The RICH should be taxed at 100% - Fair is Fair!

[tooAlive]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

[ame=http://youtu.be/661pi6K-8WQ]EAT THE RICH! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Contumacious]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from people earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

EAT THE RICH! - YouTube

Bullshit.

In the USSR they confiscated 100% of the rich's wealth. Today it is a prosperous and thriving government.

Ask comrade starkiev.

.

 

[tooAlive]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from people earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

EAT THE RICH! - YouTube

Bullshit.

In the USSR they confiscated 100% of the rich's wealth. Today it is a prosperous and thriving government.

Ask comrade starkiev.

.

Prosperous and thriving indeed.. In an alternate universe.

 

[Mr Natural]

By the same token, let's cut all taxes to zero and watch revenues come rolling in.

 

[jillian]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

i'm sorry, nutter, where on earth is anyone saying tax people at 100%? surely you know the difference between the tax rates before the bush tax cuts and after.

so given that you probably know those things, i think it's safe to say we can chalk you up to being a pathological liar.

thanks for playing.

 

[tooAlive]

By the same token, let's cut all taxes to zero and watch revenues come rolling in.

Neither raising taxes or lowering them will solve anything.

The government has to cut it's obscene spending. Period.

 

[occupied]

Let's just flip the fuck out over what is essentially a minor tax hike that is opposed entirely on ideological grounds rather than any real danger to anyone's prosperity. Other than just hating taxes and so very much wanting to believe in trickle down there is no actual reason to make this an issue worthy of the death of the GOP, and it will be if they continue to cling to the Norquist pledge, that ship is sinking and there is no reason to lash themselves to the mast.

 

[boilermaker55]

And if we start cutting spending. Let's take all subsidies away from every entity!
Right! And re-do the tax code.
Remember , they built it themselves.

By the same token, let's cut all taxes to zero and watch revenues come rolling in.

Neither raising taxes or lowering them will solve anything.

The government has to cut it's obscene spending. Period.

 

[tooAlive]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

i'm sorry, nutter, where on earth is anyone saying tax people at 100%? surely you know the difference between the tax rates before the bush tax cuts and after.

so given that you probably know those things, i think it's safe to say we can chalk you up to being a pathological liar.

thanks for playing.

Democrats keep saying "the rich need to pay their fair share," while refusing to acknowledge the need to cut spending.

You say that the problem will be solved if the rich chipped in a little more. What we're trying to say is that no matter how high taxes are, they will do absolutely nothing to support the preposterous spending of the government.

We're not accusing you of wanting to raise taxes to 100% (although some of you come close to that), what we're saying is that raising taxes at all is pointless.

 

[WillowTree]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

i'm sorry, nutter, where on earth is anyone saying tax people at 100%? surely you know the difference between the tax rates before the bush tax cuts and after.

so given that you probably know those things, i think it's safe to say we can chalk you up to being a pathological liar.

thanks for playing.

Hilly Jilly Jilly. Tax em @39% federal then add in all the other taxes they pay what do you think that rate will be over50% how do you figure taking half of what a person earn fair?

 

[g5000]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

i'm sorry, nutter, where on earth is anyone saying tax people at 100%? surely you know the difference between the tax rates before the bush tax cuts and after.

so given that you probably know those things, i think it's safe to say we can chalk you up to being a pathological liar.

thanks for playing.

Democrats keep saying "the rich need to pay their fair share," while refusing to acknowledge the need to cut spending.

You say that the problem will be solved if the rich chipped in a little more. What we're trying to say is that no matter how high taxes are, they will do absolutely nothing to support the preposterous spending of the government.

We're not accusing you of wanting to raise taxes to 100% (although some of you come close to that), what we're saying is that raising taxes at all is pointless.

Can you show us the Democratic budget plan that does not contain any spending cuts, please?

.

 

[tooAlive]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

i'm sorry, nutter, where on earth is anyone saying tax people at 100%? surely you know the difference between the tax rates before the bush tax cuts and after.

so given that you probably know those things, i think it's safe to say we can chalk you up to being a pathological liar.

thanks for playing.

Hilly Jilly Jilly. Tax em @39% federal then add in all the other taxes they pay what do you think that rate will be over50% how do you figure taking half of what a person earn fair?

Willow, the Democrats unfortunately do think it's fair.

Regardless, it will do nothing towards lowering the deficit. They're essentially trying to fix a sinking ship with band-aids.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

What happens then? Who's money could we take after the government is broke again after a few months?

When will the liberals acknowledge the fact that spending cuts need to be made?

i'm sorry, nutter, where on earth is anyone saying tax people at 100%? surely you know the difference between the tax rates before the bush tax cuts and after.

so given that you probably know those things, i think it's safe to say we can chalk you up to being a pathological liar.

thanks for playing.

Hey, Jillie Willie... the point is that the Obamabots have convinced themselves that the key our prosperity and ultimately fairness, is to tax the one per centers. Ok, fine, if you take all their wealth.. every last fucking dime.. you'd fund the government for about a month. You'd still be running massive deficits and racking up debt.

Then what?

It's a plan that only the terminally stupid are buying.

 

[WillowTree]

39.6 is more like 40%

 

[g5000]

For those who are willfully blind:

But as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue -- and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes.

Obama Says Americans Picked His Approach to the Deficit - Politics - The Atlantic Wire


Spending cuts AND taxing the rich more.

.

 

[tooAlive]

For those who are willfully blind:

But as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue -- and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes.

Obama Says Americans Picked His Approach to the Deficit - Politics - The Atlantic Wire


Spending cuts AND taxing the rich more.

.

And then he gives another $6 billion to Asia for green energy development.

 

[WillowTree]

i'm sorry, nutter, where on earth is anyone saying tax people at 100%? surely you know the difference between the tax rates before the bush tax cuts and after.

so given that you probably know those things, i think it's safe to say we can chalk you up to being a pathological liar.

thanks for playing.

Hilly Jilly Jilly. Tax em @39% federal then add in all the other taxes they pay what do you think that rate will be over50% how do you figure taking half of what a person earn fair?

Willow, the Democrats unfortunately do think it's fair.

Regardless, it will do nothing towards lowering the deficit. They're essentially trying to fix a sinking ship with band-aids.

Someone on the hill said it best " the Republicans need to get their cuts BEFORE they agree to tax hikes.

 

[g5000]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today revealed his own budget proposal, which would hand Obama the full $2.4 trillion borrowing authority he has requested—enough to last through the 2012 election—tied to $2.7 trillion in spending cuts that would leave Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security untouched. The plan does not attempt to raise new revenues: conservatives have been adamant that they will not vote for any proposal that raises taxes.

Harry Reid



It isn't that Democrats don't want to cut spending. It is that Republicans don't want to cut DEFENSE spending, while Democrats don't want to cut ENTITLEMENT spending.

Both sides want to cut spending, folks.

Wakey wakey.

.

 

[g5000]

For those who are willfully blind:

But as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue -- and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes.

Obama Says Americans Picked His Approach to the Deficit - Politics - The Atlantic Wire


Spending cuts AND taxing the rich more.

.

And then he gives another $6 billion to Asia for green energy development.

$6 billion? That's all you have in the face of trillions that have been put on the table to be cut by Democrats? Seriously?

I suppose you found it an impossible task to find $6 billion of waste in the Defense budget, right?


Naw. You haven't even bothered to look. You didn't even find that Asian green money. Someone poured that piss for you.


Wakey wakey!

Stop drinking the piss and start thinking about the good of the country.


.

 

[konradv]

Lets take 100% of the income earned from wealthy Americans earning over $250k. A liberals dream right?

Wrong, just another stupid post from the terminally clueless. Why are you CONS purposely trying to drive us over the cliff?