It's Good To Be Rich! More Republican Tax Breaks!

[The Rabbi]

You're assuming he understands the difference between income tax and inheritance tax

Income tax and inheritance tax collected don't go to the same place?

The stupid is strong in this one.

 

[BluesLegend]

Exactly how does it "screw" the Middle Class and the poor? Please explain. Thanks.
FYI -- Basically, with the amount of waste and fraud, every single citizen gets screwed. Our tax dollars are given away to foreign governments, used for the care and support of illegal immigrants, we build mosques on foreign soil, we supply weapons to drug lords and terrorists, we pay bribes to North Korea and Iran, we engage in senseless deadly costly wars, defense spending is out of control, we have way too many military bases on foreign soil, we give ridiculous perks and benefits to members of Congress, we bailout Wall Street, the financials, and corporate America, and we're exploring the far reaches of the universe, all on taxpayers' hard earned dollars.

The above doesn't include Medicare and Medicaid fraud and corruption, the fraud and corruption associated with the ACA, subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, and income tax evasion by hiding money off-shore. And, some large corporations pay no taxes at all ( GE ).

Now, exactly how are we getting screwed? Especially the Middle Class and the poor?

Less money for public services which are used by the middle class and poor much more than rich folks.

For instance, who got screwed when Republicans cut IRS employees? Not me, I can afford to hire my own people.

Less money for fire? Doesn't affect me, I have sprinklers. If I get really paranoid, I'll buy my own fire engine and staff it.

Less money for Police? I'll hire my own.

Federal government doesnt provide fire department services, Mister Masters In Business.
The money would be wasted on studies of CHinese whores. More money for bureaucrats!

That's the punch line in this joke, liberals actually think Democrats in congress would give them the money, not happening.

 

[BluesLegend]

Amazingly, you're not outraged in the least when O gives 80 billion a month, for six years, to wall street.

Convince corporate America who is making record profits to hire more people instead of closing stores for 'plumbing problems.'

Do you know how to do this?

By lowering taxes

He would not understand that. We all can agree the NY State is quite fucked up tax-wise. Guess what, theses idiot libtards are following the less taxes = more jobs idea….


….but being used to confiscating other people'x money:
Critics: Cuomo's 'Tax-Free' Plan for NY Is Not So Tax-Free
Gov. Cuomo s Tax-Free Plan for NY Isn t Really Tax-Free

I live in NY for 10 years, that whole damn state is corrupt as hell at all levels of government.

 

[francoHFW]

lets get to payroll tax ... the cap is about $110 K or so ..

Earl makes $90K and pays 100% on that $90K

Sam makes $1.5 Million $ and pays $110K on that $1.5 million..

brain fuck question ...

who pays the higher percentage? Earl or Sam?

Hey, shit for brains, the cap on SS is $118,500 and the rate is 6.2%... they both pay 6.2%.. you know, the same percentage.

Jesus you libs are stupid.

90% of the country pay 6.2% of ALL their income, the top 1% pay it on 2% of their income or 0.03%, STUPID. (or abouts lol). You reall are a brainwashed moron...The top 60% pay 27% OR SO OF THEIR INCOME IN all TAXES AND FEES, the poorest AT LEAST 17%. Your beliefs are total PUBCRAPPE, fool.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Amazingly, you're not outraged in the least when O gives 80 billion a month, for six years, to wall street.

Convince corporate America who is making record profits to hire more people instead of closing stores for 'plumbing problems.'

Do you know how to do this?

By lowering taxes

He would not understand that. We all can agree the NY State is quite fucked up tax-wise. Guess what, theses idiot libtards are following the less taxes = more jobs idea….


….but being used to confiscating other people'x money:
Critics: Cuomo's 'Tax-Free' Plan for NY Is Not So Tax-Free
Gov. Cuomo s Tax-Free Plan for NY Isn t Really Tax-Free

I live in NY for 10 years, that whole damn state is corrupt as hell at all levels of government.

That's why I left NYC in the nineties... two damn expensive, not worth it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just look at the dem one percenters begging to pay more in taxes. Its so touching.

True. Idiot. Keep voting for the greedy a-hole megarich, hater dupe. MY party doesn't lie, these are neutral stats, dupe. Can you spot the Problem, DUH....:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

That's because you don't have the mentality that everyone else's money doesn't belong to them.

Do you think that it's OK for the rich to pay a less percentage of their total income toward taxes than you do?

The real question is ... are you willing to listen to a logical argument, even when it disagrees with your position?

If so, I'd be shocked .... but, here we go.

You have thrown up a pile of statistics hoping to overwhelm with quantity, rather than convince with quality.

a) You have cited statistics that discuss the "share" of the economy for the workers.

b) You cite that the 'workers' have gotten a smaller share of the income over a given period of time.

c) By your own admission, you somehow believe that workers should receive a commensurate share of the market based, not on contribution, but rather, on effort.

d) You conveniently choose to assign all productivity increases to the actions of the worker. Simply ... not logical.

e) Your 'figures' do not allow for automation or efficiency. Either of these factors would increase the productivity, without increasing the effort of the workers. In fact, the worker contribution would actually be less.

f) You fail to acknowledge that the investor deserves compensation for the risk ... and for the loss of products or services that invested money could have purchased.

g) You fail to acknowledge that workers provide a product - their labor - for which they are compensated. They have no intrinsic right to any profits of the product produced.

h) You fail to acknowledge that the American workforce has become fat and lazy - expecting maximum compensation for minimum effort.

i) You have perverted the very concept of the 'American Dream'. The American Dream was never to have a comfortable existence by doing the same ol' job every day. Like everything else in life, if you do the same thing every day, you're going to get the same return every day.

The 'American Dream' was always that you could, with effort, intelligence, and luck, be able to improve your position in life. How many of these workers have tried to start their own business? How many have increased their education? How many have put their ass --- and everything else they own --- on the line because they have the next Great Idea?

Now, back to the central point of your attack - which you neatly camouflaged in non-applicable statistics. "Do you think that it's OK for the rich to pay a less percentage of their total income toward taxes than you do? Your question, of course, presumes that just because the rich have money, you somehow have a right to some of it. Further, you assume that they have an inherent responsibility to care for others, and by damn, if they aren't going to do it .. then, you will force it on them!!

In your interest of equality, I'm curious --- do you really apply that to everybody? Does everybody who drives that one mile of road in front of your house pay the same for it? Do those who have children in the local school pay for it, while those of who do not, go free? I suspect you aren't the least be interested in equality, but rather, in making sure you get some of what you couldn't make for yourself. Simply - you want to steal it.

I presume, then, it is safe to say, that you somehow believe that the rich receive more government assistance than the lower or middle classes, and therefore, it is only appropriate that they pay a larger fee for it. I'm curious - what about those who pay nothing? Should we deny them government services because they don't pay for them?

See? Your argument fails the logic test ...

Unfortunately, franco is just too stupid to figure out how his party exploits him. Excellent rebuttal, btw.

 

[francoHFW]

Exactly how does it "screw" the Middle Class and the poor? Please explain. Thanks.
FYI -- Basically, with the amount of waste and fraud, every single citizen gets screwed. Our tax dollars are given away to foreign governments, used for the care and support of illegal immigrants, we build mosques on foreign soil, we supply weapons to drug lords and terrorists, we pay bribes to North Korea and Iran, we engage in senseless deadly costly wars, defense spending is out of control, we have way too many military bases on foreign soil, we give ridiculous perks and benefits to members of Congress, we bailout Wall Street, the financials, and corporate America, and we're exploring the far reaches of the universe, all on taxpayers' hard earned dollars.

The above doesn't include Medicare and Medicaid fraud and corruption, the fraud and corruption associated with the ACA, subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, and income tax evasion by hiding money off-shore. And, some large corporations pay no taxes at all ( GE ).

Now, exactly how are we getting screwed? Especially the Middle Class and the poor?

Less money for public services which are used by the middle class and poor much more than rich folks.

For instance, who got screwed when Republicans cut IRS employees? Not me, I can afford to hire my own people.

Less money for fire? Doesn't affect me, I have sprinklers. If I get really paranoid, I'll buy my own fire engine and staff it.

Less money for Police? I'll hire my own.

Federal government doesnt provide fire department services, Mister Masters In Business.
The money would be wasted on studies of CHinese whores. More money for bureaucrats!

That's the punch line in this joke, liberals actually think Democrats in congress would give them the money, not happening.

They will give tax cuts to the nonrich, dingbat dupe- and what we want is investment in infrastructure/jobs, affordable college, and training for 3 million tech jobs going to CHINA. Pubs want tax cuts for the idiot rich, and you ignorant hater dupes are fighting for THEM. Idiocy lol....

 

[defcon4]

How many kids did you take into your house?

440 kids. Most of them don't know how to read bills, and only one adult in the building actually reads them.

That one guy tried to pass a bill, to make them read the bills they pass, but they didn't read that one either.

I asked: how many did YOU take in.
Talking about who reads bills before passing them, huh?
It was Palosi (D-CA) who said: “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it….”

 

[francoHFW]

Just look at the dem one percenters begging to pay more in taxes. Its so touching.

True. Idiot. Keep voting for the greedy a-hole megarich, hater dupe. MY party doesn't lie, these are neutral stats, dupe. Can you spot the Problem, DUH....:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

That's because you don't have the mentality that everyone else's money doesn't belong to them.

Do you think that it's OK for the rich to pay a less percentage of their total income toward taxes than you do?

The real question is ... are you willing to listen to a logical argument, even when it disagrees with your position?

If so, I'd be shocked .... but, here we go.

You have thrown up a pile of statistics hoping to overwhelm with quantity, rather than convince with quality.

a) You have cited statistics that discuss the "share" of the economy for the workers.

b) You cite that the 'workers' have gotten a smaller share of the income over a given period of time.

c) By your own admission, you somehow believe that workers should receive a commensurate share of the market based, not on contribution, but rather, on effort.

d) You conveniently choose to assign all productivity increases to the actions of the worker. Simply ... not logical.

e) Your 'figures' do not allow for automation or efficiency. Either of these factors would increase the productivity, without increasing the effort of the workers. In fact, the worker contribution would actually be less.

f) You fail to acknowledge that the investor deserves compensation for the risk ... and for the loss of products or services that invested money could have purchased.

g) You fail to acknowledge that workers provide a product - their labor - for which they are compensated. They have no intrinsic right to any profits of the product produced.

h) You fail to acknowledge that the American workforce has become fat and lazy - expecting maximum compensation for minimum effort.

i) You have perverted the very concept of the 'American Dream'. The American Dream was never to have a comfortable existence by doing the same ol' job every day. Like everything else in life, if you do the same thing every day, you're going to get the same return every day.

The 'American Dream' was always that you could, with effort, intelligence, and luck, be able to improve your position in life. How many of these workers have tried to start their own business? How many have increased their education? How many have put their ass --- and everything else they own --- on the line because they have the next Great Idea?

Now, back to the central point of your attack - which you neatly camouflaged in non-applicable statistics. "Do you think that it's OK for the rich to pay a less percentage of their total income toward taxes than you do? Your question, of course, presumes that just because the rich have money, you somehow have a right to some of it. Further, you assume that they have an inherent responsibility to care for others, and by damn, if they aren't going to do it .. then, you will force it on them!!

In your interest of equality, I'm curious --- do you really apply that to everybody? Does everybody who drives that one mile of road in front of your house pay the same for it? Do those who have children in the local school pay for it, while those of who do not, go free? I suspect you aren't the least be interested in equality, but rather, in making sure you get some of what you couldn't make for yourself. Simply - you want to steal it.

I presume, then, it is safe to say, that you somehow believe that the rich receive more government assistance than the lower or middle classes, and therefore, it is only appropriate that they pay a larger fee for it. I'm curious - what about those who pay nothing? Should we deny them government services because they don't pay for them?

See? Your argument fails the logic test ...

Unfortunately, franco is just too stupid to figure out how his party exploits him. Excellent rebuttal, btw.

Such as, brainwashed idiot?

 

[Siete]

You asked me who pays the higher percentage, I told you they both pay 6.2%.... did I miss something?

I ask who pays the higher percentage based on what the earn ... if only you were smart enough to comprehend ??????????

Tell me did you factor in all the government hand outs that offset what little taxes the poor and middle class pay? Of course you didn't.

Not to mention, that isn't what he asked... he can't even keep track of his on disjointed thoughts.

ask yourself this ... why did I make reference to two different salaries with both paying the same percent of payroll tax from each salary ..

BRAIN FUCK !!!!!!

Because you're an idiot who can't articulate himself? Did you finish high school?

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

no fair using a calculator either!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I ask who pays the higher percentage based on what the earn ... if only you were smart enough to comprehend ??????????

Tell me did you factor in all the government hand outs that offset what little taxes the poor and middle class pay? Of course you didn't.

Not to mention, that isn't what he asked... he can't even keep track of his on disjointed thoughts.

ask yourself this ... why did I make reference to two different salaries with both paying the same percent of payroll tax from each salary ..

BRAIN FUCK !!!!!!

Because you're an idiot who can't articulate himself? Did you finish high school?

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

no fair using a calculator either!

Yeah, I get that.. but that is not the question you posed. You should really stop.. you're making an ass of yourself. Grow the fuck up 7.

 

[hipeter924]

How many kids did you take into your house?

440 kids. Most of them don't know how to read bills, and only one adult in the building actually reads them.

That one guy tried to pass a bill, to make them read the bills they pass, but they didn't read that one either.

I asked: how many did YOU take in.
Talking about who reads bills before passing them, huh?
It was Palosi (D-CA) who said: “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it….”

Didn't elect her, and they sure can get crazy in who they elect down in CA. She was correct in one respect, that she doesn't read the bills she passes - until they are passed.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I ask who pays the higher percentage based on what the earn ... if only you were smart enough to comprehend ??????????

Tell me did you factor in all the government hand outs that offset what little taxes the poor and middle class pay? Of course you didn't.

Not to mention, that isn't what he asked... he can't even keep track of his on disjointed thoughts.

ask yourself this ... why did I make reference to two different salaries with both paying the same percent of payroll tax from each salary ..

BRAIN FUCK !!!!!!

Because you're an idiot who can't articulate himself? Did you finish high school?

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

no fair using a calculator either!

Here's your post, read it....

It s Good To Be Rich More Republican Tax Breaks Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ScienceRocks]

What has 45 years of massive tax breaks for the top 10% of our country done for the economy? Consider that our middle class was healthy and the largest it has ever been in the 50s, 60s and 70s before them.

First of all it is the middle class that should be at the center of our economic policy...Not the fucking 1%! The 1% doesn't give a fuck if the entire rest of the country looks like Vietnam.

 

[francoHFW]

How many kids did you take into your house?

440 kids. Most of them don't know how to read bills, and only one adult in the building actually reads them.

That one guy tried to pass a bill, to make them read the bills they pass, but they didn't read that one either.

I asked: how many did YOU take in.
Talking about who reads bills before passing them, huh?
It was Palosi (D-CA) who said: “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it….”

Didn't elect her, and they sure can get crazy in who they elect down in CA. She was correct in one respect, that she doesn't read the bills she passes - until they are passed.

Jeebus, hater dupe- she said YOU would figure out what's in it when it's working DUH. And thanks to Pubs, you STILL don't get it LOL....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What has 45 years of massive tax breaks for the top 10% of our country done for the economy? Consider that our middle class was healthy and the largest it has ever been in the 50s, 60s and 70s before them.

First of all it is the middle class that should be at the center of our economic policy...Not the fucking 1%! The 1% doesn't give a fuck if the entire rest of the country looks like Vietnam.

Uhm, you do realize that if you confiscated all of the wealth, every cent of it, of the evil one-percenters, you'd fund the government for less than a month.

Then who's wealth are you going to confiscate?

Your argument isn't valid.

 

[francoHFW]

What has 45 years of massive tax breaks for the top 10% of our country done for the economy? Consider that our middle class was healthy and the largest it has ever been in the 50s, 60s and 70s before them.

First of all it is the middle class that should be at the center of our economic policy...Not the fucking 1%! The 1% doesn't give a fuck if the entire rest of the country looks like Vietnam.

Great, BUT it was 32 years under Reagan that the pandering to the greedy idiot rich began- and the screwing of the rest of us. REAGAN.

And it hasn't changed. Thanks to Pub obstruction. But people ARE getting it now. Even some Pub dupes...

I don't blame the dupes much- Pubs are GREAT at duping...been doing it for 150 years....

 

[Siete]

Tell me did you factor in all the government hand outs that offset what little taxes the poor and middle class pay? Of course you didn't.

Not to mention, that isn't what he asked... he can't even keep track of his on disjointed thoughts.

ask yourself this ... why did I make reference to two different salaries with both paying the same percent of payroll tax from each salary ..

BRAIN FUCK !!!!!!



who pays the higher percentage? Earl or Sam?

Because you're an idiot who can't articulate himself? Did you finish high school?

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

no fair using a calculator either!

Yeah, I get that.. but that is not the question you posed. You should really stop.. you're making an ass of yourself. Grow the fuck up 7.

post #103.. the EXACT question



lets get to payroll tax ... the cap is about $110 K or so ..

Earl makes $90K and pays 100% on that $90K

Sam makes $1.5 Million $ and pays $110K on that $1.5 million..

brain fuck question ...

who pays the higher percentage? Earl or Sam?


and you are too damn dumb to understand it ....

 

[The Rabbi]

What has 45 years of massive tax breaks for the top 10% of our country done for the economy? Consider that our middle class was healthy and the largest it has ever been in the 50s, 60s and 70s before them.

First of all it is the middle class that should be at the center of our economic policy...Not the fucking 1%! The 1% doesn't give a fuck if the entire rest of the country looks like Vietnam.

What 45 years of massive tax breaks? Where do you come up with somethign this stupid?

 

[ScienceRocks]

LOL,

Dude, I don't want to take all the wealth from the 10%...In fact if they paid 35% in taxes and paid a few bucks per hour more to their workers they'd be almost as wealthy as they currently are. This isn't about destroying the wealthy...Just asking for fairness.