force participation rate is influenced heavily by demographics, not the health of the job market.

And again, I challenged you to cite any one of those reasons as being one which began under Obama. By your inability to find even one, I can only conclude you agree that they all started under Bush, though the trends certainly did continue under Obama.

Not at that pace it didn't. Look at the chart again. Under Bush, the participation rate dropped during the recession. It began to increase a few years before the housing burst which led to the next recession. During the housing bubble, the trend of working Americans increased.

There is no increase or flat line under Obama. No matter what the circumstance, it's a descending line all the way down to record lows.

It also dropped under Bush before the housing boom. But one of the leading reasons for the drop has been the increase of baby boomers retiring and that increased dramatically around 2008-2009, when baby boomers first began hitting the retirement age of 62. Some 10,000 per day, though roughly 25-30% of them retired.

The article I posted earlier by MSNBC seems to disagree. What we have are a lot of college kids that don't work. In the past, college kids worked all the time. They were trying to work themselves through school and perhaps lessen the burden of school loans.

But as we all know, the federal government took the lions share of those loans and now they are not being repaid. Again, the entitlement society.

Demographics of those working (and not working) in America:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Declining Labor Participation Rates

CBO estimated that between the end of 2007 (a year before Obama took office) and the end of 2013, about half of the decline in participation rates could be pegged to long-term demographic trends, about a third to “temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages,” and about a sixth to “unusual aspects of the slow recovery.”

Similar conclusions were reached by the Federal Reserve Board, which wrote in September 2014 that “much – but not all – of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 is structural in nature.”

Other authors come out somewhere in the middle. For example, Aaronson et al. (2012) estimate a model that allows cohort effects and the coefficients on other controls to differ by age, sex, and educational attainment and find that nearly half of the decline in the participation rate between 2000 and 2011 reflected demographic factors. Similarly, the Council of Economic Advisors recently analyzed potential sources of the decline in participation since 2007 and attributed half of the decline to aging, one sixth to “typical” cyclical weakness, and the remainder to other pre-existing trends or other factors associated with the severity of the recession. A separate analysis by Hall (2014) comes to a similar conclusion, but traces much of the decline beyond that of aging to a combination of an increase in disability recipients and the expansion of the food stamp program, both of which discourage participation by implicitly taxing earnings. Finally, pure time-series methods, such as those employed by Van Zandweghe (2012), Barnes et al. (2013), and Reifschneider et al. (2013), attribute between one half and twothirds of the decline in participation since 2007 to trend movements, although of course such analyses say little about the underlying sources of a declining trend participation rate.

A report from Shigeru Fujita at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia on Feb. 6, 2014, also sought to tease out the relative impact of various causes for the declining labor force participation rate. Fujita concluded that about 65 percent of the decline between 2000 and the final quarter of 2013 was due to retirement and an increase in disability.

Fujita, Feb. 6, 2014: The increase in nonparticipation due to retirement has occurred only after around 2010, while nonparticipation due to disability has been steadily increasing over the past 13 years. Similarly, nonparticipation due to schooling has been steadily increasing and has been another major contributor to the secular decline in the participation rate since 2000.

The number of those who did not look for a job (thus being out of the labor force) even though they wanted a job increased significantly between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the end of 2011. This group of “discouraged workers” explains roughly 30 percent of the total decline (around 2 percentage points) in the participation rate over the same period. Between the first quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013, the participation rate of this group has been roughly flat.

However, Fujita concluded, “Almost all of the decline (80 percent) in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is accounted for by the increase in nonparticipation due to retirement. This implies that the decline in the unemployment rate since 2012 is not due to more discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.”

 

[FA_Q2]

A birther and a religious nut who says he tried to hit his mother with a hammer?

At least Republicans admit their faults

"I did not have sex with that woman...........................................Mz Lewinsky."

I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky...The war in Iraq was a noble cause....what difference does it make?

==========
If you are going to quote Bill Clinton --- at least get it right --- oh yeah you eighties much prefer mis-quotes to change the meaning don't you?

Clinton actually said " I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Sexual relations = sexual intercourse.

He had a sex act performed on him by a willing adult who told her friends as she was packing to go to Washington " I packed my Presidential kneepads ".
They testified to that.

Proves she intended to seduce Bill from the get go.

Clinton parsed his words carefully ----yes he did --- but that is not lying.
He used technically correct phrasing and, of course, the right wingers have no idea what he actually said. Their heads were / are so full of fantasies about being a 14th century Lord of the Manor with serfs and peons after they have brought this country down that they are jizzing down their legs.

Try and explain to almost every mans wife that getting a blow job is not having a sexual relation and get back to me.

Can she get pregnant?

I already posted definitions for you. Definitions that you ignored because they show you talking out of your ass.

 

[FA_Q2]

By the way, thanks for the votes. People look at bedwetters like you and don't want to be associated with anything you have to do with.

I think you're grossly underestimating just how powerful a motivator fear can be. If these attacks continue that is exactly the kind of unique environment that could usher someone like Donald Trump into the White House.

No. Fear that France is getting attacked is very small. You might have a point if it was AMERICA that was hit but until then, this will be minor.

 

[FA_Q2]

Weird how righties think of everything so narrowly. When finger pointing is all you do is it any wonder they fail to accomplish anything? Well you could give Bush and Cheney credit for creating daesh, aka isil. Not much of an accomplishment.

How do you stop alienated people who see the world through an ideology of us against them. Right now the bombing etc has emboldened a few who see the battle as their belief against western domination. Is there any need to mention our own crazies - cowards - such as Timothy McVeigh. In an armed society only a few cowards can wreak havoc and fear. One way to start is stop acting like these people are anything but murderers and cowards. Call them daesh as you hunt down those whose conscience is missing. A few pieces below. See words matter for daesh.

"I reach this view with much mixed feeling. Over the years I have grown increasingly convinced that western military interventions and wars to “fix” the Middle East have not only failed, but have vastly exacerbated nearly all regional situations. Washington has at the end of the day, in effect, “lost” every one of its recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere. The West has been as much the problem as the solution....We must remember that there would be no ISIS today if the US had not invaded and destroyed Iraq’s leadership, government, ruling institutions, elites, army, infrastructure and social order." ISIS- The Hour Has Struck | Graham E. Fuller

Paris at Midnight: Attempt to push France out of anti ISIL coalition in Syria?
Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’ - The Boston Globe

"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us." Robert Pape The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

"I consider Bush's decision to call for a war against terrorism a serious mistake. He is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies, and one cannot lead a war against a network if the term war is to retain any definite meaning." Jurgen Habermas
.

Nice display of how partisan hacks point out the folly of Bush going over to the ME but then ignore Obama's expansion of bombing over there.

No serious candidate on the field anywhere is talking about ending our engagement in the ME.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because the "JV" just pulled a varsity attack in Paris and are threatening that DC is next. All the while, Barry's failing strategy to deal them is not changing. He's a minimalist, leading from way behind. On top of that, he can't ship these refugees over fast enough. Refugees we know absolutely nothing about, btw. If he forces them on the American people, I believe that will cost his party the White House. If they get here and an attack takes place, the dems will lose the few seats they still hold.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Barry the minimalist leading from behind? Oooohh, deep - did you invent that one? Anyways, the guys that weren't minimalists leading from behind (cheneybush), allowed this country to suffer the greatest attack on it's soil in it's history, despite their receiving many warnings about an impending attack. It was real amateur hour that day. This is what will go down in the history books.

Maybe you better watch out for which history books you buy:

By PETE BRUSH CBS May 16, 2002, 10:31 AM
What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, I see, then you have no problem with giving more of your money to the federal government? You know, the IRS accepts personal checks and credit cards. You can contribute as much as you like.

I have no problem paying more if the my tax bracket goes up and everyone in it pays more.

That may be, but the Democrats are not talking about your tax bracket, they are talking about the people that pay nearly all of the federal income tax. As I stated, I wouldn't mind paying more either. I think we need a federal consumption tax....... at least until we get our debt under control.

It a) bothers me not if folks in higher brackets than my own pay more just as it wouldn't bother me if my own bracket was increased; and b) I would imagine for many folks in those brackets, it also would bother them for the same reason I wouldn't be bothered about increases to my own taxes.

But the more salient point is ..... how the fuck does that indicate to you what I earn??

Thus far, I haven't read that you think your taxes should increase until I brought it up, only those at the top. It's reasonable to assume of course you (as myself) are not at the top.

You also haven't read me post about having pets. Does that mean...

a) I have no pets
b) I do have pets
c) you have no fucking clue if I have pets or not.



I'm going with (c). You?

It depends on what your comment about pets were? If you are against people walking their dogs on the sidewalk, against animal noises coming from homes in your area, if you said you had allergies to pets, or you said people with pets should have to pay extra taxes, I would assume you had no pets.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I do. I really do feel sorry for Democrats. The last couple of days have been devastating to the Democrat Party. On Saturday night, their candidates came off silly, inept, and without substance in their national debate, which only drew a viewership of 8.5 million. Although the debate was geared toward ISIS and the Paris attacks, none of the Democrat candidates came off as being a viable candidate for Commander-in-Chief.

France, today launched an attack upon the very stronghold of ISIS, something our impotent President has either failed or refused to do. Russia's Putin is in Syria alongside Iran's military shoring up the Assad regime which our President spent millions of our tax dollars trying to oust.

Coupled with the Democrat candidates' failures to offer the American voter anything other than job killing policies and the same old boogeymen they trot out at every election and the total lack of a candidate that exhibits any real qualities of leadership as required and becoming of an aspirant to hold authority over the world's most powerful military, I see the American people turning yet again to a Republican President to put a final end to ISIS. The American people have done it before and will do it again.

There is more to being President than tax and spend.

Oh, by the way. I really DON'T feel sorry for the Democrats. I lied.

Feel sorry for them too since all they could come up with this time around was a chick, someone I've never even heard of, and an old socialist. That's pretty pathetic.