The Sad, Bitter Truth About Tea Baggers...

[teapartysamurai]

Tax, borrow and spend St Ronnie raised every tax he could think of!

Here is a list of 9/11 Reagan's tax increases.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

True! Reagan as working with Democrat majorites in both Houses and had to make compromises. But the tax cuts he made were the important ones.

The Tax Foundation - Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts


As noted:

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.


A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generatemore taxable income.

Those have to be the STUPIDEST "conclusions" ever rationalized! Tax dodgers will stop dodging their taxes!

The rich paid more taxes because they got richer. When you consider the total tax percentage from all taxes rather than dishonestly considering only the income tax without considering the increase in income, you get a different picture.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

You can blather on, but in that, you just prove everything we have said.

Tax cuts INCREASE REVENUES, because the rich get richer!

You libs just HATE the idea of anyone making more money!

Thanks for proving me right!

 

[edthecynic]

True! Reagan as working with Democrat majorites in both Houses and had to make compromises. But the tax cuts he made were the important ones.

The Tax Foundation - Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts


As noted:

Those have to be the STUPIDEST "conclusions" ever rationalized! Tax dodgers will stop dodging their taxes!

The rich paid more taxes because they got richer. When you consider the total tax percentage from all taxes rather than dishonestly considering only the income tax without considering the increase in income, you get a different picture.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

You can blather on, but in that, you just prove everything we have said.

Tax cuts INCREASE REVENUES, because the rich get richer!

You libs just HATE the idea of anyone making more money!

Thanks for proving me right!

Revenue went DOWN when Reagan cut taxes in 1981, revenue didn't go up until he raised taxes.

Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)

Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3

Source - Internal Revenue Service.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Those have to be the STUPIDEST "conclusions" ever rationalized! Tax dodgers will stop dodging their taxes!

The rich paid more taxes because they got richer. When you consider the total tax percentage from all taxes rather than dishonestly considering only the income tax without considering the increase in income, you get a different picture.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

You can blather on, but in that, you just prove everything we have said.

Tax cuts INCREASE REVENUES, because the rich get richer!

You libs just HATE the idea of anyone making more money!

Thanks for proving me right!

Revenue went DOWN when Reagan cut taxes in 1981, revenue didn't go up until he raised taxes.

Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)

Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3

Source - Internal Revenue Service.

Yeah link? Funny you left that out!

Cause what I have doesn't even come CLOSE to your fiction:

Untitled

 

[edthecynic]

You can blather on, but in that, you just prove everything we have said.

Tax cuts INCREASE REVENUES, because the rich get richer!

You libs just HATE the idea of anyone making more money!

Thanks for proving me right!

Revenue went DOWN when Reagan cut taxes in 1981, revenue didn't go up until he raised taxes.

Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)

Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3

Source - Internal Revenue Service.

Yeah link? Funny you left that out!

Cause what I have doesn't even come CLOSE to your fiction:

Untitled

My chart came from the same source as yours!!!

Tax cuts increase tax collections

 

[daveman]

Here's the harshest truth of all, fuckhole -- You are an unemployed trailer trash tea bagger peasant who votes against your best economic interest year after year. You're so fucking stupid that you actually believe tax cuts for the rich are somehow going to benefit your pathetic unemployed ass. You believe this bullshit, but you don't have one shred of evidence to back it up. You repeat this fucking mantra like it's a religion. You have absolutely no facts, no game, no intellect, just your tea bagger Fox News bullshit.

Wall Street bankers blow a fucking $12 trillion hole in the economy, and you pathetically try to defend them -- you actually said that "Everyone makes mistakes"??!! and "that the bankers have feelings, too". Not only are you a fucking idiot, but you're fucking crazy, too.
Seriously.

It your peasant tea bagger duty to protect the wealth of your rich Repug feudal masters. You know that they are intellectually and morally superior to your puny, pathetic tea bagger ass and you have no choice in the matter. Sad, but true.

Remember, folks, it's just sheer coincidence that "your best interests" is "whatever keeps liberals in power".

Oh Daveman! +100 for that one! You're my new debating hero!

*tips hat*

 

[Avatar4321]

Remember, folks, it's just sheer coincidence that "your best interests" is "whatever keeps liberals in power".

It's odd isn't it? I'm supposed to vote "in my best interests" which is only what the liberals want here. Yet liberalism is supposedly all about whats best for others. Is liberalism selfish is compassionate? Make up your minds people.

 

[daveman]

Remember, folks, it's just sheer coincidence that "your best interests" is "whatever keeps liberals in power".

It's odd isn't it? I'm supposed to vote "in my best interests" which is only what the liberals want here. Yet liberalism is supposedly all about whats best for others. Is liberalism selfish is compassionate? Make up your minds people.

*Tweeeeeeeet!* Flag on the play. Illegal use of logic. 10 yard penalty.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Revenue went DOWN when Reagan cut taxes in 1981, revenue didn't go up until he raised taxes.

Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)

Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3

Source - Internal Revenue Service.

Yeah link? Funny you left that out!

Cause what I have doesn't even come CLOSE to your fiction:

Untitled

My chart came from the same source as yours!!!

Tax cuts increase tax collections

And spins it like all get out!

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

BTW, the tax reform act you cite as a tax INCREASE isn't the truth:

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

1. phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
2. accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
3. indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
4. created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
5. phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
6. reduced Windfall Profit taxes
7. allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
8. expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
9. replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

As can be seen, all of the provisions are effectively tax cuts. On the other hand, following are the provisions listed by the document for the 1986 tax bill:
Tax Reform Act of 1986

1. reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed capital gains exclusion
   
2. repealed investment tax credit
3. lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
4. increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
5. set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction
6. increased standard deduction from $3,670 to $5,000 (joints)
7. limited deduction for nonbusiness interest
8. repealed second earner deduction
9. limited passive losses
10. established income limits on use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by pensions
11. revised corporate minimum tax
12. repealed sales tax deduction for individuals

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

Your spin isn't fitting the facts.

That's when revenues according to YOU increased, AND THAT'S WHY.

They cut taxes even MORE.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah link? Funny you left that out!

Cause what I have doesn't even come CLOSE to your fiction:

Untitled

My chart came from the same source as yours!!!

Tax cuts increase tax collections

And spins it like all get out!

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

BTW, the tax reform act you cite as a tax INCREASE isn't the truth:

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

1. phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
2. accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
3. indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
4. created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
5. phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
6. reduced Windfall Profit taxes
7. allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
8. expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
9. replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

As can be seen, all of the provisions are effectively tax cuts. On the other hand, following are the provisions listed by the document for the 1986 tax bill:
Tax Reform Act of 1986

1. reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed capital gains exclusion
   
2. repealed investment tax credit
3. lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
4. increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
5. set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction
6. increased standard deduction from $3,670 to $5,000 (joints)
7. limited deduction for nonbusiness interest
8. repealed second earner deduction
9. limited passive losses
10. established income limits on use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by pensions
11. revised corporate minimum tax
12. repealed sales tax deduction for individuals

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

Your spin isn't fitting the facts.

That's when revenues according to YOU increased, AND THAT'S WHY.

They cut taxes even MORE.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Typical CON$erevative half-truths.

Those were not the only changes. Many deductions were eliminated or reduced raising taxes. It repealed two-earner deduction, long-term capital gains exclusion, state and local sales tax deduction, income averaging, and exclusion of unemployment benefits. Limited IRA eligibility, consumer interest deduction, deductibility of passive losses, medical expenses deductions, deduction for business meals and entertainment, pension contributions, and miscellaneous expense deduction.

The 1986 act also sought to eliminate special incentives that made tax shelters attractive and the tax law more complicated. Income derived from real estate became distinguishable on the basis of whether it was "active" or "passive." Passive income is income derived from a situation in which the taxpayer does not have an active management role, but it does not include capital gains on stocks, interest income on bonds, or interest on money market accounts. Before 1986 wealthy individuals could use passive income losses from a real estate tax shelter to offset active income. The 1986 act limited the deduction of passive losses to the amount of passive income but allowed taxpayers to carry forward any excess passive losses to the next year.
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) once allowed a taxpayer to invest before-tax dollars and enjoy tax-free compounding of interest. The 1986 statute ended full deductibility of IRAs for single employees covered by qualified retirement plans and earning more than $35,000 annually. For married employees the cutoff for full deductibility was set at $50,000. In addition, the law imposed a penalty on withdrawals of IRA contributions before the age of fifty-nine and a half years.
Another retirement plan, the KEOGH PLAN, permitted under section 401(k), once allowed a taxpayer to invest up to $30,000 a year without paying taxes on this income. The ceiling dropped to $7,000 in 1987.
The act also eliminated a provision that had enabled two-income married couples to reduce their taxes. A couple can no longer take a deduction based on the lower salary of the two; the deduction had allowed them to pay the same tax on the lower salary as a single person would pay on that amount. The act also abolished "income averaging." Formerly, individuals whose incomes varied considerably from year to year could average their income over several years, a calculation that resulted in lower taxes owed in the years of highest income.
Read more: Tax Reform Act of (1986) - Income, Passive, Rates, Percent, Eliminated, and Allowed Tax Reform Act of (1986) - Income, Passive, Rates, Percent, Eliminated, and Allowed

 

[teapartysamurai]

My chart came from the same source as yours!!!

Tax cuts increase tax collections

And spins it like all get out!

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

BTW, the tax reform act you cite as a tax INCREASE isn't the truth:

[/list]Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

Your spin isn't fitting the facts.

That's when revenues according to YOU increased, AND THAT'S WHY.

They cut taxes even MORE.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Typical CON$erevative half-truths.

Those were not the only changes. Many deductions were eliminated or reduced raising taxes. It repealed two-earner deduction, long-term capital gains exclusion, state and local sales tax deduction, income averaging, and exclusion of unemployment benefits. Limited IRA eligibility, consumer interest deduction, deductibility of passive losses, medical expenses deductions, deduction for business meals and entertainment, pension contributions, and miscellaneous expense deduction.

The 1986 act also sought to eliminate special incentives that made tax shelters attractive and the tax law more complicated. Income derived from real estate became distinguishable on the basis of whether it was "active" or "passive." Passive income is income derived from a situation in which the taxpayer does not have an active management role, but it does not include capital gains on stocks, interest income on bonds, or interest on money market accounts. Before 1986 wealthy individuals could use passive income losses from a real estate tax shelter to offset active income. The 1986 act limited the deduction of passive losses to the amount of passive income but allowed taxpayers to carry forward any excess passive losses to the next year.
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) once allowed a taxpayer to invest before-tax dollars and enjoy tax-free compounding of interest. The 1986 statute ended full deductibility of IRAs for single employees covered by qualified retirement plans and earning more than $35,000 annually. For married employees the cutoff for full deductibility was set at $50,000. In addition, the law imposed a penalty on withdrawals of IRA contributions before the age of fifty-nine and a half years.
Another retirement plan, the KEOGH PLAN, permitted under section 401(k), once allowed a taxpayer to invest up to $30,000 a year without paying taxes on this income. The ceiling dropped to $7,000 in 1987.
The act also eliminated a provision that had enabled two-income married couples to reduce their taxes. A couple can no longer take a deduction based on the lower salary of the two; the deduction had allowed them to pay the same tax on the lower salary as a single person would pay on that amount. The act also abolished "income averaging." Formerly, individuals whose incomes varied considerably from year to year could average their income over several years, a calculation that resulted in lower taxes owed in the years of highest income.
Read more: Tax Reform Act of (1986) - Income, Passive, Rates, Percent, Eliminated, and Allowed Tax Reform Act of (1986) - Income, Passive, Rates, Percent, Eliminated, and Allowed

Typical liberal spin.

IT WAS A REFORM. With the tax cuts, they cut out SOME LOOPHOLES.

Cutting out loopholes is NOT A TAX HIKE.

And then you are surprised revenues increased??????

Sorry but it's proof tax cuts INCREASE REVENUES.

Now let's cut ALL THE TAXES AND GET RID OF ALL THE LOOPHOLES.

The only reason the loopholes were put in there is so liberal people like the Kennedys could hide their money, while the rest of us schlubs have to pay the taxes.

 

[edthecynic]

And spins it like all get out!

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

BTW, the tax reform act you cite as a tax INCREASE isn't the truth:

[/list]Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

Your spin isn't fitting the facts.

That's when revenues according to YOU increased, AND THAT'S WHY.

They cut taxes even MORE.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Typical CON$erevative half-truths.

Those were not the only changes. Many deductions were eliminated or reduced raising taxes. It repealed two-earner deduction, long-term capital gains exclusion, state and local sales tax deduction, income averaging, and exclusion of unemployment benefits. Limited IRA eligibility, consumer interest deduction, deductibility of passive losses, medical expenses deductions, deduction for business meals and entertainment, pension contributions, and miscellaneous expense deduction.

The 1986 act also sought to eliminate special incentives that made tax shelters attractive and the tax law more complicated. Income derived from real estate became distinguishable on the basis of whether it was "active" or "passive." Passive income is income derived from a situation in which the taxpayer does not have an active management role, but it does not include capital gains on stocks, interest income on bonds, or interest on money market accounts. Before 1986 wealthy individuals could use passive income losses from a real estate tax shelter to offset active income. The 1986 act limited the deduction of passive losses to the amount of passive income but allowed taxpayers to carry forward any excess passive losses to the next year.
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) once allowed a taxpayer to invest before-tax dollars and enjoy tax-free compounding of interest. The 1986 statute ended full deductibility of IRAs for single employees covered by qualified retirement plans and earning more than $35,000 annually. For married employees the cutoff for full deductibility was set at $50,000. In addition, the law imposed a penalty on withdrawals of IRA contributions before the age of fifty-nine and a half years.
Another retirement plan, the KEOGH PLAN, permitted under section 401(k), once allowed a taxpayer to invest up to $30,000 a year without paying taxes on this income. The ceiling dropped to $7,000 in 1987.
The act also eliminated a provision that had enabled two-income married couples to reduce their taxes. A couple can no longer take a deduction based on the lower salary of the two; the deduction had allowed them to pay the same tax on the lower salary as a single person would pay on that amount. The act also abolished "income averaging." Formerly, individuals whose incomes varied considerably from year to year could average their income over several years, a calculation that resulted in lower taxes owed in the years of highest income.
Read more: Tax Reform Act of (1986) - Income, Passive, Rates, Percent, Eliminated, and Allowed Tax Reform Act of (1986) - Income, Passive, Rates, Percent, Eliminated, and Allowed

Typical liberal spin.

IT WAS A REFORM. With the tax cuts, they cut out SOME LOOPHOLES.

Cutting out loopholes is NOT A TAX HIKE.

And then you are surprised revenues increased??????

Sorry but it's proof tax cuts INCREASE REVENUES.

Now let's cut ALL THE TAXES AND GET RID OF ALL THE LOOPHOLES.

The only reason the loopholes were put in there is so liberal people like the Kennedys could hide their money, while the rest of us schlubs have to pay the taxes.

Cutting loopholes and DEDUCTIONS are definitely a tax increase!! Dang you are desperate!

And CON$ like the Melons and DuPonts got the same loopholes as the Kennedys. You are incapable of telling the WHOLE truth.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

One more leftist idiot who thinks earning a paycheck from the government is "welfare".

Yawn.

Maybe I should start a thread about the sad, bitter truth about people who believe Kerry won Ohio...

You only need check his rep to see what members here think of KWO. Funny shit, the source is Rolling Stone.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q]YouTube - Cover Of The Rolling Stone-Dr.Hook[/ame]

Yep, my source is Rolling Stone, an award winning magazine for excellence in journalism. Your "sources" are fucking Repug assclowns like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly.

Now we know a major reason why I'm 100 times smarter than you, lightweight tea bagger bitch.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Matt Taibi captures the truth about these hypocritical idiots beautifully in the latest issue of Rolling Stone --

After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views.

"I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."

"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"

"Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."

I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"

Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!

"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

Link -- Tea & Crackers | Rolling Stone Politics

The rolling stones rag doesn't know jack squat about politics.

Let me pick this tripe apart.

The 1st people he spoke to were in scooters and they wanted to talk to RS. That's BS all by itself.

So the rest is made up also.

He WORKED for the government so it's not welfare.

Mediacare is PAID FOR, it comes out of your PAY CHECK. Medicaid is welfare.

It's time to grow up and put the big boy pants on.

The rolling stones rag doesn't know jack squat about politics.

That's OK. Neither do you, you unsophisticated tea bagger simpleton.

Let me pick this tripe apart.

Let me know when you get to it.

The 1st people he spoke to were in scooters and they wanted to talk to RS. That's BS all by itself.

??? What the fuck does this even mean? People on scooters won't talk to reporters who come up to them?

He WORKED for the government so it's not welfare.

You tea bagger fucks constantly talk about how government sucks and can't do anything right. So he is a hypocrite for taking a check from the government, just like that idiot TSgt Daveman.

Mediacare is PAID FOR, it comes out of your PAY CHECK. Medicaid is welfare

.

We both know that most, if not all, of these tea bagger candidates talk about getting rid of Medicare and Social Security. Well, maybe you don't know this, you are fucking tea bagger idiot, after all.

It's time to grow up and put the big boy pants on.

Yes, you're very good at doing this for rich Repugs, after you suck their cocks every day. It is your tea bagger peasant duty to protect the wealth of your moral and intellectual superiors (and polish their knobs), after all.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

So when are you going to get to the Truth part?

Here's the harshest truth of all, fuckhole -- You are an unemployed trailer trash tea bagger peasant who votes against your best economic interest year after year. You're so fucking stupid that you actually believe tax cuts for the rich are somehow going to benefit your pathetic unemployed ass. You believe this bullshit, but you don't have one shred of evidence to back it up. You repeat this fucking mantra like it's a religion. You have absolutely no facts, no game, no intellect, just your tea bagger Fox News bullshit.

Wall Street bankers blow a fucking $12 trillion hole in the economy, and you pathetically try to defend them -- you actually said that "Everyone makes mistakes"??!! and "that the bankers have feelings, too". Not only are you a fucking idiot, but you're fucking crazy, too.
Seriously.

It your peasant tea bagger duty to protect the wealth of your rich Repug feudal masters. You know that they are intellectually and morally superior to your puny, pathetic tea bagger ass and you have no choice in the matter. Sad, but true.

In other words, you aren't going to bother speaking truth at all.

You might be more persuasive if you used facts or had any clue what you were talking about. You might also try to not swear and name call since it's not very persuasive or intimidating. It just makes you look uneducated.

If someone earns money, why should that upset me? What's wrong with people working hard and reaping the benefits of their work? Someone has more money than me so i should hate them? Why?

It's time we started cutting taxes and cutting spending so we aren't in debt to our eyeballs for the next 100 years. We need to put our houses in order or many will perish in the trials that are coming upon the people.

You might be more persuasive if you used facts or had any clue what you were talking about.

I've presented A LOT more facts than you ever have, tea bagger pussy. I'm an educated man with a master's degree and you're an unemployed, uneducated dipshit who just repeats tired tea bagger rhetoric over and over. I'm still waiting for you to present evidence that tax cuts for the rich help your sorry unemployed ass, but you can't do it because you're full of shit.

If someone earns money, why should that upset me? What's wrong with people working hard and reaping the benefits of their work? Someone has more money than me so i should hate them? Why?

We've been over this before, slow-learner. 50% of wealthy people inherit their wealth (there's another fact for you, dumb fuck). Did the Wall Street bankers who wrecked the economy "earn" their multi-million dollar bonuses? They probably did, according to you, because "everyone makes mistakes" and "they have feeling too"....fucking idiot.

It's time we started cutting taxes and cutting spending so we aren't in debt to our eyeballs for the next 100 years. We need to put our houses in order or many will perish in the trials that are coming upon the people.

Whoa! What a novel idea! The "Free Lunch" theory of government! Cut taxes for everyone and cut spending and the budget deficit will be gone in no time! Why hasn't anyone tried this before?!

You are truly a fucking imbecile. However, if you want to keep entering the ring with me, I'm more than happy to keep taking a giant shit on you. Just like you enjoy sucking rich Repug cock because it is your tea bagger peasant duty, I enjoy ripping you tea baggers new assholes.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Kerry won ohio, you said it, and god bless you even though there is no god. tea baggers are absolute hypocritical, idiotic douchebags; they are the ultimate pawn of the gop; they give no solutions, only bumper sticker slogans and reagenomics; they are the ultimate pawns also of corporate american agenda; they only criticize; they're not willing to cut spending, which is what these fags base themselves off of, because they still support a juggernaut, archaic military; they wont cut taxes for the rich; they make glenn beck richer; WHAT A BUNCH OF FAGS (and they are angry and will call me names for pointing out the truth, because that's how dumb they are)

Much obliged, Bro. You are correct -- Tea baggers are pathetic corporate tools who think supporting policies that make the rich even richer are somehow going to benefit them. Giant multinational corporations that fuck middle class and lower class workers and ruin the environment are good, and government is bad. They are so fucking stupid and such total suckers it's breathtaking.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Precisely. On the day that I form a political opinion based on a music mag, the left wingers have my permission to shoot me. That's assuming any of them actually know how to use a gun.

You mean entertainers Like Beck? Limbaugh? O'reilley? Hannity? Palin?

Try to exercise some basic comprehension skills before posting.

He did exercise it, lightweight bitch. Now why don't you try responding?

What's that?? You avoid questions you don't like, just like the tea bagger pussy candidates that you support? Tell me something I don't already know about you, lightweight bitch.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

actually, TPfreak... Reagan's tax increase was the largest in history.

poor dimbulb.

The largest tax increase in history retroactive to Jan 1, was CLINTON'S tax increase and he did that after promising to CUT taxes.

That is, until Obama. In 2011, when the Bush tax cuts expire, THAT WILL BE THE LARGEST TAX HIKE IN HISTORY.

You can be proud liberals. He will beat Clinton in something.

Obama already passed the largest middle class tax cut in history when the $750 billion stimulus was passed at the beginning of 2009. This is a fact. An idiot tea bagger like you probably isn't aware of this.

Obama wants to extend Bush's tax cuts for 98% of Americans and let them expire for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. This is another fact. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 2% would help reduce the budget deficit by over $2 trillion, which you hypocritical tea bagger fucks claim to care so much about.

You want Bush's tax cuts to be extended for the wealthiest 2% because it is your peasant tea bagger duty to protect the wealth of the rich. They are your intellectual and moral superiors and you must suck rich cock no matter what, even for the 50% of rich folks who inherited their wealth. That is just how you tea bagger fucktards roll...

 

[Oddball]

...even for the 50% of rich folks who inherited their wealth.

Got a link or something to back up that bullshit?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

So when are you going to get to the Truth part?

Here's the harshest truth of all, fuckhole -- You are an unemployed trailer trash tea bagger peasant who votes against your best economic interest year after year. You're so fucking stupid that you actually believe tax cuts for the rich are somehow going to benefit your pathetic unemployed ass. You believe this bullshit, but you don't have one shred of evidence to back it up. You repeat this fucking mantra like it's a religion. You have absolutely no facts, no game, no intellect, just your tea bagger Fox News bullshit.

Wall Street bankers blow a fucking $12 trillion hole in the economy, and you pathetically try to defend them -- you actually said that "Everyone makes mistakes"??!! and "that the bankers have feelings, too". Not only are you a fucking idiot, but you're fucking crazy, too.
Seriously.

It your peasant tea bagger duty to protect the wealth of your rich Repug feudal masters. You know that they are intellectually and morally superior to your puny, pathetic tea bagger ass and you have no choice in the matter. Sad, but true.

Remember, folks, it's just sheer coincidence that "your best interests" is "whatever keeps liberals in power".

Taibbi's Rolling Stone article describes you perfectly, dipshit -- you're one of the few Americans (i.e., a tea bagger) who have actually "read" the Constitution. Even though I exposed your sorry ass and proved that you have not.

Article 1, Section 8, be-eeetch. I provide for the general welfare by showing what a fucking tea bagger lightweight hypocrite you are.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

The rich paid more taxes because they got richer.

That is exactly right. When you consider that the average CEO only made 30 times as much as the average American in 1980 and now make over 300 times as much as the average American, of course they are going to be paying more taxes because they are making all of the fucking money.

Yes, I know, tea bagger stupid mother fuckers -- those CEOs "earned" a 1000% pay raise over the last 30 years. Fucking unsophisticated trailer trash suckers, all of you.