Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?
It must be disillusioning.
some people care. cons tend not to like me, though. i'm all right with that. i think by and large, cons are ignorant, easily fooled, selfish, disgusting people. as a great man once said, i embrace their hatred.i'll tell you what: non-rich people whining about the risk the rich are taking, which i'll bet you nine out of ten cons on this board are non-rich. there's this weird thing with them to claim that they're millionaire business owners when they're really just working stiffs like the rest of us. it's very odd. i don't know why they do it. but on the internet you can claim anything about yourself, of course.What's more pathetic than rich people whining about all the risk they're taking?
I doubt anyone cares what you believe or don't believe. The facts are the facts, something you idiots on the left have a hard time admitting.
some people care. cons tend not to like me, though. i'm all right with that. i think by and large, cons are ignorant, easily fooled, selfish, disgusting people. as a great man once said, i embrace their hatred.i'll tell you what: non-rich people whining about the risk the rich are taking, which i'll bet you nine out of ten cons on this board are non-rich. there's this weird thing with them to claim that they're millionaire business owners when they're really just working stiffs like the rest of us. it's very odd. i don't know why they do it. but on the internet you can claim anything about yourself, of course.
I doubt anyone cares what you believe or don't believe. The facts are the facts, something you idiots on the left have a hard time admitting.
What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?
It must be disillusioning.
exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.
i don't know what YOU make, but for someone living in a place with a high cost of living and is trying to raise kids and save for retirement, yeah, that sounds pretty poor to me. obviously not homeless poor, but you're not sitting pretty at 31K, not by a long shot.i opened up last year's 1040 instructions and you start paying income tax at 5 grand of income. standard deduction is 5,500. now obviously with marriage exemptions etc. results may vary, but if you're making anywhere in the vicinity of 10 grand a year, yeah, i'd say poor is the word. as to whether 47 percent of the people in america are making only around that much, i only hear this 47 percent figure from cons, who lie as easily as they tell the truth, so i dunno. i have to take the cons' word for it. but since we've shifted from manufacturing to a service-based economy and decimated the unions, and service jobs tend to pay around 10 bucks an hour, give or take, yeah, maybe you're right. maybe 47 percent of the country IS poor. but when you say 47 percent of the country pays no income tax, YOU'RE saying almost half the country is poor. that's what YOUR con ass is saying, not me.
You sure do a lot of guessing.
Annual median equivalised disposable household income in the US is $31,000. Hardly poor.
Now, run along and pay your taxes.
Now, run along and pay your taxes.
well, somebody's gotta. i'm not like the cons, constantly whining about taxes. you have to pay some taxes to live in a decent country. it's called patriotism, REAL patriotism, and the cons should ditch the flag-waving fetishism and look into it.
What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?
It must be disillusioning.
exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.
But you see...spending cuts is a no brainer.
Raising taxes during a recession or recession recovery is dangerous.
sure you did, champ. there's nothing sadder than someone bragging on the internet. no one can verify what you say, so who cares. i stormed the beach at normandy. whatever, con. you're noise.Now, run along and pay your taxes.
well, somebody's gotta. i'm not like the cons, constantly whining about taxes. you have to pay some taxes to live in a decent country. it's called patriotism, REAL patriotism, and the cons should ditch the flag-waving fetishism and look into it.
I paid more in taxes in 2010 than you've probably earned in your entire pathetic life, asswipe.
[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
boy have i ever heard this before. what exactly is obama spending on? well, he's spending on the wars, he's propping up bush's tax cuts, and he's bailing out the banks. all policies he's inherited from the previous administration and inexplicably failed to alter. it's not like there's been an explosion of spending on social programs, or if there has been an increase in social spending, i certainly can't find a con who can cite 1.5 trillion a year's worth. the lion's share of the deficit is the wars, which is the same reason the economy tanked in the 70s: i mean, there were other causes but vietnam DEVASTATED the US economy. a big part of it, too, is lower GDP because of the recession, and that means less revenue. cutting spending is going to do nothing to increase demand, and without increased demand, the recession will never end. technically, incidentally, we're not in a recession. this isn't a cyclical downturn the way a recession is, this is a structural problem. this country just is not being run well. the problem i have is pinning it on obama. he's only guilty of these structural problems to the extent he hasn't deviated from the absurd path the previous administration put us on.
[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
boy have i ever heard this before. what exactly is obama spending on? well, he's spending on the wars, he's propping up bush's tax cuts, and he's bailing out the banks. all policies he's inherited from the previous administration and inexplicably failed to alter. it's not like there's been an explosion of spending on social programs, or if there has been an increase in social spending, i certainly can't find a con who can cite 1.5 trillion a year's worth. the lion's share of the deficit is the wars, which is the same reason the economy tanked in the 70s: i mean, there were other causes but vietnam DEVASTATED the US economy. a big part of it, too, is lower GDP because of the recession, and that means less revenue. cutting spending is going to do nothing to increase demand, and without increased demand, the recession will never end. technically, incidentally, we're not in a recession. this isn't a cyclical downturn the way a recession is, this is a structural problem. this country just is not being run well. the problem i have is pinning it on obama. he's only guilty of these structural problems to the extent he hasn't deviated from the absurd path the previous administration put us on.
Obama didn't inherit Jack Shit, asswipe. He applied for the job and gleefully accepted.
How's that hopey changey thing working out.
Not so hot.
[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
boy have i ever heard this before. what exactly is obama spending on? well, he's spending on the wars, he's propping up bush's tax cuts, and he's bailing out the banks. all policies he's inherited from the previous administration and inexplicably failed to alter. it's not like there's been an explosion of spending on social programs, or if there has been an increase in social spending, i certainly can't find a con who can cite 1.5 trillion a year's worth. the lion's share of the deficit is the wars, which is the same reason the economy tanked in the 70s: i mean, there were other causes but vietnam DEVASTATED the US economy. a big part of it, too, is lower GDP because of the recession, and that means less revenue. cutting spending is going to do nothing to increase demand, and without increased demand, the recession will never end. technically, incidentally, we're not in a recession. this isn't a cyclical downturn the way a recession is, this is a structural problem. this country just is not being run well. the problem i have is pinning it on obama. he's only guilty of these structural problems to the extent he hasn't deviated from the absurd path the previous administration put us on.
some people care. cons tend not to like me, though. i'm all right with that. i think by and large, cons are ignorant, easily fooled, selfish, disgusting people. as a great man once said, i embrace their hatred.i'll tell you what: non-rich people whining about the risk the rich are taking, which i'll bet you nine out of ten cons on this board are non-rich. there's this weird thing with them to claim that they're millionaire business owners when they're really just working stiffs like the rest of us. it's very odd. i don't know why they do it. but on the internet you can claim anything about yourself, of course.
I doubt anyone cares what you believe or don't believe. The facts are the facts, something you idiots on the left have a hard time admitting.
1. If you didn't play social engineer through offering tax breaks for things, and made everyone pay a single bracket flat tax with no deductions, this wouldn't be a problem. Even the poor would be paying THEIR Fair Share.IRS: 1,470 millionaires paid no income tax in '09 - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
That merans they are not helping their country at a time of need.
What kind of American doesnt help their country in a time of great need?
What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?
It must be disillusioning.
exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.
how much more taxes? i said before i think the clinton rates might be a good start. i can't give you an exact figure because i'm not an economist. but i find this assertion that tax figures inevitably lead to capital flight to be befuddling. i mean, is this always true, regardless of the legacy tax level? the wealthy are sitting on income and not spending it. that's not always true, but it's true at the moment. meanwhile, the middle class is tapped out and we're running enormous deficits. i keep hearing spending cuts, spending cuts, but spending cuts suppress demand and don't do anything to create jobs. the bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset several years ago. do we just keep those cuts going indefinitely, and do nothing to increase demand? i honestly don't get what you guys are prescribing to fix this problem.You want more taxes as a way to "fix" the deficit yet how much more taxes and how much of an impact will it have on the deficit is the question.... More or less you offer a way to help fix 1/20th of the problem but you're solution comes with a price, meaning in time that revenue pool will shrink because people will invest less or avoid the tax.
