Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Well many Dems don't see Hillary as a liar either, but I digress.
Many on the left don't enjoy using the term socialist, they prefer the term "progressive".
Where are the progressives gonna get all the money to fund their "progressive" agenda/party platform?
50% of the population don't pay income tax now.
With the anemic economy the % that don't pay income taxes will probably increase.
The debt is not sustainable & 40% of those polled believe we are in a recession.
We have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world....
The top 1% pay around 40% of all income taxes now.
For far to many the role of the federal government is to even the playing field and insure results are not only fair, but equal.
Sounds very "progressive".
Last edited:
Your guy Trump has said he will fix that by cutting taxes.
Gary Johnson may have the best third-party chance since George Wallace --
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/how...d-ignite-a-constitutional-crisis-in-november/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/how...d-ignite-a-constitutional-crisis-in-november/
Greed?
Greed and hard work made our the greatest country in history.
I posted earlier that 50% of wage earners don't pay income taxes, that seems pretty progressive.
The greedy bastards at the top are paying nearly 40%, hell make them pay more.
After all, they're greedy capitalist....pffff.
Why should one work hard when a progressive government will take it from you?
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" [/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Your old lady Clinton said she'll fix that by raising taxes...
Is the Republican platform filled with government spending or er...as progressive as the Democrats?
Here's a good old analogy that had been posted several times before the site was erased. Enjoy.
Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.
One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.
Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.
I guess this is why American businesses have $10 trillion or so in offshore deposits.
Perhaps they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.
One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.
Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.
I guess this is why American businesses have $10 trillion or so in offshore deposits.
Perhaps they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
In what respect is Clinton my "old lady"?
In the same respect Trump is my guy.....
I'm not voting for Hillary. Are you not voting for Trump?
I'm not voting for Hillary.
Who will get my vote is still being pondered.
What's next? You going to ask me how much money I make?
You are sure awfully sensitive about me mocking Trump for someone who is not committed to him.
Got to say this post, and the fact that it's this sort of reasoning is how republican leaders use in decision making, reminds me of why here in the state of California we removed Republicans from positions of power in state government. And also it reminds me of how much better the state is doing since we did so...
Last edited:
Ahhh right... and thats why you're voting for Trump- the nominee who has the support of Russia, China and North Korea. Makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
Have to say... Found this to be a lot better argument before we saw the tea party ruin the economies of Kansas and Mississippi. Now it just sounds like the dying squawks of a bankrupt economic theory we all know doesn't work.
Sorta like communism talking about stealing from the rich to give to the poor- conservative economic models of using tax cuts to steal from the middle class to give to the rich is equally naive.
Last edited:
Right.
About as sensitive as you are when I referred to Hillary as your old lady....
Perhaps you mistake sensitive for insult...
The tea party? Hmmm
Apparently the concept escapes you TD.
And you seem to believe this is what happened in Kansas & Mississippi?
Tell us what happened in Wisconsin & Indiana. Please.
I assumed, with good reason, that you were clueless enough not to remember the many times that I have said I don't support Hillary.
I'm keeping you on the Trump-supporter list until you explicitly announce that you have come to your senses.
You keep lists Magoo?
That's explicitly odd.
I've stated many times that this maybe the first time I vote for a third party candidate...
When the old site was erased apparently your memory was too.
Well let's see, as I recall in Indiana is where Trump ended Cruz's run. As for Wisconsin... guess from now on I'll make sure to list them with Kansas and Mississippi, as just another state in an abusive relationship with tea party economics.
Last edited: