The Mystery Of Bernie Sanders Crowds.Did Most Of Them Fail Basic Math?

[Arianrhod]

Lol that's all you have left.

I have actual numbers. You have obfuscation and insults. Do it again.

 

[thanatos144]

Lol that's all you have left.

I have actual numbers. You have obfuscation and insults. Do it again.

You have propganda from the candidates campaign

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Arianrhod]

You have propganda from the candidates campaign

If you feel it's propaganda, it's incumbent on you to refute it.

We both know you can't.

 

[thanatos144]

You have propganda from the candidates campaign

If you feel it's propaganda, it's incumbent on you to refute it.

We both know you can't.

The cbo already did

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Arianrhod]

You have propganda from the candidates campaign

If you feel it's propaganda, it's incumbent on you to refute it.

We both know you can't.

The cbo already did

The CBO has data for something that hasn't happened yet? Magic! When will you be posting them?

Or is this the part where you demand that I do your research for you?

 

[Conservative65]

Are the Walton's paying taxes?

What part of "$6 billion tax break" did you not understand?

You're paying more taxes so they can pay less. But you're cool with that.

I'm paying more so almost half of individuals can pay nothing. But you're cool with that.

What you're saying is that Walmart paying less is wrong because it costs others more but when almost half the individuals in this country pay zero income taxes, which also costs others more, it's OK.

In the end Walmart still pays while almost half of the individuals pay nothing. But you're OK with that.

I have a solution. Stop giving Walmart employees handouts because they don't make a lot of money. If the only job one can get based on THEIR skills is at Walmart or the like, the problem is with the one offering the skills not the one paying for them. Why should a low skilled worker being paid a wage equivalent to what they offer in skills be subsidized because the employer pays them what they're worth. If you have $8/hour skills and you get paid $8/hour, why should the taxpayers be forced to support you?

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

 

[Conservative65]

You have propganda from the candidates campaign

If you feel it's propaganda, it's incumbent on you to refute it.

We both know you can't.

The cbo already did

The CBO has data for something that hasn't happened yet? Magic! When will you be posting them?

Or is this the part where you demand that I do your research for you?

You mean like the left having data for what MIGHT happen if the minimum wage went up to $15/hour? We saw what happened in Seattle and it wasn't what you lefties said. Instead of it raising up people to support themselves, they started demanding decreased hours so their handouts wouldn't be cut.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm paying more so almost half of individuals can pay nothing.

You still haven't figured it out. You're paying a couple of pennies a month to feed Walmart employees' children and bitching about that while paying "your share" of Sam Walton's grandkids' taxes.

What tax rate would you levy on someone making $7.45 an hour, and how many of them would you have to tax in order to make up $6 billion?

Their fair share and nothing isn't a fair share. Also, they wouldn't get any handouts of social welfare if the only skills they have can't get them a job making but $7.45/hour. Same applies to any location like that. In the end, what you don't hand those leeches, who by the way are the cause of their low skill level, would be a wash.

Remember what you lefties say. Being part of society means supporting society. If you're making an income and don't pay income taxes, you aren't doing what you lefties say must be done.

 

[rightwinger]

Are the Walton's paying taxes?

What part of "$6 billion tax break" did you not understand?

You're paying more taxes so they can pay less. But you're cool with that.

I'm paying more so almost half of individuals can pay nothing. But you're cool with that.

What you're saying is that Walmart paying less is wrong because it costs others more but when almost half the individuals in this country pay zero income taxes, which also costs others more, it's OK.

In the end Walmart still pays while almost half of the individuals pay nothing. But you're OK with that.

I have a solution. Stop giving Walmart employees handouts because they don't make a lot of money. If the only job one can get based on THEIR skills is at Walmart or the like, the problem is with the one offering the skills not the one paying for them. Why should a low skilled worker being paid a wage equivalent to what they offer in skills be subsidized because the employer pays them what they're worth. If you have $8/hour skills and you get paid $8/hour, why should the taxpayers be forced to support you?

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

 

[Conservative65]

Are the Walton's paying taxes?

What part of "$6 billion tax break" did you not understand?

You're paying more taxes so they can pay less. But you're cool with that.

I'm paying more so almost half of individuals can pay nothing. But you're cool with that.

What you're saying is that Walmart paying less is wrong because it costs others more but when almost half the individuals in this country pay zero income taxes, which also costs others more, it's OK.

In the end Walmart still pays while almost half of the individuals pay nothing. But you're OK with that.

I have a solution. Stop giving Walmart employees handouts because they don't make a lot of money. If the only job one can get based on THEIR skills is at Walmart or the like, the problem is with the one offering the skills not the one paying for them. Why should a low skilled worker being paid a wage equivalent to what they offer in skills be subsidized because the employer pays them what they're worth. If you have $8/hour skills and you get paid $8/hour, why should the taxpayers be forced to support you?

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

What part of "$6 billion tax break" did you not understand?

You're paying more taxes so they can pay less. But you're cool with that.

I'm paying more so almost half of individuals can pay nothing. But you're cool with that.

What you're saying is that Walmart paying less is wrong because it costs others more but when almost half the individuals in this country pay zero income taxes, which also costs others more, it's OK.

In the end Walmart still pays while almost half of the individuals pay nothing. But you're OK with that.

I have a solution. Stop giving Walmart employees handouts because they don't make a lot of money. If the only job one can get based on THEIR skills is at Walmart or the like, the problem is with the one offering the skills not the one paying for them. Why should a low skilled worker being paid a wage equivalent to what they offer in skills be subsidized because the employer pays them what they're worth. If you have $8/hour skills and you get paid $8/hour, why should the taxpayers be forced to support you?

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

Once again....how much revenue do you expect to get from the part of the population that only has pennies in their pockets while the wealthy have hundred dollar bills? That is not jealosy, that is common sense

And when you talk cutting spending, you don't talk cutting spending on the wealthy, you talk cutting spending on the people who are struggling to survive

 

[rightwinger]

Here is where the money is...out of every $100

When looking to balance the budget, Conservatives ask.....How can we get more money from the hand on the right?

 

[Yarddog]

You have to wonder, right? They cheer on all of the "Free-Stuff Bullchit" as if Obama has a surplus of 20 trillion dollars. Maybe we need to get some reporters to attend the rallies and ask some of his uninformed fans where Bernie is going to get the money for free college and health-care when we already owe 18 trillion dollars.
Then we may get answers like "Huh? what?, uh,,,,whats a trillion dollars? is that like a few million?"
Or someone might say, "Uhhh, what? what's a national debt?"

They plan to take it from rich people. until they spend all that money.
Like most 5th graders they don't see that the problems that got us here
will still remain

 

[Rexx Taylor]

You have to wonder, right? They cheer on all of the "Free-Stuff Bullchit" as if Obama has a surplus of 20 trillion dollars. Maybe we need to get some reporters to attend the rallies and ask some of his uninformed fans where Bernie is going to get the money for free college and health-care when we already owe 18 trillion dollars.
Then we may get answers like "Huh? what?, uh,,,,whats a trillion dollars? is that like a few million?"
Or someone might say, "Uhhh, what? what's a national debt?"

They plan to take it from rich people. until they spend all that money.
Like most 5th graders they don't see that the problems that got us here
will still remain

right,,,,and never mind the interest on the debt,,,that alone is a lot more than the billions the dem's want to steal and buy more real-estate with.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm paying more so almost half of individuals can pay nothing. But you're cool with that.

What you're saying is that Walmart paying less is wrong because it costs others more but when almost half the individuals in this country pay zero income taxes, which also costs others more, it's OK.

In the end Walmart still pays while almost half of the individuals pay nothing. But you're OK with that.

I have a solution. Stop giving Walmart employees handouts because they don't make a lot of money. If the only job one can get based on THEIR skills is at Walmart or the like, the problem is with the one offering the skills not the one paying for them. Why should a low skilled worker being paid a wage equivalent to what they offer in skills be subsidized because the employer pays them what they're worth. If you have $8/hour skills and you get paid $8/hour, why should the taxpayers be forced to support you?

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

Once again....how much revenue do you expect to get from the part of the population that only has pennies in their pockets while the wealthy have hundred dollar bills? That is not jealosy, that is common sense

And when you talk cutting spending, you don't talk cutting spending on the wealthy, you talk cutting spending on the people who are struggling to survive

How much? The amount they should be contributing to be part of society. That's the argument given by lefties when those of us who actually pay incomes taxes say something about what we pay. We're told that's part of living in society.

What spending the wealthy? What social welfare programs do the wealthy get?

 

[thanatos144]

I'm paying more so almost half of individuals can pay nothing. But you're cool with that.

What you're saying is that Walmart paying less is wrong because it costs others more but when almost half the individuals in this country pay zero income taxes, which also costs others more, it's OK.

In the end Walmart still pays while almost half of the individuals pay nothing. But you're OK with that.

I have a solution. Stop giving Walmart employees handouts because they don't make a lot of money. If the only job one can get based on THEIR skills is at Walmart or the like, the problem is with the one offering the skills not the one paying for them. Why should a low skilled worker being paid a wage equivalent to what they offer in skills be subsidized because the employer pays them what they're worth. If you have $8/hour skills and you get paid $8/hour, why should the taxpayers be forced to support you?

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

Once again....how much revenue do you expect to get from the part of the population that only has pennies in their pockets while the wealthy have hundred dollar bills? That is not jealosy, that is common sense

And when you talk cutting spending, you don't talk cutting spending on the wealthy, you talk cutting spending on the people who are struggling to survive

The point is retard is it isnt a tax problem we have or is a spending problem we have. We need to cut all welfare and completely off. Leave it to the state.

Democrats are a clear and present danger to children's future and right to life

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

Once again....how much revenue do you expect to get from the part of the population that only has pennies in their pockets while the wealthy have hundred dollar bills? That is not jealosy, that is common sense

And when you talk cutting spending, you don't talk cutting spending on the wealthy, you talk cutting spending on the people who are struggling to survive

How much? The amount they should be contributing to be part of society. That's the argument given by lefties when those of us who actually pay incomes taxes say something about what we pay. We're told that's part of living in society.

What spending the wealthy? What social welfare programs do the wealthy get?

Again

In trying to ballance our budget, why do you go after people who have pennies rather than those who toss around hundred dollar bills?

What do the wealthy get? They get the lowest effective tax rate in 70 years, they get tariffs and lengthy patent protections, they get protection from foreign competition, they get infrastructure improvements that benefit their business, they get a relaxation of labor laws, they get our military protecting their global investments

 

[rightwinger]

In reality, you are paying more so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates in history

The poor would have very little impact on your tax rate...if any

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

Once again....how much revenue do you expect to get from the part of the population that only has pennies in their pockets while the wealthy have hundred dollar bills? That is not jealosy, that is common sense

And when you talk cutting spending, you don't talk cutting spending on the wealthy, you talk cutting spending on the people who are struggling to survive

The point is retard is it isnt a tax problem we have or is a spending problem we have. We need to cut all welfare and completely off. Leave it to the state.

Democrats are a clear and present danger to children's future and right to life

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Most welfare does come from the state

 

[Conservative65]

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

Once again....how much revenue do you expect to get from the part of the population that only has pennies in their pockets while the wealthy have hundred dollar bills? That is not jealosy, that is common sense

And when you talk cutting spending, you don't talk cutting spending on the wealthy, you talk cutting spending on the people who are struggling to survive

The point is retard is it isnt a tax problem we have or is a spending problem we have. We need to cut all welfare and completely off. Leave it to the state.

Democrats are a clear and present danger to children's future and right to life

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Most welfare does come from the state

That is a false statement. Welfare funding at the federal level is 3x or more than that from the States.

 

[Conservative65]

You really are doing Bernie Sanders math if you think someone paying nothing has little impact. When almost half the country pays zero income tax, it adds up.

What you do is justify a bunch of no paying leeches continuing being leeches.

OK...lets do the math

Here is where the money is

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that if you want to significantly increase revenue, you go after the 1 percent who have 34.6% of the wealth rather than trying to soak the 40% of Americans who only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

How much money do you think you can get out of them?

Interesting use of words with go after. That implied jealousy of something you'll never be.

Expecting the half that pay no incomes taxes to do something isn't soaking them. Isn't it part of living in society to contribute. They contribute nothing.

By the way, the only answer isn't raising taxes. You cut spending. If you'll support cutting out social welfare programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, government housing, etc., I won't expect those receiving them to pay the taxes that fund what they get for nothing. You fuss about those paying getting a reduction yet have no problem with those paying nothing getting something for nothing.

Once again....how much revenue do you expect to get from the part of the population that only has pennies in their pockets while the wealthy have hundred dollar bills? That is not jealosy, that is common sense

And when you talk cutting spending, you don't talk cutting spending on the wealthy, you talk cutting spending on the people who are struggling to survive

How much? The amount they should be contributing to be part of society. That's the argument given by lefties when those of us who actually pay incomes taxes say something about what we pay. We're told that's part of living in society.

What spending the wealthy? What social welfare programs do the wealthy get?

Again

In trying to ballance our budget, why do you go after people who have pennies rather than those who toss around hundred dollar bills?

What do the wealthy get? They get the lowest efective tax rate in 70 years, they get tariffs and lengthy patent protections, they get protection from foreign competition, they get infrastructure improvements that benefit their business, they get a relaxation of labor laws, they get our military protecting their global investments

The lowest effective tax rate is 0% and that's less than whatever percentage you gripe about the rich getting.

You forgot to mention what businesses provide to you. Next time you need a product, go to that poor person you want to give a free ride and get it.