“Redistribute the wealth”

[francoHFW]

The GOP is out of control, job providers my ass, super duper. You have no idea what my people think or stand for, brainwashed functional idiot.

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

Bull. The Congress is who creates the bills, and it's the President who signs them. So show me the last time the Commie House ever presented a bill with pre-Reagan tax hikes for the rich.

Unfortunately the pussy Democrats don't put up bills they know won't pass. But in1993, the Clinton administration repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
Obama managed to get a 4% hike on the rich, and a 3.8% hike on them that was part of ACA.
Carter actually wanted to cut taxes like Reagan but Teddy and the Democrats wouldn't let him, they wanted social reforms that cost money.
Read more: Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Yeah, and how did DumBama get a tax hike passed? Oh, that's right, the Republicans worked with him. Too bad he never extended the same curtesy back.

Democrats never offered a bill because they don't want the rich to leave the country either. They don't want jobs to suffer. You don't know if a bill will pass until it goes through the house and then gets to the Senate. So your excuse is pure bull.

Yes, Clinton raised taxes, and when it became an economic problem, he instituted tax cuts, primarily on capital gains taxes. You know, those taxes that the rich people pay?

he did a lot that I disagreed with to get along with the goddamn GOP. Got nothing out of it....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

Bull. The Congress is who creates the bills, and it's the President who signs them. So show me the last time the Commie House ever presented a bill with pre-Reagan tax hikes for the rich.

Unfortunately the pussy Democrats don't put up bills they know won't pass. But in1993, the Clinton administration repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
Obama managed to get a 4% hike on the rich, and a 3.8% hike on them that was part of ACA.
Carter actually wanted to cut taxes like Reagan but Teddy and the Democrats wouldn't let him, they wanted social reforms that cost money.
Read more: Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Yeah, and how did DumBama get a tax hike passed? Oh, that's right, the Republicans worked with him. Too bad he never extended the same curtesy back.

Democrats never offered a bill because they don't want the rich to leave the country either. They don't want jobs to suffer. You don't know if a bill will pass until it goes through the house and then gets to the Senate. So your excuse is pure bull.

Yes, Clinton raised taxes, and when it became an economic problem, he instituted tax cuts, primarily on capital gains taxes. You know, those taxes that the rich people pay?

he did a lot that I disagreed with to get along with the goddamn GOP. Got nothing out of it....

Except a booming economy that he took credit for, just like he took credit for Welfare Reform; a bill he vetoed twice before signing.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Trump is trying to get good paying jobs back in the U.S. ... manufacturing jobs where they will be happy to train you, and pay a good wage. But you fight him tooth and nail.

Gawd, yes. I don't wanna work.

Corrected

Ok I decided to redistribute my wealth after taxes. Here is two dollars to you and three to me. I allowed one dollar for handling. My net is low since the Obama Medical plan. I will try harder next year.

 

[Papageorgio]

What exactly would we be giving up, super duper? It's a conspiracy!!!

Strange how I am also replying to you, isn't it? The point is, we have been operating under GOP tax rates for 35 years, a giveaway to the rich while cutting services and Aid for for the rest... Now we have the worst inequality and upward Mobility in our history and in the world of developed countries. Great job scumbag billionaire GOP and silly dupes! Talk about redistributing the wealth, jackasses....

Out of those 35 years, we had 16 of those years with a Democrat President, and a few of them had a Democrat led house.

We all know what would happen if you increase taxes on our job providers; the jobs leave the country. No politician left or right wants that if they are going to run for reelection which most of them will. Bottom line: you are completely wrong, and even your own people understand that.

The GOP is out of control, job providers my ass, super duper. You have no idea what my people think or stand for, brainwashed functional idiot.

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

They had over 60 votes in 1975 to 1979 under Jimmy Carter.

On the other hand the excuse that you give for the Democrats not getting anything done is they didn’t have 60 votes. The Republicans didn’t have 60 votes at all, yet they could do whatever they wanted and yet you want us to believe the Democrats couldn’t?

See, more lies and more excuses and more blaming others. Those are your trademarks.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

Bull. The Congress is who creates the bills, and it's the President who signs them. So show me the last time the Commie House ever presented a bill with pre-Reagan tax hikes for the rich.

Unfortunately the pussy Democrats don't put up bills they know won't pass. But in1993, the Clinton administration repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
Obama managed to get a 4% hike on the rich, and a 3.8% hike on them that was part of ACA.
Carter actually wanted to cut taxes like Reagan but Teddy and the Democrats wouldn't let him, they wanted social reforms that cost money.
Read more: Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Yeah, and how did DumBama get a tax hike passed? Oh, that's right, the Republicans worked with him. Too bad he never extended the same curtesy back.

Democrats never offered a bill because they don't want the rich to leave the country either. They don't want jobs to suffer. You don't know if a bill will pass until it goes through the house and then gets to the Senate. So your excuse is pure bull.

Yes, Clinton raised taxes, and when it became an economic problem, he instituted tax cuts, primarily on capital gains taxes. You know, those taxes that the rich people pay?

he did a lot that I disagreed with to get along with the goddamn GOP. Got nothing out of it....

Funny when you think about the Bi thing.

 

[Papageorgio]

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

Bull. The Congress is who creates the bills, and it's the President who signs them. So show me the last time the Commie House ever presented a bill with pre-Reagan tax hikes for the rich.

Unfortunately the pussy Democrats don't put up bills they know won't pass. But in1993, the Clinton administration repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
Obama managed to get a 4% hike on the rich, and a 3.8% hike on them that was part of ACA.
Carter actually wanted to cut taxes like Reagan but Teddy and the Democrats wouldn't let him, they wanted social reforms that cost money.
Read more: Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Yeah, and how did DumBama get a tax hike passed? Oh, that's right, the Republicans worked with him. Too bad he never extended the same curtesy back.

Democrats never offered a bill because they don't want the rich to leave the country either. They don't want jobs to suffer. You don't know if a bill will pass until it goes through the house and then gets to the Senate. So your excuse is pure bull.

Yes, Clinton raised taxes, and when it became an economic problem, he instituted tax cuts, primarily on capital gains taxes. You know, those taxes that the rich people pay?

he did a lot that I disagreed with to get along with the goddamn GOP. Got nothing out of it....

Except a booming economy that he took credit for, just like he took credit for Welfare Reform; a bill he vetoed twice before signing.

How could it be Obama’s economy? I mean the Democrats couldn’t get anything done and didn’t have the 60 votes! Democrats can’t do anything without the 60 votes! Lol! The excuses he has!

 

[Papageorgio]

It should be SS ID card that can't be faked end of story.

So your personal rights don’t matter? How much are you willing to give up?

What exactly would we be giving up, super duper? It's a conspiracy!!!

Do some research dupe and quit trusting the Democratic Party which would benefit immensely from your data.
Broad Coalition Urges President Obama And Congress To Oppose Biometric National ID

That is a post from the ACLU, of course they push their supposed power. So you believe it is impossible to have an ID card that can't be faked and would not turn us into a communist dictatorship? It's a conspiracy I tell you LOL...

Name one ID card in the world that can’t be faked, name me one bank card that information cannot be taken from. It might be fool proof today but tomorrow hackers will figure it out. That has been the way of technology forever, you build a better firewall and the hackers figure it out.

Now, why shouldd a law abiding, honest, US citizen need to have his fingerprints and ID card on file 24/7?
What else will they do with that information?
How can you guarantee that identies won’t be stolen through that card?
Are you going to answer?
Are you avoiding the questions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Out of those 35 years, we had 16 of those years with a Democrat President, and a few of them had a Democrat led house.

We all know what would happen if you increase taxes on our job providers; the jobs leave the country. No politician left or right wants that if they are going to run for reelection which most of them will. Bottom line: you are completely wrong, and even your own people understand that.

The GOP is out of control, job providers my ass, super duper. You have no idea what my people think or stand for, brainwashed functional idiot.

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

 

[Papageorgio]

The GOP is out of control, job providers my ass, super duper. You have no idea what my people think or stand for, brainwashed functional idiot.

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

He is just doing what he always does, lies, diverts blame, and makes excuses. The Republicans haven’t had 60 votes since 1909 yet they are to blame for everything because the Democrats haven’t had 60 votes since 1979. His logic is terrible, his grasp of government is woeful.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

He is just doing what he always does, lies, diverts blame, and makes excuses. The Republicans haven’t had 60 votes since 1909 yet they are to blame for everything because the Democrats haven’t had 60 votes since 1979. His logic is terrible, his grasp of government is woeful.

Not to mention until Bill Clinton, the Republicans never had control over the House in over 30 years.

 

[francoHFW]

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

Bull. The Congress is who creates the bills, and it's the President who signs them. So show me the last time the Commie House ever presented a bill with pre-Reagan tax hikes for the rich.

Unfortunately the pussy Democrats don't put up bills they know won't pass. But in1993, the Clinton administration repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
Obama managed to get a 4% hike on the rich, and a 3.8% hike on them that was part of ACA.
Carter actually wanted to cut taxes like Reagan but Teddy and the Democrats wouldn't let him, they wanted social reforms that cost money.
Read more: Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Yeah, and how did DumBama get a tax hike passed? Oh, that's right, the Republicans worked with him. Too bad he never extended the same curtesy back.

Democrats never offered a bill because they don't want the rich to leave the country either. They don't want jobs to suffer. You don't know if a bill will pass until it goes through the house and then gets to the Senate. So your excuse is pure bull.

Yes, Clinton raised taxes, and when it became an economic problem, he instituted tax cuts, primarily on capital gains taxes. You know, those taxes that the rich people pay?

he did a lot that I disagreed with to get along with the goddamn GOP. Got nothing out of it....

Except a booming economy that he took credit for, just like he took credit for Welfare Reform; a bill he vetoed twice before signing.

Yeah his economic success was the dot-com bubble. That welfare reform sucked 2. At least he didn't start any Republican style major stupid Wars...

 

[francoHFW]

Bull. The Congress is who creates the bills, and it's the President who signs them. So show me the last time the Commie House ever presented a bill with pre-Reagan tax hikes for the rich.

Unfortunately the pussy Democrats don't put up bills they know won't pass. But in1993, the Clinton administration repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
Obama managed to get a 4% hike on the rich, and a 3.8% hike on them that was part of ACA.
Carter actually wanted to cut taxes like Reagan but Teddy and the Democrats wouldn't let him, they wanted social reforms that cost money.
Read more: Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Yeah, and how did DumBama get a tax hike passed? Oh, that's right, the Republicans worked with him. Too bad he never extended the same curtesy back.

Democrats never offered a bill because they don't want the rich to leave the country either. They don't want jobs to suffer. You don't know if a bill will pass until it goes through the house and then gets to the Senate. So your excuse is pure bull.

Yes, Clinton raised taxes, and when it became an economic problem, he instituted tax cuts, primarily on capital gains taxes. You know, those taxes that the rich people pay?

he did a lot that I disagreed with to get along with the goddamn GOP. Got nothing out of it....

Except a booming economy that he took credit for, just like he took credit for Welfare Reform; a bill he vetoed twice before signing.

Yeah his economic success was the dot-com bubble. That welfare reform sucked 2. At least he didn't start any Republican style major stupid Wars...

Or covert undercover CIA garbage like ray gun...

 

[francoHFW]

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

He is just doing what he always does, lies, diverts blame, and makes excuses. The Republicans haven’t had 60 votes since 1909 yet they are to blame for everything because the Democrats haven’t had 60 votes since 1979. His logic is terrible, his grasp of government is woeful.

Not to mention until Bill Clinton, the Republicans never had control over the House in over 30 years.

Yes the Democrats gave Reagan a honeymoon so he got his tax cuts. Since that is all Republicans want...

 

[francoHFW]

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

He is just doing what he always does, lies, diverts blame, and makes excuses. The Republicans haven’t had 60 votes since 1909 yet they are to blame for everything because the Democrats haven’t had 60 votes since 1979. His logic is terrible, his grasp of government is woeful.

Not to mention until Bill Clinton, the Republicans never had control over the House in over 30 years.

Yes the Democrats gave Reagan a honeymoon so he got his tax cuts. Since that is all Republicans want...

All the GOP want is tax cuts on the rich. That was the last time a president has gotten a honeymoon so we still have Reagan's disastrous tax rates. And crap growth and Wrecking the middle class and the country. Great job!

 

[francoHFW]

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

He is just doing what he always does, lies, diverts blame, and makes excuses. The Republicans haven’t had 60 votes since 1909 yet they are to blame for everything because the Democrats haven’t had 60 votes since 1979. His logic is terrible, his grasp of government is woeful.

The last honeymoon a president Got was Reagan so we still have his s***give away to the rich tax rates and policies, dumbass.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

I thought about it and when you know who shares, I will.
Washington Examiner, Judicial Watch outlined the Clintons’ long association with Saudi money. In 1992, while Bill Clinton was running for president, the Saudis gave $3.5 million to the University of Arkansas, a donation brokered by close Clinton friend, David Edwards. After Mr. Clinton was inaugurated president, the Saudis added another $20 million to the pot.

The Clinton Foundation received staggering sums from Saudi Arabia. According to our reporting, Saudi benefactors bestowed between $18 million and $50 million on the enterprise. (Foundation donations were reported in ranges, not specific numbers.)

 

[francoHFW]

The GOP is out of control, job providers my ass, super duper. You have no idea what my people think or stand for, brainwashed functional idiot.

I don't? Then why haven't they raised taxes to pre-Reagan levels, can you tell me that? They've had plenty of time and power to do so.

And yes, job providers. That is unless you can show me instances of poor people providing jobs.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama, and they only had it for 40 days in session, all spent on ACA. And it is stupid to raise taxes in the middle of a GOP corrupt economic meltdown.

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

They can't even raise taxes 4% without giving the store away to to The GOP. Reconciliation I'm sure you understand perfectly LOL. It's seems to work only for cutting taxes and debt. Technically. The GOP loves it...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

He is just doing what he always does, lies, diverts blame, and makes excuses. The Republicans haven’t had 60 votes since 1909 yet they are to blame for everything because the Democrats haven’t had 60 votes since 1979. His logic is terrible, his grasp of government is woeful.

Not to mention until Bill Clinton, the Republicans never had control over the House in over 30 years.

Yes the Democrats gave Reagan a honeymoon so he got his tax cuts. Since that is all Republicans want...

All the GOP want is tax cuts on the rich. That was the last time a president has gotten a honeymoon so we still have Reagan's disastrous tax rates. And crap growth and Wrecking the middle class and the country. Great job!

Never happened. You need 60 votes in the Senate, remember you said that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only time Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate so they could raise taxes since 19 68 was under Obama,

You're a dolt.

View attachment 214526

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia

They didn't have 60 votes for that... They used reconciliation on that.

Were they able to raise taxes? Yes.

Did they need 60 votes to do it? No.

Why are you whining they only had 60 votes for 40 days?
They could have raised taxes with 59 votes. Or with 58.

Shit, they could raise taxes with 50 votes. Dolt.

He is just doing what he always does, lies, diverts blame, and makes excuses. The Republicans haven’t had 60 votes since 1909 yet they are to blame for everything because the Democrats haven’t had 60 votes since 1979. His logic is terrible, his grasp of government is woeful.

Not to mention until Bill Clinton, the Republicans never had control over the House in over 30 years.

Yes the Democrats gave Reagan a honeymoon so he got his tax cuts. Since that is all Republicans want...

Which led to a booming economy. And the Democrats got their illegals too.

 

[francoHFW]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

I thought about it and when you know who shares, I will.
Washington Examiner, Judicial Watch outlined the Clintons’ long association with Saudi money. In 1992, while Bill Clinton was running for president, the Saudis gave $3.5 million to the University of Arkansas, a donation brokered by close Clinton friend, David Edwards. After Mr. Clinton was inaugurated president, the Saudis added another $20 million to the pot.

The Clinton Foundation received staggering sums from Saudi Arabia. According to our reporting, Saudi benefactors bestowed between $18 million and $50 million on the enterprise. (Foundation donations were reported in ranges, not specific numbers.)

Judicial Watch and Heritage are bought off propaganda Outlets. All that has been investigated and the money went to the foundation. End of story, conspiracy Nut Job Foxbot.