Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

[JonKoch]

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

The same as the last two years of Reagan's term. But, during that same two years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income. Now, with the capital gains maximum rate at 20% the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate is at an all time low.

Thing is since Dubya GUTTED taxes on the richest, the SUSTAINED effective tax rate hasn't been this low for those "job creators" since the 1920's

 

[Rustic]

First of all they are career politicians. shit for brains
That's what career politicians do spend other peoples money unnecessarily.
From one side of the aisle to the other there is no difference between career politicians you dumbass motherfucker. LOL

Got it cupcake, the US is unlike that great libertarian nation of???

A control freak to the bitter end...

So the cupcakes can't think of one either?? lol

The nanny state will not work, it will run out of other peoples money sooner than later.

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

The career politicians and their federal government are the enemy of the country… Fact

 

[Rustic]

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

The same as the last two years of Reagan's term. But, during that same two years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income. Now, with the capital gains maximum rate at 20% the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate is at an all time low.

Thing is since Dubya GUTTED taxes on the richest, the SUSTAINED effective tax rate hasn't been this low for those "job creators" since the 1920's

Envy is a disease, apparently you suffer from it

 

[JonKoch]

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

 

[Rustic]

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

 

[JonKoch]

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

The same as the last two years of Reagan's term. But, during that same two years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income. Now, with the capital gains maximum rate at 20% the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate is at an all time low.

Thing is since Dubya GUTTED taxes on the richest, the SUSTAINED effective tax rate hasn't been this low for those "job creators" since the 1920's

Envy is a disease, apparently you suffer from it

]

Yeah it's envy to expect Gov't to be funded by those most able to fund it *shaking head*



"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation." THOM JEFFERSON

 

[Winston]

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

Here is the deal. A student that tests in the lowest quintile on the SAT but with a family income in the highest quintile has the same probability of attending a four year university as a student scoring in the highest quintile but with a family income in the lowest.

So yeah, poor parents usually have poor children and wealthy parent usually have wealthy children. But that is not a foregone conclusion, and quite honestly, is more a reflection on our society than on the parents. Like I have already said in this thread, when the rich have rich kids and the poor have poor kids, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

 

[JonKoch]

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

Sure Bubs, I agree by having a $15 an hour min wage, UHC, prison for Corp heads that cheat, lie or steal, etc.

 

[Rustic]

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

The same as the last two years of Reagan's term. But, during that same two years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income. Now, with the capital gains maximum rate at 20% the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate is at an all time low.

Thing is since Dubya GUTTED taxes on the richest, the SUSTAINED effective tax rate hasn't been this low for those "job creators" since the 1920's

Envy is a disease, apparently you suffer from it

]

Yeah it's envy to expect Gov't to be funded by those most able to fund it *shaking head*



"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation." THOM JEFFERSON

I find it kind of funny, I don't understand all this work up over what the rich pay in taxes? I don't give a shit how little or how much anyone makes or how much they pay in taxes or don't pay in taxes.
The federal government has no claim to any money… When they do get money they abuse it and wasted horribly. Envy is a disease...

 

[Dale Smith]

All the policies in place right now are your dear leaders, when does he take responsibility for not lowering the numbers on welfare and food stamps?

.

Weird you haven't seen those numbers going down cupcake? Perhaps relook?

MARCH 18, 2015

No Mystery Why SNAP Enrollment Remains High: It’s Still the Economy


GOP "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

The need is there and the share of eligible families receiving AFDC/TANF cash assistance declined, as you can see, 79% in 1996 to 32% in 2012. The budget proposals are targeted to serve these families, since less than one-third of eligible families are actually receiving cash assistance from TANF.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget: Strengthening the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program

TANF



ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE??

Yeah, you got any raw numbers? Like there's 47 million on food stamps now, how many were on them last year and the year before? Stop with the percentage of population and adjust for inflation crap.

.

So the answer is no? LMAO

.

Here you go cupcake, I know it's hard for right wingers to find REAL data


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Food and Nutrition Service


3.5 million less than the bottom of Bush's great recession cupcake

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

Leftards like Jon can never get enough of other people's fiat currency that is the Federal Reserve note. He has no clue as to how the monetary system works and until he does learn? All the pocket picking he would love to do wouldn't solve a fucking thing. LBJ's "Great Society" program ended up creating more poverty than it ever helped. Jon's contention that the Barrypuppet worked some kind of "miracle" simply shows you how delusional he is. His anger that the leftard clown posse has become inconsequential on the national stage is obvious and it will get worse when it is revealed that Seth Rich was the leaker and that the DNC higher ups put a hit on him. This Tuesday Jerome Corsi is going to release some compelling evidence that the Barrypupet gave his political pals and donors access to private citizens courtesy of the NSA......I am looking forward to that.

 

[JonKoch]

Got it cupcake, the US is unlike that great libertarian nation of???

A control freak to the bitter end...

So the cupcakes can't think of one either?? lol

The nanny state will not work, it will run out of other peoples money sooner than later.

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

The career politicians and their federal government are the enemy of the country… Fact

Cheeto will "save US" by GUTTING taxes on the wealthy, knocking 23+ million off of health insurance, getting rid of estate taxes and gutting regulations *woohoo* the US will look like a 3rd world nation in no time!

"Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions" Jack Welch GE CEO 1998


Systems of Production

 

[JonKoch]

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

The same as the last two years of Reagan's term. But, during that same two years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income. Now, with the capital gains maximum rate at 20% the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate is at an all time low.

Thing is since Dubya GUTTED taxes on the richest, the SUSTAINED effective tax rate hasn't been this low for those "job creators" since the 1920's

Envy is a disease, apparently you suffer from it

]

Yeah it's envy to expect Gov't to be funded by those most able to fund it *shaking head*



"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation." THOM JEFFERSON

I find it kind of funny, I don't understand all this work up over what the rich pay in taxes? I don't give a shit how little or how much anyone makes or how much they pay in taxes or don't pay in taxes.
The federal government has no claim to any money… When they do get money they abuse it and wasted horribly. Envy is a disease...

Oh right the wingnutter doesn't want Gov't to work, I forgot.

ENVIOUS BASTARD ALERT:

 

[GHook93]

Food stamp use increased 70% during the Obama years. Is that good news or bad news to the left?

After 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies? Weird

He is proof that a college professors can teach and not do!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JonKoch]

Food stamp use increased 70% during the Obama years. Is that good news or bad news to the left?

After 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies? Weird

He is proof that a college professors can teach and not do!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Too funny Cupcake

 

[Rambunctious]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

LMAOROG, Sure a "real" Bizman *shaking head*

Don the Con...

Where did most of that debt come from again?

..

Say what you I and want everyone I know is doing better financially....It's the economy stupid...

 

[Markle]

Well I tell you what, when I see an economy where more businesses close up than start up, I sorta figure the current economic policies are not exactly favorable to economic growth. So, do you want to continue with the condescension cuz if so I'm outta here.

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Do you agree to have all the income brackets, Social Security rate and deductions allowed restored and adjusted for inflation?

 

[JonKoch]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

LMAOROG, Sure a "real" Bizman *shaking head*

Don the Con...

Where did most of that debt come from again?

..

Say what you I and want everyone I know is doing better financially....It's the economy stupid...

Sure cupcake

 

[JonKoch]

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Do you agree to have all the income brackets, Social Security rate and deductions allowed restored and adjusted for inflation?

Sure cupcake


For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980

THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AFTER DEDUCTIONS INCLUDES ALL SS

WHAT DOES INFLATION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

"In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income."

WAPO
As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Do you agree to have all the income brackets, Social Security rate and deductions allowed restored and adjusted for inflation?

Sure cupcake


For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980

THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AFTER DEDUCTIONS INCLUDES ALL SS

WHAT DOES INFLATION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

"In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income."

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

ROTFLMAO

 

[JonKoch]

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Do you agree to have all the income brackets, Social Security rate and deductions allowed restored and adjusted for inflation?

Sure cupcake


For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980

THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AFTER DEDUCTIONS INCLUDES ALL SS

WHAT DOES INFLATION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

"In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income."

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

ROTFLMAO

Shocking you couldn't refute it cupcake