Just in time for Christmas...............

[WillowTree]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

You want some money? Get off yer ass and earn some.

 

[uscitizen]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

Hey anything that is good for the market is good for America.

 

[Meister]

Yeah huh was my thought on your "what about the business that use personal income tax for their business. Don't bring up the tax breaks for them because that's a crock."

Care to elaborate a bit?

I assumed it was businesses that existed off of personal income taxes.

I'm talking about Obama's tax breaks for the small businesses. They had to jump through hoops....and buy and sell heavy equipment to be able to get the breaks.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What's really sad is that they think the tax cuts are a better idea than extending the benefits.

I think it's a fine idea. There is no reason to extend unemployment benefits. If you haven't been able to find a job in the last two plus years then you haven't done something right.

I guess that's what greed does to a person though.......

I've always been perplexed by the concept that people wanting to keep the money they rightfully earned is greed, but people thinking they are entitled to other people's money while doing nothing to earn it, isn't.

 

[Meister]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

Let's just put a cap on how wealthy a person can get in America. That's a solution, huh?

 

[Meister]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

Hey anything that is good for the market is good for America.

Are you saying that if it isn't good for the market is good for America?

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

Let's just put a cap on how wealthy a person can get in America. That's a solution, huh?

You know........there's a law in Japan that limits how much the CEO of a company can make..........no more than 100 times what their lowest paid employee makes.

If we did that here? We'd be out of trouble in a very short time.

 

[Meister]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

Let's just put a cap on how wealthy a person can get in America. That's a solution, huh?

You know........there's a law in Japan that limits how much the CEO of a company can make..........no more than 100 times what their lowest paid employee makes.

If we did that here? We'd be out of trouble in a very short time.

No we wouldn't, not even close.

 

[Ragnar]

Let's just put a cap on how wealthy a person can get in America. That's a solution, huh?

You know........there's a law in Japan that limits how much the CEO of a company can make..........no more than 100 times what their lowest paid employee makes.

If we did that here? We'd be out of trouble in a very short time.

No we wouldn't, not even close.

Yeah, I have to second that. We could take 100% of the income from the "top 2%" and not have near enough to cover what we are spending.

 

[Political Junky]

A genuine what would Jesus do? situation.

What a stupid comment, I get real tired of hearing the left cry out that question. Why not bring that up when it comes to abortions, carb? Hmmmm?

Correct. And, the left don't give a shit about Christmas either, the atheist creeps.

I guess some cons will never give up on that.

 

[Ragnar]

You know........there's a law in Japan that limits how much the CEO of a company can make..........no more than 100 times what their lowest paid employee makes.

If we did that here? We'd be out of trouble in a very short time.

Christmas rocks in Japan!

 

[AllieBaba]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

It's certainly a lot more functional than paying people to sit on their asses. I have no problem with paying people who WORK. I do, however, have a wee problem with paying, and paying, and paying, people who don't work. Extensions, pshaw. That's not UC, that's flat out welfare for able bodied men and women. Except, of course, it gives a MUCH larger grant than welfare does.

 

[Ragnar]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

It's certainly a lot more functional than paying people to sit on their asses. I have no problem with paying people who WORK. I do, however, have a wee problem with paying, and paying, and paying, people who don't work. Extensions, pshaw. That's not UC, that's flat out welfare for able bodied men and women. Except, of course, it gives a MUCH larger grant than welfare does.

This is not meant to be sarcastic but does anyone know if there is some reason one can not go from unemployment to welfare once the unemployment runs out?

 

[Flopper]

Have you thought about where the 55 billion that GM paid back has gone?
I doubt that the tax on the rich would go to the unemployed, ABS.

Not quite what I meant Meister. I said both add about the same amounts to the deficit.

And, I think it's criminal that people are in favor of the rich, while screwing over the poor.

If we're not careful, it's gonna be rich royalty and us peasants starving to death while working for less than fair wages.

ABS, this administration has the rich starting at $250,000 a year....that is not rich in this country, yet that's where the tax increases are going to start. A lot of those people are business owners with a total number for them and the busness at 250,000.
Something wrong with this scenario.

So $250K a year is not rich? I think you would get some argument from the 1 in every 7 Americans who live in poverty. The definition of poverty according the government is a family income of $21,954 for a family of 4.

Census: 1 in 7 Americans lives in poverty - Yahoo! News

 

[AllieBaba]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

It's certainly a lot more functional than paying people to sit on their asses. I have no problem with paying people who WORK. I do, however, have a wee problem with paying, and paying, and paying, people who don't work. Extensions, pshaw. That's not UC, that's flat out welfare for able bodied men and women. Except, of course, it gives a MUCH larger grant than welfare does.

This is not meant to be sarcastic but does anyone know if there is some reason one can not go from unemployment to welfare once the unemployment runs out?

Well welfare is only for people with children in the household. So all the single men who are drinking themselves blind every night, and cheating their families out of court-ordered child support because they only have to pay a tiny portion of that amount if they are pulling UC...those guys can't get welfare. Because at the welfare office, we recognize that there is no excuse for able bodied men with no children to draw juice from a system developed originally to support single parents whose breadwinners were either dead, or deadbeat.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not quite what I meant Meister. I said both add about the same amounts to the deficit.

And, I think it's criminal that people are in favor of the rich, while screwing over the poor.

If we're not careful, it's gonna be rich royalty and us peasants starving to death while working for less than fair wages.

ABS, this administration has the rich starting at $250,000 a year....that is not rich in this country, yet that's where the tax increases are going to start. A lot of those people are business owners with a total number for them and the busness at 250,000.
Something wrong with this scenario.

So $250K a year is not rich? I think you would get some argument from the 1 in every 7 Americans who live in poverty. The definition of poverty according the government is a family income of $21,954 for a family of 4.

Census: 1 in 7 Americans lives in poverty - Yahoo! News

So....definitions are now determined by the poor? Is that where we're at? What they say goes?

250 thou a year is not rich. Particularly if you are self employed and that is your gross.

 

[Vel]

What's really sad is that they think the tax cuts are a better idea than extending the benefits.

I guess that's what greed does to a person though.......

Setting aside agreeing or disagreeing, please at least be honest and refer to the proposed tax HIKE. The double speak and obfuscation is getting old.

 

[uscitizen]

So, apparently it's okay to keep making the rich, richer?

Bullshit.

It's certainly a lot more functional than paying people to sit on their asses. I have no problem with paying people who WORK. I do, however, have a wee problem with paying, and paying, and paying, people who don't work. Extensions, pshaw. That's not UC, that's flat out welfare for able bodied men and women. Except, of course, it gives a MUCH larger grant than welfare does.

This is not meant to be sarcastic but does anyone know if there is some reason one can not go from unemployment to welfare once the unemployment runs out?

Welfare runs out too in many cases and most that are getting unemployment are not eligable for welfare.
Eligable for medicaid though probably.

 

[uscitizen]

ABS, this administration has the rich starting at $250,000 a year....that is not rich in this country, yet that's where the tax increases are going to start. A lot of those people are business owners with a total number for them and the busness at 250,000.
Something wrong with this scenario.

So $250K a year is not rich? I think you would get some argument from the 1 in every 7 Americans who live in poverty. The definition of poverty according the government is a family income of $21,954 for a family of 4.

Census: 1 in 7 Americans lives in poverty - Yahoo! News

So....definitions are now determined by the poor? Is that where we're at? What they say goes?

250 thou a year is not rich. Particularly if you are self employed and that is your gross.

You are not taxed on your gross.

 

[Flopper]

ABS, this administration has the rich starting at $250,000 a year....that is not rich in this country, yet that's where the tax increases are going to start. A lot of those people are business owners with a total number for them and the busness at 250,000.
Something wrong with this scenario.

So $250K a year is not rich? I think you would get some argument from the 1 in every 7 Americans who live in poverty. The definition of poverty according the government is a family income of $21,954 for a family of 4.

Census: 1 in 7 Americans lives in poverty - Yahoo! News

So....definitions are now determined by the poor? Is that where we're at? What they say goes?

250 thou a year is not rich. Particularly if you are self employed and that is your gross.

The poverty level was developed by the Social Security Administration in 1963. It is updated yearly by HHS. Rich and Poor are relative terms. However, most people would consider someone wealthy if their taxable income is in the top 2% in the country.