Why do the people who voted for Hillary want to pay more taxes?

[Wyatt earp]

Welfare is a gigantic pain in the ass, nobody wants to be on it. Most of the things you dupes want welfare to do it already is. Screening and testing for drugs, work 4 benefits, applying for work, Etc. The GOP giveaway to the rich is the problem, dumbass Dupes...

Nobody wants to be on welfare?

Bullshit statement of the year.

Single mothers are a cancer in this country. And despite what you believe, they want all that welfare and want to be on it, as they spread their dumber than stupid genes.

They probably believe GOP propaganda that welfare is fun LOL. There are tons of white girls doing the same thing by the way duh...

98% of welfare is for people that need it and most of those are already working hard to get by. What the republicans want to do is to take it away and force people to fucking take food out of the trash can. Republicans are heartless fuckers.

Feel free to invite those people to raid your refrigerator.

My goodness you are brain-dead LOL. Charity doesn't work and Democrats like a civilized Society. And the rich will pay for it. The rest already pay too much duh.

Huh? I see you at the soup kitchen everyday run by the salvation army , where I volunteer ..

 

[ThisIsMe]

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

Tit-for-tat huh? Seems childish.

Should government stay out of cases of human sacrifice?

Religions must obey the law of the land. Governments do not obey the law of Religion.

If they did which Religion would they obey?

You seem to imply that governments enforcing Sharia law is acceptable.

Quite the opposite, I don't want government enforcing any religion. Just because you see religious symbolism on public buildings doesn't mean it's being shoved down your throat, government isn't forcing you to do anything. It's just how things were built by people who believed in Christianity. But, it's been made very clear that, those images offend people, so, they are being removed.

That is fine, I get.it, non believers are offended by those things, so they advocated, and they won. So, because they don't want those kinds of things displayed, because they feel that it is being shoved down their throat, then believers should have just as much right to not be burdened by the wishes of non believers.

In other words, the next time one of those gay wedding cake scenarios pops up, the courts should throw it out, citing that government cannot meddle in the affairs of believers, as doing so would trample on their religious liberties. Also, our constitution already says that government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, so all of those cases should have been thrown out anyway.

What some call gate "speech", others would call not being forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

So, at the end of the day, you want to keep religion out if government, then, except for cases where a felony would be committed, then government needs to stay out of religion.

Not how it works. Why should a business be allowed to ignore public access laws just because of their religion? The laws are for all of us. Quit thinking you are more equal than others.

Why should an individual be allowed to infringe on the beliefs of a private business? What you're saying is, the rights of some do not matter or the rights of others can supercede those rights.

If that is the case, I should be able to bring 20 hogs to an Islamic butcher, and he should be forced to process them, correct?

Or, if businesses must adhere to the law of the land, then if a state has an open carry law, then a business should not be allowed to put up "no guns" signs.

Don't be silly. Laws supercede your particular wants. What you seem to want is anarchy.

It's not my wants, it's equality of the law. You can't say it's wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but then say it's ok for a Muslim butcher to refuse to process hogs for someone. It has to be one way or the other, it can't be both.

 

[Dragonlady]

Seriously, this is illogical and ignorant. So why do you want to keep less of your money and give more away to the government?

Be specific please

Not really,

We want a good safetynet, education for the children, libraries, good infrastructure and Police.

You that don't like paying taxes want a failed state.

No one likes paying taxes. If you paid them you would know that.

Lol,

But I bet everyone likes Roads, bridges, Police, Military and basic regulations on food, water and air? I guess some people like you want that but free it would seem.

No, I don't need the government to provide any of that. Private contractors can do all of it.

No they can’t. You already have areas of the US without safe drinking water, where there is no electricity because it’s not profitable and the counties are too poor.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

And there lies the conundrum, for me at least. Obviously, the answer is no, because it breaks the law of murder, however, if you make an exception for that, then how far will it go.

My only response is, if the practice doesn't result in loss of life, or a serious felony, then it should be off the table for government. And yes, I'll admit, I don't have a good answer for that, however, what I'm trying to get at is, in the battle for religious liberty, it seems the non believer is winning, and I'm wondering how that makes things equal for the believer? Seems like the non believer has more rights.

That's where you draw the line?-----at death? You're trying to get at some way your religion isn't required to follow the laws required for everyone else. You can't get there from here.

I included "other serious felonies", that includes all of the other heinous crimes. Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, but, if what I'm getting from you is that religion has to be under the thumb of government, then religious freedom doesn't exist at all, if the government can step in and force them to do something that goes against their beliefs.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

You are a great example of the brilliance of the separation of church and state

I never said I had all the answers, I'm not ashamed to admit, my argument may be flawed, but, one thing is for certain, there is an inequality happening between the rights of believers and the rights of non believers.

Admitting you don't have the answer is a start, but there is no way you can justify concessions for your religion that aren't offered for others. I know that is disappointing for you.

Not at all, and it's not "my" religion were talking about. It's all religion. I believe that the Muslim butcher should be allowed to refuse to process pork products, just like a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding, because both go against their religious beliefs.

 

[BULLDOG]

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

And there lies the conundrum, for me at least. Obviously, the answer is no, because it breaks the law of murder, however, if you make an exception for that, then how far will it go.

My only response is, if the practice doesn't result in loss of life, or a serious felony, then it should be off the table for government. And yes, I'll admit, I don't have a good answer for that, however, what I'm trying to get at is, in the battle for religious liberty, it seems the non believer is winning, and I'm wondering how that makes things equal for the believer? Seems like the non believer has more rights.

That's where you draw the line?-----at death? You're trying to get at some way your religion isn't required to follow the laws required for everyone else. You can't get there from here.

I included "other serious felonies", that includes all of the other heinous crimes. Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, but, if what I'm getting from you is that religion has to be under the thumb of government, then religious freedom doesn't exist at all, if the government can step in and force them to do something that goes against their beliefs.

Enjoy your religion all you want. Just don't expect to force it on others.

 

[BULLDOG]

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

You are a great example of the brilliance of the separation of church and state

I never said I had all the answers, I'm not ashamed to admit, my argument may be flawed, but, one thing is for certain, there is an inequality happening between the rights of believers and the rights of non believers.

Admitting you don't have the answer is a start, but there is no way you can justify concessions for your religion that aren't offered for others. I know that is disappointing for you.

Not at all, and it's not "my" religion were talking about. It's all religion. I believe that the Muslim butcher should be allowed to refuse to process pork products, just like a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding, because both go against their religious beliefs.

Are you trying to justify your desire for extra rights, or just trying to trash another religion? Justify your demands, and then we will discuss others demands.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

And there lies the conundrum, for me at least. Obviously, the answer is no, because it breaks the law of murder, however, if you make an exception for that, then how far will it go.

My only response is, if the practice doesn't result in loss of life, or a serious felony, then it should be off the table for government. And yes, I'll admit, I don't have a good answer for that, however, what I'm trying to get at is, in the battle for religious liberty, it seems the non believer is winning, and I'm wondering how that makes things equal for the believer? Seems like the non believer has more rights.

That's where you draw the line?-----at death? You're trying to get at some way your religion isn't required to follow the laws required for everyone else. You can't get there from here.

I included "other serious felonies", that includes all of the other heinous crimes. Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, but, if what I'm getting from you is that religion has to be under the thumb of government, then religious freedom doesn't exist at all, if the government can step in and force them to do something that goes against their beliefs.

Enjoy your religion all you want. Just don't expect to force it on others.

Absolutely, I wouldn't ever consider forcing a religion on someone, but at the same time, don't get up in arms when a religious person refuses someone based on their beliefs.

 

[Dragonlady]

Seriously, this is illogical and ignorant. So why do you want to keep less of your money and give more away to the government?

Be specific please

Sure I'll be specific. What is ignorant about thinking of taxes as a way to fund a standard of living? You don't '' give'' the government money. The government gets taxes which it uses to fund stuff like infrastructure, the military, education, pensions, etc. The reason we allow this is that the governments is better at certain types of stuff. I'm Belgian, my wife is American. We live in Europe, the reason being that our kid has more opportunities here. I'm willing to compare my quality of life against most Americans. A big part of that quality of life is funded by taxes that would make you blanch.

Taxes are money the government takes from you by force, and they don't fund any kind of "better lifestyle." They mostly go to fund parasites.

You want to compare quality of life? What's the average size of a home in Belgium? What's the price of gas there? What do you pay for electricity? How much does it cost to get on a golf course?

You should not be posting about economics or taxes. Everything you think you know is either a rightwing lie, or it’s simply WRONG.

MOST federal taxes do NOT go to the “bottom feeders”. 24% of your federal taxes go to the military. 38% goes for Social Security and Medicare - things that retired taxpayers have paid for all their working lives. That’s 62% of your budget right there.

Another big chunk of money goes to pay for government: for the Patent Office which protects corporation intellectual property, for the Commerce Department which protects federal corporations, for the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, for Congress, the CIA, FBI, and federal courts throughout the country. Then there’s farm subsidies, and lots of pork barrel programs.

6% goes for interest in the National Debt. That’s based on 2014 figures when interest was low. Interest rates are now rising just as Trump’s budget explodes the deficit and the national debt is rising faster than at any time in recent history.

The total amount going for social spending is less than 25% of the budget.

Understanding Taxes - Activity 3: Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget

Then I object to 1 out of every 4 bucks of taxes going to bottom feeders.

Most of that money goes to people with full time jobs at such low wages they can’t afford to live on them. Subsidies for corporations.

This is why you need to insist that highly profitable corporations raise the minimum wages they pay their workers so that taxpayers aren’t subsidizing those wages.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not how it works. Why should a business be allowed to ignore public access laws just because of their religion? The laws are for all of us. Quit thinking you are more equal than others.

Why should an individual be allowed to infringe on the beliefs of a private business? What you're saying is, the rights of some do not matter or the rights of others can supercede those rights.

If that is the case, I should be able to bring 20 hogs to an Islamic butcher, and he should be forced to process them, correct?

Or, if businesses must adhere to the law of the land, then if a state has an open carry law, then a business should not be allowed to put up "no guns" signs.

Don't be silly. Laws supercede your particular wants. What you seem to want is anarchy.

It's not my wants, it's equality of the law. You can't say it's wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but then say it's ok for a Muslim butcher to refuse to process hogs for someone. It has to be one way or the other, it can't be both.

Quit whining. It's making you look pathetic.

Lol, that's good. I'm trying to have a civil debate, and you go for the insult. That is fine, whatever floats your boat. I thought we were having a discussion here, I realize now that i was wrong.

Did you have something else to offer in your effort to explain why your religion should be given special dispensation from our laws?

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

You are a great example of the brilliance of the separation of church and state

I never said I had all the answers, I'm not ashamed to admit, my argument may be flawed, but, one thing is for certain, there is an inequality happening between the rights of believers and the rights of non believers.

Admitting you don't have the answer is a start, but there is no way you can justify concessions for your religion that aren't offered for others. I know that is disappointing for you.

Not at all, and it's not "my" religion were talking about. It's all religion. I believe that the Muslim butcher should be allowed to refuse to process pork products, just like a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding, because both go against their religious beliefs.

Are you trying to justify your desire for extra rights, or just trying to trash another religion? Justify your demands, and then we will discuss others demands.

No, I'm trying to justify that the rights of one group are equal to the rights of another group. If you show up at a shop and request a service, and that shop owner says they can't do that based on religious beliefs, then you must respect that, and move along to another shop that will fulfill your request, rather than taking them to court to try and force them to do it.

 

[Markle]

No they can’t. You already have areas of the US without safe drinking water, where there is no electricity because it’s not profitable and the counties are too poor.

Flint Michigan, as you know, made their own decision to switch their water supply. Any fault lies with them.

As for electric, please list for us the counties in the United States which have no electric available.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously, this is illogical and ignorant. So why do you want to keep less of your money and give more away to the government?

Be specific please

Not really,

We want a good safetynet, education for the children, libraries, good infrastructure and Police.

You that don't like paying taxes want a failed state.

No one likes paying taxes. If you paid them you would know that.

Lol,

But I bet everyone likes Roads, bridges, Police, Military and basic regulations on food, water and air? I guess some people like you want that but free it would seem.

No, I don't need the government to provide any of that. Private contractors can do all of it.

No they can’t. You already have areas of the US without safe drinking water, where there is no electricity because it’s not profitable and the counties are too poor.

Apparently the government is unable to provide safe drinking water and electricity there as well, so how is it any better?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why should an individual be allowed to infringe on the beliefs of a private business? What you're saying is, the rights of some do not matter or the rights of others can supercede those rights.

If that is the case, I should be able to bring 20 hogs to an Islamic butcher, and he should be forced to process them, correct?

Or, if businesses must adhere to the law of the land, then if a state has an open carry law, then a business should not be allowed to put up "no guns" signs.

Don't be silly. Laws supercede your particular wants. What you seem to want is anarchy.

It's not my wants, it's equality of the law. You can't say it's wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but then say it's ok for a Muslim butcher to refuse to process hogs for someone. It has to be one way or the other, it can't be both.

Quit whining. It's making you look pathetic.

Lol, that's good. I'm trying to have a civil debate, and you go for the insult. That is fine, whatever floats your boat. I thought we were having a discussion here, I realize now that i was wrong.

Did you have something else to offer in your effort to explain why your religion should be given special dispensation from our laws?

What special dispensation do you think im asking for? Im not asking that religious people have special consideration, I'm asking that religious people get the same consideration as those who don't believe.

 

[jillian]

Seriously, this is illogical and ignorant. So why do you want to keep less of your money and give more away to the government?

Be specific please

Why do trumpkins think corporations and the top 1% shouldn’t pay taxes?

 

[BULLDOG]

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

And there lies the conundrum, for me at least. Obviously, the answer is no, because it breaks the law of murder, however, if you make an exception for that, then how far will it go.

My only response is, if the practice doesn't result in loss of life, or a serious felony, then it should be off the table for government. And yes, I'll admit, I don't have a good answer for that, however, what I'm trying to get at is, in the battle for religious liberty, it seems the non believer is winning, and I'm wondering how that makes things equal for the believer? Seems like the non believer has more rights.

That's where you draw the line?-----at death? You're trying to get at some way your religion isn't required to follow the laws required for everyone else. You can't get there from here.

I included "other serious felonies", that includes all of the other heinous crimes. Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, but, if what I'm getting from you is that religion has to be under the thumb of government, then religious freedom doesn't exist at all, if the government can step in and force them to do something that goes against their beliefs.

Enjoy your religion all you want. Just don't expect to force it on others.

Absolutely, I wouldn't ever consider forcing a religion on someone, but at the same time, don't get up in arms when a religious person refuses someone based on their beliefs.

I see no need to repeat this many more times. Public acomodation laws apply to everyone. If you want to bake cakes in your church to sell to paritioners, go for it, but if you run a business serving the public, you gotta play by the rules.

 

[AntonToo]

Seriously, this is illogical and ignorant.

Illogical and ignorant is running trillon dollar deficits in good times and voting for lying assholes like this:

 

[BULLDOG]

You are a great example of the brilliance of the separation of church and state

I never said I had all the answers, I'm not ashamed to admit, my argument may be flawed, but, one thing is for certain, there is an inequality happening between the rights of believers and the rights of non believers.

Admitting you don't have the answer is a start, but there is no way you can justify concessions for your religion that aren't offered for others. I know that is disappointing for you.

Not at all, and it's not "my" religion were talking about. It's all religion. I believe that the Muslim butcher should be allowed to refuse to process pork products, just like a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding, because both go against their religious beliefs.

Are you trying to justify your desire for extra rights, or just trying to trash another religion? Justify your demands, and then we will discuss others demands.

No, I'm trying to justify that the rights of one group are equal to the rights of another group. If you show up at a shop and request a service, and that shop owner says they can't do that based on religious beliefs, then you must respect that, and move along to another shop that will fulfill your request, rather than taking them to court to try and force them to do it.

Some so called Christians believe in racial purity. SHould they be allowed to refuse Blacks? Ancient Jewish religion didn't allow anyone with a disability into the Temple. Should someone practicing that form of the religion be allowed to kick out all the handicapped? Any rules have to apply to everyone. Where do you draw the line? That's why we, as a country aren't allowed to give special allowances to any specific religion. Which religion gets told Your religion isn't as worthy of special allowances?

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't be silly. Laws supercede your particular wants. What you seem to want is anarchy.

It's not my wants, it's equality of the law. You can't say it's wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but then say it's ok for a Muslim butcher to refuse to process hogs for someone. It has to be one way or the other, it can't be both.

Quit whining. It's making you look pathetic.

Lol, that's good. I'm trying to have a civil debate, and you go for the insult. That is fine, whatever floats your boat. I thought we were having a discussion here, I realize now that i was wrong.

Did you have something else to offer in your effort to explain why your religion should be given special dispensation from our laws?

What special dispensation do you think im asking for? Im not asking that religious people have special consideration, I'm asking that religious people get the same consideration as those who don't believe.

I'm not aware of any atheist baker whining about having to serve ALL the public equally.

 

[anti-orange]

Liberals are so damn stupid they think bigger government is better government.

The assholes want higher taxes to pay for it, providing they are not the ones having to pay the taxes. They are greedy selfish little bastards like that.

Conservatives are so stupid that when a conservative politician says that liberals want 'bigger government', they believe them.

Nope, liberals don't particularly want 'bigger government'.

But one thing is for sure, 'tax and spend' is a whole lot smarter than 'not tax and spend'.

If they don't want bigger government, then why do they always call for spending increases?

Only on the rich, dupe, because they are getting away with murder and the middle class and the country are going to hell. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.

Hey,don't tell therubes.
Us millionaires love screwingthem

I get screwed by the Democrat voting welfare queens every year when I pay taxes on money that I earned but yet those assholes get it.

Disgusting isn't it?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com