Fiscal Cliff? Tax the Rich

[Truthmatters]

doi you realise their taxes are about as loiw as they have ever been?

 

[WillowTree]

doi you realise their taxes are about as loiw as they have ever been?

tax the fuck outta the mother fucking rich, they deserve it for being rich, no matter what the fuck else we do in AMerica we must get RE VE NG E on the motherfucking rich for being successful. Now get busy.

 

[Stephanie]

Yeah, that was some olive branch..

thug in chief is all I saw again

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The other end of the olive branch is on fire so it will and should be rejected.

 

[Black_Label]

The other end of the olive branch is on fire so it will and should be rejected.

You think the middle class should have their taxes raised?

 

[Stephanie]

so now he's using tax cuts for us to hit people over the head to get his WAY...

WHAT A thoughful dude

 

[Black_Label]

so now he's using tax cuts for us to hit people over the head to get his WAY...

WHAT A thoughful dude

Go ahead and pay more in taxes than you need to, you seem to think it's a good thing.

 

[SniperFire]

1. Do you believe that Americans need to make sacrifices to fix our fiscal problems?

if your answer is 'yes'

2. Do you believe that the sacrifice should be shared?

if your answer is 'yes'

3. What should be the sacrifice of America's wealthy/high income earners, as their share?

Be specific.

False choice. The wealthy already pay more than their fair share, as illustrated above.

Okay, that's one vote for the wealthy being exempted from the national sacrifice that needs to be made.

Question to you specifically:

What are you willing to sacrifice, since you accepted the premise that we need shared sacrifice (even though you exempt the Rich) as your share?

LOL

Look up 'false choice', tard.

 

[Steelplate]

you would still get the entitlement whiners...

they dont have a job... so no pay check.. but still want to be in for the prize.

Good God....Does NO ONE want to think out of the box? OK....That'll be a MOTIVATION for people to go out and get a fucking job, right? If you're REALLY that worried about it....write it into the bylaws that people on Welfare aren't eligible.

But what if those on welfare had a job and the welfare is recent? Say they were already in on the lottery. Do you excuse them now because they don't fit your criteria? Do we exclude only some types of welfare and not others? Did you think this through at all or are you leaving all of the heavy thinking to others?

Oh....so I am a lawmaker now? I'd say anyone who is working and drawing a paycheck would be eligible...yes....even if they get food stamps to make ends meet.

I give the fuck up. You people are so fucking hateful and miserable nothing will slake your thirst for blood unless all of the poor, elderly and afflicted are on their own and wealthy Corporations pay nothing in taxation.....you want the burden to fall directly on working people to pay for the Conglomerate muscle known as the military.

What you want is a return to the Feudal system. The wealthy control everything, the poor and sick die in the streets and everyone else is taxed to death and work their asses off for the benefit of the ruling class alone.

I'll tell you what...if one of your fellow Republicans proposed the lottery thing....you'd be masturbating on your computer chair....in fact, I got the idea from......wait for it......Rush Limbaugh......in the 90's, when Clinton was in office and I was GOP.

 

[SniperFire]

so now he's using tax cuts for us to hit people over the head to get his way...

What a thoughful dude

go ahead and pay more in taxes than you need to, you seem to think it's a good thing.

the two biggest reasons why the economy crashed under w was #1, the insane military spending and #2 the tax cuts to the rich.

are you saying our federal tax receipts crashed just before the credit crisis, then?

lol

 

[CandySlice]

If you taxed the rich at 100% for 5 years it wouldn't even make a dent.

 

[Steelplate]

Good thing you're not envious or covetous, or anything like that.

Fuck you too. If you don't have a problem with the poor starving and homeless....fuck....that's on you. Not me.

Getting rid of you sacred socialistic welfare state does not automatically translate to the sainted pooooooooor starving in the gutter.

But thanks for the meltdown to try and distract from your shameless avarice and greed.

It doesn't? You have a hell of a lot more faith in your "sainted riiiiich" than I do. Your people are the "let them eat cake" people of our generation.

 

[Steelplate]

If you taxed the rich at 100% for 5 years it wouldn't even make a dent.

Good thing no one's calling for that.

 

[WillowTree]

Fuck you too. If you don't have a problem with the poor starving and homeless....fuck....that's on you. Not me.

Getting rid of you sacred socialistic welfare state does not automatically translate to the sainted pooooooooor starving in the gutter.

But thanks for the meltdown to try and distract from your shameless avarice and greed.

It doesn't? You have a hell of a lot more faith in your "sainted riiiiich" than I do. Your people are the "let them eat cake" people of our generation.

tax those mother fuckers right outta the country then what ya gonna do? what will you replace the evil rich and corporations with? huh?

 

[USNavyVet]

Good God....Does NO ONE want to think out of the box? OK....That'll be a MOTIVATION for people to go out and get a fucking job, right? If you're REALLY that worried about it....write it into the bylaws that people on Welfare aren't eligible.

But what if those on welfare had a job and the welfare is recent? Say they were already in on the lottery. Do you excuse them now because they don't fit your criteria? Do we exclude only some types of welfare and not others? Did you think this through at all or are you leaving all of the heavy thinking to others?

Oh....so I am a lawmaker now? I'd say anyone who is working and drawing a paycheck would be eligible...yes....even if they get food stamps to make ends meet.

I give the fuck up. You people are so fucking hateful and miserable nothing will slake your thirst for blood unless all of the poor, elderly and afflicted are on their own and wealthy Corporations pay nothing in taxation.....you want the burden to fall directly on working people to pay for the Conglomerate muscle known as the military.

What you want is a return to the Feudal system. The wealthy control everything, the poor and sick die in the streets and everyone else is taxed to death and work their asses off for the benefit of the ruling class alone.

I'll tell you what...if one of your fellow Republicans proposed the lottery thing....you'd be masturbating on your computer chair....in fact, I got the idea from......wait for it......Rush Limbaugh......in the 90's, when Clinton was in office and I was GOP.

Hopefully you have tissues handy. I didn't mean to make you cry though. By the way, you're the one who said those on welfare wouldn't be eligible. Next time think things through.

 

[Steelplate]

Getting rid of you sacred socialistic welfare state does not automatically translate to the sainted pooooooooor starving in the gutter.

But thanks for the meltdown to try and distract from your shameless avarice and greed.

It doesn't? You have a hell of a lot more faith in your "sainted riiiiich" than I do. Your people are the "let them eat cake" people of our generation.

tax those mother fuckers right outta the country then what ya gonna do? what will you replace the evil rich and corporations with? huh?

New ones who haven't had their Dick sucked for 30 years and aren't afraid of Competition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

False choice. The wealthy already pay more than their fair share, as illustrated above.

Okay, that's one vote for the wealthy being exempted from the national sacrifice that needs to be made.

Question to you specifically:

What are you willing to sacrifice, since you accepted the premise that we need shared sacrifice (even though you exempt the Rich) as your share?

LOL

Look up 'false choice', tard.

Okay, there's one conservative who thinks that neither the Rich or himself should make any sacrifices

despite there being a need for shared sacrifice.

Who's left? Who, specifically, do you want to make the sacrifices?

 

[Too Tall]

The two biggest reasons why the economy crashed under W was #1, the insane military spending and #2 the tax cuts to the rich.

Both of these need huge cuts but the GOP is being a bunch of babies that doesn't give a damn about balancing the budget, only to keep bankrolling their cronies.

#1 was the housing bubble The tax cuts resulted in 5.2% unemployment until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Nothing insane about giving troops engaged in combat all of the weapons they need to survive.

If you think raising the tax rates on the few making over $250,000 will balance the budget, you are the one that is insane. There has already been a huge cut in military spending and the

Sec of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Marines and sailors on Fridaythat Congress would be irresponsible if it doesn't act to prevent drastic military budget cuts.

Read more: Defense secretary Panetta blasts defense budget cuts in visit to ship off California coast | Fox News

Try again, Fox? what a joke!

Thanks for reminding me of that horrific Bush spending spree with TARP as well

For the brain impaired that doesn't like Fox, here are two more sources. I can find a dozen more, but I won't.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta pleaded with Congress Wednesday to avoid the disaster of automatic defense cuts even as he criticized lawmakers' affection for protecting aging ships and aircraft.
Ramping up the pressure, Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, painted a bleak picture of the military and its power if the across-the-board reductions, known as "sequestration," go into effect beginning Jan. 2.

Panetta warns of 'disaster' from defense cuts - Yahoo! News

Panetta referred to the threat of the additional cuts as he urged lawmakers to come together to defuse it by finding other ways of reducing the debt.
“But my hope is that when members understand the sacrifice involved in reducing the defense budget by almost a half a trillion dollars that it will convince Congress of the important responsibility they have to make sure that we avoid sequestration,” he said. “That would be a doubling of the cuts, another $500 billion in additional cuts that would be required to take place through a meat- axe approach, and that we are convinced would hollow out the force and would inflict severe damage to our national defense for generations.”

Read more: Leon Panetta details deep defense cuts - Charles Hoskinson - POLITICO.com

Here is a bit about TARP that you don't know about:

President Bush was done after using about $270 billion of the $350 B that was authorized by Congress. But as a courtesy to the incoming president, Bush would request the second $350B from Congress if President-Elect Obama asked for it.

President-Elect Obama asked for it, and he got it. Tim Geithner, who could not do his own taxes and who, as a regulator, did nothing about the Libor scandal, would have all $700B to play with.

We usually call TARP a "bank bailout," but the banks are paying back every cent lent to them. In fact, the part of TARP that went to banks is expected to return $3B to taxpayers. And most of that was paid back quickly. The "cost" of the "bank bailout" was less than zero!

The real bailouts. When the dust clears, the CBO expects TARP to cost taxpayers $32B. Who got that money if banks didn't? General Motors, Chrysler, and "mortgage programs." But GM and Chrysler went bankrupt anyway.

The U.S. auto industry was not "saved." Going bankrupt does not have to mean going out of business. See, for example, Delta Airlines. It went bankrupt in the usual, lawful way and is operating today. On the other hand, GM could be heading into bankruptcy again, post-bailout. Oh, and since the bailout, "GM has increased its manufacturing capacity in China by 55 percent."


Read more: Articles: Why Blame Obama?

 

[NYcarbineer]

False choice. The wealthy already pay more than their fair share, as illustrated above.

Okay, that's one vote for the wealthy being exempted from the national sacrifice that needs to be made.

Question to you specifically:

What are you willing to sacrifice, since you accepted the premise that we need shared sacrifice (even though you exempt the Rich) as your share?

LOL

Look up 'false choice', tard.

You should look it up. I didn't impose any 'false choice' on you. I offered you the opportunity to accept or reject the premises.

You rejected the premise that we should all share in the sacrifice by your claim that the Rich should be exempted.

 

[Oddball]

Fuck you too. If you don't have a problem with the poor starving and homeless....fuck....that's on you. Not me.

Getting rid of you sacred socialistic welfare state does not automatically translate to the sainted pooooooooor starving in the gutter.

But thanks for the meltdown to try and distract from your shameless avarice and greed.

It doesn't? You have a hell of a lot more faith in your "sainted riiiiich" than I do. Your people are the "let them eat cake" people of our generation.

I'm not the one trying to justify being a rapacious looter...You are.

And the best you can do to try and paper over your unvarnished greed is to cower behind the poor, which makes you a coward to go with being a thug.