I Feel Sorry For Democrats

[Arizona Willie]

Either one of them is far better than your two leading candidates. At least they have more going for them than tax and spend.

Hillary is beatable in 2016 by the right Republican with a moderate platform

This may be the last best chance for Republicans in the next generation. Instead they go all batshit crazy with Trump, Carson and Cruz

Are Republicans TRYING to blow it

Again, how about putting some actual substance from one of your candidates up here for discussion. Just smearing people doesn't cut it anymore. Your candidate must have a platform to run on. Put it up here.

Go for it

Hillary Clinton on the issues

Here you go: Hillary and Bernie's plans: Tax the wealthy more. Raise the taxes on corporations and close their tax loopholes. The wealthy are already paying the lion's share of the federal income tax. Taxing corporations more and closing their tax loopholes will only lead to more corporations moving out of the country, job loss, and result in lower returns on investments of our elderly and many others who invest in the stocks of corporations. Hillary and Bernie's plans will kill off more jobs in an already depressed economy. Bernie did admit that the actual unemployment rate was 10% - not 5.6% as is touted by the Obama Administration. Bernie also stated that the unemployment rate in the Black community was 15% and that the unemployment rate among Black males with a high school education was 51%. So much for the two leading candidates of the Democrat Party's plans for jobs creation and the overall economy.

Tax the wealthy more....Our wealthy are paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 years and it has not resulted in the proseperity and jobs that were promised. Why should we continue tax incentives that obviously are not doing what we thought they would?
We have had upper tax rates of 70-90% before and it did not kill jobs. In fact, we had great prosperity

======



When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.

And, if being given money discourages the poor from working, giving money to the rich discourages them from opening new businesses because they don't NEED to.

 

[the_human_being]

I feel sorry for Republicans

After eight years, it is "their turn" to return to the White House
The best they can come up with is Trump, Carson and Cruz

As I have said before....the next Republican President hasn't been born yet

Either one of them is far better than your two leading candidates. At least they have more going for them than tax and spend.

============
Better than being a DEADBEAT Republican who refuses to pay any taxes to pay the bills for the wars they started or for their FREE STUFF GIVEAWAY ( like they always accuse the Democrats of doing ) the unfunded Medicare Prescription Benefit.

REPUBLICANS ARE DEADBEATS.

Yes, let's just add to the EBT program a few more thousand Syrian ISIS members.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, how about putting some actual substance from one of your candidates up here for discussion. Just smearing people doesn't cut it anymore. Your candidate must have a platform to run on. Put it up here.

Go for it

Hillary Clinton on the issues

Here you go: Hillary and Bernie's plans: Tax the wealthy more. Raise the taxes on corporations and close their tax loopholes. The wealthy are already paying the lion's share of the federal income tax. Taxing corporations more and closing their tax loopholes will only lead to more corporations moving out of the country, job loss, and result in lower returns on investments of our elderly and many others who invest in the stocks of corporations. Hillary and Bernie's plans will kill off more jobs in an already depressed economy. Bernie did admit that the actual unemployment rate was 10% - not 5.6% as is touted by the Obama Administration. Bernie also stated that the unemployment rate in the Black community was 15% and that the unemployment rate among Black males with a high school education was 51%. So much for the two leading candidates of the Democrat Party's plans for jobs creation and the overall economy.

Tax the wealthy more....Our wealthy are paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 years and it has not resulted in the proseperity and jobs that were promised. Why should we continue tax incentives that obviously are not doing what we thought they would?
We have had upper tax rates of 70-90% before and it did not kill jobs. In fact, we had great prosperity

The tax rates are not the lowest in 70 years. That's a liberal liar talking point. The taxes were actually lower when Reagan was in office.

Show us

I know I haven't been here that long, but you know better than to challenge me on such matters:

FactChecking Obama’s Budget Speech
The president went too far in his critique of the House Republicans' deficit-reduction plan.

• By Lori Robertson
• Posted on April 15, 2011

A Taxing Burden

Obama also argued that the "wealthy" could afford to pay more in taxes since their "tax burden" is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But it depends what measure one uses. The CBO’s most recent analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was its lowest in 1986 during the Reagan administration.

Obama: I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.

The White House based that claim on its own analysis of 2005 tax data for the 2010 Economic Report of the President. It calculated the effective tax rate of individuals making more than $250,000 a year and those making more than $2 million, by dividing the amount of income by the amount paid in federal income and payroll taxes. The figures were also adjusted for wage growth, the report said.

"This analysis suggests that the effective tax rates that applied to high-income taxpayers reached their lowest levels in at least half a century in 2008," the report said.

But the White House’s own analysis showed a similar tax burden in the late 1980s. Here is the administration’s graphic representation of the effective tax rate for those income groups:

According to the CBO, the top 1 percent of all households — those making at least$352,900 — paid a total average federal tax rate of 29.5 percent in 2007. But in 1986, they paid a full 4 percentage points less, 25.5 percent. Taxpayers in the top 5 percent (who earn at least $141,900) and 10 percent (at least $102,900) also paid lower rates in 1986.

FactChecking Obama’s Budget Speech

 

[the_human_being]

Hillary is beatable in 2016 by the right Republican with a moderate platform

This may be the last best chance for Republicans in the next generation. Instead they go all batshit crazy with Trump, Carson and Cruz

Are Republicans TRYING to blow it

Again, how about putting some actual substance from one of your candidates up here for discussion. Just smearing people doesn't cut it anymore. Your candidate must have a platform to run on. Put it up here.

Go for it

Hillary Clinton on the issues

Here you go: Hillary and Bernie's plans: Tax the wealthy more. Raise the taxes on corporations and close their tax loopholes. The wealthy are already paying the lion's share of the federal income tax. Taxing corporations more and closing their tax loopholes will only lead to more corporations moving out of the country, job loss, and result in lower returns on investments of our elderly and many others who invest in the stocks of corporations. Hillary and Bernie's plans will kill off more jobs in an already depressed economy. Bernie did admit that the actual unemployment rate was 10% - not 5.6% as is touted by the Obama Administration. Bernie also stated that the unemployment rate in the Black community was 15% and that the unemployment rate among Black males with a high school education was 51%. So much for the two leading candidates of the Democrat Party's plans for jobs creation and the overall economy.

Tax the wealthy more....Our wealthy are paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 years and it has not resulted in the proseperity and jobs that were promised. Why should we continue tax incentives that obviously are not doing what we thought they would?
We have had upper tax rates of 70-90% before and it did not kill jobs. In fact, we had great prosperity

======



When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.

And, if being given money discourages the poor from working, giving money to the rich discourages them from opening new businesses cause they don't NEED to.a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.

And, if being given money discourages the poor from working, giving money to the rich discourages them from opening new businesses because they don't NEED to.

Feel free to send the IRS 90% of your income. You can easily practice what you preach for others to do. Just write a check to the IRS for the amount and put it in the mail and be a genuine little patriot.

 

[the_human_being]

Go for it

Hillary Clinton on the issues

Here you go: Hillary and Bernie's plans: Tax the wealthy more. Raise the taxes on corporations and close their tax loopholes. The wealthy are already paying the lion's share of the federal income tax. Taxing corporations more and closing their tax loopholes will only lead to more corporations moving out of the country, job loss, and result in lower returns on investments of our elderly and many others who invest in the stocks of corporations. Hillary and Bernie's plans will kill off more jobs in an already depressed economy. Bernie did admit that the actual unemployment rate was 10% - not 5.6% as is touted by the Obama Administration. Bernie also stated that the unemployment rate in the Black community was 15% and that the unemployment rate among Black males with a high school education was 51%. So much for the two leading candidates of the Democrat Party's plans for jobs creation and the overall economy.

Tax the wealthy more....Our wealthy are paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 years and it has not resulted in the proseperity and jobs that were promised. Why should we continue tax incentives that obviously are not doing what we thought they would?
We have had upper tax rates of 70-90% before and it did not kill jobs. In fact, we had great prosperity

The tax rates are not the lowest in 70 years. That's a liberal liar talking point. The taxes were actually lower when Reagan was in office.

Show us

I know I haven't been here that long, but you know better than to challenge me on such matters:

FactChecking Obama’s Budget Speech
The president went too far in his critique of the House Republicans' deficit-reduction plan.

• By Lori Robertson
• Posted on April 15, 2011

A Taxing Burden

Obama also argued that the "wealthy" could afford to pay more in taxes since their "tax burden" is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But it depends what measure one uses. The CBO’s most recent analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was its lowest in 1986 during the Reagan administration.

Obama: I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.

The White House based that claim on its own analysis of 2005 tax data for the 2010 Economic Report of the President. It calculated the effective tax rate of individuals making more than $250,000 a year and those making more than $2 million, by dividing the amount of income by the amount paid in federal income and payroll taxes. The figures were also adjusted for wage growth, the report said.

"This analysis suggests that the effective tax rates that applied to high-income taxpayers reached their lowest levels in at least half a century in 2008," the report said.

But the White House’s own analysis showed a similar tax burden in the late 1980s. Here is the administration’s graphic representation of the effective tax rate for those income groups:

According to the CBO, the top 1 percent of all households — those making at least$352,900 — paid a total average federal tax rate of 29.5 percent in 2007. But in 1986, they paid a full 4 percentage points less, 25.5 percent. Taxpayers in the top 5 percent (who earn at least $141,900) and 10 percent (at least $102,900) also paid lower rates in 1986.

FactChecking Obama’s Budget Speech

Ray, we're dealing with low information ignorance here. They are so damn easy it should be against the law for us to beat up on them.

 

[Arizona Willie]

[QUOTE="SAYIT, post: 12821200, member: 35716

The point remains that 49% of all American filers pay no federal personal income tax while the top 25% carry 86% of that load.

As currently configured, state and sales taxes do not cover any of the federal budget and, as already noted, neither do the bottom 49% of American earners.

So what % should "the rich" be made to carry?

96%?

106%?

==========

Each income group should pay the same percentage of the nation's bills as they receive of the nations income.

If a group gets 50% of the nations income they ( as a group ) should pay 50% of the nations bills.
If a group gets 10% of the nations income they ( as a group ) should pay 10% of the nations bills.

Each income group should pay a proportional amount of the bills as what they receive.

Those who are rich and have a fantastic life --- living on cruise ships and taking around the world vacations --- should pay more for living in the society that has given them such a great life.

Those who are on the shifty end of the stick should pay less because they receive less from society.

Would it not be better served were we to discuss the actual tax plans put forth by our respective Presidential candidates instead of discussing some plan that isn't even on the playing field?[/QUOTE]
=====
Plans can GET on the playing field when / if they are talked about enough on the Internet to attract the attention of staffers who propose the ideas to their bosses.

 

[the_human_being]

Either one of them is far better than your two leading candidates. At least they have more going for them than tax and spend.

Hillary is beatable in 2016 by the right Republican with a moderate platform

This may be the last best chance for Republicans in the next generation. Instead they go all batshit crazy with Trump, Carson and Cruz

Are Republicans TRYING to blow it

Again, how about putting some actual substance from one of your candidates up here for discussion. Just smearing people doesn't cut it anymore. Your candidate must have a platform to run on. Put it up here.

Go for it

Hillary Clinton on the issues

Here you go: Hillary and Bernie's plans: Tax the wealthy more. Raise the taxes on corporations and close their tax loopholes. The wealthy are already paying the lion's share of the federal income tax. Taxing corporations more and closing their tax loopholes will only lead to more corporations moving out of the country, job loss, and result in lower returns on investments of our elderly and many others who invest in the stocks of corporations. Hillary and Bernie's plans will kill off more jobs in an already depressed economy. Bernie did admit that the actual unemployment rate was 10% - not 5.6% as is touted by the Obama Administration. Bernie also stated that the unemployment rate in the Black community was 15% and that the unemployment rate among Black males with a high school education was 51%. So much for the two leading candidates of the Democrat Party's plans for jobs creation and the overall economy.

Now, to raise more revenue, which group should be taxed more?

I say the 1% with 34% of the wealth
You say the 40% with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth

Well, since you asked, I would use Ted Cruz's 10% flat tax and close down the IRS and three or four other federal agencies and put an immediate freeze on any further governmental hiring. I would also impose stringent means testing on all governmental entitlement programs. We don't have a revenue problem since we are taking in more revenue than at any time in history. We have a spending problem.

 

[the_human_being]

[QUOTE="SAYIT, post: 12821200, member: 35716

The point remains that 49% of all American filers pay no federal personal income tax while the top 25% carry 86% of that load.

As currently configured, state and sales taxes do not cover any of the federal budget and, as already noted, neither do the bottom 49% of American earners.

So what % should "the rich" be made to carry?

96%?

106%?

==========

Each income group should pay the same percentage of the nation's bills as they receive of the nations income.

If a group gets 50% of the nations income they ( as a group ) should pay 50% of the nations bills.
If a group gets 10% of the nations income they ( as a group ) should pay 10% of the nations bills.

Each income group should pay a proportional amount of the bills as what they receive.

Those who are rich and have a fantastic life --- living on cruise ships and taking around the world vacations --- should pay more for living in the society that has given them such a great life.

Those who are on the shifty end of the stick should pay less because they receive less from society.

Would it not be better served were we to discuss the actual tax plans put forth by our respective Presidential candidates instead of discussing some plan that isn't even on the playing field?

=====
Plans can GET on the playing field when / if they are talked about enough on the Internet to attract the attention of staffers who propose the ideas to their bosses.[/QUOTE]

Then put your candidate's actual plan up here. Hillary on the issues is not an actual plan, it is talking points. Put her actual tax plan up here so we can see if it will work or not.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

Right on. These demorat candidates need to be more sharing about how many times they've hit their moms with hammers or tried stabbing their best friends.

 

[the_human_being]

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.

Right on. These demorat candidates need to be more sharing about how many times they've hit their moms with hammers or tried stabbing their best friends.

Ignore. Just another Liberal who can't defend his own candidate's platform so all he does is try to smear the character of other candidates. Pitiful and pathetic.

 

[TooTall]

"I Feel Sorry For Democrats"

You have a republican presidential candidate who advocates that war refugees be granted asylum predicated on their religion, where Muslims are denied asylum solely because of their faith.

Your sorrow is being wasted on the wrong party.

It was radical Muslims that cut Christians heads off. Which would you prefer be allowed in this country?

 

[FA_Q2]

The point remains that 49% of all American filers pay no federal personal income tax while the top 25% carry 86% of that load.

As currently configured, state and sales taxes do not cover any of the federal budget and, as already noted, neither do the bottom 49% of American earners.

So what % should "the rich" be made to carry?

96%?

106%?

==========

Each income group should pay the same percentage of the nation's bills as they receive of the nations income.

If a group gets 50% of the nations income they ( as a group ) should pay 50% of the nations bills.
If a group gets 10% of the nations income they ( as a group ) should pay 10% of the nations bills.

Each income group should pay a proportional amount of the bills as what they receive.

Those who are rich and have a fantastic life --- living on cruise ships and taking around the world vacations --- should pay more for living in the society that has given them such a great life.

Those who are on the shitty end of the stick should pay less because they receive less from society.

So you agree with a flat tax then?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Right on. These demorat candidates need to be more sharing about how many times they've hit their moms with hammers or tried stabbing their best friends.

Yes, liberals seem to love to dwell on our candidates childhood days. But Obama doped up in college? Not a problem there.

 

[TooTall]

Better yet, let's say people in America pay the cost to live in America. That's not robbery. No one is forcing you to live here.

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.

If 70% is not enough for them to pay, then what is?

That's your problem?

You said paying taxes is "robbery." Are you saying now it's only robbery depending on who pays taxes? Roughly 1/3 of people in the U.S. don't work and don't pay income tax. The vast majority of folks pay taxes as most states charge sales tax. Some pay more than others.

Our government goodies don't come from FICA, State taxes, City taxes and so on. Nearly your entire social program system is out of federal income taxes, just like our military is from federal income taxes, and roads, and bridges and.......

And you're wrong about one-third. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. In essence, one half of our country is supporting the other half. Yet when you complain about who's paying what, you want the half that is paying to pay even more.

Faun has fudged the issue a bit. It isn't that half of all Americans pay no federal income tax but rather that 49% of all earners - those filing tax returns - pay none.

I said 1/3 of Americans don't work, and therefore, pay no taxes. What part of that do you imagine is fudged?

It would be interesting to know why 1/3 of Americans don't work. I am reasonably sure a good percentage are over the age of 65 and retired. There are other valid reasons for a person to not work due to mental or physical disability. By the same token, their are many people over 65 and who are disabled that do hold down jobs. The question I have is how many able bodied men and women don't work because they just don't want too?

 

[TooTall]

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.

If 70% is not enough for them to pay, then what is?

That's your problem?

You said paying taxes is "robbery." Are you saying now it's only robbery depending on who pays taxes? Roughly 1/3 of people in the U.S. don't work and don't pay income tax. The vast majority of folks pay taxes as most states charge sales tax. Some pay more than others.

Our government goodies don't come from FICA, State taxes, City taxes and so on. Nearly your entire social program system is out of federal income taxes, just like our military is from federal income taxes, and roads, and bridges and.......

And you're wrong about one-third. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. In essence, one half of our country is supporting the other half. Yet when you complain about who's paying what, you want the half that is paying to pay even more.

I said 1/3 don't work, therefore, don't pay income taxes. That's not wrong. I said nothing about the total number of people paying no federal taxes. Who do you expect to pay income taxes if not those earning money?

We're not talking about just those that earn money. If that was the case, I would have no objection. We're talking about people with a lot of money--people that have been supporting the rest of the country for many years now.

Personally I'm for a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody pays. When our politicians spend more, our consumption tax increases. Everybody has skin in the game.

That's what we have in the county I live in. In Cuyahoga County, we pay 7.75 cents on every dollar that changes hands. The rich pay this tax, the middle-class pay this tax, and the poor pay this tax.

It's so invitingly easy when government says "I'm going to give you this, I'm going to give you that, I'm going to give you a lot of between" and then foots the bill to somebody else.

A consumption tax is not an awful idea, but it does shift too much of the overall tax burden upon the lower income workers.

The Fair Tax that has been proposed exempt the lower income workers by way of a tax credit.

 

[TooTall]

Here's some help with a link

Geaux

France launches air strikes in Syria; Paris investigation widens


French warplanes pounded Islamic State positions in Syria on Sunday as police in Europe widened their investigations into coordinated attacks in Paris that killed more than 130 people.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for Friday's suicide bombings and shootings, which have re-ignited a row over Europe's refugee crisis and drawn calls to block a huge influx of Muslim asylum-seekers.

French police have launched an international hunt for a Belgian-born man they believe helped organize the assaults with two of his brothers. One of the brothers died in the attacks, while the second one is under arrest in Belgium, a judicial source said.

A further two French suicide attackers have been identified, police said, while the identity of four other assailants, who all died in the violence, was still under review.

France has been bombing Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria for months as part of a U.S.-led operation. Following Friday's mayhem, Paris vowed to destroy the group. Underlining its resolve, French jets on Sunday launched their biggest raids in Syria to date, hitting its stronghold in Raqqa.

"The raid ... including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped," the Defence Ministry said. Among the targets were a munitions depot and training camp, it said.

WOW 10 aircraft.... Fucking amazing

US Count
On 21 July 2015, it was reported that nearly 44,000 sorties have flown since August 2014

That's like, a 120 a day , dude.... And they would have work Christmas Day and Thanksgiving....

I would need a reliable source for that statistic since I don't believe it is even close to being right.

 

[TooTall]

I would also feel sorry for Democrats until I saw the occupants of the GOP clown car

Their leading candidate is a birther
Number 2 is a creationist

Your leading candidate is under investigation by the FBI. Your second in line is an admitted Socialist. And you want to compare these two to ours?

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.
on edit: If able!

 

[rightwinger]

That's your problem?

You said paying taxes is "robbery." Are you saying now it's only robbery depending on who pays taxes? Roughly 1/3 of people in the U.S. don't work and don't pay income tax. The vast majority of folks pay taxes as most states charge sales tax. Some pay more than others.

Our government goodies don't come from FICA, State taxes, City taxes and so on. Nearly your entire social program system is out of federal income taxes, just like our military is from federal income taxes, and roads, and bridges and.......

And you're wrong about one-third. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. In essence, one half of our country is supporting the other half. Yet when you complain about who's paying what, you want the half that is paying to pay even more.

I said 1/3 don't work, therefore, don't pay income taxes. That's not wrong. I said nothing about the total number of people paying no federal taxes. Who do you expect to pay income taxes if not those earning money?

The conversation is about the 49% of all American earners who pay no federal personal income tax (as opposed to the top 25% who carry 86% of that tax load).

I believe you to be bright enough to know that figure does not include non-filers - the 2/3 of Americans who don't work, so I'm forced to conclude you are trying to fudge the facts and derail the discussion.

Our government goodies don't come from FICA, State taxes, City taxes and so on. Nearly your entire social program system is out of federal income taxes, just like our military is from federal income taxes, and roads, and bridges and.......

And you're wrong about one-third. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. In essence, one half of our country is supporting the other half. Yet when you complain about who's paying what, you want the half that is paying to pay even more.

Faun has fudged the issue a bit. It isn't that half of all Americans pay no federal income tax but rather that 49% of all earners - those filing tax returns - pay none.

I said 1/3 of Americans don't work, and therefore, pay no taxes. What part of that do you imagine is fudged?

Actually over 2/3 of all Americans don't work but again you attempt to fudge the topic.

The discussion, as you well know, was about just those who work, file tax returns, and pay no federal personal income tax. As Ray correctly noted, nearly half of all filers pay no fed income tax.

None ... Zilch ... Nada ... while "the rich" - the top 25% of filers - carry 86% of the load.

So what would satisfy you?

96%?

106%?

First, it was Ray who said half of Americans don't pay taxes. Secondly, with 100 million not working out of a civilian noninstitutional population of 250 million is 40%. Thirdly, while the top 50% of income workers pay 97%, they don't pay all of the taxes. Fourthly, who should pay the bulk of the taxes if not the highest wage earners? Fifthly, the answer to your question is about 96%.

Actually it's more like 47% of wage earners in this country pay no income tax. Add in all the people not working, it's certainly much, much more.

Why did Republicans slash taxes on the 47% so they paid nothing?

So they could get bigger cuts for billionaires

 

[rightwinger]

Your leading candidate is under investigation by the FBI. Your second in line is an admitted Socialist. And you want to compare these two to ours?

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?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Right on. These demorat candidates need to be more sharing about how many times they've hit their moms with hammers or tried stabbing their best friends.

Yes, liberals seem to love to dwell on our candidates childhood days. But Obama doped up in college? Not a problem there.

What happens in college stays in college

Bush was addicted