Republican top priority.....Raise taxes on the poor

[Billy000]

Very few jobs were created under Bush. That's the point. He has one of the worst job creation reputation in American history despite his awful tax cuts.

Another MORON chimes in.....Bush inherited Clinturd's dot.com recession and Clinturd's 9/11....together the two cost us $2T and yet you'd vote for that psychotic pig wife of his.

The Bush tax cuts have kept us afloat during the Kenyan's assault on jobs and wars we'd won before he slithered into the WH.....take them away and even you government do-nothings will feel it.

You're an idiot. What caused the recession in Bush's early years is not the point. The point is that Job growth under Bush was pathetic. This idea that his cuts "floated" us anywhere is just something you made up in your tiny mind.

Too stupid to bother with.

No you're just to stupid to come up with a rebuttal and you know it.

 

[Redfish]

What you don't understand is that paying from both isn't the same as only paying from one pocket. If the have less, let them find a better job. If their skills suck so badly they can't, tough shit. That doesn't mean the rest of us should offset that by default.

Good answer...find a better job

There are currently 30 million families who receive some sort of government assistance, lets implement your strategy and find them better jobs

Can you point to the data where there are 30 million "better jobs" available for these people to take?

Let them find their own jobs. Why is it always someone else's place to do for the leeches what they should be doing for themselves? Plenty of people, including myself, didn't expect someonen else to find us a job. Why are those people any different?

Who said they wouldn't?

What I am saying is that we need to be sure there are 30 million unfilled jobs out there before we pull away the safety net

Go ahead and show me the numbers

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

get a fucking second job, find a cheaper place to live, stop drinking expensive booze, stop buying tobacco products, take responsibility for your own life and stop whining and begging. you make me sick

 

[Conservative65]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

Following their convincing victory in the 2014 elections, everyone is wondering what Republicans will do with their new majority in the Senate and House. Well, their policy agenda is becoming clear. It will be unrestrained class warfare against the poor.
This priority was made apparent over the last week during the negotiation of a colossal tax cut package. Senate Democrats and Republicans had been doing some low-key negotiations to renew a slew of tax cuts for corporations and lower- and middle-income Americans, according to reporting from Brian Faler and Rachel Bade at Politico.
Then President Obama announced his executive action on immigration. Enraged Republicans promptly took vengeance on all the goodies for the working poor (as well as for clean energy), cutting them out of the deal and proposing a raft of permanent tax cuts for corporations alone worth $440 billion over 10 years.

I see you are still suffering from The Dumbass Disease. I'm really not surprised.

Obama has made more slaves to government by greatly increasing food stamp usage unnecessarily. That needs to be reduced. Corporate tax cuts will give more jobs so those "poor" people can buy their own damn steaks! Illegals should be deported!

Why does feeding the needy need to be reduced?

We gave Corporate Tax Cuts under Bush with the promise of more jobs. Rather than create more jobs, they just kept the money

Fool me once....

We have spent trillions on the war on poverty to eliminate hunger and deprivation from American life. What we have today is approximately the same percentage of Americans in poverty as existed at the time the programs started.

Fool me once . . .

 

[Redfish]

Let them find their own jobs. Why is it always someone else's place to do for the leeches what they should be doing for themselves? Plenty of people, including myself, didn't expect someonen else to find us a job. Why are those people any different?

Who said they wouldn't?

What I am saying is that we need to be sure there are 30 million unfilled jobs out there before we pull away the safety net

Go ahead and show me the numbers

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

should it be $15/hour in NY city and podunk kansas?

raising the MW will cost jobs, and make everything you buy cost more. you have no grasp of basic economics.

 

[Conservative65]

Good answer...find a better job

There are currently 30 million families who receive some sort of government assistance, lets implement your strategy and find them better jobs

Can you point to the data where there are 30 million "better jobs" available for these people to take?

Let them find their own jobs. Why is it always someone else's place to do for the leeches what they should be doing for themselves? Plenty of people, including myself, didn't expect someonen else to find us a job. Why are those people any different?

Who said they wouldn't?

What I am saying is that we need to be sure there are 30 million unfilled jobs out there before we pull away the safety net

Go ahead and show me the numbers

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

get a fucking second job, find a cheaper place to live, stop drinking expensive booze, stop buying tobacco products, take responsibility for your own life and stop whining and begging. you make me sick

It makes me sick when I see those who say they can't afford to buy their own food magically having enough cash to buy beer and cigarettes just after using their EBT to buy their food.

 

[Billy000]

Who said they wouldn't?

What I am saying is that we need to be sure there are 30 million unfilled jobs out there before we pull away the safety net

Go ahead and show me the numbers

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

should it be $15/hour in NY city and podunk kansas?

raising the MW will cost jobs, and make everything you buy cost more. you have no grasp of basic economics.

It would cost jobs initially no doubt. However jobs would be inevitably created over time from the increase in consumer spending. The price increase would be small and would go down over time from the increase in consumer spending. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the consumer spending benefit.

 

[Conservative65]

Let them find their own jobs. Why is it always someone else's place to do for the leeches what they should be doing for themselves? Plenty of people, including myself, didn't expect someonen else to find us a job. Why are those people any different?

Who said they wouldn't?

What I am saying is that we need to be sure there are 30 million unfilled jobs out there before we pull away the safety net

Go ahead and show me the numbers

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

Why should someone with $7.25/hour skills get paid $15/hour based on existence. All this safety net garbage would go away if people, who because of their lack of skills making an equivalent low wage, were held accountable as the reason why they make a low wage. It seems you bleeding hearts want people paid based on their skill level except those on the lower end. You believe they should be paid on existence.

 

[Conservative65]

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

should it be $15/hour in NY city and podunk kansas?

raising the MW will cost jobs, and make everything you buy cost more. you have no grasp of basic economics.

It would cost jobs initially no doubt. However jobs would be inevitably created over time from the increase in consumer spending. The price increase would be small and would go down over time from the increase in consumer spending. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the consumer spending benefit.

You fail to take into account that those of us not being handed a raise because we have to earn ours wouldn't spend as much.

 

[Billy000]

Who said they wouldn't?

What I am saying is that we need to be sure there are 30 million unfilled jobs out there before we pull away the safety net

Go ahead and show me the numbers

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

Why should someone with $7.25/hour skills get paid $15/hour based on existence. All this safety net garbage would go away if people, who because of their lack of skills making an equivalent low wage, were held accountable as the reason why they make a low wage. It seems you bleeding hearts want people paid based on their skill level except those on the lower end. You believe they should be paid on existence.

They should be paid it because of the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off $10 per hour was the 1960s. 10s of millions make less than 15 per hour. 17 million make less than 10 per hour.

I'm all for paying skilled workers more, but you seem to lack the appreciation of low skilled workers. The average age of a fast food workers is 29. If everyone become more skilled in your perfect world, who would fill these positions?

Also many poor people can't afford the education to learn new skills.

 

[Billy000]

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

should it be $15/hour in NY city and podunk kansas?

raising the MW will cost jobs, and make everything you buy cost more. you have no grasp of basic economics.

It would cost jobs initially no doubt. However jobs would be inevitably created over time from the increase in consumer spending. The price increase would be small and would go down over time from the increase in consumer spending. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the consumer spending benefit.

You fail to take into account that those of us not being handed a raise because we have to earn ours wouldn't spend as much.

Spend as much? What? You would spend the same amount you do now. Who cares?

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

Following their convincing victory in the 2014 elections, everyone is wondering what Republicans will do with their new majority in the Senate and House. Well, their policy agenda is becoming clear. It will be unrestrained class warfare against the poor.
This priority was made apparent over the last week during the negotiation of a colossal tax cut package. Senate Democrats and Republicans had been doing some low-key negotiations to renew a slew of tax cuts for corporations and lower- and middle-income Americans, according to reporting from Brian Faler and Rachel Bade at Politico.
Then President Obama announced his executive action on immigration. Enraged Republicans promptly took vengeance on all the goodies for the working poor (as well as for clean energy), cutting them out of the deal and proposing a raft of permanent tax cuts for corporations alone worth $440 billion over 10 years.

I see you are still suffering from The Dumbass Disease. I'm really not surprised.

Obama has made more slaves to government by greatly increasing food stamp usage unnecessarily. That needs to be reduced. Corporate tax cuts will give more jobs so those "poor" people can buy their own damn steaks! Illegals should be deported!

Why does feeding the needy need to be reduced?

We gave Corporate Tax Cuts under Bush with the promise of more jobs. Rather than create more jobs, they just kept the money

Fool me once....

We have spent trillions on the war on poverty to eliminate hunger and deprivation from American life. What we have today is approximately the same percentage of Americans in poverty as existed at the time the programs started.

Fool me once . . .

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

 

[BluesLegend]

come on man, it's only ok to raise taxes on the "poor" when Democrats do it.

Single Largest Cigarette Tax Hike Goes Into Effect Wednesday
Published March 29, 2009
AP
Facebook200 Twitter2 livefyre0 Email Print
WASHINGTON -- However they satisfy their nicotine cravings, tobacco users are facing a big hit as the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday.
Tobacco companies and public health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are trying to turn the situation to their advantage. The major cigarette makers raised prices a couple of weeks ago, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01.


Tobacco taxes are soaring to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. President Obama signed that health initiative soon after taking office.

all of it here:
Single Largest Cigarette Tax Hike Goes Into Effect Wednesday Fox News

Raise taxes on cigs to pay for healthcare for children?

Works for me

In one post you pretend to care about the poor and in this post you are like screw the poor, so which is it?

 

[Conservative65]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Instead of spending the billions on social welfare, why don't Democrat bleeding hearts dedicate that money to paying down the debt?

They scream about being compassionate then try to prove it by seeing how much of the taxpayers money they can get for it while taking credit as if it came from their personal pockets.

 

[Conservative65]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

Following their convincing victory in the 2014 elections, everyone is wondering what Republicans will do with their new majority in the Senate and House. Well, their policy agenda is becoming clear. It will be unrestrained class warfare against the poor.
This priority was made apparent over the last week during the negotiation of a colossal tax cut package. Senate Democrats and Republicans had been doing some low-key negotiations to renew a slew of tax cuts for corporations and lower- and middle-income Americans, according to reporting from Brian Faler and Rachel Bade at Politico.
Then President Obama announced his executive action on immigration. Enraged Republicans promptly took vengeance on all the goodies for the working poor (as well as for clean energy), cutting them out of the deal and proposing a raft of permanent tax cuts for corporations alone worth $440 billion over 10 years.

I see you are still suffering from The Dumbass Disease. I'm really not surprised.

Obama has made more slaves to government by greatly increasing food stamp usage unnecessarily. That needs to be reduced. Corporate tax cuts will give more jobs so those "poor" people can buy their own damn steaks! Illegals should be deported!

Why does feeding the needy need to be reduced?

We gave Corporate Tax Cuts under Bush with the promise of more jobs. Rather than create more jobs, they just kept the money

Fool me once....

We have spent trillions on the war on poverty to eliminate hunger and deprivation from American life. What we have today is approximately the same percentage of Americans in poverty as existed at the time the programs started.

Fool me once . . .

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

 

[BullKurtz]

It would cost jobs initially no doubt. However jobs would be inevitably created over time from the increase in consumer spending. The price increase would be small and would go down over time from the increase in consumer spending. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the consumer spending benefit.

You get no courtesy for being a fucking moron....take an econ class at your local JC.....learn something.

 

[Conservative65]

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

should it be $15/hour in NY city and podunk kansas?

raising the MW will cost jobs, and make everything you buy cost more. you have no grasp of basic economics.

It would cost jobs initially no doubt. However jobs would be inevitably created over time from the increase in consumer spending. The price increase would be small and would go down over time from the increase in consumer spending. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the consumer spending benefit.

You fail to take into account that those of us not being handed a raise because we have to earn ours wouldn't spend as much.

Spend as much? What? You would spend the same amount you do now. Who cares?

I wouldn't be able to buy as much because of inflation.

You don't care about people like me as long as you can get more from me to pay for some unskilled dumbass because he/she does a job on the same level as what a monkey could be trained to do.

 

[Conservative65]

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

Why should someone with $7.25/hour skills get paid $15/hour based on existence. All this safety net garbage would go away if people, who because of their lack of skills making an equivalent low wage, were held accountable as the reason why they make a low wage. It seems you bleeding hearts want people paid based on their skill level except those on the lower end. You believe they should be paid on existence.

They should be paid it because of the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off $10 per hour was the 1960s. 10s of millions make less than 15 per hour. 17 million make less than 10 per hour.

I'm all for paying skilled workers more, but you seem to lack the appreciation of low skilled workers. The average age of a fast food workers is 29. If everyone become more skilled in your perfect world, who would fill these positions?

Also many poor people can't afford the education to learn new skills.

The skills required to do the jobs they do are the same as they were in the 1960s. If inflation went up on them, it also went up on those of us who actually have to have skills to make our higher wages.

Since the skills I have took thousand of hours more to gain, I should make thousands of times more per hours than they do.

Many poor people squandered the opportunities they had when younger to gain those skills. How many people in poverty fail to have even a high school diploma? Don't claim they didn't have a chance when they quit the one they had. People like you want taxpayers to fund what would actually be their second opportunity to learn skills. While they may be able to afford it, they have people like you who think someone else should pay that for them, too. Pay their tuition if you truly think they should get the training. I have MY kids to send to college. It's not my job to provide it or training to someone who had a chance and blew it.

 

[bendog]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

Following their convincing victory in the 2014 elections, everyone is wondering what Republicans will do with their new majority in the Senate and House. Well, their policy agenda is becoming clear. It will be unrestrained class warfare against the poor.
This priority was made apparent over the last week during the negotiation of a colossal tax cut package. Senate Democrats and Republicans had been doing some low-key negotiations to renew a slew of tax cuts for corporations and lower- and middle-income Americans, according to reporting from Brian Faler and Rachel Bade at Politico.
Then President Obama announced his executive action on immigration. Enraged Republicans promptly took vengeance on all the goodies for the working poor (as well as for clean energy), cutting them out of the deal and proposing a raft of permanent tax cuts for corporations alone worth $440 billion over 10 years.

Obama is as determined to show that the GOP cannot govern and will never pass a bill in the House allowing illegal aliens permanent legal status as the GOP is determined to show it can govern while simultaneously not doing comprehensive immigration reform. It's on to 2016. )-:

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any who have supported tax cuts for the WEALTHY but not the poor in the last 30 years are lousy assholes of Americans and will continued to be called out as such.

 

[whitehall]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

How can you "raise" taxes on those who pay none?

I realize you're not actually looking for information but this is a dumb question.

First, no one actually pays "none" but if they were paying "none", then any amount would be an increase. Understand?

The low information radical left isn't even aware that most Americans are smarter than they are and the old cliches don't work anymore.