Senate Dimrats Vow to Filibuster Trumps SCOTUS Pick Without Knowing Who It Is

[Maryland Patriot]

except in cases that involve rape incest or the woman's health.
Medicaid is mandated to cover in these situations.
of course, all it takes is the right (or wrong) doctor to claim there is a health risk and sluts can get the government funding.

off topic but, you got beat up a lot in high school didnt you. Im just guessing by the way, but I think I might be right on this one.

BS, dupe. NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ABORTION. Hyde Amendment. Duped AGAIN! D'OH!!

When idiots are totally wrong, they get violent. I've never been beaten up anywhere.

you should actually look into things before you spout the information that you think is right.
and I imagine you are lying about not being beat up, or you are just afraid to be as disrespectful in public.

I don't talk politics and religion off MBs much...place is full of ugly American GOP bigots....And you're still wrong as always. Hyde Amendment. I'm also 6' 4"

what does 6'4" have to do with anything? Im 6'1, my younger brother is 6'7, I used to whip his ass on a regular basis. I wish I would not have done that now, he evidently suffered irreparable brain damage from those beatings, He married a liberal and he voted for obama and Hillary. Oh, and he also lives in California. Maybe he needs another ass whipping?

Sounds like you do, dupe.

Actions have consequences, and in a partisan world, sometimes extreme consequences. I expect a lot of hypocritical wailing from democrats when they face the specter of seeing their power steadily eroded.

Power my ass, it's fairness and justice and honesty being eroded, dupe.

Naturally, democrats assume that their power equals "fairness and justice and honesty". It does not.

Wrong again, dupe of the lying, cheating, disastrous, greedy idiot megarich New BS GOP. See sig- all fact and unknown to the chumps of Faux, Rush, Heritage and other bs propaganda/fake news...

Oh dear, I think I broke him.

Any actual argument, dupe?

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

 

[francoHFW]

BS, dupe. NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ABORTION. Hyde Amendment. Duped AGAIN! D'OH!!

When idiots are totally wrong, they get violent. I've never been beaten up anywhere.

you should actually look into things before you spout the information that you think is right.
and I imagine you are lying about not being beat up, or you are just afraid to be as disrespectful in public.

I don't talk politics and religion off MBs much...place is full of ugly American GOP bigots....And you're still wrong as always. Hyde Amendment. I'm also 6' 4"

what does 6'4" have to do with anything? Im 6'1, my younger brother is 6'7, I used to whip his ass on a regular basis. I wish I would not have done that now, he evidently suffered irreparable brain damage from those beatings, He married a liberal and he voted for obama and Hillary. Oh, and he also lives in California. Maybe he needs another ass whipping?

Sounds like you do, dupe.

Power my ass, it's fairness and justice and honesty being eroded, dupe.

Naturally, democrats assume that their power equals "fairness and justice and honesty". It does not.

Wrong again, dupe of the lying, cheating, disastrous, greedy idiot megarich New BS GOP. See sig- all fact and unknown to the chumps of Faux, Rush, Heritage and other bs propaganda/fake news...

Oh dear, I think I broke him.

Any actual argument, dupe?

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

you should actually look into things before you spout the information that you think is right.
and I imagine you are lying about not being beat up, or you are just afraid to be as disrespectful in public.

I don't talk politics and religion off MBs much...place is full of ugly American GOP bigots....And you're still wrong as always. Hyde Amendment. I'm also 6' 4"

what does 6'4" have to do with anything? Im 6'1, my younger brother is 6'7, I used to whip his ass on a regular basis. I wish I would not have done that now, he evidently suffered irreparable brain damage from those beatings, He married a liberal and he voted for obama and Hillary. Oh, and he also lives in California. Maybe he needs another ass whipping?

Sounds like you do, dupe.

Naturally, democrats assume that their power equals "fairness and justice and honesty". It does not.

Wrong again, dupe of the lying, cheating, disastrous, greedy idiot megarich New BS GOP. See sig- all fact and unknown to the chumps of Faux, Rush, Heritage and other bs propaganda/fake news...

Oh dear, I think I broke him.

Any actual argument, dupe?

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

that whole fair share thing is a dem talking point.unless you can explain how someone that pays 2000.00 in tax, or even nothing at all is paying more than their fair share, while someone that pays close to or even over a million in tax is not paying their fair share.
To the idiots, fair share only means that someone else pays their way through life.
Sorry but, thats just not fair.

 

[francoHFW]

I don't talk politics and religion off MBs much...place is full of ugly American GOP bigots....And you're still wrong as always. Hyde Amendment. I'm also 6' 4"

what does 6'4" have to do with anything? Im 6'1, my younger brother is 6'7, I used to whip his ass on a regular basis. I wish I would not have done that now, he evidently suffered irreparable brain damage from those beatings, He married a liberal and he voted for obama and Hillary. Oh, and he also lives in California. Maybe he needs another ass whipping?

Sounds like you do, dupe.

Wrong again, dupe of the lying, cheating, disastrous, greedy idiot megarich New BS GOP. See sig- all fact and unknown to the chumps of Faux, Rush, Heritage and other bs propaganda/fake news...

Oh dear, I think I broke him.

Any actual argument, dupe?

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

that whole fair share thing is a dem talking point.unless you can explain how someone that pays 2000.00 in tax, or even nothing at all is paying more than their fair share, while someone that pays close to or even over a million in tax is not paying their fair share.
To the idiots, fair share only means that someone else pays their way through life.
Sorry but, thats just not fair.

You are misinformed. SEE GRAPH DUH. The dupes think all that matters is federal income tax...
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

what does 6'4" have to do with anything? Im 6'1, my younger brother is 6'7, I used to whip his ass on a regular basis. I wish I would not have done that now, he evidently suffered irreparable brain damage from those beatings, He married a liberal and he voted for obama and Hillary. Oh, and he also lives in California. Maybe he needs another ass whipping?

Sounds like you do, dupe.

Oh dear, I think I broke him.

Any actual argument, dupe?

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

that whole fair share thing is a dem talking point.unless you can explain how someone that pays 2000.00 in tax, or even nothing at all is paying more than their fair share, while someone that pays close to or even over a million in tax is not paying their fair share.
To the idiots, fair share only means that someone else pays their way through life.
Sorry but, thats just not fair.

You are misinformed. SEE GRAPH DUH. The dupes think all that matters is federal income tax...
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

no, I actually rather well informed, you want someone else to pay your share of the bill.
so what if the rich guy is paying less percentage of his total income, the reality is that he is still paying 10 to 20 times more than the guy making that 40k.
Do you also think that the rich guy should pay more for a loaf of bread? how about if he goes and buys the same car as you have, should he pay ten times more for it?
Same with taxes, taxes go to pay for services from the government, why should one person be held to a higher payment plan than another? why, when you look at the debt, should one person pay 50% of it while the guy at the bottom pays 5%?
The only fair way to do it is to charge a flat tax without any deductions for income or expenses. we pay the same, 10 or 20%? whatever the number is, but it would be paid on every dollar made. Not a sliding scale based on income or a system that is so filled with loopholes that it takes a team of high paid accountants to figure it out. a simple tax form.
Net Income for year ending in ????
Compute 20% of line 1
Pay the amount on Line 2
or even just leave it up to the employer, he deducts the percentage from your pay and sends it in. and its done. No tax forms to fill out at the end of the year.
No deductions and no arguments, whatever the percentage is decided for the year in question is what one would pay for each and every dollar that they earned during that year. make a dollar? pay .20cent. Make a hundred dollars? pay $20.00.
The government would also be able to plan expenses better too, they know how much money is in circulation so they would have a very good idea at the start of the year what would be coming in.
Best way to do that however would be to only spend based on the revenue from the previous year. So in 2017 the tax revenue was 1.3trillion dollars, 2018 budget can not exceed 1.3 trillion dollars.
Naturally the spending would have to be less than the revenue for a few years to get the debt paid down but you get the idea.

 

[francoHFW]

Sounds like you do, dupe.
Any actual argument, dupe?

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

that whole fair share thing is a dem talking point.unless you can explain how someone that pays 2000.00 in tax, or even nothing at all is paying more than their fair share, while someone that pays close to or even over a million in tax is not paying their fair share.
To the idiots, fair share only means that someone else pays their way through life.
Sorry but, thats just not fair.

You are misinformed. SEE GRAPH DUH. The dupes think all that matters is federal income tax...
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

no, I actually rather well informed, you want someone else to pay your share of the bill.
so what if the rich guy is paying less percentage of his total income, the reality is that he is still paying 10 to 20 times more than the guy making that 40k.
Do you also think that the rich guy should pay more for a loaf of bread? how about if he goes and buys the same car as you have, should he pay ten times more for it?
Same with taxes, taxes go to pay for services from the government, why should one person be held to a higher payment plan than another? why, when you look at the debt, should one person pay 50% of it while the guy at the bottom pays 5%?
The only fair way to do it is to charge a flat tax without any deductions for income or expenses. we pay the same, 10 or 20%? whatever the number is, but it would be paid on every dollar made. Not a sliding scale based on income or a system that is so filled with loopholes that it takes a team of high paid accountants to figure it out. a simple tax form.
Net Income for year ending in ????
Compute 20% of line 1
Pay the amount on Line 2
or even just leave it up to the employer, he deducts the percentage from your pay and sends it in. and its done. No tax forms to fill out at the end of the year.
No deductions and no arguments, whatever the percentage is decided for the year in question is what one would pay for each and every dollar that they earned during that year. make a dollar? pay .20cent. Make a hundred dollars? pay $20.00.
The government would also be able to plan expenses better too, they know how much money is in circulation so they would have a very good idea at the start of the year what would be coming in.
Best way to do that however would be to only spend based on the revenue from the previous year. So in 2017 the tax revenue was 1.3trillion dollars, 2018 budget can not exceed 1.3 trillion dollars.
Naturally the spending would have to be less than the revenue for a few years to get the debt paid down but you get the idea.

Hilarious. You go by % paid. Breaking!!!: When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!! Dupes! see sig and all the links the last 5 pages...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

that whole fair share thing is a dem talking point.unless you can explain how someone that pays 2000.00 in tax, or even nothing at all is paying more than their fair share, while someone that pays close to or even over a million in tax is not paying their fair share.
To the idiots, fair share only means that someone else pays their way through life.
Sorry but, thats just not fair.

You are misinformed. SEE GRAPH DUH. The dupes think all that matters is federal income tax...
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

no, I actually rather well informed, you want someone else to pay your share of the bill.
so what if the rich guy is paying less percentage of his total income, the reality is that he is still paying 10 to 20 times more than the guy making that 40k.
Do you also think that the rich guy should pay more for a loaf of bread? how about if he goes and buys the same car as you have, should he pay ten times more for it?
Same with taxes, taxes go to pay for services from the government, why should one person be held to a higher payment plan than another? why, when you look at the debt, should one person pay 50% of it while the guy at the bottom pays 5%?
The only fair way to do it is to charge a flat tax without any deductions for income or expenses. we pay the same, 10 or 20%? whatever the number is, but it would be paid on every dollar made. Not a sliding scale based on income or a system that is so filled with loopholes that it takes a team of high paid accountants to figure it out. a simple tax form.
Net Income for year ending in ????
Compute 20% of line 1
Pay the amount on Line 2
or even just leave it up to the employer, he deducts the percentage from your pay and sends it in. and its done. No tax forms to fill out at the end of the year.
No deductions and no arguments, whatever the percentage is decided for the year in question is what one would pay for each and every dollar that they earned during that year. make a dollar? pay .20cent. Make a hundred dollars? pay $20.00.
The government would also be able to plan expenses better too, they know how much money is in circulation so they would have a very good idea at the start of the year what would be coming in.
Best way to do that however would be to only spend based on the revenue from the previous year. So in 2017 the tax revenue was 1.3trillion dollars, 2018 budget can not exceed 1.3 trillion dollars.
Naturally the spending would have to be less than the revenue for a few years to get the debt paid down but you get the idea.

Hilarious. You go by % paid. Breaking!!!: When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!! Dupes! see sig and all the links the last 5 pages...

I dont see a problem with everyone contributing the same percentage. The rich still end up paying way more than their fair share of the debt the poor pay way less. It works.
from what I get from your posts, you think that the rich should just go ahead and pay your share too, thats not fair, face it, social programs are one of the biggest expenses to this country, who uses them? the poor, military benefits all equally, yet you think the rich should be the ones to pay for the forces that allow you to maintain a degree of security in your life. The rich dont use the roads more or less than the poor, yet you think the rich should be the ones that pay for it all, why is that?
Im not rich, but I do make more than what is supposedly the national average income, so if we all go out to dinner one night, and I just get a salad, you get the Steak and Lobster with a nice glass of 50 year old wine, when the check comes would you expect me to pay more than you because my weekly take home is 1600, and yours is 800? or would you be ok with paying the $100.00 that is your part of the bill and me paying the $10.00 that is my part of the bill.
I just cant understand why you think that one person should pay more of the nations bill than another person.
And lets just be honest here, the ones that vote for more social safety nets, vote for the free phone, housing, food, college etc... are the exact same people that you seem to think should pay nothing. And you honestly dont see anything wrong with making someone pay for the upkeep of those that make less?
I really just am not able to follow your logic.

 

[francoHFW]

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

that whole fair share thing is a dem talking point.unless you can explain how someone that pays 2000.00 in tax, or even nothing at all is paying more than their fair share, while someone that pays close to or even over a million in tax is not paying their fair share.
To the idiots, fair share only means that someone else pays their way through life.
Sorry but, thats just not fair.

You are misinformed. SEE GRAPH DUH. The dupes think all that matters is federal income tax...
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

no, I actually rather well informed, you want someone else to pay your share of the bill.
so what if the rich guy is paying less percentage of his total income, the reality is that he is still paying 10 to 20 times more than the guy making that 40k.
Do you also think that the rich guy should pay more for a loaf of bread? how about if he goes and buys the same car as you have, should he pay ten times more for it?
Same with taxes, taxes go to pay for services from the government, why should one person be held to a higher payment plan than another? why, when you look at the debt, should one person pay 50% of it while the guy at the bottom pays 5%?
The only fair way to do it is to charge a flat tax without any deductions for income or expenses. we pay the same, 10 or 20%? whatever the number is, but it would be paid on every dollar made. Not a sliding scale based on income or a system that is so filled with loopholes that it takes a team of high paid accountants to figure it out. a simple tax form.
Net Income for year ending in ????
Compute 20% of line 1
Pay the amount on Line 2
or even just leave it up to the employer, he deducts the percentage from your pay and sends it in. and its done. No tax forms to fill out at the end of the year.
No deductions and no arguments, whatever the percentage is decided for the year in question is what one would pay for each and every dollar that they earned during that year. make a dollar? pay .20cent. Make a hundred dollars? pay $20.00.
The government would also be able to plan expenses better too, they know how much money is in circulation so they would have a very good idea at the start of the year what would be coming in.
Best way to do that however would be to only spend based on the revenue from the previous year. So in 2017 the tax revenue was 1.3trillion dollars, 2018 budget can not exceed 1.3 trillion dollars.
Naturally the spending would have to be less than the revenue for a few years to get the debt paid down but you get the idea.

Hilarious. You go by % paid. Breaking!!!: When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!! Dupes! see sig and all the links the last 5 pages...

I dont see a problem with everyone contributing the same percentage. The rich still end up paying way more than their fair share of the debt the poor pay way less. It works.
from what I get from your posts, you think that the rich should just go ahead and pay your share too, thats not fair, face it, social programs are one of the biggest expenses to this country, who uses them? the poor, military benefits all equally, yet you think the rich should be the ones to pay for the forces that allow you to maintain a degree of security in your life. The rich dont use the roads more or less than the poor, yet you think the rich should be the ones that pay for it all, why is that?
Im not rich, but I do make more than what is supposedly the national average income, so if we all go out to dinner one night, and I just get a salad, you get the Steak and Lobster with a nice glass of 50 year old wine, when the check comes would you expect me to pay more than you because my weekly take home is 1600, and yours is 800? or would you be ok with paying the $100.00 that is your part of the bill and me paying the $10.00 that is my part of the bill.
I just cant understand why you think that one person should pay more of the nations bill than another person.
And lets just be honest here, the ones that vote for more social safety nets, vote for the free phone, housing, food, college etc... are the exact same people that you seem to think should pay nothing. And you honestly dont see anything wrong with making someone pay for the upkeep of those that make less?
I really just am not able to follow your logic.

I'm shocked, dupe. And of course no one ever said most of that drivel.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

that whole fair share thing is a dem talking point.unless you can explain how someone that pays 2000.00 in tax, or even nothing at all is paying more than their fair share, while someone that pays close to or even over a million in tax is not paying their fair share.
To the idiots, fair share only means that someone else pays their way through life.
Sorry but, thats just not fair.

You are misinformed. SEE GRAPH DUH. The dupes think all that matters is federal income tax...
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

no, I actually rather well informed, you want someone else to pay your share of the bill.
so what if the rich guy is paying less percentage of his total income, the reality is that he is still paying 10 to 20 times more than the guy making that 40k.
Do you also think that the rich guy should pay more for a loaf of bread? how about if he goes and buys the same car as you have, should he pay ten times more for it?
Same with taxes, taxes go to pay for services from the government, why should one person be held to a higher payment plan than another? why, when you look at the debt, should one person pay 50% of it while the guy at the bottom pays 5%?
The only fair way to do it is to charge a flat tax without any deductions for income or expenses. we pay the same, 10 or 20%? whatever the number is, but it would be paid on every dollar made. Not a sliding scale based on income or a system that is so filled with loopholes that it takes a team of high paid accountants to figure it out. a simple tax form.
Net Income for year ending in ????
Compute 20% of line 1
Pay the amount on Line 2
or even just leave it up to the employer, he deducts the percentage from your pay and sends it in. and its done. No tax forms to fill out at the end of the year.
No deductions and no arguments, whatever the percentage is decided for the year in question is what one would pay for each and every dollar that they earned during that year. make a dollar? pay .20cent. Make a hundred dollars? pay $20.00.
The government would also be able to plan expenses better too, they know how much money is in circulation so they would have a very good idea at the start of the year what would be coming in.
Best way to do that however would be to only spend based on the revenue from the previous year. So in 2017 the tax revenue was 1.3trillion dollars, 2018 budget can not exceed 1.3 trillion dollars.
Naturally the spending would have to be less than the revenue for a few years to get the debt paid down but you get the idea.

Hilarious. You go by % paid. Breaking!!!: When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!! Dupes! see sig and all the links the last 5 pages...

I dont see a problem with everyone contributing the same percentage. The rich still end up paying way more than their fair share of the debt the poor pay way less. It works.
from what I get from your posts, you think that the rich should just go ahead and pay your share too, thats not fair, face it, social programs are one of the biggest expenses to this country, who uses them? the poor, military benefits all equally, yet you think the rich should be the ones to pay for the forces that allow you to maintain a degree of security in your life. The rich dont use the roads more or less than the poor, yet you think the rich should be the ones that pay for it all, why is that?
Im not rich, but I do make more than what is supposedly the national average income, so if we all go out to dinner one night, and I just get a salad, you get the Steak and Lobster with a nice glass of 50 year old wine, when the check comes would you expect me to pay more than you because my weekly take home is 1600, and yours is 800? or would you be ok with paying the $100.00 that is your part of the bill and me paying the $10.00 that is my part of the bill.
I just cant understand why you think that one person should pay more of the nations bill than another person.
And lets just be honest here, the ones that vote for more social safety nets, vote for the free phone, housing, food, college etc... are the exact same people that you seem to think should pay nothing. And you honestly dont see anything wrong with making someone pay for the upkeep of those that make less?
I really just am not able to follow your logic.

I'm shocked, dupe. And of course no one ever said most of that drivel.

thats exactly what you seem to be saying, you are upset because someone making 40k a year pays 25% in taxes while someone making a million a year pays 15%. do the math and see who pays more when all is said and done. The rich guy pays many times over what the 40K a year guy pays. So, tell me how he is not paying his fair share.

 

[francoHFW]

You are misinformed. SEE GRAPH DUH. The dupes think all that matters is federal income tax...
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

no, I actually rather well informed, you want someone else to pay your share of the bill.
so what if the rich guy is paying less percentage of his total income, the reality is that he is still paying 10 to 20 times more than the guy making that 40k.
Do you also think that the rich guy should pay more for a loaf of bread? how about if he goes and buys the same car as you have, should he pay ten times more for it?
Same with taxes, taxes go to pay for services from the government, why should one person be held to a higher payment plan than another? why, when you look at the debt, should one person pay 50% of it while the guy at the bottom pays 5%?
The only fair way to do it is to charge a flat tax without any deductions for income or expenses. we pay the same, 10 or 20%? whatever the number is, but it would be paid on every dollar made. Not a sliding scale based on income or a system that is so filled with loopholes that it takes a team of high paid accountants to figure it out. a simple tax form.
Net Income for year ending in ????
Compute 20% of line 1
Pay the amount on Line 2
or even just leave it up to the employer, he deducts the percentage from your pay and sends it in. and its done. No tax forms to fill out at the end of the year.
No deductions and no arguments, whatever the percentage is decided for the year in question is what one would pay for each and every dollar that they earned during that year. make a dollar? pay .20cent. Make a hundred dollars? pay $20.00.
The government would also be able to plan expenses better too, they know how much money is in circulation so they would have a very good idea at the start of the year what would be coming in.
Best way to do that however would be to only spend based on the revenue from the previous year. So in 2017 the tax revenue was 1.3trillion dollars, 2018 budget can not exceed 1.3 trillion dollars.
Naturally the spending would have to be less than the revenue for a few years to get the debt paid down but you get the idea.

Hilarious. You go by % paid. Breaking!!!: When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!! Dupes! see sig and all the links the last 5 pages...

I dont see a problem with everyone contributing the same percentage. The rich still end up paying way more than their fair share of the debt the poor pay way less. It works.
from what I get from your posts, you think that the rich should just go ahead and pay your share too, thats not fair, face it, social programs are one of the biggest expenses to this country, who uses them? the poor, military benefits all equally, yet you think the rich should be the ones to pay for the forces that allow you to maintain a degree of security in your life. The rich dont use the roads more or less than the poor, yet you think the rich should be the ones that pay for it all, why is that?
Im not rich, but I do make more than what is supposedly the national average income, so if we all go out to dinner one night, and I just get a salad, you get the Steak and Lobster with a nice glass of 50 year old wine, when the check comes would you expect me to pay more than you because my weekly take home is 1600, and yours is 800? or would you be ok with paying the $100.00 that is your part of the bill and me paying the $10.00 that is my part of the bill.
I just cant understand why you think that one person should pay more of the nations bill than another person.
And lets just be honest here, the ones that vote for more social safety nets, vote for the free phone, housing, food, college etc... are the exact same people that you seem to think should pay nothing. And you honestly dont see anything wrong with making someone pay for the upkeep of those that make less?
I really just am not able to follow your logic.

I'm shocked, dupe. And of course no one ever said most of that drivel.

thats exactly what you seem to be saying, you are upset because someone making 40k a year pays 25% in taxes while someone making a million a year pays 15%. do the math and see who pays more when all is said and done. The rich guy pays many times over what the 40K a year guy pays. So, tell me how he is not paying his fair share.

Read about progressive tax.

When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

no, I actually rather well informed, you want someone else to pay your share of the bill.
so what if the rich guy is paying less percentage of his total income, the reality is that he is still paying 10 to 20 times more than the guy making that 40k.
Do you also think that the rich guy should pay more for a loaf of bread? how about if he goes and buys the same car as you have, should he pay ten times more for it?
Same with taxes, taxes go to pay for services from the government, why should one person be held to a higher payment plan than another? why, when you look at the debt, should one person pay 50% of it while the guy at the bottom pays 5%?
The only fair way to do it is to charge a flat tax without any deductions for income or expenses. we pay the same, 10 or 20%? whatever the number is, but it would be paid on every dollar made. Not a sliding scale based on income or a system that is so filled with loopholes that it takes a team of high paid accountants to figure it out. a simple tax form.
Net Income for year ending in ????
Compute 20% of line 1
Pay the amount on Line 2
or even just leave it up to the employer, he deducts the percentage from your pay and sends it in. and its done. No tax forms to fill out at the end of the year.
No deductions and no arguments, whatever the percentage is decided for the year in question is what one would pay for each and every dollar that they earned during that year. make a dollar? pay .20cent. Make a hundred dollars? pay $20.00.
The government would also be able to plan expenses better too, they know how much money is in circulation so they would have a very good idea at the start of the year what would be coming in.
Best way to do that however would be to only spend based on the revenue from the previous year. So in 2017 the tax revenue was 1.3trillion dollars, 2018 budget can not exceed 1.3 trillion dollars.
Naturally the spending would have to be less than the revenue for a few years to get the debt paid down but you get the idea.

Hilarious. You go by % paid. Breaking!!!: When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!! Dupes! see sig and all the links the last 5 pages...

I dont see a problem with everyone contributing the same percentage. The rich still end up paying way more than their fair share of the debt the poor pay way less. It works.
from what I get from your posts, you think that the rich should just go ahead and pay your share too, thats not fair, face it, social programs are one of the biggest expenses to this country, who uses them? the poor, military benefits all equally, yet you think the rich should be the ones to pay for the forces that allow you to maintain a degree of security in your life. The rich dont use the roads more or less than the poor, yet you think the rich should be the ones that pay for it all, why is that?
Im not rich, but I do make more than what is supposedly the national average income, so if we all go out to dinner one night, and I just get a salad, you get the Steak and Lobster with a nice glass of 50 year old wine, when the check comes would you expect me to pay more than you because my weekly take home is 1600, and yours is 800? or would you be ok with paying the $100.00 that is your part of the bill and me paying the $10.00 that is my part of the bill.
I just cant understand why you think that one person should pay more of the nations bill than another person.
And lets just be honest here, the ones that vote for more social safety nets, vote for the free phone, housing, food, college etc... are the exact same people that you seem to think should pay nothing. And you honestly dont see anything wrong with making someone pay for the upkeep of those that make less?
I really just am not able to follow your logic.

I'm shocked, dupe. And of course no one ever said most of that drivel.

thats exactly what you seem to be saying, you are upset because someone making 40k a year pays 25% in taxes while someone making a million a year pays 15%. do the math and see who pays more when all is said and done. The rich guy pays many times over what the 40K a year guy pays. So, tell me how he is not paying his fair share.

Read about progressive tax.

When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!!

the problem is your greed and your desire to have others pay your way.
what is it about you that makes you so valuable to society that you should get a free ride?
pay your fair share. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to say divide the debt equally by the number of people in the country and thats what you owe. Find your own way to pay it. last estimate I saw was 41,000 per person in the U.S.
Not sure about you but I covered over half of mine last year alone, my wife and I paid over 41,000 in taxes. So if we get two years to pay it off, Im covered this year.
but, that would be 41,000 on top of the taxes we already pay, so for my household it would be roughly 120,000 to pay it off. I could do that. But, I would expect to have a tax break for doing so, those that dont pay their fair share would still have to pay taxes at the higher rate.
see, that would be fair. everyone pay their FAIR share and from that day on no more social programs, nothing but what is specifically designated in the constitution as required expenses. This country could be in pretty good shape in just two years if that happened. Im fairly certain that I am not in the minority when it comes to being able to pay my fair share should it be requested by the government. But like I said, dont have me pay off my portion and then still be getting taxed at a rate to cover everyone elses.
You on the other hand have no problem having other people pay your way through life. Grow up, its time to be a man and take care of your responsibilities.

 

[rdean]

Senate Dimrats Vow to Filibuster Trumps SCOTUS Pick Without Knowing Who It Is

You mean like Judge Garland?

Oops.

 

[francoHFW]

Hilarious. You go by % paid. Breaking!!!: When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!! Dupes! see sig and all the links the last 5 pages...

I dont see a problem with everyone contributing the same percentage. The rich still end up paying way more than their fair share of the debt the poor pay way less. It works.
from what I get from your posts, you think that the rich should just go ahead and pay your share too, thats not fair, face it, social programs are one of the biggest expenses to this country, who uses them? the poor, military benefits all equally, yet you think the rich should be the ones to pay for the forces that allow you to maintain a degree of security in your life. The rich dont use the roads more or less than the poor, yet you think the rich should be the ones that pay for it all, why is that?
Im not rich, but I do make more than what is supposedly the national average income, so if we all go out to dinner one night, and I just get a salad, you get the Steak and Lobster with a nice glass of 50 year old wine, when the check comes would you expect me to pay more than you because my weekly take home is 1600, and yours is 800? or would you be ok with paying the $100.00 that is your part of the bill and me paying the $10.00 that is my part of the bill.
I just cant understand why you think that one person should pay more of the nations bill than another person.
And lets just be honest here, the ones that vote for more social safety nets, vote for the free phone, housing, food, college etc... are the exact same people that you seem to think should pay nothing. And you honestly dont see anything wrong with making someone pay for the upkeep of those that make less?
I really just am not able to follow your logic.

I'm shocked, dupe. And of course no one ever said most of that drivel.

thats exactly what you seem to be saying, you are upset because someone making 40k a year pays 25% in taxes while someone making a million a year pays 15%. do the math and see who pays more when all is said and done. The rich guy pays many times over what the 40K a year guy pays. So, tell me how he is not paying his fair share.

Read about progressive tax.

When everyone with any real income lol pays the same % in taxes and the richest keep all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country GTH, THERE'S A PROBLEM!!!!!!

the problem is your greed and your desire to have others pay your way.
what is it about you that makes you so valuable to society that you should get a free ride?
pay your fair share. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to say divide the debt equally by the number of people in the country and thats what you owe. Find your own way to pay it. last estimate I saw was 41,000 per person in the U.S.
Not sure about you but I covered over half of mine last year alone, my wife and I paid over 41,000 in taxes. So if we get two years to pay it off, Im covered this year.
but, that would be 41,000 on top of the taxes we already pay, so for my household it would be roughly 120,000 to pay it off. I could do that. But, I would expect to have a tax break for doing so, those that dont pay their fair share would still have to pay taxes at the higher rate.
see, that would be fair. everyone pay their FAIR share and from that day on no more social programs, nothing but what is specifically designated in the constitution as required expenses. This country could be in pretty good shape in just two years if that happened. Im fairly certain that I am not in the minority when it comes to being able to pay my fair share should it be requested by the government. But like I said, dont have me pay off my portion and then still be getting taxed at a rate to cover everyone elses.
You on the other hand have no problem having other people pay your way through life. Grow up, its time to be a man and take care of your responsibilities.

WTF are you talking about? I'm 65 and retired. Just because you dupes can't see past the end of your nose....You pay too much, and get too little for it- because of the GOP, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Only on FOx (and Rush etc etc)... BULLSHYTTE!!!

 

[hadit]

you should actually look into things before you spout the information that you think is right.
and I imagine you are lying about not being beat up, or you are just afraid to be as disrespectful in public.

I don't talk politics and religion off MBs much...place is full of ugly American GOP bigots....And you're still wrong as always. Hyde Amendment. I'm also 6' 4"

what does 6'4" have to do with anything? Im 6'1, my younger brother is 6'7, I used to whip his ass on a regular basis. I wish I would not have done that now, he evidently suffered irreparable brain damage from those beatings, He married a liberal and he voted for obama and Hillary. Oh, and he also lives in California. Maybe he needs another ass whipping?

Sounds like you do, dupe.

Naturally, democrats assume that their power equals "fairness and justice and honesty". It does not.

Wrong again, dupe of the lying, cheating, disastrous, greedy idiot megarich New BS GOP. See sig- all fact and unknown to the chumps of Faux, Rush, Heritage and other bs propaganda/fake news...

Oh dear, I think I broke him.

Any actual argument, dupe?

you like to keep calling the smarter people dupes, when in reality you are the one that has been falling for the democrats bullshit that they are making things better for the poor.
Sounds to me like you have been deceived by them considering that the poor have never been lifted up by them, as a matter of fact, over the last 8 years we have more poor added to the numbers.
So, you might want to check on who that dupe is. You are pretty much proving its you.
Oh, and you appear to have a mental retardation issue also. Not sure if the nice people at the Dr's office have told you this or if they are trying to keep it from you so you dont feel bad. but, its pretty obvious to those that are able to think for themselves.

The country is probably screwed until the richest and giant corps pay their fair share and investment is made in the nonrich and the country's infrastructure. That hasn't happened since Raygun. Dems don't HAVE a propaganda machine or bs propaganda, dupe. See sig.

Define "fair share". Give us a number. Until you do, all you really mean is "MORE".

 

[hadit]

Senate Dimrats Vow to Filibuster Trumps SCOTUS Pick Without Knowing Who It Is

You mean like Judge Garland?

Oops.

If it was wrong for Republicans to follow the Biden rule, is it right for democrats to do this, seeing as how we're no longer in the last year of the president's term?

 

[hangover]

Senate Dimrats Vow to Filibuster Trumps SCOTUS Pick Without Knowing Who It Is

Cons wouldn't look at Obama's pick for a year, so you can stop with your hypocrisy now.

We will use the Nuclear option, you lose.

Typical Trumper....thinks nukes only kills the opposition. You get what you give. You hate, you lose.

Priceless silliness. That's WHY they will do it, because Reid started the entire thing. I know full well both sides will use it. It is you posting with hate son, not me. You just don't like being disagreed with, like it or nor if they try and block this Nomination it will go Nuclear, period. Yes your side will use it too.

Not my side, but yes dumb bitch Pelosi did use it. Will the circle be unbroken? Not as long as the majority of this country are D's & R's.

 

[hangover]

Senate Dimrats Vow to Filibuster Trumps SCOTUS Pick Without Knowing Who It Is

Cons wouldn't look at Obama's pick for a year, so you can stop with your hypocrisy now.

The Biden rule's a kicker, isn't it?

Long before Biden......

 

[hadit]

Senate Dimrats Vow to Filibuster Trumps SCOTUS Pick Without Knowing Who It Is

Cons wouldn't look at Obama's pick for a year, so you can stop with your hypocrisy now.

The Biden rule's a kicker, isn't it?

Long before Biden......

The Biden rule existed before Garland's nomination.

 

[HenryBHough]

Garland was NOT filibustered. It's just that his name never came up anyplace where it might have mattered.