If Dems can't screw the 'Rich' they will screw everyone..

[Philobeado]

In their desire to attack the 'Rich' the Dems are willing to raise taxes on EVERYONE.

That should teach those 'Rich' people a lesson. I hope the Dems are happy to throw everyone under the bus to feed their desire to attack the 'Rich' and hard working citizens.

 

[boedicca]

Uh. They've been on that trajectory for years.

Back in 1913, the definition of the Evul Rich was people who made more than $11 Million per year in 2010 dollars - and they were taxed at a marginal rate of 7%.

Now, the Evul Rich are upper middle class people who make $250,000 per year, and the Dems's want to tax them at a marginal rate of 36%.

The trend is headed towards the government taking away everything above a federally determined subsistence level which excludes incandescent light bulbs, full flush toilets, properly heated homes, and red meat.

 

[cutter]

Just because they earn it doesn't mean they are entitled to keep it. The libs see everyone's income as their money and they and they think they are entitled to keep as much as they want.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Class Warfare at its worst. Most people have had it with the Socialist/Progressive nutters. They just gave us the Worst U.S. Congress in History. Time for them to go. Come on January!

 

[WillowTree]

In their desire to attack the 'Rich' the Dems are willing to raise taxes on EVERYONE.

That should teach those 'Rich' people a lesson. I hope the Dems are happy to throw everyone under the bus to feed their desire to attack the 'Rich' and hard working citizens.

dems will do anything to gets them some taxes. don't care who pays em,

 

[Common Sense]

lowering taxes doesnt necessarily lead to a rise in economic activity. we need only look back at the Clinton administration. during which time he raised taxes on the top 2% of earners to a marginal rate of 39%. this led to huge economic booms.

IMHO we could end all of this "class warfare" if we simply imposed a flat tax across the board to everyone. for argument sake lets say 15%. then it wouldnt matter how much you make as an individual or family, everyone would be paying the same rate all the time.

is this a viable compromise?

and its not about "screwing" the rich. but when someone making $50,000 annually pays more of a percentage of their income to taxes than someone making $1,000,000 annually. there is something wrong with the system.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ever notice that EVERY scheme they throw at us involves taking money from people? They're basically a bunch of pickpockets.

 

[Old Rocks]

You mean like aircraft carriers and fighter jets?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ever notice that the so called fiscal Conservatives are anything but?

 

[Avatar4321]

Ever notice that EVERY scheme they throw at us involves taking money from people? They're basically a bunch of pickpockets.

Pickpockets? No. Pickpackets don't use force. Robbers do.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ever notice that the so called fiscal Conservatives are anything but?

is it our fault you wont stop spending and demonize any attempt for real cuts?

 

[VaYank5150]

In their desire to attack the 'Rich' the Dems are willing to raise taxes on EVERYONE.

That should teach those 'Rich' people a lesson. I hope the Dems are happy to throw everyone under the bus to feed their desire to attack the 'Rich' and hard working citizens.

Maybe if the GOP had demanded some SPENDING cuts along with extending tax cuts for the richest Americans, this would not have happened. Just sayin'..

 

[SwordofDamocles]

lowering taxes doesnt necessarily lead to a rise in economic activity. we need only look back at the Clinton administration. during which time he raised taxes on the top 2% of earners to a marginal rate of 39%. this led to huge economic booms.

IMHO we could end all of this "class warfare" if we simply imposed a flat tax across the board to everyone. for argument sake lets say 15%. then it wouldnt matter how much you make as an individual or family, everyone would be paying the same rate all the time.

is this a viable compromise?

and its not about "screwing" the rich. but when someone making $50,000 annually pays more of a percentage of their income to taxes than someone making $1,000,000 annually. there is something wrong with the system.

LOL....if Opie did that, there would be whining, weeping, and gnashing of teeth from the left and its entitlement masses. We would have a Civil War then.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets all feel sorry for the richest Americans who are treated so badly by our society

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Read more: See the Distribution of Wealth in US (McCain, Obama, cost) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

 

[cutter]

Lets all feel sorry for the richest Americans who are treated so badly by our society

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Read more: See the Distribution of Wealth in US (McCain, Obama, cost) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

"Distribution of wealth"? What does that mean? Wealth isn't distributed it's EARNED. Only in a communist country would someone think wealth is owned by the government and should be evenly distributed. I don't want to live there.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets all feel sorry for the richest Americans who are treated so badly by our society

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Read more: See the Distribution of Wealth in US (McCain, Obama, cost) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

"Distribution of wealth"? What does that mean? Wealth isn't distributed it's EARNED. Only in a communist country would someone think wealth is owned by the government and should be evenly distributed. I don't want to live there.

Borrowing money to pay for tax cuts to the rich is "Earned"???

 

[cutter]

Lets all feel sorry for the richest Americans who are treated so badly by our society

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Read more: See the Distribution of Wealth in US (McCain, Obama, cost) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

"Distribution of wealth"? What does that mean? Wealth isn't distributed it's EARNED. Only in a communist country would someone think wealth is owned by the government and should be evenly distributed. I don't want to live there.

Borrowing money to pay for tax cuts to the rich is "Earned"???

People are rich because they EARNED it and didn't spend it. Doesn't mean the government is entitled to it. It's their money, not the governments. The government needs to learn to not spend more than they earn then this country would be rich too. Too little taxing isn't the problem, Too much spending is.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Uh. They've been on that trajectory for years.

Back in 1913, the definition of the Evul Rich was people who made more than $11 Million per year in 2010 dollars - and they were taxed at a marginal rate of 7%.

Now, the Evul Rich are upper middle class people who make $250,000 per year, and the Dems's want to tax them at a marginal rate of 36%.

The trend is headed towards the government taking away everything above a federally determined subsistence level which excludes incandescent light bulbs, full flush toilets, properly heated homes, and red meat.

I like how you left out the years in between 1913 and 2010 - remember those? The years when the highest marginal tax rate was 90%, and America was doing great?

 

[rdean]

The rich have already screwed everybody. Dems are too late to the dance.

Hey, how many Republicans are losing or have lost their jobs because the Republican leadership helped move the jobs to China. Factories are expensive. Without Republicans giving the rich tax breaks and subsidies, they never could have moved millions of jobs and thousands of factories to China.

Newsvine - "US" Chamber of Commerce hosts seminars with Chinese gov officials to teach American firms how to outsource

"US" Chamber of Commerce hosts seminars with Chinese gov officials to teach American firms how to outsource


Remember, the COC gave Republicans more than 75 million dollars leading up to the last election and a hundred and eighty million over the last year. Those millions helped get jobs moved to China.

Republicans did that. How many of their base lost their jobs to China? Think about it.

 

[rdean]

The rich have already screwed everybody. Dems are too late to the dance.

Hey, how many Republicans are losing or have lost their jobs because the Republican leadership helped move the jobs to China. Factories are expensive. Without Republicans giving the rich tax breaks and subsidies, they never could have moved millions of jobs and thousands of factories to China.

Newsvine - "US" Chamber of Commerce hosts seminars with Chinese gov officials to teach American firms how to outsource

"US" Chamber of Commerce hosts seminars with Chinese gov officials to teach American firms how to outsource


Remember, the COC gave Republicans more than 75 million dollars leading up to the last election and a hundred and eighty million over the last year. Those millions helped get jobs moved to China.

Republicans did that. How many of their base lost their jobs to China? Think about it.

I hate to keep ending these threads with facts. First right wingers complain I don't add links, then when I do, they complain that I add links. Well? Which is it? When I ask why they don't add links, they say, "Because I'm giving an opinion". Oh, I get it, they say the things they say with no facts because it's all "opinion". Some could call that delusion, others call it lies. Some call it a "fantasy". Well, let's just stick to the facts. 2001 to 2008, 2.4 million jobs were lost to China. Democrats were not in charge.

At the most, during the last two years of the Bush administration, the senate was 49 to 49 dems/repubs. If you call that "controlling the senate, then it's "opinion/lie/bullshit/fantasy/delusion". Whatever it is, it's the Republican "position".