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

[Rev.Hellh0und]

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

Repetition is the key to remembering.


Repetition is the key to remembering.

Repetition is the key to remembering.

 

[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

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

I'm sure. They can't fend for themselves but they'll do great providing for others.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

I have twice in this thread tried to explain to them that it has nothing to do with us not caring for the poor.

But alas, they love using that little left wing slogan......even though there is absolutely no evidence of it.

 

[Jarhead]

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

Repetition is the key to remembering.


Repetition is the key to remembering.

Repetition is the key to remembering.

I see.
I see.
I see.

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

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

Thank you!

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

Want to compare tax returns for charitable deductions?


Want to compare man hours provided to inner city charitablke resources?


Tell me, how do you care about the poor, specifically.

 

[LiberalHere]

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



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

 

[Warrior102]

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



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

cut it before or after we get out of lybia?


I agree we need to cut defense spending as well, bring em home first.

 

[Bern80]

In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

Well I guess that's one thing we can agree on.

 

[LiberalHere]

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



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

Spoken like a true conservative. You prefer to bomb other countries then care for your own people. How humane of you

 

[Warrior102]

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



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

Spoken like a true conservative. You prefer to bomb other countries then care for your own people. How humane of you

I prefer?

Your "Chickenhawk in Chief" is in command -

Take it up with him loser.

 

[LiberalHere]

In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

cut it before or after we get out of lybia?


I agree we need to cut defense spending as well, bring em home first.

We don't belong in Lybia. We don't belong occupying any countries. But when they come home, then what? We are in a mess and cutting defense is only part of it.

 

[CountofTuscany]

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



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

Spoken like a true conservative. You prefer to bomb other countries then care for your own people. How humane of you

Exactly who is spending about $4 million a week to bomb Libya right now?

 

[LiberalHere]

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

Spoken like a true conservative. You prefer to bomb other countries then care for your own people. How humane of you

I prefer?

Your "Chickenhawk in Chief" is in command -

Take it up with him loser.

Are you capable of making an intelligent post or do all your points begin and end with name calling?

 

[LiberalHere]

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

Spoken like a true conservative. You prefer to bomb other countries then care for your own people. How humane of you

Exactly who is spending about $4 million a week to bomb Libya right now?

I'm sorry, but when did I say, "I agree with everything the POTUS is doing?"
I don't play sides, I don't play parties I play with facts.

 

[LiberalHere]

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?

Really, could you show me the numbers on your guess? I don't see these jobs you are seeing.

 

[Warrior102]

Spoken like a true conservative. You prefer to bomb other countries then care for your own people. How humane of you

Exactly who is spending about $4 million a week to bomb Libya right now?

I'm sorry, but when did I say, "I agree with everything the POTUS is doing?"
I don't play sides, I don't play parties I play with facts.

Well - the fact is we're involved in seven global conflict, 5 additional since GWB was in office. And you're in here yelping "Cut Defense" while our men and women are in harm's way.

You should be waterboarded for idiocy.

 

[Bern80]

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



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

When we consider cutting defense spending it isn't for the purpose of putting armed services men and women in harms way. It's about not getting involved in the first place, thus we don't spend the money on them. I have nothing but respect for our military and thank for defending freedom. But the issue is most of their missions now don't involve much of that. Instead we're nation building and being the world police in the name of humanitarianism. Those are the things that needlessly put american soldiers in harm's way and create foreign relations nightmares. The purpose of our military is to defend against foreign agressors and it doesn't cost what we're spending to do that. We don't need gigantic military bases in a hudred countries to do that.

 

[Warrior102]

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



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

When we consider cutting defense spending it isn't for the purpose of putting armed services men and women in harms way. It's about not getting involved in the first place, thus we don't spend the money on them. I have nothing but respect for our military and thank for defending freedom. But the issue is most of their missions now don't involve much of that. Instead we're nation building and being the world police in the name of humanitarianism. Those are the things that needlessly put american soldiers in harm's way and create foreign relations nightmares. The purpose of our military is to defend against foreign agressors and it doesn't cost what we're spending to do that. We do don't gigantic military bases in a hudred countries to do that.

Kindly don't lecture me on Defense cuts.
I served, for over 20 years -
And I know what it felt like when Carter and Clinton were in office and we were all welfare cases, eating dogfood and on welfare to feed our families, living in slum-level housing.

 

[LiberalHere]

Exactly who is spending about $4 million a week to bomb Libya right now?

I'm sorry, but when did I say, "I agree with everything the POTUS is doing?"
I don't play sides, I don't play parties I play with facts.

Well - the fact is we're involved in seven global conflict, 5 additional since GWB was in office. And you're in here yelping "Cut Defense" while our men and women are in harm's way.

You should be waterboarded for idiocy.

I'm sorry, was I speaking to you? No, I wasn't. Please run off and do what ever it was you were busy with, I can't be bothered with people who lack an IQ bigger than their shoe size.