steal from the rich to give to the......(not poor)

[Truthmatters]

HAHAHahahahahahahahah

THE RICH WERE THE ONES WHO RECIEVED BONUSES OUT OF THE TARP MONEY.


It is the subject you shill

No, banks all over the world got TARP money. What they do with it is supposed to be up to them.

They sink or swim accordingly.

That's what happens in free societies.

The problem begins when government starts picking winners and losers.

CHM2 Hill got billions in loan guarantees from the Obama Administration and then promptly fired thousands of employees. Solyndra got millions and filed bankruptcy. G E got an office in the White House and now we can't make incandescent light bulbs in this country anymore. All of those jobs were shipped to China.

Not to mention the TARP money has been, is being, and will be paid back.

By whom?

not by the people who got the bonuses huh?

They are the ones you are screaming fro more tax cuts for EVEN THOUGH their taxes have been steadily decreasing for quite some time now and they NEVER produced any of the jobs you guys claimed that giving them a YET MORE tax cuts would produce.

Your ideas have failed in an historic manner YET again and the only people buying your convoluted logic that need to scarafice yet more for the wealthy is getting your party a march to its suicide

 

[Truthmatters]

Now tell me how much TARP has been paid back?

 

[PredFan]

Because

IT WAS THEIR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH.

Here is an IDIOT stating that the tarp money we gave the corps was their money originally?

you are a real shill

Hey numbnuts. In case you didn't notice this thread is about taxing the rich. Not the banks and corporations. Change the goalposts some more why dontcha.

That is on page one of his playbook.

 

[PredFan]

HAHAHahahahahahahahah

THE RICH WERE THE ONES WHO RECIEVED BONUSES OUT OF THE TARP MONEY.


It is the subject you shill

So what your saying is CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE?

Why is it so impossible to have a rational conversation with you?

This thread is about taxing INDIVIDUALS at the expense of another.

IT'S NOT ABOUT CORPORATE TAXES.

But he can't argue that, he has to argue under his terms that are designed specifically so that he'll be right.

 

[PredFan]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

20% own 85%.

that is fucking third world shit you idiots

Hey dumbass, you're paranoid rantings aren't true simply because you say they are.

The 20% owns 80%? Good for them. Now the rest of you, get to work and maybe you too can join them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Democrats clearly hate the rich and despise their success.

This makes no sense given the fact many democrats are rich. You’ve also cited no evidence in support.

Now they want to take from the rich to give to the MIDDLE CLASS on a payroll tax cut.

No, the tax cut is currently in effect, they wish to extend it. Nothing is being ‘taken from the rich.’

It's no longer for the poor. They simply want to punish the rich at every opportunity.

Again, no evidence in support, and the cuts are already in effect, with no adverse effect on the rich.

Here's a novel idea......CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

What spending would you like to cut? Military? Agri-Welfare? Corporate Welfare? Or do you want cuts to the poor you accuse democrats of ‘abusing.’

Sorry Gramps, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

I guess your bowl of fruitloops is empty?

Protip- having that avatar doesn't make you any smarter than you really are. It's actually kinda comical actually.

 

[kiwiman127]

Chart 1, Shows the growing income inequality is the US.
Chart 2, Shows the drop of the working class's share of the National Income.

It appears that there are those who want to see the income gap to increase further, the gap isn't wide enough for them now. Of course, as the income gap increases, the working class's share on the National Income becomes even less than the record low they earned last year.

This is how those who claim there is a class war on the wealth think. Looking at the facts, it clearly shows who is winning the class warfare.

 

[PredFan]

Chart 1, Shows the growing income inequality is the US.
Chart 2, Shows the drop of the working class's share of the National Income.

Yeah, so what?

It appears that there are those who want to see the income gap to increase further, the gap isn't wide enough for them now.

Garbage. Complete left wing nut bull shit.

Of course, as the income gap increases, the working class's share on the National Income becomes even less than the record low they earned last year.

Dude, it's percentages and that doesn't mean anything. Their actual earnings don't drop, just the percentage of the total wealth. And well, that's their fault isn't it. Should have worked harder, sucks to be them.

This is how those who claim there is a class war on the wealth think. Looking at the facts, it clearly shows who is winning the class warfare.

Apples and oranges. The class warfare is being waged by Obama and the left, regardless of who you claim is winning. The rich don't demonize the poor, but the left demonizes the rich so that the ignorant poor will keep them in power. The left has no intention of making the poor better off. As long as they remain poor, they will continue to vote democrat.

 

[Dragon]

Dude, it's percentages and that doesn't mean anything. Their actual earnings don't drop, just the percentage of the total wealth.

It does mean something. The working class is also the consumer class, so when productivity soars while wages stagnate, resulting in increased concentration of wealth at the top, consumer demand slumps relative to goods on the market, and we get an economy like -- well, like this one.

And that's their fault. Should have worked harder

They did.

Should have been paid more for working harder. And that's NOT their fault.

 

[BluePhantom]

Apples and oranges. The class warfare is being waged by Obama and the left, regardless of who you claim is winning. The rich don't demonize the poor, but the left demonizes the rich so that the ignorant poor will keep them in power. The left has no intention of making the poor better off. As long as they remain poor, they will continue to vote democrat.

You hit this dead center on the nose. The last thing Democrats want is to get people out of poverty. The more money people have the more they want to keep it for themselves and that means the less likely they will be to vote Democrat. What Democrats want is to keep the poor's noses just slightly above water so they don't drown but they are dependent upon the Democrats to keep them from going under. The more people the Democrats can get "hooked on the government drug" the better their chances of staying in power.

 

[Dragon]

The last thing Democrats want is to get people out of poverty.

As Gramps already pointed out in the OP, this isn't about people in poverty. It's about everyone who isn't rich, most of whom AREN'T poor.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We pay taxes to support our govt. And what mandate does our govt have? To protect NOT PROVIDE.

I don't think the left remembers what our governments foundation was based on and have since perverted its mandate beyond its original intent to the point that even the public is starting to believe their bullshit.

 

[kiwiman127]

Chart 1, Shows the growing income inequality is the US.
Chart 2, Shows the drop of the working class's share of the National Income.

Yeah, so what? Educate yourself.

It appears that there are those who want to see the income gap to increase further, the gap isn't wide enough for them now.

Garbage. Complete left wing nut bull shit. Read your own posts and other righty's post

]

Of course, as the income gap increases, the working class's share on the National Income becomes even less than the record low they earned last year.

Dude, it's percentages and that doesn't mean anything. Their actual earnings don't drop, just the percentage of the total wealth. And well, that's their fault isn't it. Should have worked harder, sucks to be them.

This is how those who claim there is a class war on the wealth think. Looking at the facts, it clearly shows who is winning the class warfare.

What it means that the working class's wages remain flat and fall behind inflation. This means less and less expendable income. As the working class is the consumer class in a economy driven 70% by consumer spending, it's no wonder that the US has a rough time recovering from recessions, it happened after the very small 2001 recession and again it's happening but this time with a very huge recession. If the working class isn't working hard, explain the high productivity. In other words, you would have been better off not responding, instead of posting your anti-working class BS.

Apples and oranges. The class warfare is being waged by Obama and the left, regardless of who you claim is winning. The rich don't demonize the poor, but the left demonizes the rich so that the ignorant poor will keep them in power. The left has no intention of making the poor better off. As long as they remain poor, they will continue to vote democrat.

You said the rich don't demonize the poor, true. But the right demonizes the poor and the working middle class as shown by your remarks. The right's focus is on helping the wealthy. The working class is a huge majority of the US population and it's a fact that the huge majority of Americans are losing out as their plunging share of the National Income shows. And you don't give a shit! Who is going to drive the US capitalistic consumer driven economy? That'd be Econ 101.

 

[kiwiman127]

Apples and oranges. The class warfare is being waged by Obama and the left, regardless of who you claim is winning. The rich don't demonize the poor, but the left demonizes the rich so that the ignorant poor will keep them in power. The left has no intention of making the poor better off. As long as they remain poor, they will continue to vote democrat.

You hit this dead center on the nose. The last thing Democrats want is to get people out of poverty. The more money people have the more they want to keep it for themselves and that means the less likely they will be to vote Democrat. What Democrats want is to keep the poor's noses just slightly above water so they don't drown but they are dependent upon the Democrats to keep them from going under. The more people the Democrats can get "hooked on the government drug" the better their chances of staying in power.

What an original post!
I've seen this same train of thought posted at least 100 times on these boards alone!!!!
Is that an echo I hear?

 

[BluePhantom]

You said the rich don't demonize the poor, true. But the right demonizes the poor and the working middle class as shown by your remarks. The right's focus is on helping the wealthy.

Really? You sure about that?

"-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."(1)

"During all three years states that voted republican had higher Inverse Generosity Index Scores as a whole over states that voted democratic according to the average index scores. Just by looking at the maps you can see that the orange colored states (conservative states) have the larger white circles (high rankings) and the blue colored states (liberal states) have the smaller white circles (low rankings)...This is to give a good overall average of how very democratic states compare to very republican states when it comes to giving to charity." (2)

"At the outset of his research, Mr. Brooks had assumed that those who favor a large role for government would be most likely to give to charity. But in fact, the opposite is true......Mr. Brooks calls it a "bitter irony" that those favoring income redistribution are not doing much redistributing from their own bank accounts" (3)

"Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so. The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children....A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals. " (4)

1) RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

2) Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | GeoIQ Blog

3) Charity's Political Divide, Republicans give a bigger share to charity (Democrats Don't)

4) Op-Ed Columnist - Bleeding Heart Tightwads - NYTimes.com

 

[Full-Auto]

Democrats clearly hate the rich and despise their success. Now they want to take from the rich to give to the MIDDLE CLASS on a payroll tax cut.

It's no longer for the poor. They simply want to punish the rich at every opportunity.

Here's a novel idea......CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Democrats in DC should be known as the Real Houswives of DC.

Democrats dont hate the rich, they were right there being paid, for the tax breaks just like the repubs.

They want the useful idiots known as their base to hate the rich.

A Magicians trick, look at this hand while the other takes your wallet.

You misunderstand the ideology of the left. They deserve to be wealthy because they are special. They know more, are more sensitive, are more caring and better able to shepherd YOUR money.

Have you ever heard a sleazy evangelist justify using donations to support a sleazy lavish lifestyle? They say the same things, they are special, more deserving because they are working for the little people.

You have a point. Democrats did say government was more important then the peons.

Jobs of course.

 

[thereisnospoon]

you people have no shame do you?

About what?
What is your objection to politicians engaging ion fiscal responsibility?
Our federal government and many local governments have no revenue problems. They ALL have spending problems.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Democrats clearly hate the rich and despise their success. Now they want to take from the rich to give to the MIDDLE CLASS on a payroll tax cut.

It's no longer for the poor. They simply want to punish the rich at every opportunity.

Here's a novel idea......CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Democrats in DC should be known as the Real Houswives of DC.

If one uses voting patterns, the obvious is that Blue States where most of the nations wealth ( The Northeast/New England, California) is concentrated vote overwhelmingly democrat.
Most of the democrats in Washington are also wealthy people. They are in fact, part of that evil 1%.
Libs talking out both sides of their pie holes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

Yeah? Your point is?...
Fact...There is no such thing as a "share" of income. Or "share" of wealth.
You people on the left continually attempt to further the idea of the zero sum game.
It doesn't exist.

 

[Full-Auto]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

Yeah? Your point is?...
Fact...There is no such thing as a "share" of income. Or "share" of wealth.
You people on the left continually attempt to further the idea of the zero sum game.
It doesn't exist.

You need to become a good citizen. One that democrats would truly admire.

For example...................