TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Jun 11, 2015
- 27,478
- 7,914
It is not a question of how much they spent. The real question WHAT it is spent on and who pays for it.Have you considered the possibility that the federal government spends too much?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is not a question of how much they spent. The real question WHAT it is spent on and who pays for it.Have you considered the possibility that the federal government spends too much?
It is not a question of how much they spent.
Taxes do not effect the life style of the wealthy...
George W. Bush, added over $3.3 trillion due to the Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars.
It is not a question of how much they spent.
Really? Why should the federal government have a mandate to spend as much as it wants, regardless of whether or not we can actually afford it?
What additional revenue?? Christ are you serious ?
It is not a question of how much they spent.
Really? Why should the federal government have a mandate to spend as much as it wants, regardless of whether or not we can actually afford it?
Another straw man . I never said that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
More faulty logic, either by ignorance or design. The progressive tax system is designed so that those who can afford to pay more do pay more. This tax plan undermines that concept. Taxes do not effect the life style of the wealthy but do in fact effect the LIVES of those living on a budget. Considering that the rich pay most of the taxes, it's not surprising that they would receive the biggest cuts.
No....that is not a rhetorical question.It's a question you don't expect to be answered.It would appear that you are the one with the intellectual deficit. Do you understand what a rhetorical question is??/----/ Yes you did ask, you blithering idiot: "Tell how the tax cuts that ordinary people get will not really expire in a few years " Asked and answered.I didn't ask. Didn't have to . Now, who wrote the horrendous bill. Right, Republicans. The Dems were not going to swallow that shit whole. Not 60 of them any way. They were put into a difficult position./——/ Do you know why the cuts are temporary? Because they needed 60 votes to make them permanent but only had 52. No DemocRATs would vote for it. Aren’t you glad you asked?
Example:" Jesus Christ....how stupid can you get!!!!"![]()
/——/ I answered your question because you were trying to deceive people no matter how you try and spin it. Ya know what I mean? (Rhetorical question)It's a question you don't expect to be answered.It would appear that you are the one with the intellectual deficit. Do you understand what a rhetorical question is??/----/ Yes you did ask, you blithering idiot: "Tell how the tax cuts that ordinary people get will not really expire in a few years " Asked and answered.I didn't ask. Didn't have to . Now, who wrote the horrendous bill. Right, Republicans. The Dems were not going to swallow that shit whole. Not 60 of them any way. They were put into a difficult position.Why is it that all that you Trump Lackeys can do is to attack the source, but you can't actually refute any of the points made in the Kos article?
Go ahead, give it a shot. Explain how the wealthy are not really getting the lions share of the tax cuts while working people get chump change. Tell how the tax cuts that ordinary people get will not really expire in a few years while cuts to corporations and high end earners will not really be permeant.. Explain why it won't really blow up the deficit and drive up health care costs./——/ Do you know why the cuts are temporary? Because they needed 60 votes to make them permanent but only had 52. No DemocRATs would vote for it. Aren’t you glad you asked?Why is it that all that you Trump Lackeys can do is to attack the source, but you can't actually refute any of the points made in the Kos article?
Go ahead, give it a shot. Explain how the wealthy are not really getting the lions share of the tax cuts while working people get chump change. Tell how the tax cuts that ordinary people get will not really expire in a few years while cuts to corporations and high end earners will not really be permeant.. Explain why it won't really blow up the deficit and drive up health care costs.
Example:" Jesus Christ....how stupid can you get!!!!"
Blasphemy? So now this has become a religious thing?No....that is not a rhetorical question.It's a question you don't expect to be answered.It would appear that you are the one with the intellectual deficit. Do you understand what a rhetorical question is??/----/ Yes you did ask, you blithering idiot: "Tell how the tax cuts that ordinary people get will not really expire in a few years " Asked and answered.I didn't ask. Didn't have to . Now, who wrote the horrendous bill. Right, Republicans. The Dems were not going to swallow that shit whole. Not 60 of them any way. They were put into a difficult position.
Example:" Jesus Christ....how stupid can you get!!!!"![]()
That is a blasphemy.
Taxes do not effect the life style of the wealthy...
Just curious. Let's say someone makes exactly $1 million in a given year. How much of that do you believe the federal government should take?
Do you think that someone making $ 1M should pay the same rate as someone making $76K with a family of 4, and why?
That is a ridiculous question
/----/ Percentages are deceiving and that's why Progs use them. Would you rather have 90% of $1 or 1% of $100 ?Taxes do not effect the life style of the wealthy...
Just curious. Let's say someone makes exactly $1 million in a given year. How much of that do you believe the federal government should take?
That is a ridiculous question if you expect a dollar amount or a percentage. There are to many variables to consider . But I will say that they should pay a higher rate for the reasons that I previously stated.
Let me ask you something . Do you think that someone making $ 1M should pay the same rate as someone making $76K with a family of 4, and why? Lets say 20%. Who will be more significantly impacted by that rate?
This thread is clearly circling the drain as is your so call argument./----/ Percentages are deceiving and that's why Progs use them. Would you rather have 90% of $1 or 1% of $100 ?Taxes do not effect the life style of the wealthy...
Just curious. Let's say someone makes exactly $1 million in a given year. How much of that do you believe the federal government should take?
That is a ridiculous question if you expect a dollar amount or a percentage. There are to many variables to consider . But I will say that they should pay a higher rate for the reasons that I previously stated.
Let me ask you something . Do you think that someone making $ 1M should pay the same rate as someone making $76K with a family of 4, and why? Lets say 20%. Who will be more significantly impacted by that rate?
Well lets see. BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS and we ae supposed to be setting a moral example as the United States of America as an advanced and civilized nation. Next stupid questionIsn't this supposed to be about the criminal Republican tax " reform" ? Right, anything to avoid talking about the real effects of it.
You accuse me of not addressing your points while simultaneously dodging every point I make. Why should the average American be indentured to take care of a Syrian family HERE in America?
/----/ I answered your question but you didn't like the answer. I'll try again. Percentages don't matter. Someone paying 10% of $1 million pays MORE than someone paying 10% of $75,000. How many dollars are being paid by each? Savvy that?This thread is clearly circling the drain as is your so call argument./----/ Percentages are deceiving and that's why Progs use them. Would you rather have 90% of $1 or 1% of $100 ?Taxes do not effect the life style of the wealthy...
Just curious. Let's say someone makes exactly $1 million in a given year. How much of that do you believe the federal government should take?
That is a ridiculous question if you expect a dollar amount or a percentage. There are to many variables to consider . But I will say that they should pay a higher rate for the reasons that I previously stated.
Let me ask you something . Do you think that someone making $ 1M should pay the same rate as someone making $76K with a family of 4, and why? Lets say 20%. Who will be more significantly impacted by that rate?