Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

I am very close to 60 years old. I spent my life working and when I started my business, I worked 16 to 20 hour days, sometimes seven days a week for many, many years. Only by the grace of God Himself, did it pay off. At one point, I had almost 50 employees. All of which got a very good salary, benefits (of which I paid 100% even for families), and working conditions. Because I REFUSED to play reindeer games with the federal government, I broke it up, selling pieces and dismantling the rest. Because I was so lucky I actually was able to put back what I considered at the time enough money to last for my retirement. Because I also purchased some land that no one else wanted at the time, I am able to raise some cattle and have a working ranch that at the end of the day, breaks pretty much even after I pay myself and the ranch hands. Because of fracking and other advances in drilling, several old natural gas and oil wells on my property were reopened and I get a very small royalty from that.

Now because I worked, struggled, and saved for my retirement, I happen to fall into the category of a 'millionaire.' Simply because that is what you need to retire on. I have been told that I do not pay my 'fair share.' Really? And what exactly is my fair share? I paid taxes on the money that I put away for retirement and guess what, I'll have to pay taxes on it AGAIN when and if I dip into it for my retirement. If I should die in my sleep tonight, my children will have to pay over 50% on anything they might inherit.

I listen to Democrats and I am the 'bad guy.' I took risks, I worked very hard for a very long time and I am the bad guy. Nothing is said about the money I give to my church and to charity. Nothing is said about the time I spend serving food to the homeless or the time I spend working at the Veteran's center. Nothing is said about the families that were able to do what they wanted because I paid them very well. No, according to the Democrats and their mouthpieces, the OWS, I am a horrible person because I don't pay my fair share, even though no one can tell me what my fair share really is.

I listen to Barry and it's an "us" against "them". And I am a "them". The Democrats and the Republicans spend money like a drunk man with a credit card. Now the bill is due and according to the Democrats, I have to pay the bill because they were stupid. You give money to people who don't want to work. You encourage people to believe that the government will do everything and be everything for them and then you come to my door with a gun and you STEAL from me to give it to someone else. You tell me that I must be more compassionate and that the government is the only way to really help people, when I know by living with Native Americans all my life, that the government is the antithesis to everything that will make you personally successful. To rely on the government is like selling your soul to the devil.

A wise man once said, "You will know them by their works." Never listen to what they say... just look at what they do. Democrats have proven to me that they want a country of sheep. They want you to stand in line at a government office and they want you to behave yourself and do what you're supposed to do, because if you do then the government will take care of you. I've said it before. I'm an American. I don't and I will not stand in line. And I will only allow the man to come to my door and steal from me once or twice. After that, I will do what is necessary to protect what I worked so hard to get. I'll move my money from the US to somewhere else and I will pay someone to make sure that the politicians in Washington (who you Democrats just absolutely love) won't get a penny more than I absolutely have to pay. I love my country and I've went to war for her before... You can push only so hard before someone pushes back.
 
Then start by ending this:

defense_spending.jpg

That's not even a good graph...

A more accurate description would be per capita spending on defense.

If we went by those numbers France and the UK would be right up there with the US.... Hell they may as well spend more than we do per capita...

Actually, it comes down to what is the threat?

How many of those countries are potential threats? How many are potential allies? What is the actual threat to Continental US?

We are telling Americans that they will have to make sacrifices and make do with less as we ran up a $15 trillion debt. Let's revisit why defense is a sacred cow

The only reason why those countries are no threat is because we developed a massive arsenal and have advanced technology.... That shit costs money, and it especially costs money to stay on top of the game as far as technology..

Don't think for a fucking second China wouldn't love to invade the US or a neighboring country and steal their woman...

Don't think for a second our presence in the world hasn't prevented numerous wars, with other countries knowing that we could step in and put a hurt on them, hence the war was never worth it...

Hell, I'm quite sure if we were an isolated nation there would have already been a WWIII..
 
Then start by ending this:

defense_spending.jpg

That's not even a good graph...

A more accurate depiction would be per capita spending on defense.

If we went by those numbers France and the UK would be right up there with the US.... Hell they may as well spend more than we do per capita...

List of countries by military expenditures per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idiot.

China: $74.70

^--------they are laughing their asses off at us
 
Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

They paid a smaller percentage of total taxes under Clinton than they did under Bush, but don't let the facts get in the way of your jihad against people who are smarter and harder working than you.
 
Paying the same % is a subjective determination of fairness.

No... it is equality in treatment.. blind to situation...

When you base it differently on levels, situations, deductions.... THAT IS A SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION AND TREATMENT BASED ON 'FAIRNESS'

sorry charlie

No, it's actually not equality in treatment. If you make 100,000 and I make a million, and we're taxed at 10% a year,

you pay 10,000 and I pay 100,000. We both live in the same country under the same government receiving the same services from that government,

and yet I'm paying (in this example) 10 times as much as you're paying for essentially the same thing.

To say that is fair IS subjective.

So, given that, you have already conceded that you will accept a tax system that can be proven not to be 'fair' by any objective measure...

...the only debate is thus how 'unfair' will we make it.

yes it is equality in treatment.. as the base is the dollar... not the person... not the total... not the number of dependents... not you compared to someone else

I am not saying something or this system is FAIR... that is what you and your ilk try and milk...

I am saying simply that, like a flat sales tax (blind to person, amount, situation, etc) it is EQUALITY in treatment... every dollar earned is treated EXACTLY the same, just as in sales tax every dollar spent is treated exactly the same....
 
Then start by ending this:

defense_spending.jpg

That's not even a good graph...

A more accurate depiction would be per capita spending on defense.

If we went by those numbers France and the UK would be right up there with the US.... Hell they may as well spend more than we do per capita...

List of countries by military expenditures per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idiot.

Then the bar graph is wrong given the notion that the US is 4.5x larger in population than the UK, however according to wikipedia the US spends 3x more than the average Brit..

So one of the 2 sources is wrong IDIOT!!!!

Its pretty simple, it's basic arithmetic idiot....
 
Last edited:
The reason why conservatives think liberals hate rich people is because they (conservatives) are illogical, and jump to that conclusion from the fact that liberals want rich people restrained from being able to run amok, destroy the rights of working people, ravage the environment, provoke foreign wars, and cannibalize the economy.

It's no more true that liberals "hate" rich people, than that those who prefer crimes of violence to be punished under the law, "hate" people with anger-management issues.

You proved you hate the rich with those imbecile accusations you just made.
 
I certainly don't. I'd just like them to pay their fair share in taxes.

Fair is subjective, idiot....

I want everyone to pay equal % shares on every dollar earned... with no loopholes and no exceptions....

For you see, I am about equal treatment, not some class warfare game... Your envy, and the envy of those like you, sickens me to the core

But if you're for "equal" treatment you wouldn't be in favor of a flat tax. You're right, fair is subjective. Just so happens your definition of fair happens to be wrong.
 
here's a clue...you 1/2% ows'ers don't SPEAK for the rest of us you all like to call the 99%...you don't have our permission and I demand (since that is your gig) to STOP..

We speak for your interests. If we don't at the same time represent your opinions, that's because you have been deluded by those who are fleecing you.

Demand we "stop" all you like. We won't.

You don't speak for the interests of any American who actually produces something of value. You speak for useless parasites who suck off the taxpayers.
 
:eusa_clap::eusa_clap::eusa_clap:

Niether party is willing to give up the role of world police.

Well then, nobody should complain about having to pay for it.

We cannot be

1) a low tax nation

2) the world's policeman, and

3) a modern civilized society with a modern social agenda - i.e., healthcare, social security, aid to the needy, etc., etc., etc...

without massive deficits and debts.

Something has to go, period.

We dont pay for it, we charge it and use SS funds to help.

I said, we don't pay for it. We don't have the revenue to pay for it.
 
Now you are all over the map.

Perhaps set the crack pipe down for a few moments.

You still have no answer. Here, let me rephrase it for you, replacing that shorthand term you grabbed hold of earlier.

The Democrats are right to engage in class warfare. It's only called "class warfare" when the non-rich fight back.
.....And....every-once-in-a-while.....the 1%ers/bullie$ NEED an ass-whuppin'.....

It's our civic-duty....and, a "growth"-experience, for them.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXXyms5g5ok]I just go berserk ... - YouTube[/ame]​
 
Well then, nobody should complain about having to pay for it.

We cannot be

1) a low tax nation

2) the world's policeman, and

3) a modern civilized society with a modern social agenda - i.e., healthcare, social security, aid to the needy, etc., etc., etc...

without massive deficits and debts.

Something has to go, period.

We dont pay for it, we charge it and use SS funds to help.

I said, we don't pay for it. We don't have the revenue to pay for it.

Well then, nobody should complain about having to pay for it.

That was your remark, I missed something apparently.

School me.
 
The statistics come right from the government web site.
So the government is lying about the statistics?

He said the statistic was worthless, not that it was false.

Actually, I disagree with him. The statistic shows that the richest people are paying almost the same share of income in taxes as the poorest people. That in itself shows that something is wrong; the richer a person is, the higher the share of his/her income should be paid in taxes.

Why should they pay a higher percentage?

Actually, I think those figures are not correct. The figures I've seen say the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of all income taxes.

Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%20Taxes.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's not even a good graph...

A more accurate depiction would be per capita spending on defense.

If we went by those numbers France and the UK would be right up there with the US.... Hell they may as well spend more than we do per capita...

List of countries by military expenditures per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idiot.

Then the bar graph is wrong given the notion that the US is 4.5x larger in population than the UK, however according to wikipedia the US spends 3x more than the average Brit..

So one of the 2 sources is wrong IDIOT!!!!

Its pretty simple, it's basic arithmetic idiot....

The bar graph is not a per capita spending chart. There is no spin here to dispute the fact that excessive military spending is the main cause of our fiscal problems.
 
A dollar for dollar tax with progressive brackets is just as "fair" as a flat tax.

Deal.

What the hell is a "dollar for dollar tax with progressive brackets?"

Communism.

Duh.

It certainly is a 50% tax in which the government would redistribute..

I suppose one could label that communism.

Socialism is nothing more than a controlled economy and I would certainly label a 50% mandatory tax rate a "controlled economy" given it's repercussions..
 
Well then, nobody should complain about having to pay for it.

We cannot be

1) a low tax nation

2) the world's policeman, and

3) a modern civilized society with a modern social agenda - i.e., healthcare, social security, aid to the needy, etc., etc., etc...

without massive deficits and debts.

Something has to go, period.


Your error is in believing we all want what you call "a modern social agenda."

Take your "social agenda" and stick it where the sun don't shine.
 

Then the bar graph is wrong given the notion that the US is 4.5x larger in population than the UK, however according to wikipedia the US spends 3x more than the average Brit..

So one of the 2 sources is wrong IDIOT!!!!

Its pretty simple, it's basic arithmetic idiot....

The bar graph is not a per capita spending chart. There is no spin here to dispute the fact that excessive military spending is the main cause of our fiscal problems.

I know its not... I know how to read graphs.

However the graph doesn't mathematically jibe with the wikipedia entry...

List of countries by military expenditures per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So one of the 2 sources are wrong...

IMO, I'd bet they're both wrong:lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top