|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 4, 2008 13:49:20 GMT -5
Would you NOT call Europe Socialist?
And no I understood EXACTLY what you meant, and I posed the question back to you.
Do you see people starving in the streets of the USA? No, you don't because we ARE a humane people and we DO look out for those less fortunate....WITHOUT LIARS like B. Hussein having to TELL ME how much of MY hard EARNED money to GIVE away.
See our nation's "bare bones humanity" level is FAR AND AWAY ahead of the rest of the globe without our LYING "leaders" forcing it on us.
And to answer your final question.
No it does not sound wrong to me but you have to take into account.
The top 25% of earners in America currently pay out somewhere north of 86% of the taxes collected....
Sounds MORE than fair to me..already
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 4, 2008 13:59:29 GMT -5
trillion dollars we are spending in Iraq could have gone to social programs in our own country to avoid the growing divide between rich and poor we're experiencing. Obama will work hard to right this as well. No, they can not. War funds are temporary in nature, and not intended for use in other programs, and you know it. Yours is the response of a typical Democrat. You see that money, and you want to spend it on failed social programs that produce no results, just so you feel better about yourself. And, no I did not reverse myself. I have always felt it is the responsibility of this nation to help other emerging democracies succeed. We failed Burma. We failed Dufar. We failed Rwanda. Thanks to liberals, we failed Vietnam. We failed Camboida. We failed Afghanistan the first time. We failed Lebanon, a Christian nation turned Muslim through insurgents. And the list goes on and on. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 4, 2008 14:01:47 GMT -5
And you're trying to say that Democrats take a lot of money from the rich to give to the poor. This is simply not true. Under democratic rule, the rich remain rich, they just give their fair share, as we all do, to help others who are less fortunate. What is so wrong with that? Please, logically explain how taking a higher percentage of a persons income is called "their fair share." I would really like to hear that. It may be considered your fair share to take, but it is not giving a fair share of their pie. It is giving a larger share of their pie, percentage wise and monetarily. Only a mooncalf liberal would call someone giving a higher percentage a fair share. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 4, 2008 14:03:48 GMT -5
In fact, I can prove right now that progressive, liberal policies are racist. With a single post. In fact, with two words and a link. "Death Tax" |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 4, 2008 14:24:55 GMT -5
Ha ha. Love the "Death Tax" link.
It's typical doublespeak which Republicans love to make up horrible-sounding names for productive programs and pleasant sounding names for destructive programs. For instance: "Clear Skies initiative," "Healthy Forests initiative, "No Child Left Behind," "Death Tax," "Pro-life," etc.
"No it does not sound wrong to me but you have to take into account.
The top 25% of earners in America currently pay out somewhere north of 86% of the taxes collected...."
Even if this number is true, what percentage of their income are they paying. I'll bet it is a lower percentage than most hard working Americans. Is this fair??
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 4, 2008 15:36:58 GMT -5
Ah, you fail to see, don't you.
I will explain to you, as I would a child.
The most oppressed groups in this nation from history, the American Indians and Blacks, have just begun to rise up in economic standing. Your law, which you call productive, is hampering their abilities to pass on to their children, successful businesses. Since it targets these emerging economic groups, it is there fore racist in its very nature, even if it was not intended to be so.
Besides, after taxing a person as much as they do in life, what makes a democrat believe they should be entitled to more of a persons earnings after death? Your law destroys the ability for people to leave a legacy to their children, plain and simple. I can not abide a thief in the night, and would rejoice in his destruction. But this law is far worse then a thief in the night, it steals the dreams of the dead and dying, the dreams that their family will be secure. And that is a fine description of what your party has become, for they are the staunchest supporters of this cruel tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 4, 2008 16:10:13 GMT -5
Saunterelle did your mommy pat your little bottom and tell you lifwe would be "fair"..what are you 5?
Seriously if I am taxed at 28% and the people in the bracket below me at 25% and the people below them at 15% and 10% respectively. How do you figure MY percentage paid is lower than the brackets BELOW me. Do you even understand HOW taxes work?
And what because I AM IN the higher tax bracket ..I'm not an as you put it "Hard working American". As I said I work 20+ hours a day 7 days a week, to have what I do.
Funny how the people at the bottom figure the people at the top don't "work hard" how the hell did they arrive at the top otherwise? Yes some were granted accesss due to PREVIOUS GENERATIONS of their family.
And as someone said, as an American Indian I am ONLY the second generation of my family to even live off of a "reservation". I think wanting to have something to leave my 2 children would be more than "fair" since I EARNED it all myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 5, 2008 0:50:37 GMT -5
i can't resist this one. here is a prime example of liberal lunacy at it's worst. libs believe that those of us who have some money got it by being "fortunate" or "lucky." they believe that we just happened to be standing around one day and a big ol' fat bag of cash fell from the sky on our front lawns. it's like they believe we hit the lotto or something. they could never imagine that we actually "worked" for it and worked hard. sure, there are a few paris hiltons out there who never broke a nail to get their money but you never hear a lib complaining about those people not giving their "fair share." you never hear them complain that hollywood types are making "obscene profits" from movies in which hard work is defined as standing in front of a camera and repeating lines.
i'm sick of hearing about the less fortunate when in many cases they should be called the less willing (to work for a living!) i spent much of my childhood up 'til i was 18 living in very poor conditions in the projects. i busted my hump to get out and get where i am. i remember those people there who were much to comfortable cashing those welfare checks on the first of the month, buying booze with food stamps and sitting on their asses until the next check. they were not the less fortunate, they were definitely the less willing. since i got out of there i've never been unemployed a single day in my adult life, i've never been on public assistance, and i've never been happier. but according to santurelle, i'm just fortunate i guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Jun 5, 2008 8:03:30 GMT -5
Checking out karma points since this thread has strayed from the topic.
-1, now that's funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 16:54:21 GMT -5
Saunterelle did your mommy pat your little bottom and tell you lifwe would be "fair"..what are you 5? Seriously if I am taxed at 28% and the people in the bracket below me at 25% and the people below them at 15% and 10% respectively. How do you figure MY percentage paid is lower than the brackets BELOW me. Do you even understand HOW taxes work? And what because I AM IN the higher tax bracket ..I'm not an as you put it "Hard working American". As I said I work 20+ hours a day 7 days a week, to have what I do. Funny how the people at the bottom figure the people at the top don't "work hard" how the hell did they arrive at the top otherwise? Yes some were granted accesss due to PREVIOUS GENERATIONS of their family. And as someone said, as an American Indian I am ONLY the second generation of my family to even live off of a "reservation". I think wanting to have something to leave my 2 children would be more than "fair" since I EARNED it all myself. I agree. As an American Indian, or any American for that matter, why should anyone be allowed to tax what you created for your family, after you are gone, and virtually take it away from the very family you are trying to help advance in the future? American Indians and Blacks are the most effected by this law, because of the actions of our government and some of our citizens in the past. They deserve the American Dream, but somehow Democrats think you should give up half your life's work to the government. That is plain wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 16:57:48 GMT -5
Checking out karma points since this thread has strayed from the topic. -1, now that's funny. Actually, it is sort of on topic, when you consider that Obama, who is a Democrat through and through, loves such tax and spend laws. |
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Jun 6, 2008 8:28:27 GMT -5
Yes, I suppose talking about taxes and Sen. Obama could be considered still on topic as to how we are vied in the world.
Answer me this, why is it that progressives are so fiscally irresponsible in their attempts to redistribute the wealth that they keep wanting to raise taxes rather than deal with Government waste and overspending?
They keep citing the war in Iraq as dollars being wasted, but what of the other billions and billions of dollars being wasted on just mismanagement.
I worked in government for 20 years, and the policy there is to never talk about saving money. Their budgets are determined at the fiscal year and any amounts that they don’t spend get taken away in May or June and their next year’s budget gets reduced.
Most department heads salaries are adjusted by the amount of their budgets. A higher budget means more weight in determining their raises and retirement.
Don't raise taxes; Raise the government’s standards in being fiscally responsible.
Seems our young Senator from Illinois (and some progressives here in our forums) doesn’t understand this.
|
|
