The ..2012.... Political thread
-
Welfare doesn't even scratch the surface of the U.S. Federal budget. Why conservatives maintain a venomous platform against it is beyond me. Instead, they should be embarrassed that Bush didn't even put the $3 trillion b.s. Iraq War on the books.
-
^^^LOL - the two wars were under Bush funded through emergency supplimentals (not the regular budget process)...that was a good try though
-
rich n:
^^^LOL - the two wars were under Bush funded through emergency supplimentals (not the regular budget process)...that was a good try though
That's a mere technical oversight on my part. My point is the $3 trillion cost.
-
If I had to absolutely vote for a liberal (as in I had a gun against my head)...I'd vote for this guy (Cuts to the chase, unlike the BS artist in office right now...LOL)
-
audi:
rich n:
^^^LOL - the two wars were under Bush funded through emergency supplimentals (not the regular budget process)...that was a good try though
That's a mere technical oversight on my part. My point is the $3 trillion cost.
My fault - I thought your prior post was trying to insinuate Bush was trying to somehow hide the cost
-
Change The White House Resident [size=7]resident rhymes with president
-
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Well...why ARE you? Instead of for the suffering masses.
Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.
That's an opinion, not a fact. Stating opinion as fact usually underscores a flimsy argument, or at least an argument that the person in question isn't qualified to make (in this case, how do you know exactly that freeloaders "far" outweigh the unfortunate? Oh, that's right, you're just pulling assumptions out your rear). Now, why do conservatives try to act like taxing the rich a bit more amounts to outright stealing hard-earned wealth to give handouts to lazy degenerates? I would bet (see, this signifies an opinion, since I'm not qualified to assert it as a fact) that the silver-spoon-in-mouth trust-fund babies to self-made men and women far outweighs the number of freeloaders to unfortunate. And besides, regardless of how the money was earned, it's indisputable that responsibility for our current economic mess rests in the hands of wealthy folks (which wealthy people, and how much they contributed are debatable). Why is taxing the rich a bit more so off-limits? Conservatives cry socialism, but unless the rich are taxed to the point that they take home the same amount as the lower class after taxes, that isn't socialism. It seriously makes me want to beat my head against a wall. To dispel any confusion on my thoughts on this, I think that the tax system should work roughly like this. If someone makes ten million annually, have a rate up to 250,000, up a bit from like 250,001 to 2 million, then maybe 2 to 5 million, then 5 to 10, etc. Why is this socialism and/or why is this so bad?
-
service_gamer:
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Well...why ARE you? Instead of for the suffering masses.
Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.
That's an opinion, not a fact. Stating opinion as fact usually underscores a flimsy argument, or at least an argument that the person in question isn't qualified to make (in this case, how do you know exactly that freeloaders "far" outweigh the unfortunate? Oh, that's right, you're just pulling assumptions out your rear). Now, why do conservatives try to act like taxing the rich a bit more amounts to outright stealing hard-earned wealth to give handouts to lazy degenerates? I would bet (see, this signifies an opinion, since I'm not qualified to assert it as a fact) that the silver-spoon-in-mouth trust-fund babies to self-made men and women far outweighs the number of freeloaders to unfortunate. And besides, regardless of how the money was earned, it's indisputable that responsibility for our current economic mess rests in the hands of wealthy folks (which wealthy people, and how much they contributed are debatable). Why is taxing the rich a bit more so off-limits? Conservatives cry socialism, but unless the rich are taxed to the point that they take home the same amount as the lower class after taxes, that isn't socialism. It seriously makes me want to beat my head against a wall. ...
-
The 2 party political system in America has been lost and for some time now. Neither Democrat nor Republican can truly claim to be American. Both parties signed on to NAFTA, signed on to being globalists or "trans-nationalists". "America" as they still like to call it, is an Empire just like Rome. Though Rome I don't think ever had some 750 military bases around the world. Politicians don't really represent "The People", they represent "special interest". If you vote either party you are voting not for a candidate, but for the 100's of special interest people behind the candidate. Wish someone could prove me wrong.
-
$36,000 dollars a plate dinner for the President last night ..... (some paid $5,000 a plate to eat with Michelle Obama) they collected 5 million dollars in one night (Lots of rich people in that party). You don't really have to TAX the rich more as much as you need to eliminate the LOOPHOLES. (Sometimes they claim things like their $36,000 dollar dinner with the President). There are so many LOOPHOLES in the Tax system .... that the rich may pay less than their expected pay in taxes. Plug many of those and you collect more.
-
service_gamer:
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Well...why ARE you? Instead of for the suffering masses.
Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.
That's an opinion, not a fact. Stating opinion as fact usually underscores a flimsy argument, or at least an argument that the person in question isn't qualified to make (in this case, how do you know exactly that freeloaders "far" outweigh the unfortunate? Oh, that's right, you're just pulling assumptions out your rear). Now, why do conservatives try to act like taxing the rich a bit more amounts to outright stealing hard-earned wealth to give handouts to lazy degenerates? I would bet (see, this signifies an opinion, since I'm not qualified to assert it as a fact) that the silver-spoon-in-mouth trust-fund babies to self-made men and women far outweighs the number of freeloaders to unfortunate. And besides, regardless of how the money was earned, it's indisputable that responsibility for our current economic mess rests in the hands of wealthy folks (which wealthy people, and how much they contributed are debatable). Why is taxing the rich a bit more so off-limits? Conservatives cry socialism, but unless the rich are taxed to the point that they take home the same amount as the lower class after taxes, that isn't socialism. It seriously makes me want to beat my head against a wall. To dispel any confusion on my thoughts on this, I think that the tax system should work roughly like this. If someone makes ten million annually, have a rate up to 250,000, up a bit from like 250,001 to 2 million, then maybe 2 to 5 million, then 5 to 10, etc. Why is this socialism and/or why is this so bad?
This is so far off the mark, I don't know where to start. I'd be willing to bet (yes, an opinion on my part too...LOL) self made millionaires far outweigh the old 'silver spoon' crowd (not everyone who's rich in America is a Kennedy) Second, rich people pay way more taxes that poor people do...(people with an annual income of over $1m pay 29.1% in various taxes compared to only 15% for people who have annual incomes of 50K to 75K). This here is a fact and not opinion. The focus of the problem is that rich people aren't taxed on their investments. But then again, nobody is - the money leaving my paycheck and put into my 401K is not taxed and I'm as polar opposite to rich as you can get...LOL. Basically the rules are no one gets taxed on their investments (unless you break the terms of agreement and take money before the investments have matured - to which you then get hammered with taxes and penalties)...so basically, the rich are taxed at a greater rate, but get to play by the same rules as everyone else in terms of investing...so what's the problem? The link below is one of about a billion hits you can find if you google the topic (and since you and several others seem to not be able to discern opinions as well as slight exaggerations - a billion hits' might be a slight exaggeration...LOL): http://www.newser.com/story/129022/rich-people-dont-pay-less-taxes-than-secretaries.html
-
PS - I know you believe otherwise because 'Obama said so'...But 'Obama said so' on a lot of things which isn't true, and is why he's going to be a 'one and done' president
-
poor richn so out of touch with reality..just like Mittens except Mittens has the money and richn is just carrying his water It's the inequality stupid! http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/ http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/ Top 1% control 42% of wealth in the US Why do you think that is : It's because they have gamed the system to help them with low taxes and deregulation the cornerstones of the republican economic philosophy.
-
LOL...Rich people have the most money because (get this:-))they make more money...wow, what a concept
-
the above comment is a great example of why the republican base is so easily manipulated. they are dense Here is Mittens saying he's not concerned about poor people..could the republicans have picked anyone more out of touch : : This is going to be a fun election
-
Boggles the mind What an elitist bogus buffoon, born with a silver spoon too and feels superior to everyone else (sorry bout namecalling, got carried away)--thinkin' bout what he said to the impoverished financially burdened Mormon lady, too--"You're not my kind of Mormon" Then he impatiently signed the order saying she could get her foot in the door at the special fancy LDS temple with the golden archangel blowing its horn on the top--still, he did sign it, and "Newt" Gingrich has been calling "Mitt" Willard a "liberal" and Mittens is termed a "moderate" --trying to console myself for the possibility he could win...but he's not going to win, there are too many glaring "holes" in his past and pedigree which grant Obama a saintly aura, yet again...
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Boggles the mind What an elitist bogus buffoon, born with a silver spoon too and feels superior to everyone else (sorry bout namecalling, got carried away)--thinkin' bout what he said to the impoverished financially burdened Mormon lady, too--"You're not my kind of Mormon" Then he impatiently signed the order saying she could get her foot in the door at the special fancy LDS temple with the golden archangel blowing its horn on the top--still, he did sign it, and "Newt" Gingrich has been calling "Mitt" Willard a "liberal" and Mittens is termed a "moderate" --trying to console myself for the possibility he could win...but he's not going to win, there are too many glaring "holes" in his past and pedigree which grant Obama a saintly aura, yet again...
LOL - I heard other radical libs jump on Mitt's comment of making his first priority the middle class. He said right in the link you posted (that I didn't have to even open since the other jerkoffs showed me the same article) that he's not concerned because he has them covered...But I understand your position since Obama could give a squat about the middle class...Such is life as a lib I guess Actually I shouldn't assume his full comment is in the article you posted since you have a history of posting links from slanted sites who often quote out of context...but whatever...the gallop polls says that Obama is heading towards a landslide loss in November and that's all that matters (and radical attempts to degrade like the point you (failed to) make here scares people away from Libs even further and further)...but have your fun with your 'singing' president while it lasts...LOL
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Boggles the mind What an elitist bogus buffoon, born with a silver spoon too and feels superior to everyone else (sorry bout namecalling, got carried away)--thinkin' bout what he said to the impoverished financially burdened Mormon lady, too--"You're not my kind of Mormon" Then he impatiently signed the order saying she could get her foot in the door at the special fancy LDS temple with the golden archangel blowing its horn on the top--still, he did sign it, and "Newt" Gingrich has been calling "Mitt" Willard a "liberal" and Mittens is termed a "moderate" --trying to console myself for the possibility he could win...but he's not going to win, there are too many glaring "holes" in his past and pedigree which grant Obama a saintly aura, yet again...
And Obamination wants to get into the business of reviewing/editing resumes...LOL...what a embarrassing/humiliating way to embarrass the poor lady who mentioned her husband was having trouble getting a job despite being fully qualified/educated for the position he was seeking...Obama should go back on vacation...it's better that way (because we don't have to here his BS...Like the time when he took off during the Libya thing and let Hillary handle that mess, because he didn't have the nards to do it)
-
You've got me confused with Mustang Sally, who posted that link. I recently read poll results which showed Obama is ahead by at least 20 points of both Mitts and Newt. Don't know where you got the impending landslide info.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
You've got me confused with Mustang Sally, who posted that link. I recently read poll results which showed Obama is ahead by at least 20 points of both Mitts and Newt. Don't know where you got the impending landslide info.
There's quite a few - but I thought I'd start with this link since it's from a 'lefty' source...LOL http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/politics/poll-shows-obamas-vulnerability-with-swing-voters.html?pagewanted=all