Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wealth redistribution is out of control and has simply choked off our ability to compete.
Just wait until ZIRP ends.
Wrong, as usual. The wealthy in America pay about the same share of the tax burden as they have always paid, proportional to their share of the income.
You just said the same thing I said, it only looks as if the rich are unfairly taxed because the share of income by the working and middle class has been declining for years. With the middle class in tremendous decline we cannot look to the working class to make up the difference, the only people experiencing income growth must be it.
No I didn't asswipe. You said the 'rich' should be taxed more to make life fair.
I proved this was false.
A dictatorship is where the dictator says "I get that for free, you get nothing".
Since democrats are now saying that republicans are dictators it means only one thing. Democrats are recognizing that the US is a democrat dictatorship. If you want to know what a democrat is doing, look at what they accuse republicans of doing.
The benefits/downside of the welfare state is another topic entirely but in their attack on the poor it seems they have failed for a simple reason, they could not demonstrate a clear benefit to the country in destroying SS, Medicare, unemployment etc.
Funny, my bitch with the Republicans is that they have done nothing to stop the unconstitutional and ultimately destructive programs you mention.
Look, some of us believe no government can accomplish what free people and free markets can. When you look at how fucked up healthcare and education are, and when you realize those are the two markets in which government meddles most, you begin to see how central planners ALWAYS produce inferior results and skyrocketing costs when the seek to control markets.
I'm not saying end SS, Medicare, etc today. Too many people addicted to the handouts and Ponzi schemes. But phase them out? HELL YES.
Again, our rich are already paying more of the tax burden than ever before and more than in any other country. There is no way you can call that a "gift" and be taken seriously.
Some of you like to claim that the general populace is too stupid to realize what is best but from my perspective it seems they are just tired of plutocratic policy from the republicans.
This implies Democrats have a better idea. Unless you're on the dole, that is patently insane. Higher taxes and more spending is not the answer. Republicans spend too damn much, true, but at least they understand that tax hikes will not help. If history is any guide, they will hurt revenues.
Free markets and living within our means, now that would be a good start.
Look, I am trying to keep the discussion on the topic at hand. We do need careful and measured reform but republicans have given entitlement reform a bad name for a long time to come by disingenuously making it about deficit reform and then refusing to expose their own sacred cows to cuts or the wealthy to tax hikes. If you care about entitlement reform then attack it directly not in this tangential fashion where you want working Americans to work five more years but think it's too much to ask the rich to chip in some more.
John Boehner 'Dictatorship' Is Letting Time Run Out To Avert 'Fiscal Cliff'
WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused the House of Representatives Thursday of being a "dictatorship" -- albeit an extremely poor one.
Reid (D-Nev.) took to the Senate floor to declare his frustration with the other chamber as the deadline to deal with the so-called fiscal cliff rapidly approaches.
Reid argued that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) could easily end the standoff and avert the across-the-board tax hike in 2013 simply by bringing up legislation the Senate has already passed to preserve the Bush-era tax cuts for income under $250,000, covering 98 percent of taxpayers.
But Reid charged that Boehner won't do that because he only caters to members of his own party and will only bring up legislation supported by a majority of Republicans.
"The American people I don't think understand the House of Representatives is operating without the House of Representatives," Reid said. "It's being operated by a dictatorship of the speaker, not allowing the vast majority of the House of Representatives to get what they want."
"If the 250 were brought up, it would pass overwhelmingly," Reid said, referring to the cut-off for income tax cuts. He also noted that Democrats in the House and enough Republicans would vote for it.
"What goes on in this country shouldn't be decided by 'the majority,' it should be decided by the whole House of Representatives," Reid said.
You just said the same thing I said, it only looks as if the rich are unfairly taxed because the share of income by the working and middle class has been declining for years. With the middle class in tremendous decline we cannot look to the working class to make up the difference, the only people experiencing income growth must be it.
No I didn't asswipe. You said the 'rich' should be taxed more to make life fair.
I proved this was false.
I said that? I thought I said that if income had the same distribution we used to have that it would not seem the rich are carrying an unfair percentage of the tax burden. Should have known better than to speak to you as if you have the power of reading comprehension.
Both parties are equally at fault for what's about to happen. They had 13 months to get it right, but.....
Even though both parties are at fault, the MSM will make sure only one will be convicted.
Funny, my bitch with the Republicans is that they have done nothing to stop the unconstitutional and ultimately destructive programs you mention.
Look, some of us believe no government can accomplish what free people and free markets can. When you look at how fucked up healthcare and education are, and when you realize those are the two markets in which government meddles most, you begin to see how central planners ALWAYS produce inferior results and skyrocketing costs when the seek to control markets.
I'm not saying end SS, Medicare, etc today. Too many people addicted to the handouts and Ponzi schemes. But phase them out? HELL YES.
Again, our rich are already paying more of the tax burden than ever before and more than in any other country. There is no way you can call that a "gift" and be taken seriously.
This implies Democrats have a better idea. Unless you're on the dole, that is patently insane. Higher taxes and more spending is not the answer. Republicans spend too damn much, true, but at least they understand that tax hikes will not help. If history is any guide, they will hurt revenues.
Free markets and living within our means, now that would be a good start.
Look, I am trying to keep the discussion on the topic at hand. We do need careful and measured reform but republicans have given entitlement reform a bad name for a long time to come by disingenuously making it about deficit reform and then refusing to expose their own sacred cows to cuts or the wealthy to tax hikes. If you care about entitlement reform then attack it directly not in this tangential fashion where you want working Americans to work five more years but think it's too much to ask the rich to chip in some more.
Here's the rub. The rich could chip in EVERYTHING...as in 100% of their income and you wouldn't come close to paying for all these entitlements. Not even close.
Then, when you consider the rich already chip in more than any other nation (and more than they ever have here in America), you begin to see the futility of your argument. Taxing the rich more will not raise the revenues to pay for entitlements. Not by a long shot. The fact is, it will most likely result in less revenue for whatever spending is on tap.
And please, don't give us this "wealth distribution" crap. You should be smart enough to know that wealth is not some finite pile from which we all must draw. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean someone else has to be poor. Further, America does NOT have the largest so called wealth gap. Lastly, only America's so called "poor" are considered rich by world standards...in the 84th percentile of worldwide wealth if I remember the statistic correctly. And when you look at what America's poor owns in way of assets, it's mind boggling.
Bottom line, Republicans fighting for deficit reduction is a good thing, regardless of how they've contributed to it in the past. The Dem plan of taking us beyond $20 trillion in debt is immoral. There is no reason those yet to be born should be burdened with the debt of our largess.
Immoral is saying that the rich should not be taxed more and then turning around and saying that the poor should work harder, work longer and expect less and less. The people should be hungrier, sicker, and totally give up on the idea of social mobility but god forbid the only people to see income growth in thirty years be somehow held responsible for this mess.Funny, my bitch with the Republicans is that they have done nothing to stop the unconstitutional and ultimately destructive programs you mention.
Look, some of us believe no government can accomplish what free people and free markets can. When you look at how fucked up healthcare and education are, and when you realize those are the two markets in which government meddles most, you begin to see how central planners ALWAYS produce inferior results and skyrocketing costs when the seek to control markets.
I'm not saying end SS, Medicare, etc today. Too many people addicted to the handouts and Ponzi schemes. But phase them out? HELL YES.
Again, our rich are already paying more of the tax burden than ever before and more than in any other country. There is no way you can call that a "gift" and be taken seriously.
This implies Democrats have a better idea. Unless you're on the dole, that is patently insane. Higher taxes and more spending is not the answer. Republicans spend too damn much, true, but at least they understand that tax hikes will not help. If history is any guide, they will hurt revenues.
Free markets and living within our means, now that would be a good start.
Look, I am trying to keep the discussion on the topic at hand. We do need careful and measured reform but republicans have given entitlement reform a bad name for a long time to come by disingenuously making it about deficit reform and then refusing to expose their own sacred cows to cuts or the wealthy to tax hikes. If you care about entitlement reform then attack it directly not in this tangential fashion where you want working Americans to work five more years but think it's too much to ask the rich to chip in some more.
Here's the rub. The rich could chip in EVERYTHING...as in 100% of their income and you wouldn't come close to paying for all these entitlements. Not even close.
Then, when you consider the rich already chip in more than any other nation (and more than they ever have here in America), you begin to see the futility of your argument. Taxing the rich more will not raise the revenues to pay for entitlements. Not by a long shot. The fact is, it will most likely result in less revenue for whatever spending is on tap.
And please, don't give us this "wealth distribution" crap. You should be smart enough to know that wealth is not some finite pile from which we all must draw. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean someone else has to be poor. Further, America does NOT have the largest so called wealth gap. Lastly, only America's so called "poor" are considered rich by world standards...in the 84th percentile of worldwide wealth if I remember the statistic correctly. And when you look at what America's poor owns in way of assets, it's mind boggling.
Bottom line, Republicans fighting for deficit reduction is a good thing, regardless of how they've contributed to it in the past. The Dem plan of taking us beyond $20 trillion in debt is immoral. There is no reason those yet to be born should be burdened with the debt of our largess.
And this happens every time a Democrat gets the Presidency. Conservatives immediately go insane. This time they went even more insane then usual.
Well they did got eight years worth of insanity from liberals and there B.B.S. of which many still suffer from to this day.
Look, I am trying to keep the discussion on the topic at hand. We do need careful and measured reform but republicans have given entitlement reform a bad name for a long time to come by disingenuously making it about deficit reform and then refusing to expose their own sacred cows to cuts or the wealthy to tax hikes. If you care about entitlement reform then attack it directly not in this tangential fashion where you want working Americans to work five more years but think it's too much to ask the rich to chip in some more.
Here's the rub. The rich could chip in EVERYTHING...as in 100% of their income and you wouldn't come close to paying for all these entitlements. Not even close.
Then, when you consider the rich already chip in more than any other nation (and more than they ever have here in America), you begin to see the futility of your argument. Taxing the rich more will not raise the revenues to pay for entitlements. Not by a long shot. The fact is, it will most likely result in less revenue for whatever spending is on tap.
And please, don't give us this "wealth distribution" crap. You should be smart enough to know that wealth is not some finite pile from which we all must draw. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean someone else has to be poor. Further, America does NOT have the largest so called wealth gap. Lastly, only America's so called "poor" are considered rich by world standards...in the 84th percentile of worldwide wealth if I remember the statistic correctly. And when you look at what America's poor owns in way of assets, it's mind boggling.
Bottom line, Republicans fighting for deficit reduction is a good thing, regardless of how they've contributed to it in the past. The Dem plan of taking us beyond $20 trillion in debt is immoral. There is no reason those yet to be born should be burdened with the debt of our largess.
What nonsense.
Countries With the Most Billionaires
Immoral is saying that the rich should not be taxed more and then turning around and saying that the poor should work harder, work longer and expect less and less. The people should be hungrier, sicker, and totally give up on the idea of social mobility but god forbid the only people to see income growth in thirty years be somehow held responsible for this mess.Look, I am trying to keep the discussion on the topic at hand. We do need careful and measured reform but republicans have given entitlement reform a bad name for a long time to come by disingenuously making it about deficit reform and then refusing to expose their own sacred cows to cuts or the wealthy to tax hikes. If you care about entitlement reform then attack it directly not in this tangential fashion where you want working Americans to work five more years but think it's too much to ask the rich to chip in some more.
Here's the rub. The rich could chip in EVERYTHING...as in 100% of their income and you wouldn't come close to paying for all these entitlements. Not even close.
Then, when you consider the rich already chip in more than any other nation (and more than they ever have here in America), you begin to see the futility of your argument. Taxing the rich more will not raise the revenues to pay for entitlements. Not by a long shot. The fact is, it will most likely result in less revenue for whatever spending is on tap.
And please, don't give us this "wealth distribution" crap. You should be smart enough to know that wealth is not some finite pile from which we all must draw. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean someone else has to be poor. Further, America does NOT have the largest so called wealth gap. Lastly, only America's so called "poor" are considered rich by world standards...in the 84th percentile of worldwide wealth if I remember the statistic correctly. And when you look at what America's poor owns in way of assets, it's mind boggling.
Bottom line, Republicans fighting for deficit reduction is a good thing, regardless of how they've contributed to it in the past. The Dem plan of taking us beyond $20 trillion in debt is immoral. There is no reason those yet to be born should be burdened with the debt of our largess.
Immoral is saying that the rich should not be taxed more and then turning around and saying that the poor should work harder, work longer and expect less and less. The people should be hungrier, sicker, and totally give up on the idea of social mobility but god forbid the only people to see income growth in thirty years be somehow held responsible for this mess.Here's the rub. The rich could chip in EVERYTHING...as in 100% of their income and you wouldn't come close to paying for all these entitlements. Not even close.
Then, when you consider the rich already chip in more than any other nation (and more than they ever have here in America), you begin to see the futility of your argument. Taxing the rich more will not raise the revenues to pay for entitlements. Not by a long shot. The fact is, it will most likely result in less revenue for whatever spending is on tap.
And please, don't give us this "wealth distribution" crap. You should be smart enough to know that wealth is not some finite pile from which we all must draw. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean someone else has to be poor. Further, America does NOT have the largest so called wealth gap. Lastly, only America's so called "poor" are considered rich by world standards...in the 84th percentile of worldwide wealth if I remember the statistic correctly. And when you look at what America's poor owns in way of assets, it's mind boggling.
Bottom line, Republicans fighting for deficit reduction is a good thing, regardless of how they've contributed to it in the past. The Dem plan of taking us beyond $20 trillion in debt is immoral. There is no reason those yet to be born should be burdened with the debt of our largess.
Your tired, weepy class warfare meme might hold weight if those households in 'poverty' weren't pulling down a cool $60k per year from the rest of us.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard
Immoral is saying that the rich should not be taxed more and then turning around and saying that the poor should work harder, work longer and expect less and less. The people should be hungrier, sicker, and totally give up on the idea of social mobility but god forbid the only people to see income growth in thirty years be somehow held responsible for this mess.
Your tired, weepy class warfare meme might hold weight if those households in 'poverty' weren't pulling down a cool $60k per year from the rest of us.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard
We stand to spend a lot more than that per wealthy household if we keep the tax cuts for the wealthy and it doesn't even feed anyone that is hungry and yet for some reason you love that.
Immoral is saying that the rich should not be taxed more and then turning around and saying that the poor should work harder, work longer and expect less and less. The people should be hungrier, sicker, and totally give up on the idea of social mobility but god forbid the only people to see income growth in thirty years be somehow held responsible for this mess.Here's the rub. The rich could chip in EVERYTHING...as in 100% of their income and you wouldn't come close to paying for all these entitlements. Not even close.
Then, when you consider the rich already chip in more than any other nation (and more than they ever have here in America), you begin to see the futility of your argument. Taxing the rich more will not raise the revenues to pay for entitlements. Not by a long shot. The fact is, it will most likely result in less revenue for whatever spending is on tap.
And please, don't give us this "wealth distribution" crap. You should be smart enough to know that wealth is not some finite pile from which we all must draw. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean someone else has to be poor. Further, America does NOT have the largest so called wealth gap. Lastly, only America's so called "poor" are considered rich by world standards...in the 84th percentile of worldwide wealth if I remember the statistic correctly. And when you look at what America's poor owns in way of assets, it's mind boggling.
Bottom line, Republicans fighting for deficit reduction is a good thing, regardless of how they've contributed to it in the past. The Dem plan of taking us beyond $20 trillion in debt is immoral. There is no reason those yet to be born should be burdened with the debt of our largess.
Your tired, weepy class warfare meme might hold weight if those households in 'poverty' weren't pulling down a cool $60k per year from the rest of us.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard
Immoral is saying that the rich should not be taxed more and then turning around and saying that the poor should work harder, work longer and expect less and less. The people should be hungrier, sicker, and totally give up on the idea of social mobility but god forbid the only people to see income growth in thirty years be somehow held responsible for this mess.
Your tired, weepy class warfare meme might hold weight if those households in 'poverty' weren't pulling down a cool $60k per year from the rest of us.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard
Sixty grand per year? That's a lot of class a leeching right there. Why in the hell would anybody want to work?
Your tired, weepy class warfare meme might hold weight if those households in 'poverty' weren't pulling down a cool $60k per year from the rest of us.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard
Sixty grand per year? That's a lot of class a leeching right there. Why in the hell would anybody want to work?
Occupied thinks it 'immoral' to ask them to do so.
LOL
Your tired, weepy class warfare meme might hold weight if those households in 'poverty' weren't pulling down a cool $60k per year from the rest of us.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard
We stand to spend a lot more than that per wealthy household if we keep the tax cuts for the wealthy and it doesn't even feed anyone that is hungry and yet for some reason you love that.
Again, you are nothing but empty rhetoric, which gets destroyed.
Sixty grand per year? That's a lot of class a leeching right there. Why in the hell would anybody want to work?
Occupied thinks it 'immoral' to ask them to do so.
LOL
He's the guy who shits on cop cars isn't he?
