Proff of Income Inequality

[OnePercenter]

But can it buy you love?

Money helps generate love.

 

[OnePercenter]

Playing the margins?

Fools play. I invest to make money not take chances.

 

[OnePercenter]

An hour at a time. Lol

That would be buying sex, not love.

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't understand what his issue is, being a "OnePercenter". He'd probably be complaining about the progressive income tax, if it were true.

There is nothing wrong with progressive tax when 95% of the tax code is written for one percenters.

The 10% flat tax would cause me a tax increase.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Money is not the root of evil, nor is it a stairway to heaven..

True, but it makes life much more enjoyable.

But can it buy you love?

It can rent you a reasonable facsimile thereof.

 

[Meathead]

From 2009 to 2011 which years did Democrats have 60 or more votes in the Senate, House majority, and the White House?

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

• From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
• From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
• For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

You were wrong!

You forgot Independents.[/QUOTE]
Since you mentioned it, Why can't you admit your own ignorance in stating the Democrats didn't have a 60 seat Senate,House and president since the 1970s?. Game over.

 

[blastoff]

True, but modern income equality started in the early 70's when conservatives raised their ugly heads.

Democrats haven't had control (60 or more votes in the Senate, majority in the House, AND the White House) since the late 70's, thus you have the blame.

Sorry Sparky, Democrats had the entire government from 2009 to 2011 when Obama, Pelosi and Reid bombed.

Modern income inequality? Seriously?!

More like modern stupidity inequality, and the lefty clowns have the market cornered.

 

[OnePercenter]

Since you mentioned it, Why can't you admit your own ignorance in stating the Democrats didn't have a 60 seat Senate,House and president since the 1970s?. Game over.

Prove me wrong. You can't? Game over.

 

[OnePercenter]

More like modern stupidity inequality, and the lefty clowns have the market cornered.

Prove me wrong. You can't. Game over.

 

[Meathead]

Since you mentioned it, Why can't you admit your own ignorance in stating the Democrats didn't have a 60 seat Senate,House and president since the 1970s?. Game over.

Prove me wrong. You can't? Game over.

You have already been proven wrong. Now you've only got to prove yourself right, Do it!

 

[blastoff]

I don't understand what his issue is, being a "OnePercenter". He'd probably be complaining about the progressive income tax, if it were true.

There is nothing wrong with progressive tax when 95% of the tax code is written for one percenters.

The 10% flat tax would cause me a tax increase.

BINGO!!!

 

[FJO]

Income inequality has existed ....and will exist....for all of human history.

Some cavemen had better farm land. Some had more plentiful animals to hunt.

Men aren't created equal in ability. They should be given equal opportunity. And here they are. But ability is not and never will be equal. LeBron James vs me in basketball is proof.

If, by magic, someone would make everyone in the world have equal wealth, you know, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, you can bet that the national debt would remain the same and in five or ten years those who were rich would be rich again and those who were poor would be poor again.

 

[FJO]

Ya. The "income inequality" I enjoy came to me as a reward for my hard work.
Fucking try it sometime. You'll be surprised at how "lucky" you'll be at getting ahead.
Today my plan was to decide whether to have a stainless 'Tubi' package installed on my Quattroporte 11. Some say putting on an aftermarket package devalues the car but I like the tuning. What say you all LIBS?

That isn't income equality, that portfolio advancement.

Just think, if you would have worked smart instead of hard, you'd be much wealthier today. Wealth is derived by the work of OTHERS.

And moral turpitude is derived and sustained by envy of others.

 

[rdean]

They are investments to make more money, period.

The issue is spendable income and the fact that the rich and wealthy have more due to income equality.

A vacuous yet amazing grasp of the obvious.

Yea, but I thought the economy was terrible. That's it's making everyone poor. Isn't that what Republicans have been saying?

 

[FJO]

From 2009 to 2011 which years did Democrats have 60 or more votes in the Senate, House majority, and the White House?

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

• From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
• From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
• For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

You were wrong!

You forgot Independents.[/QUOTE]

You mean hose so-called "independents" who ALWAYS caucused and voted Democrat?