Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Papageorgio]

It's something we have for us later in lives. Our hard earned money that we could collect and fall back on when we near retirement age.

actually the question is, later in life do you want dog food money from liberal swine or $1.4 million dollars that is rightfully yours???

The liberals want you to die


We have heard it so many times


.

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

 

[francoHFW]

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.

Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.

Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.

Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?

dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihu-uNlsbTAhXLOSYKHZZQA1oQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=xYPpaEMcNvg2lSJR0GnSkw

By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, keep posting your crap about total tax bill to avoid talking about federal income tax.

Social Security deductions do not fund our military. Medicare does not fund welfare, food stamps or education. Sales taxes do not make the payroll of federal employees. Only federal income tax does that.

And not much else, as the rich are making out like bandits, and about to get ANOTHER big tax cut from Trump. Your tax graph is basically a flat tax already. A disgrace.

 

[francoHFW]

actually the question is, later in life do you want dog food money from liberal swine or $1.4 million dollars that is rightfully yours???

The liberals want you to die


We have heard it so many times


.

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

Lately, ACA. Which is also the only thing they've passed in 35 years. We're about to get a banana republic from the GOP. Great job, dupes. Way to keep voting against your own interests, ya brainwashed dopes...

 

[francoHFW]

actually the question is, later in life do you want dog food money from liberal swine or $1.4 million dollars that is rightfully yours???

The liberals want you to die


We have heard it so many times


.

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, they did; an efficiency wage is what Henry Ford provided, and got more efficiency, as a result.

And fewer employees to produce more cars at lower prices.

You're not offering anything more. Nothing. You simply want people with no work ethic, experience or education to get more money for not producing on iota more than they did yesterday, just so YOU feel better.

Show us all how they're going to more than double their production as did the workers for Henry Ford and I'm ready to listen. All you've done is destroy your own pathetic position.

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, anyway. Labor spending more, will create more demand, in the long run.

 

[danielpalos]

No, the discussion was about how much people pay in taxes. The rich, nowhere near enough, the nonrich and YOU, TOO MUCH. Thanks , lying GOP (only income taxes count! LOL) and silly dupes.

View attachment 123638

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.

Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.

Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.

Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?

dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

 

[Papageorgio]

The liberals want you to die


We have heard it so many times


.

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

Lately, ACA. Which is also the only thing they've passed in 35 years. We're about to get a banana republic from the GOP. Great job, dupes. Way to keep voting against your own interests, ya brainwashed dopes...

How has ACA raised the poor out of poverty? It hasn't. You keep failing, you keep bring up programs that the poor use and does nothing to raise them from poverty.

 

[Papageorgio]

The liberals want you to die


We have heard it so many times


.

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

 

[francoHFW]

View attachment 123638

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.

Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.

Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.

Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?

dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

At the beginning of the 1800s most poor Americans outside the South resembled the poor of Europe. They were chiefly orphans, widows, people too old or too sick to work, or seasonal workers out of season. Wealthy people or local governments gave them "outdoor relief," consisting of food, firewood, or small amounts of money known as alms, primarily from a sense of paternalism or community responsibility. State poor laws, generally inherited from English tradition, required towns to take care of their poor.--http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=7e952f4fd224c2d83c3130d4b800d0a8&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CBT2350040328&userGroupName=oldt1017&jsid=711bfef797b5766ac55cbb700f060a09

 

[danielpalos]

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.

Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.

Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.

Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?

dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do one percenters, need a tax break?

 

[francoHFW]

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

Has nothing to do with the Bush WORLD DEPRESSION and mindless GOP obstruction except 3 weeks for ACA. The GOP has CUT plenty of Dem policy. Like cheap college, a living wage, and high taxes on the rich for a healthy country. You're brainwashed.

 

[francoHFW]

Not at all. I want programs that are going to benefit people who need them for one way or another.

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

The Dems need total control, filibuster proof, to do anything. The GOP has no clue about compromise for 30 years now. The "no-compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME). All they have for dupes is bs propaganda and hate- seems to be plenty for you...

The Great Society did a lot for a few years, and of course FDR and SS and UE have done wonders. Most elderly used to be poor, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.

Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.

Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.

Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?

dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do one percenters, need a tax break?

They need a big tax hike, like Dems want to do.

 

[Papageorgio]

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

Has nothing to do with the Bush WORLD DEPRESSION and mindless GOP obstruction except 3 weeks for ACA. The GOP has CUT plenty of Dem policy. Like cheap college, a living wage, and high taxes on the rich for a healthy country. You're brainwashed.

So not one bill was even introduce. Now on the other hand the Democrats have introduced lots of bills to help the rich get richer.

 

[Papageorgio]

Translation you want other people's money

✓


.

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

The Dems need total control, filibuster proof, to do anything. The GOP has no clue about compromise for 30 years now. The "no-compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME). All they have for dupes is bs propaganda and hate- seems to be plenty for you...

The Great Society did a lot for a few years, and of course FDR and SS and UE have done wonders. Most elderly used to be poor, dupe.

And you have not showed me a bill that the Democrats introduced to help the poor out of poverty.

You have been had, silly dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

Has nothing to do with the Bush WORLD DEPRESSION and mindless GOP obstruction except 3 weeks for ACA. The GOP has CUT plenty of Dem policy. Like cheap college, a living wage, and high taxes on the rich for a healthy country. You're brainwashed.

So not one bill was even introduce. Now on the other hand the Democrats have introduced lots of bills to help the rich get richer.

You're feqqing out of your mind...Name 1 that made the rich richer...ACA helped the poor-gave them Medicaid ferchrissake.
12 Bills That the Filibuster Stopped From Becoming Law
dailysignal.com/2015/11/11/12-bills-that-the-filibuster-stopped-from-becoming-law/
Nov 11, 2015 - Here are a dozen bills the filibuster stopped cold. ... Jimmy Stewart as a freshman senator employs the filibuster to block ... American Jobs Act. In the minority, Republicans still shut down PresidentObama's 2011 jobs plan.
Bills Republicans Have Blocked Since President Obama Took Office ...
Bills Republicans Have Blocked Since President Obama Took Office: Off Topic Forum: Digital Photography Review
Bills Republicans Have Blocked Since President Obama Took Office. Nov 2, 2012. 10. I keep hearing this argument that Obama did not do enough....there is a ...
Obama: GOP blocked 500 bills - POLITICO
www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-legislation-obama-dccc-event-106481
May 8, 2014 - President Barack Obama is railing against congressional Republicans, telling a Hollywood crowd that the midterm elections are crucial ...
The list of bills that Republicans have blocked under President ...
www.lipstickalley.com › Forum › The Alley News Stand › Politics
Nov 1, 2016 - 15 posts - ‎13 authors
GOP senator Mitch McMcConnell said as soon as Obama got elected. He said that his job would be to make certain that Obama was a ...

 

[danielpalos]

Only for a Peoples' Wall; because the right hates the poor.

Name the Democratic legislation that has raised the poor out of poverty.

What state are you in? In smart states, ACA, the only thing they've passed in 35 years. Reagan got his ridiculously low taxes on the richest and since then, pure obstruction. That's all your GOP masters care about DUHHH. And starting stupid wars and giant corrupt bubbles.

It hasn't raised the poor out of poverty. The Democrats have held either the House or the Senate in 60 of the last 84 years and the Presidency the majority of those years and have not developed one program to move the poor to the middle class, in fact under Obama, we have had more fall into a poor state and are relying on government subsidies than ever before.

The Dems need total control, filibuster proof, to do anything. The GOP has no clue about compromise for 30 years now. The "no-compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME). All they have for dupes is bs propaganda and hate- seems to be plenty for you...

The Great Society did a lot for a few years, and of course FDR and SS and UE have done wonders. Most elderly used to be poor, dupe.

And you have not showed me a bill that the Democrats introduced to help the poor out of poverty.

You have been had, silly dupe.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps the working poor out of poverty.

 

[francoHFW]

The GOP blocked all living wage proposals, $10.10 in 2012

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes?

Why is it the poor's fault, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance, and want tax breaks?

The 1% have nothing to do with what they are forced to pay in taxes. Like most people, I'm sure they do what they can to pay the least, but you have to obey the law.

Just like the bottom 45% of our country that pay no income taxes at all. It's not being slick, clever, or creative, they just don't have to pay taxes because of our laws.

Why do the one percent want a tax break? Because they pay over 40% of all collected income taxes. think of that: one percent of our country are supporting nearly half of those social goodies, our military, and all federal government spending outside of SS and Medicare.

Instead of insisting they pay more, wouldn't it make more sense to have the bottom 45% pay something into federal income tax?

dear, the one percent and the poor Only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay; don't complain, be Patriotic.

Yes, they do, that was my point. It's also my point that the "wealthy" in this country currently pay much more than their fair share. They pay for all of us who don't pay anything at all.

Don't blame the poor, the one percent are lousy at tax avoidance.

The hell they are- we have basically a flat tax system, with ANOTHER cut for the rich coming.
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012 Washington Post
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silly liberal and goofy of course the guy who makes $4 million a year may pay $1 million in taxes while the guy who makes $40,000 a year May pay a measly $3000. Why should one guy pay millions of dollars and another guy pay next to nothing. Should a rich guy have to pay a higher price for a car too.why do only the rich have to pay for government while everyone else gets a virtual free ride. America was not founded it to be a nation of leechers and takers.