Moody's Predicts Democrat Landslide

[KissMy]

The Working Class is Subsidizing the top 10%

Irrelevant chart:

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? - Washington Times

The idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. They have been told over and over by politicians and the media that the wealthiest among us — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, and Taylor Swift — are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. We are told by no less than Mr. Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much if any of the burden to pay for the schools, and the roads, and the police, and the welfare benefits, and the rest of the tasks of government.

So time for a reality test. Mr. Obama wants to raise the income tax payments from the top one percent to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011. The top one percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the entire burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. Several years ago Al Sharpton, now of MSNBC said the “top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing.

The top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax. And the bottom 50 percent — all Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent of the income tax. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Scott Hodge, president of Tax Foundation, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

All 100% Bullshit. You don't have a clue what effective tax rate or a subsidy is! All your copying & pasting political hacks proves your ignorance!

The rich aren't getting subsidized. That would be the record nunber on govt assistance programs that Obama has created that are being subsidized. As your income goes up so does your tax rate that is a fact. Remember how Obama promised "if you're making 250,000 or less your taxes won't go up"? Let's throw that promise in the same trash bin where his "you can keep your doctor" went.

Just more proof of your ignorance!

Q: Is taxing Ethanol $0.15/gal & Gasoline $0.45/gal an Ethanol Subsidy?

Q: Is taxing Solar Power at 1% & Coal Power at 30% a War on Coal? Is it a Subsidy to Solar?

 

[Dad2three]

The Working Class is Subsidizing the top 10%

Irrelevant chart:

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? - Washington Times

The idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. They have been told over and over by politicians and the media that the wealthiest among us — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, and Taylor Swift — are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. We are told by no less than Mr. Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much if any of the burden to pay for the schools, and the roads, and the police, and the welfare benefits, and the rest of the tasks of government.

So time for a reality test. Mr. Obama wants to raise the income tax payments from the top one percent to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011. The top one percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the entire burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. Several years ago Al Sharpton, now of MSNBC said the “top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing.

The top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax. And the bottom 50 percent — all Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent of the income tax. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Scott Hodge, president of Tax Foundation, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

All 100% Bullshit. You don't have a clue what effective tax rate or a subsidy is! All your copying & pasting political hacks proves your ignorance!

The rich aren't getting subsidized. That would be the record nunber on govt assistance programs that Obama has created that are being subsidized. As your income goes up so does your tax rate that is a fact. Remember how Obama promised "if you're making 250,000 or less your taxes won't go up"? Let's throw that promise in the same trash bin where his "you can keep your doctor" went.

Ronald Reagan promoted the idea that conservatives prefer to leave the economy to the market. Nonsense – we've been gulled

At the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, his most important legacy has gone largely overlooked. Reagan helped to put a caricature of politics at the centre of the national debate and it remains there to this day. In Reagan's caricature, the central divide between progressives and conservatives is that progressives trust the government to make key decisions on production and distribution, while conservatives trust the market.

This framing of the debate is advantageous for the right, since people, especially in the United States, tend to be suspicious of an overly powerful government. They also like the idea of leaving important decisions to the seemingly natural workings of the market. It is therefore understandable that the right likes to frame its agenda this way. But since the right has no greater commitment to the market than the left, it is incredible that progressives are so foolish as to accept this framing.

In reality, the right uses government all the time to advance its interest by setting rules that redistribute income upward.


...The United States now spends more than 2% of GDP, $300bn a year, on prescription drugs that would likely cost less than one tenth this much if they were sold in a competitive market. The $270bn handed to the drug companies each year through governmen- provided patent monopolies is five times as much money as what was at stake with the Bush tax cuts for the rich.


The real effect of 'Reaganomics' | Dean Baker

 

[healthmyths]

And these models are never wrong ...

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.
​

Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

According to the Election model predicts Dem will win

A Democrat will win the White House next year by the narrowest of margins, according to a well-known election forecaster.

Moody’s Analytics is predicting that the Democratic presidential nominee will capture 270 electoral votes in 2016, edging out the Republican nominee’s total of 268.

THAT IS NOT A LANDSLIDE!!!!

 

[Dad2three]

And these models are never wrong ...

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.
​

Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

According to the Election model predicts Dem will win

A Democrat will win the White House next year by the narrowest of margins, according to a well-known election forecaster.

Moody’s Analytics is predicting that the Democratic presidential nominee will capture 270 electoral votes in 2016, edging out the Republican nominee’s total of 268.

THAT IS NOT A LANDSLIDE!!!!

YOUR LINK:

August 05, 2015



08/31/15 (26 DAYS LATER)

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.


Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

 

[healthmyths]

And these models are never wrong ...

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.
​

Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

According to the Election model predicts Dem will win

A Democrat will win the White House next year by the narrowest of margins, according to a well-known election forecaster.

Moody’s Analytics is predicting that the Democratic presidential nominee will capture 270 electoral votes in 2016, edging out the Republican nominee’s total of 268.

THAT IS NOT A LANDSLIDE!!!!

YOUR LINK:

August 05, 2015



08/31/15 (26 DAYS LATER)

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.


Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election.
But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years.

One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in
which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.
Landslide Definition in Politics

326 electoral votes is 60%! Not at least 375 or 70% to qualify as a LANDSLIDE!!!
But again biased MSM using terms such "landslide" when that is NOT correct is used to BIAS the readers!
THANKS to idiots like you that don't delve deeper into the stories you and idiots like you put that idiot in the office today!
BASED on your racist attitude you thought by voting for a black man that made you better....
WRONG just showed how dumb you were and again how short of knowledge when it came to Obama who told you and other idiots he was going to "trick" and use "tactics' to fool you! Proof he thinks you are dummies is he hired Gruber who stated Obama's belief that due to the "Stupidity of the America Voter" he could trick you.
So in this case the compliant biased media once again puts out a incorrect headline.."LANDSLIDE" so that idiots like you believe it!

 

[Dad2three]

And these models are never wrong ...

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.
​

Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

According to the Election model predicts Dem will win

A Democrat will win the White House next year by the narrowest of margins, according to a well-known election forecaster.

Moody’s Analytics is predicting that the Democratic presidential nominee will capture 270 electoral votes in 2016, edging out the Republican nominee’s total of 268.

THAT IS NOT A LANDSLIDE!!!!

YOUR LINK:

August 05, 2015



08/31/15 (26 DAYS LATER)

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.


Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election.
But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years.

One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in
which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.
Landslide Definition in Politics

326 electoral votes is 60%! Not at least 375 or 70% to qualify as a LANDSLIDE!!!
But again biased MSM using terms such "landslide" when that is NOT correct is used to BIAS the readers!
THANKS to idiots like you that don't delve deeper into the stories you and idiots like you put that idiot in the office today!
BASED on your racist attitude you thought by voting for a black man that made you better....
WRONG just showed how dumb you were and again how short of knowledge when it came to Obama who told you and other idiots he was going to "trick" and use "tactics' to fool you! Proof he thinks you are dummies is he hired Gruber who stated Obama's belief that due to the "Stupidity of the America Voter" he could trick you.
So in this case the compliant biased media once again puts out a incorrect headline.."LANDSLIDE" so that idiots like you believe it!

Got it, after showing YOUR out of date link was BOGUS, and giving an updated link, you decide to go on the USUAL unsupported right wing attack mode based on ignorance? lol

 

[ScienceRocks]

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

That's the way of the nobility! They take all and demand more from the serfs.

 

[healthmyths]

And these models are never wrong ...

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.
​

Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

According to the Election model predicts Dem will win

A Democrat will win the White House next year by the narrowest of margins, according to a well-known election forecaster.

Moody’s Analytics is predicting that the Democratic presidential nominee will capture 270 electoral votes in 2016, edging out the Republican nominee’s total of 268.

THAT IS NOT A LANDSLIDE!!!!

YOUR LINK:

August 05, 2015



08/31/15 (26 DAYS LATER)

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.


Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election.
But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years.

One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in
which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.
Landslide Definition in Politics

326 electoral votes is 60%! Not at least 375 or 70% to qualify as a LANDSLIDE!!!
But again biased MSM using terms such "landslide" when that is NOT correct is used to BIAS the readers!
THANKS to idiots like you that don't delve deeper into the stories you and idiots like you put that idiot in the office today!
BASED on your racist attitude you thought by voting for a black man that made you better....
WRONG just showed how dumb you were and again how short of knowledge when it came to Obama who told you and other idiots he was going to "trick" and use "tactics' to fool you! Proof he thinks you are dummies is he hired Gruber who stated Obama's belief that due to the "Stupidity of the America Voter" he could trick you.
So in this case the compliant biased media once again puts out a incorrect headline.."LANDSLIDE" so that idiots like you believe it!

Got it, after showing YOUR out of date link was BOGUS, and giving an updated link, you decide to go on the USUAL unsupported right wing attack mode based on ignorance? lol

The term "LANDSLIDE" should never have been used as it was inaccurate. That is the trait though of the biased MSM.
They make the headline salacious intriguing but not factual. The term should never have been used in that fashion.

5. 1956: Eisenhower 457, Stevenson 53
3. Reagan 489, Carter 49
2. 1972: Richard Nixon 520, George McGovern 17
1.1984: Ronald Reagan 525, Walter Mondale 13
Now these were Landslides!!!

Landslide: The Top 5 Most Lopsided U.S. Presidential Elections since World War II

 

[Dad2three]

And these models are never wrong ...

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.
​

Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

According to the Election model predicts Dem will win

A Democrat will win the White House next year by the narrowest of margins, according to a well-known election forecaster.

Moody’s Analytics is predicting that the Democratic presidential nominee will capture 270 electoral votes in 2016, edging out the Republican nominee’s total of 268.

THAT IS NOT A LANDSLIDE!!!!

YOUR LINK:

August 05, 2015



08/31/15 (26 DAYS LATER)

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.


Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election.
But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years.

One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in
which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.
Landslide Definition in Politics

326 electoral votes is 60%! Not at least 375 or 70% to qualify as a LANDSLIDE!!!
But again biased MSM using terms such "landslide" when that is NOT correct is used to BIAS the readers!
THANKS to idiots like you that don't delve deeper into the stories you and idiots like you put that idiot in the office today!
BASED on your racist attitude you thought by voting for a black man that made you better....
WRONG just showed how dumb you were and again how short of knowledge when it came to Obama who told you and other idiots he was going to "trick" and use "tactics' to fool you! Proof he thinks you are dummies is he hired Gruber who stated Obama's belief that due to the "Stupidity of the America Voter" he could trick you.
So in this case the compliant biased media once again puts out a incorrect headline.."LANDSLIDE" so that idiots like you believe it!

Got it, after showing YOUR out of date link was BOGUS, and giving an updated link, you decide to go on the USUAL unsupported right wing attack mode based on ignorance? lol

The term "LANDSLIDE" should never have been used as it was inaccurate. That is the trait though of the biased MSM.
They make the headline salacious intriguing but not factual. The term should never have been used in that fashion.

5. 1956: Eisenhower 457, Stevenson 53
3. Reagan 489, Carter 49
2. 1972: Richard Nixon 520, George McGovern 17
1.1984: Ronald Reagan 525, Walter Mondale 13
Now these were Landslides!!!

Landslide: The Top 5 Most Lopsided U.S. Presidential Elections since World War II

Got it Bubba, YOU USE AN OUT OF DATE LINK, ARGUING A 2 POINT ELECTORAL COLLEGE WIN, BUT IN reality IT WAS

326 (D) to 212 (R)

KINDA THINK THAT'S BY A FACTOR OF 50+ OVER YOUR ORIGINAL POSIT? lol




NOW YOU WANT TO ARGUE THE TERMINOLOGY AFTER YOU ATTEMPTED TO DISTORT THE NUMBERS? lol

 

[rightwinger]

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

The rich abide by the Golden Rule...he who has the gold, makes the rules

They have duped the American people with supply side myth and bogus titles like "job creator"

Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing and the American Dream is all but gone

 

[Roudy]

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

That's the way of the nobility! They take all and demand more from the serfs.

Total misrepresentation and lie. Nobody on the republican side has proposed a tax increase for the poor. The Democrats have not only raised taxes on those that make less, but made life a lot more difficult for them.

 

[Roudy]

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

The rich abide by the Golden Rule...he who has the gold, makes the rules

They have duped the American people with supply side myth and bogus titles like "job creator"

Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing and the American Dream is all but gone

I don't think so, the wealthy people I know have made it the hard way. And they still work like dogs to Maintain their standard of living.

 

[KissMy]

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

The rich abide by the Golden Rule...he who has the gold, makes the rules

They have duped the American people with supply side myth and bogus titles like "job creator"

Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing and the American Dream is all but gone

I don't think so, the wealthy people I know have made it the hard way. And they still work like dogs to Maintain their standard of living.

If they make under $2 million a year, they are working hard subsidizing the Rich. Rich people making over $2 million a year are not working hard. They riding on subsidy & tax avoidance while portraying a work illusion that you fell for hook line & sinker.

 

[Dad2three]

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

That's the way of the nobility! They take all and demand more from the serfs.

Total misrepresentation and lie. Nobody on the republican side has proposed a tax increase for the poor. The Democrats have not only raised taxes on those that make less, but made life a lot more difficult for them.

02/13/12

House GOP leaders drop demand that payroll tax cut be offset

House Republicans said Monday that they would offer a measure to extend the current payroll tax cut for the rest of the year, dropping a previous demand that the tax break be offset.

House GOP leaders drop demand that payroll tax cut be offset

THE TAX ON THE BOTTOM 98% OF US, WHERE WAS THE OFFSET DEMANDS FOR BUSH TAX CUTS? lol


August 24, 2011

The GOP demand for higher middle-class taxes


President Obama has been increasingly vocal in recent months about his support for an extension of the payroll tax break approved late last year, hoping that it would help boost economic demand. Congressional Republicans have also been increasingly vocal about their opposition — in effect, the GOP is pushing for a middle-class tax increase to kick in early next year.

I argued the other day that Republicans are probably bluffing — they want the same cut as Obama, but will only approve it if they can trade it for something else. I was promptly told by a variety of people that I’m wrong, and that the GOP is genuinely hostile to any tax breaks that don’t benefit the wealthy almost exclusively. I’m beginning to think those who called me out on this have a compelling point.

Harold Meyerson has a good take today on the larger context.

America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.


And when taxes come chiefly from the middle class and the poor, all those anti-tax right-wingers have no problem raising them.

 

[healthmyths]

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

That's the way of the nobility! They take all and demand more from the serfs.

Total misrepresentation and lie. Nobody on the republican side has proposed a tax increase for the poor. The Democrats have not only raised taxes on those that make less, but made life a lot more difficult for them.

02/13/12

House GOP leaders drop demand that payroll tax cut be offset

House Republicans said Monday that they would offer a measure to extend the current payroll tax cut for the rest of the year, dropping a previous demand that the tax break be offset.

House GOP leaders drop demand that payroll tax cut be offset

THE TAX ON THE BOTTOM 98% OF US, WHERE WAS THE OFFSET DEMANDS FOR BUSH TAX CUTS? lol


August 24, 2011

The GOP demand for higher middle-class taxes


President Obama has been increasingly vocal in recent months about his support for an extension of the payroll tax break approved late last year, hoping that it would help boost economic demand. Congressional Republicans have also been increasingly vocal about their opposition — in effect, the GOP is pushing for a middle-class tax increase to kick in early next year.

I argued the other day that Republicans are probably bluffing — they want the same cut as Obama, but will only approve it if they can trade it for something else. I was promptly told by a variety of people that I’m wrong, and that the GOP is genuinely hostile to any tax breaks that don’t benefit the wealthy almost exclusively. I’m beginning to think those who called me out on this have a compelling point.

Harold Meyerson has a good take today on the larger context.

America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.


And when taxes come chiefly from the middle class and the poor, all those anti-tax right-wingers have no problem raising them.

Do you consider these as "tax breaks"...i.e. "loopholes"?

What about that gigantic tax deduction "loophole" that allows employers to deduct the health insurance premiums? $171 billion!
Maybe drop that onerous deduction employers take for pension contributions? $138 billion
Definitely mortgage interest deduction that will slap those evil corporations! $87 billion
OH and let's do away with the deductions to charities! People don't need no sticking charity deductions! $33 billion!
Right let's do away with the SS benefits paid to retired workers! $26 billion
Child Credit? My goodness why are we allowing parents to deduct the payments made to take care of kids? $24 billion!
And of course most middle class people they don't need those sticking deductions for capitals when they sell their home! $16 billion!

Over $495 billion in evil, ugly tax deductions, LOOPHOLES ! All that totally benefit the "MIDDLE" class and "POOR"! YEA do away with them all!
NO LOOPHOLES!


The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider

 

[rightwinger]

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

The rich abide by the Golden Rule...he who has the gold, makes the rules

They have duped the American people with supply side myth and bogus titles like "job creator"

Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing and the American Dream is all but gone

I don't think so, the wealthy people I know have made it the hard way. And they still work like dogs to Maintain their standard of living.

So do poor people.....only they are meagerly compensated for their labor

 

[GHook93]

Anybody who predicts who's going to win without even knowing who the nominees are is totally fulla crap. The one to watch is Nate Silver, they haven't been wrong, and haven't provided their prediction yet.

There are demographic trends that say the Republicans have a tough hill to climb. That's a fact and it doesn't take Nate Silver to recognize it.

Yeah, it's going to be a Dem landslide like the Dems predicted with the 2014 midterms.

Look I don't want a Democratic victory, but midterm and Presidential elections are different. We need a sweep of FL, VA, OH, NC (which I still can't believe is a swing state) and we need to either win CO or both IA and NH! In other words we need a perfect night. No room for error. The Democrats can slip and lose FL, OH, VA and NC, but win CO, NH and IA and win! We are fucked. The senate is almost certainly going blue and the house will get bluer!

I am not looking forward to the elections/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roudy]

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

The rich abide by the Golden Rule...he who has the gold, makes the rules

They have duped the American people with supply side myth and bogus titles like "job creator"

Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing and the American Dream is all but gone

I don't think so, the wealthy people I know have made it the hard way. And they still work like dogs to Maintain their standard of living.

If they make under $2 million a year, they are working hard subsidizing the Rich. Rich people making over $2 million a year are not working hard. They riding on subsidy & tax avoidance while portraying a work illusion that you fell for hook line & sinker.

Right. All the people making over 2 million a year are sitting in their asses living off the "poor". Damn! Do you even listen to your warped logic? So all those people making from like 500,000 to two million aren't rich? Aren't they also successful people who are working hard in high paying professions or have successful businesses trying to maintain their lifestyle that THEY created for themselves.

But according to you Obama cool aid drinkers, "they didn't build that" remember? So let's demonize and criminalize a whole class of people, tax the fuck out of them, and take away everything they have achieved, in order to create more voters for the Democrat socialist party.

 

[Roudy]

Anybody who predicts who's going to win without even knowing who the nominees are is totally fulla crap. The one to watch is Nate Silver, they haven't been wrong, and haven't provided their prediction yet.

There are demographic trends that say the Republicans have a tough hill to climb. That's a fact and it doesn't take Nate Silver to recognize it.

Yeah, it's going to be a Dem landslide like the Dems predicted with the 2014 midterms.

Look I don't want a Democratic victory, but midterm and Presidential elections are different. We need a sweep of FL, VA, OH, NC (which I still can't believe is a swing state) and we need to either win CO or both IA and NH! In other words we need a perfect night. No room for error. The Democrats can slip and lose FL, OH, VA and NC, but win CO, NH and IA and win! We are fucked. The senate is almost certainly going blue and the house will get bluer!

I am not looking forward to the elections/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but the republicans made huge unprecedented gains in the midterms. They will loose a few seats here and there in 2016 as predicted, because the states being contested are held well by the democrats. The repubs need to focus on the big prize, which is the Oval Office. If Hillary goes down in flames due to sandals, it will be a virtual cakewalk for almost ANY republican candidate, including Trump. People have had it with Obama, and the presidential election will be a protest vote against him.

 

[Roudy]

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

The rich abide by the Golden Rule...he who has the gold, makes the rules

They have duped the American people with supply side myth and bogus titles like "job creator"

Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing and the American Dream is all but gone

I don't think so, the wealthy people I know have made it the hard way. And they still work like dogs to Maintain their standard of living.

So do poor people.....only they are meagerly compensated for their labor

Look that's life, you can't blame someone who works hard, gets an education, or finds a way to become successful. There will always be more poor people than rich. Has Obama helped the poor by creating an environment where you have record number on govt subsidies and out of work and no longer looking for work? The same people that leftist radicals like Obama claim to be looking out for are the ones that are suffering the most because of their ideology.