Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.

Of course not, they are hypocrites and liars. Same thing applies to when they talk about democracy and the will of the people... rule of law... special prosecutors... the integrity of the voting process... on and on. It's only when it benefits their agenda! Otherwise it's judicial activism and legislative tyranny....fly over the wall... crash through the wall... pass it to see what's in it... Supreme Court has final say forevermore... as long as it gives them their result.

Your projection noted Bubs

 

[sakinago]

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?

Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?

Nice deflection. So robber Barron's had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?

Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries

MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!

nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?

Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?


DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!

No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?

Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!


LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!


Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?

They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible. And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?

You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.

You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.

And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.” Ayn Rand

Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.

You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.

You want laws to be selective, selective against things you see that you don't like. You want to stop Koch bros from donating to campaigns, then all business should be stopped from donating to candidates. You want limits on how much rich people can donate, then put the same restrictions on everyone

 

[Dad2three]

What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.

Yeah, that's right. That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then. The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.

Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history? Are you all really so brainwashed?

FORTY YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC

Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?

Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is?

Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!

What you really mean is they fought government paid "ELECTRIFICATION OF RURAL AMERICA." That was a huge boondoggle. Poor families living in the city were taxed so that farmers who owned hundreds or even thousands of acres of land, and were therefore quite wealthy, could have cheap electricity. Why shouldn't people pay the true cost of their lifestyle? If farmers want electricity, they should pay the true cost, just like people living in the city.

LOL, Yeah, why have a diverse economy and the availability to live outside the city right Bubs?

Without GOV'T POLICY we wouldn't have homes in places outside the city. PERIOD


Farmers huh? Wealthy back then with hundreds of acres? lol

 

[bripat9643]

You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?

They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?

That's exactly it. Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining. Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.

because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.

Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them. That's what you like. Spending money wisely is what you don't like.

The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs. That's called crony capitalism. That's a Democrat thing.

"The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."

EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding." Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively. Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded? Is Social Security "funded?" Obamacare? Any liberal social program?

 

[Dad2three]

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!

We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.

Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!

ROFL! No, it wasn't paid for. Obama counted ten years worth of added taxes against only six years of expenses on Obamacare, and the estimates of the cost are proving to be way low, as always.

Democrats have a history of underestimating the cost of their boondoggle programs. In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress. Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.

Only a fool would believe Democrat claims that Obamacare is "paid for."

CBO says so Bubs, you have ANYTHING that says it isn't? Oops

YOU MEAN THE PROGRAMS WORKED SO WELL THEY EXPANDED IT, UPPING COSTS?> Shocking

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, that's right. That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then. The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.

Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history? Are you all really so brainwashed?

FORTY YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC

Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?

Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is?

Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!

What you really mean is they fought government paid "ELECTRIFICATION OF RURAL AMERICA." That was a huge boondoggle. Poor families living in the city were taxed so that farmers who owned hundreds or even thousands of acres of land, and were therefore quite wealthy, could have cheap electricity. Why shouldn't people pay the true cost of their lifestyle? If farmers want electricity, they should pay the true cost, just like people living in the city.

LOL, Yeah, why have a diverse economy and the availability to live outside the city right Bubs?

Without GOV'T POLICY we wouldn't have homes in places outside the city. PERIOD


Farmers huh? Wealthy back then with hundreds of acres? lol

How does subsidizing rich farmers make out economy "diverse?" If homes outside the city wouldn't exist without government subsidies, then why do we need them?

Today an acre of fertile farmland is worth about $10,000. Someone who owns 100 acres is a millionaire. Adjusted for inflation, farmland was worth about the same amount in the 1930s.

 

[Dad2three]

Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats

Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?



This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again


For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.

This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com

Lol you are stupid. The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Sure Bubba, sure

Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money. All money is the people's money.

One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?

You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol

Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue. I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.

Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.

The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?

Says the Klown with a Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere, ever. Weird

But your inability to use reading comprehension on the posit IS noted Bubba!

 

[bripat9643]

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!

We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.

Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!

ROFL! No, it wasn't paid for. Obama counted ten years worth of added taxes against only six years of expenses on Obamacare, and the estimates of the cost are proving to be way low, as always.

Democrats have a history of underestimating the cost of their boondoggle programs. In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress. Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.

Only a fool would believe Democrat claims that Obamacare is "paid for."

CBO says so Bubs, you have ANYTHING that says it isn't? Oops

YOU MEAN THE PROGRAMS WORKED SO WELL THEY EXPANDED IT, UPPING COSTS?> Shocking

The CBO is forced to use all the assumptions handed to them by the supporters of the boondoggle. It's predictions about the cost are worth about as much as a pint of dog piss.

 

[Dad2three]

Lol you are stupid. The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Sure Bubba, sure

Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money. All money is the people's money.

One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?

You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol

Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue. I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.

Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.

The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?

Aside from the defence budget, he and the Dims support virtually every dime of what we spend, but deficits are the Republicans' fault!

How many Dems voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich, twice? His UNFUNDED Medicare expansion LITERALLY pushed down OUR throats in the middle of the night?

60% of Dems voted for Dubya's war of choice you know?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure Bubba, sure

Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money. All money is the people's money.

One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?

You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol

Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue. I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.

Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.

The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?

Aside from the defence budget, he and the Dims support virtually every dime of what we spend, but deficits are the Republicans' fault!

How many Dems voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich, twice? His UNFUNDED Medicare expansion LITERALLY pushed down OUR throats in the middle of the night?

60% of Dems voted for Dubya's war of choice you know?

The Dims had been advocating the same drug program for years. They just didn't like the details in Bush's plan. The idea that the Dims wouldn't have spent that money is ludicrous. They would have spent fare more on it if they had the votes.

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money isn't government spending, numskull.

 

[Dad2three]

Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?

Nice deflection. So robber Barron's had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?

Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries

MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!

nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?

Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?


DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!

No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?

Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!


LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!


Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?

They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible. And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?

You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.

You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.

And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.” Ayn Rand

Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.

You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.

ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*

ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?

Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!

YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years

Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US, WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS

Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?

Socialism huh?


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Dad2three]

They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?

That's exactly it. Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining. Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.

because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.

Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them. That's what you like. Spending money wisely is what you don't like.

The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs. That's called crony capitalism. That's a Democrat thing.

"The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."

EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding." Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively. Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded? Is Social Security "funded?" Obamacare? Any liberal social program?

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM


Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)


You fukkn lying POS

 

[Dad2three]

FORTY YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC

Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?

Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is?

Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!

What you really mean is they fought government paid "ELECTRIFICATION OF RURAL AMERICA." That was a huge boondoggle. Poor families living in the city were taxed so that farmers who owned hundreds or even thousands of acres of land, and were therefore quite wealthy, could have cheap electricity. Why shouldn't people pay the true cost of their lifestyle? If farmers want electricity, they should pay the true cost, just like people living in the city.

LOL, Yeah, why have a diverse economy and the availability to live outside the city right Bubs?

Without GOV'T POLICY we wouldn't have homes in places outside the city. PERIOD


Farmers huh? Wealthy back then with hundreds of acres? lol

How does subsidizing rich farmers make out economy "diverse?" If homes outside the city wouldn't exist without government subsidies, then why do we need them?

Today an acre of fertile farmland is worth about $10,000. Someone who owns 100 acres is a millionaire. Adjusted for inflation, farmland was worth about the same amount in the 1930s.

Your Randian fetish noted Bubs, look to 3rd world nations to see it at work, lol


Hint MOST farmers didn't own (sharecroppers sound familiar dummy) their property

YOU FUKKN POS

 

[Dad2three]

More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!

We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.

Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!

ROFL! No, it wasn't paid for. Obama counted ten years worth of added taxes against only six years of expenses on Obamacare, and the estimates of the cost are proving to be way low, as always.

Democrats have a history of underestimating the cost of their boondoggle programs. In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress. Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.

Only a fool would believe Democrat claims that Obamacare is "paid for."

CBO says so Bubs, you have ANYTHING that says it isn't? Oops

YOU MEAN THE PROGRAMS WORKED SO WELL THEY EXPANDED IT, UPPING COSTS?> Shocking

The CBO is forced to use all the assumptions handed to them by the supporters of the boondoggle. It's predictions about the cost are worth about as much as a pint of dog piss.

Yet the Dems ALWAYS attempt to fund their programs/Gov't policy and the GOP JUST GUTS REVENUES AS THEY RAMP UP SPENDING. Weird how that works right Bubs?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


lol

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money. All money is the people's money.

One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?

You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol

Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue. I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.

Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.

The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?

Aside from the defence budget, he and the Dims support virtually every dime of what we spend, but deficits are the Republicans' fault!

How many Dems voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich, twice? His UNFUNDED Medicare expansion LITERALLY pushed down OUR throats in the middle of the night?

60% of Dems voted for Dubya's war of choice you know?

The Dims had been advocating the same drug program for years. They just didn't like the details in Bush's plan. The idea that the Dims wouldn't have spent that money is ludicrous. They would have spent fare more on it if they had the votes.

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money isn't government spending, numskull.

YOUR crystal ball comes out on what the Dems MIGHT have done right?


Weird how the GOP passed Medicare expansion (in the middle of the night!!!) without a single penny of new revenues AND drove up costs by disallowing Gov't negotiating with Pharma right? lol

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole. We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.

So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?

Talk about dumbasses.

The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers. In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border. We give them money.

So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?

No . . . . obviously not.

The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall. It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.

Hey, moron. They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living. There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.

How does that make one any easier to stop than the other? If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.

You don't KILL PEOPLE FOR CROSSING A RIVER TO LOOK FOR WORK. You kill someone for illegally entering this country and you will FRY.

 

[RKMBrown]

we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.

Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem. A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.

no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:

 

[bripat9643]

That's exactly it. Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining. Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.

because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.

Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them. That's what you like. Spending money wisely is what you don't like.

The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs. That's called crony capitalism. That's a Democrat thing.

"The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."

EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding." Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively. Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded? Is Social Security "funded?" Obamacare? Any liberal social program?

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM

There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)

You fukkn lying POS

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

 

[RKMBrown]

Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats

Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?



This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again


For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.

This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com

Lol you are stupid. The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Sure Bubba, sure

Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money. All money is the people's money.

One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?

You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol

Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue. I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.

Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.

The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?

No. You're an authoritarian.

 

[bripat9643]

we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.

Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem. A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.

no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:

Those aren't walls. Those are fences, and they are a joke. The also don't have guard towers or anyone watching them. What you are calling a "wall" is like calling a go-cart a car. I showed you a wall that works. But you don't want to see what doesn't fit your biases.