Paul Ryan's Tax Plan vs. Obama's

Nope. Done't assume your a commie at all.

You just have a different view than I do.

You seem to think that those that have should support those that don't. Yes??
Damn that Commie Jesus! :lol:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

Funny... don't see anything about Jesus advocating the forceful submission of others into giving up their possessions
Nice deflection!
There was nothing about "forced submission" in the post I replied to.
Try again.
 
Why are you too lazy to figure it out for yourself?

If you had to ask the first question, how could you come to the conclusion in your second sentence?

Do you mean like Nelson A Rockefeller making a seven figure income and paying not one cent in taxes when he was appointed VP?

Total Federal Taxes
.......................Obama ............ Ryan
Lowest 20% .....$600 ............... $2,200
Second 20% .....$3,700 .............$5,700
Middle 20% ......$8,300 .............$10,200
Fourth 20% ......$15,100 ...........$16,400
Top 1% .......... $487,000 ..........$276,000


From my post:

"Do you have the tables of the actual projected paid tax by income level per person currently, under Ryan and under Obama?"

I was asking for a third category to be added, current taxes paid. As I said the two plans which are currently non-existant is an interesting, but meaningless diversion. Knowing what is currently being paid is the point of departure that would mean something.

I have heard that about half of the adult population currently avoids Federal taxation. My assumption is that there are not that many Rockefellers. I could be wrong.
Since your question was very unclear and contradictory, the figure I gave for Obama is what is currently being paid, not what is projected to be paid.

And you are always wrong when you parrot what you "heard" on GOP hate media. This is why I say CON$ are STUPID rather than ignorant. No matter how many times GOP hate media is shown to be lying and no matter how obvious the lie, CON$ still swallow every lie whole. Ignorant people are capable of learning, but stupid CON$ never learn.

The very chart above shows the bottom 20% and 40% PAYING Federal taxes, so obviously you "heard" wrong.


I don't know why I tried to converse with you. I'll not waste your time in the future.
 
One thing I dont' understand is how many conservatives who are middle class or in the lower, less % tax paying group is so anti taxing rich people more? Or are the majority of these people rich and complaining cause THEY are having to pay more?

And if you put an increased burden on the lower % of people who barely can get by with what they take home already, aren't you going to increase the need for assitance programs they hate so much since even more people will need help?
 
Damn that Commie Jesus! :lol:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

Funny... don't see anything about Jesus advocating the forceful submission of others into giving up their possessions
Nice deflection!
There was nothing about "forced submission" in the post I replied to.
Try again.

Nope... but you did compare Jesus to the liberal notion of giving to the poor, except the leftist view is to do it thru government and not personal voluntary charity... the voluntarily giving of yourself part would be the things Jesus is talkking about that you quoted... nowhere does Jesus call for government or leadership forced redistribution
 
From my post:

"Do you have the tables of the actual projected paid tax by income level per person currently, under Ryan and under Obama?"

I was asking for a third category to be added, current taxes paid. As I said the two plans which are currently non-existant is an interesting, but meaningless diversion. Knowing what is currently being paid is the point of departure that would mean something.

I have heard that about half of the adult population currently avoids Federal taxation. My assumption is that there are not that many Rockefellers. I could be wrong.
Since your question was very unclear and contradictory, the figure I gave for Obama is what is currently being paid, not what is projected to be paid.

And you are always wrong when you parrot what you "heard" on GOP hate media. This is why I say CON$ are STUPID rather than ignorant. No matter how many times GOP hate media is shown to be lying and no matter how obvious the lie, CON$ still swallow every lie whole. Ignorant people are capable of learning, but stupid CON$ never learn.

The very chart above shows the bottom 20% and 40% PAYING Federal taxes, so obviously you "heard" wrong.


I don't know why I tried to converse with you. I'll not waste your time in the future.
Ahhhh, CON$ervative "logic."
Rather than reject the GOP hate media sources who mock you with their lies, you reject anyone who exposes you to the truth.
That's just stupid!
 
Funny... don't see anything about Jesus advocating the forceful submission of others into giving up their possessions
Nice deflection!
There was nothing about "forced submission" in the post I replied to.
Try again.

Nope... but you did compare Jesus to the liberal notion of giving to the poor, except the leftist view is to do it thru government and not personal voluntary charity... the voluntarily giving of yourself part would be the things Jesus is talkking about that you quoted... nowhere does Jesus call for government or leadership forced redistribution
After saying you wouldn't try another deflection, you tried another deflection. :cuckoo:

And I compared Jesus to the CON$ervative notion of giving to the poor. Calling the poor lazy and telling them they are better off without any help.
 
Read Robert Kuttner's bio and then rethink if this is non-partisan.

The amount of sales tax attributed to the top 1% is ridiculously low considering their consumption levels. There's also the problem of the steady state model which assumes no differences in GDP growth despite vary different tax policies (often the problem with such analyses).

In reality, taxes affect behavior. Getting rid of the enormous time and expensive burden of our existing Byzantine tax code will free up assets to be applied to more productive economic activity, and job creation. There will be more jobs at every level, especially the critical entry level ones that are in very short supply these days (i.e., unemployment for black male teenagers exceeds 50% in many areas).

There is a lot more to Ryan's plan than just taxes - I suggest you read the entire thing before falling for this biased b'loney.
 
Nice deflection!
There was nothing about "forced submission" in the post I replied to.
Try again.

Nope... but you did compare Jesus to the liberal notion of giving to the poor, except the leftist view is to do it thru government and not personal voluntary charity... the voluntarily giving of yourself part would be the things Jesus is talkking about that you quoted... nowhere does Jesus call for government or leadership forced redistribution
After saying you wouldn't try another deflection, you tried another deflection. :cuckoo:

And I compared Jesus to the CON$ervative notion of giving to the poor. Calling the poor lazy and telling them they are better off without any help.

Nope... pointing out your feeble attempt to draw a side conclusion to the quotes you posted.. again, please show any quote where Jesus called for involuntary redistribution or government control

You tried to use the quotes in defense of your stand... it has been shown that those quotes do not support what you claim... now you're being asked to give quotes from the same source that actually do support your claims and stances

And your 'notion' is inherently false.. trying to portray a stance that is not being made by the other side (conservatives).... belief in voluntary charity on one's own decision and not government forced wealth redistribution thru red-tape filled entitlemenst is not "telling them they are better off without help"

Nice try, winger
 
Last edited:
Damn that Commie Jesus! :lol:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

Well Golly there Ed. If you and all likeminded folks want to pool your possessions,your wealth, your property then by all means feel free. Just think you could then just spread that around to your hearts content. Share it with all the downtrodden. Go for it.!!

I, on the other hand, would prefer to hang onto my possessions and any small wealth that I have. I guess I'm just the selfish type. LOL
More like the non-Christian type. :eusa_angel:

Being a Christian has nothing to do with it.

I just don't think its my responsibility to take care of everyones needs.

Its up to me to determine if I will give to charity. Not the Govt or anyone else. Lets face it. Welfare, Medicaid are nothing but charities. Govt sponsored charities. The Govt is using taxpayer monies to support this. Don't remember the Govt asking any of us taxpayers if we wanted to contribute.

BTW, the only charity I do give to is the Salvation Army.
 
Nope. Done't assume your a commie at all.

You just have a different view than I do.

You seem to think that those that have should support those that don't. Yes??
Damn that Commie Jesus! :lol:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

Nope... but you did compare Jesus to the liberal notion of giving to the poor, except the leftist view is to do it thru government and not personal voluntary charity... the voluntarily giving of yourself part would be the things Jesus is talkking about that you quoted... nowhere does Jesus call for government or leadership forced redistribution
After saying you wouldn't try another deflection, you tried another deflection. :cuckoo:

And I compared Jesus to the CON$ervative notion of giving to the poor. Calling the poor lazy and telling them they are better off without any help.

Nope... pointing out your feeble attempt to draw a side conclusion to the quotes you posted.. again, please show any quote where Jesus called for involuntary redistribution or government control

You tried to use the quotes in defense of your stand... it has been shown that those quotes do not support what you claim... now you're being asked to give quotes from the same source that actually do support your claims and stances

And your 'notion' is inherently false.. trying to portray a stance that is not being made by the other side (conservatives).... belief in voluntary charity on one's own decision and not government forced wealth redistribution thru red-tape filled entitlemenst is not "telling them they are better off without help"

Nice try, winger
Not only did you "portray a stance" for the other side (Liberals) you portrayed a stance for me, then you whine like a little CON$ervative crybaby when I gave you a dose of your own medicine. :rofl:
 
Nope. Done't assume your a commie at all.

You just have a different view than I do.

You seem to think that those that have should support those that don't. Yes??
Damn that Commie Jesus! :lol:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

After saying you wouldn't try another deflection, you tried another deflection. :cuckoo:

And I compared Jesus to the CON$ervative notion of giving to the poor. Calling the poor lazy and telling them they are better off without any help.

Nope... pointing out your feeble attempt to draw a side conclusion to the quotes you posted.. again, please show any quote where Jesus called for involuntary redistribution or government control

You tried to use the quotes in defense of your stand... it has been shown that those quotes do not support what you claim... now you're being asked to give quotes from the same source that actually do support your claims and stances

And your 'notion' is inherently false.. trying to portray a stance that is not being made by the other side (conservatives).... belief in voluntary charity on one's own decision and not government forced wealth redistribution thru red-tape filled entitlemenst is not "telling them they are better off without help"

Nice try, winger
Not only did you "portray a stance" for the other side (Liberals) you portrayed a stance for me, then you whine like a little CON$ervative crybaby when I gave you a dose of your own medicine. :rofl:

You have REPEATED shown support for entitlements.... do you also now contend that the liberals as a group do not support government entitlements (which are, by definition, coming from taxation and government revenues (both being involuntary)) to support the 'poor'?

Conservatives as a group do NOT support the statement you made.. You merely wish to state it that way to paint the picture you want

Fucking idiot winger
 
Last edited:
Damn that Commie Jesus! :lol:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

Nope... pointing out your feeble attempt to draw a side conclusion to the quotes you posted.. again, please show any quote where Jesus called for involuntary redistribution or government control

You tried to use the quotes in defense of your stand... it has been shown that those quotes do not support what you claim... now you're being asked to give quotes from the same source that actually do support your claims and stances

And your 'notion' is inherently false.. trying to portray a stance that is not being made by the other side (conservatives).... belief in voluntary charity on one's own decision and not government forced wealth redistribution thru red-tape filled entitlemenst is not "telling them they are better off without help"

Nice try, winger
Not only did you "portray a stance" for the other side (Liberals) you portrayed a stance for me, then you whine like a little CON$ervative crybaby when I gave you a dose of your own medicine. :rofl:

You have REPEATED shown support for entitlements.... do you also now contend that the liberals as a group do not support government entitlements (which are, by definition, coming from taxation and government revenues (both being involuntary)) to support the 'poor'?

Conservatives as a group do NOT support the statement you made.. You merely wish to state it that way to paint the picture you want

Fucking idiot winger
Well, there you go again, hypocritically "portraying a stance" for someone else. :cuckoo:
I made no comment one way or the other on entitlements, I merely pointed out to Claudette that her "selfish" position was not Christian.

Please speak for yourself, or I will speak some more for YOU and your fellow CON$! :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top