You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[JakeStarkey]

When you can prove it by citing the authority given in the constitution for those things, then you may end the story.

I don't have to prove this. Congress passed it and the President signed it, thus, ipso facto, until SCOTUS says different, the ball is in your court.

Then next I would ask you to point out in the constituion where it states that whatever congress does is constitutional because congress did it. Yes I'm sure I remember the framers being huge fans of circular logic.

Fun watching you wiggle. Signed bills are constitutionally lawful until otherwise made not so.

Yes, your convoluted, circular logic is hysterical.

 

[Bern80]

No it isn't. That is not equality in taxation. Why should I pay more taxes than a homeless can man? Everybody should pay the same amount that the poorest among us can pay,...that is equality and fair.

And then our system falls apart due to lack of funds... which is what you want. You want small government which is not able to govern. Can I clue you in on something... let me make this as simple as possible.

You've obviously heard of "Trickle Down" economics, right? Well, the same goes for taxation. You cut the Fed, they have to make a decision on whether to raise taxes or cut programs... let's give you the Conservative Wet dream, let's say the cut everything to the bone and only run a defensive government... What used to be subsidized by the Fed is now squarely in the hands of the individual state... so... they have a decision to make, don't they? They can either raise taxes to accommodate the now defunct funds, or they themselves can cut to the core. Let's suppose once again...they do the "conservative" thing and cut to the core. Now... you are really in trouble. Everything that used to help get paid for from a much broader tax base... is now down to the local level. Once again... raise taxes to pay for your road crews, your policemen, your firemen, your teachers, your court system, janitors, inspectors... the whole works. Or Cut to the bone again.

This is your vision of how America Should be? A downward spiral of less? You guys need to be stopped...you're madmen.

What completely cracks me up is I am betting nobody on this board is one of the 400, or even anywhere near the wealthiest of Americans. So WHY the bullshit? Because maybe, baby; someday they will be? Are they all the babies of the family? Do they really think they are entitled to every last toy in the toy box?

Actually that many of us are not part of the 400 and still believe what we believe is a testament to the fact that we are more principled than you are. What is right or wrong is not dependent upon one's financial position in life or whether I will personally be negatively or positively impacted by some policy. The government taking someone's property (their money) to give to someone else who has not earned it, even if I happened to be the one receiving that money, is still wrong. That I still believe what i believe even it would obviously benefit me financially not to, is a testement to my moral character and testament to lack of yours.

 

[Bern80]

I don't have to prove this. Congress passed it and the President signed it, thus, ipso facto, until SCOTUS says different, the ball is in your court.

Then next I would ask you to point out in the constituion where it states that whatever congress does is constitutional because congress did it. Yes I'm sure I remember the framers being huge fans of circular logic.

Fun watching you wiggle. Signed bills are constitutionally lawful until otherwise made not so.

Yes, your convoluted, circular logic is hysterical.

So if congress passed a law that said all women are property of men that would be constitutional until challenged in court? That's your position?

Again, If that is so, then you should be able to point to the section that says all bills passed by congress are constitutional.

 

[BDBoop]

And then our system falls apart due to lack of funds... which is what you want. You want small government which is not able to govern. Can I clue you in on something... let me make this as simple as possible.

You've obviously heard of "Trickle Down" economics, right? Well, the same goes for taxation. You cut the Fed, they have to make a decision on whether to raise taxes or cut programs... let's give you the Conservative Wet dream, let's say the cut everything to the bone and only run a defensive government... What used to be subsidized by the Fed is now squarely in the hands of the individual state... so... they have a decision to make, don't they? They can either raise taxes to accommodate the now defunct funds, or they themselves can cut to the core. Let's suppose once again...they do the "conservative" thing and cut to the core. Now... you are really in trouble. Everything that used to help get paid for from a much broader tax base... is now down to the local level. Once again... raise taxes to pay for your road crews, your policemen, your firemen, your teachers, your court system, janitors, inspectors... the whole works. Or Cut to the bone again.

This is your vision of how America Should be? A downward spiral of less? You guys need to be stopped...you're madmen.

What completely cracks me up is I am betting nobody on this board is one of the 400, or even anywhere near the wealthiest of Americans. So WHY the bullshit? Because maybe, baby; someday they will be? Are they all the babies of the family? Do they really think they are entitled to every last toy in the toy box?

Actually that many of us are not part of the 400 and still believe what we believe is a testament to the fact that we are more principled than you are. What is right or wrong is not dependent upon one's financial position in life or whether I will personally be negatively or positively impacted by some policy. The government taking someone's property (their money) to give to someone else who has not earned it, even if I happened to be the one receiving that money, is still wrong. That I still believe what i believe even it would obviously benefit me financially not to, is a testement to my moral character and testament to lack of yours.

Unless you're schizophrenic or a royal, you really need to stop with the "we". I don't ascribe any more value to your opinion whether you are 1 or 1000. If it sucks, it sucks, it sucks.

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

What completely cracks me up is I am betting nobody on this board is one of the 400, or even anywhere near the wealthiest of Americans. So WHY the bullshit? Because maybe, baby; someday they will be? Are they all the babies of the family? Do they really think they are entitled to every last toy in the toy box?

this is a liberal shell game, so Obama only want's to increase taxes to 400 people? or those making 200k or more?

 

[Bern80]

What completely cracks me up is I am betting nobody on this board is one of the 400, or even anywhere near the wealthiest of Americans. So WHY the bullshit? Because maybe, baby; someday they will be? Are they all the babies of the family? Do they really think they are entitled to every last toy in the toy box?

Actually that many of us are not part of the 400 and still believe what we believe is a testament to the fact that we are more principled than you are. What is right or wrong is not dependent upon one's financial position in life or whether I will personally be negatively or positively impacted by some policy. The government taking someone's property (their money) to give to someone else who has not earned it, even if I happened to be the one receiving that money, is still wrong. That I still believe what i believe even it would obviously benefit me financially not to, is a testement to my moral character and testament to lack of yours.

Unless you're schizophrenic or a royal, you really need to stop with the "we". I don't ascribe any more value to your opinion whether you are 1 or 1000. If it sucks, it sucks, it sucks.

That's fine and does make sense. That would have to be the position of one with little to no moral character.

 

[BDBoop]

That's fine and does make sense. That would have to be the position of one with little to no moral character.

Yeah. See? That second sentence made NO sense.

 

[Jarhead]

That's fine and does make sense. That would have to be the position of one with little to no moral character.

Yeah. See? That second sentence made NO sense.

Actually, it does make sense.

You see...you are an example of one that shows no respect for the opinon of someone that does not think as you do.

Truth is, what you said "sucks" is a very valid point.

You do not have to agree with his ideology...but the point he made is quite rational.

He simply said that what he believes in does NOT have any positive affect on him....and even if it had a negative affect on him, he would still believe in what he believes in.

Now...you do not need to agree with what he believes in....but you can not argue his logic.

But you simply said ...."it sucks".

So to me, you are one with no moral character.

 

[LiberalHere]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Thank you!

But, they don't care about the poor IMHO.

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

That's fine and does make sense. That would have to be the position of one with little to no moral character.

Yeah. See? That second sentence made NO sense.

Actually, it does make sense.

You see...you are an example of one that shows no respect for the opinon of someone that does not think as you do.

Truth is, what you said "sucks" is a very valid point.

You do not have to agree with his ideology...but the point he made is quite rational.

He simply said that what he believes in does NOT have any positive affect on him....and even if it had a negative affect on him, he would still believe in what he believes in.

Now...you do not need to agree with what he believes in....but you can not argue his logic.

But you simply said ...."it sucks".

So to me, you are one with no moral character.

this is who she is.

 

[Jarhead]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Thank you!

But, they don't care about the poor IMHO.

Correction...

We believe in personal responsibility.
We do not look at people as poor or wealthy. It is none of our business.

If we struggle financially (poor) we exepct no one to help us.....we will help ourselves.

If someone is wealthy, we do not believe in turning to them for help...we will help ourselves.

We believe all have the right to do what they wish....what others do is none of our business and what we do is none of their business....unless it is against the law.

It seems the left likes to separate people into classes......you are so wrapped up into defining the poor as helpless you are losing sight of how great anyone can make themselves be.

SO I ask you to stop with the spin of our sentiments.

But likely, you wont.

 

[LiberalHere]

What completely cracks me up is I am betting nobody on this board is one of the 400, or even anywhere near the wealthiest of Americans. So WHY the bullshit? Because maybe, baby; someday they will be? Are they all the babies of the family? Do they really think they are entitled to every last toy in the toy box?

this is a liberal shell game, so Obama only want's to increase taxes to 400 people? or those making 200k or more?

do you even know what you are talking about?

It would be on individuals with 200,000 or more. The top 1 percent I believe is the "400 people" and they are way over 200,000.

 

[Jarhead]

What completely cracks me up is I am betting nobody on this board is one of the 400, or even anywhere near the wealthiest of Americans. So WHY the bullshit? Because maybe, baby; someday they will be? Are they all the babies of the family? Do they really think they are entitled to every last toy in the toy box?

this is a liberal shell game, so Obama only want's to increase taxes to 400 people? or those making 200k or more?

do you even know what you are talking about?

It would be on individuals with 200,000 or more. The top 1 percent I believe is the "400 people" and they are way over 200,000.

Uh...no offense...but that was the point he was making with his rhetorical question.

Truth is, this has nothing to do with the top 400 wealthiest.

This has to do with bringing the upper middle class down to middle class while bringing the lower middle class to the middle class.

It is about redistributionn of earnings.

 

[Bern80]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Thank you!

But, they don't care about the poor IMHO.

Why do you people keep saying this? What real evidence is there of this? What does caring for the poor look like? What are the rich supposed to be doing for the poor to show that they care for them?

 

[CountofTuscany]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Let's give tax cuts to the poor. Maybe they'll create jobs and stimulate the economy

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

What completely cracks me up is I am betting nobody on this board is one of the 400, or even anywhere near the wealthiest of Americans. So WHY the bullshit? Because maybe, baby; someday they will be? Are they all the babies of the family? Do they really think they are entitled to every last toy in the toy box?

this is a liberal shell game, so Obama only want's to increase taxes to 400 people? or those making 200k or more?

do you even know what you are talking about?

It would be on individuals with 200,000 or more. The top 1 percent I believe is the "400 people" and they are way over 200,000.

My question was rhetorical. Folks like to suggest its the "top 1%" when they mean far more than the "400" people they throw around.

 

[LiberalHere]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Let's give tax cuts to the poor. Maybe they'll create jobs and stimulate the economy

They can't do any worse than the upper half is already doing .. .

 

[Jarhead]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Let's give tax cuts to the poor. Maybe they'll create jobs and stimulate the economy

They can't do any worse than the upper half is already doing .. .

Hmmmm...really?

Not sure of the exact number, but my guess is ALL people that are currently employed in the private sector are employed by the upper half.

Why would you see the upper half as doiing a poor job?

 

[Warrior102]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Read imbecile - Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

 

[Jarhead]

this is a liberal shell game, so Obama only want's to increase taxes to 400 people? or those making 200k or more?

do you even know what you are talking about?

It would be on individuals with 200,000 or more. The top 1 percent I believe is the "400 people" and they are way over 200,000.

My question was rhetorical. Folks like to suggest its the "top 1%" when they mean far more than the "400" people they throw around.

lol...almost word for word what I said in my post number 476