Bernie preaches about free stuff..

[the_human_being]

Don't come on here asking "link", "link" link" if you're not going to watch it.

Did I do that for any of the previous debates? No, I did not.

If I want information, I'll find a transcript and link you people to it, since so many of you seem to hear what you want to hear, not what's actually said.

I thought I already told you to go ahead and vote Democrat that we Repubs don't want you.

No, you told that to someone else. You need to keep your Enemies List straight.

Anyway, I will find a transcript tomorrow and link y'all to it for when one side starts picking the debate apart and the other resorts to its YouTube skillz.

You can thank me later.

Be sure and hold your breath.

So you're saying "We don't need no stinkin' facts about the debate or anything else and fuck you for attempting to provide them"? Yeah, I figured that out the first day here.

No. I'm saying I don't need you to tell me anything at all. I will watch the debate myself and hear exactly what is said when it is said.

 

[Arianrhod]

Did I do that for any of the previous debates? No, I did not.

If I want information, I'll find a transcript and link you people to it, since so many of you seem to hear what you want to hear, not what's actually said.

I thought I already told you to go ahead and vote Democrat that we Repubs don't want you.

No, you told that to someone else. You need to keep your Enemies List straight.

Anyway, I will find a transcript tomorrow and link y'all to it for when one side starts picking the debate apart and the other resorts to its YouTube skillz.

You can thank me later.

Be sure and hold your breath.

So you're saying "We don't need no stinkin' facts about the debate or anything else and fuck you for attempting to provide them"? Yeah, I figured that out the first day here.

No. I'm saying I don't need you to tell me anything at all. I will watch the debate myself and hear exactly what is said when it is said.

And if you try to spin it, I'll be able to consult the transcript and supply the Dramamine. Fair enough.

 

[Londoner]

Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!

Both parties have their tired theories.

Republican: tax cuts, deregulation, and laws that make it easier for private wealth to buy politicians.

Democrat:: raise taxes on the 1% whose 15% capital gains tax is lower than a school teacher's income tax. Regulation of business so it's harder for say cable companies to form anti-trust alliances and dived the nation into fixed no-compete zones so that they can raise prices and reduces services without losing customers.

The Republican base is to be pitied for they only have talk radio, Fox and the rightwing press to rely upon for information - so they don't know the difference between government spending for the interstate & satellite system versus spending for Johnson era welfare to the terminally poor. The first form of spending is craved and exploited by profits makers (and is an investment. Yes, business loves government help. Most major sectors have made a living off government subsidies and bailout protection - but Republican news sources never - and I mean never - report it).

The OP is likely young. He doesn't know that the corporations who rule his blessed free market have set-up s lobbying empire in D.C. - where they suck the taxpayer dry with subsidies and bailouts. The oil companies which funded Reagan and still fund Limbaugh get massive subsidies, protectionism and military support from Uncle Sucker. It's a fucking joke. There is no free market; there are only wealthy corporations and their government puppets. The socialist boogie man is a strategic distraction for low-information morons who have had very little post high school education.

Your last president gave Eli Lilly a no bid contract to charge seniors above market rates for Medicare drug purchases. Reagan was even worse when it came to sucking the taxpayer dry with his behind the scenes handouts to corporations. The OP knows none of this (but he votes)

(God help us)

 

[Andylusion]

You people on the left keep 'saying' that socialized care works great in every country, but then when I look it up, it's never as great as you claim it is.

Yeah, a hybrid system is better than a completely socialized system. That's no surprise to us on the right. The more socialized it is, the worse it is. The more capitalist it is, the better it is. Logically, if it is a hybrid, it will be better than a pure socialized system.

The US is still better than any completely socialized system I've ever looked at. Is it getting worse? Yes. And the US health care is becoming more and more socialized.

Is their health care cheaper? In some ways... The quality of the care is lower, and lower care, results in a lower price. At the same time, I keep looking at the costs, and I don't see it being cheaper.

I remember reading one comparison with UKs National Health Service. Oh yes, NHS is far cheaper than our system. Is it? Only if you exclusively look at NHS taxes. Problem is, NHS isn't funded by the National Insurance tax. Not at all. 90% plus, of the NHS budget comes from the General revenue.

Why do you think UK wages are on average lower than US wages? Because employer side taxes are higher. Where do you think the money comes from to pay those taxes? From the employee in the form of lower wages.

Why do you think tax rates are higher in the UK? So not only do they earn less to begin with, but they get to keep less of it.

The effective marginal tax rate in the UK is almost 10% higher than that of the US. Let me ask you which is cheaper.

I make $20,000 a year, and my monthly health insurance premium is $76 a month.

10% of my income is $2,000 a year. Insurance is $912 a year. Which is cheaper according to math, instead of your opinion?

Maybe that's just me. Let's take the average US income $50,500, and the average insurance premium of $235.

10% of the average wage is $5,050 a year, and average insurance is $2,820. Which is cheaper according to math, instead of your opinion?

Paying 10% more in taxes, is vastly more expensive than our current system, no matter what other stats you come up with.

Oh, and before you bring it up, all those fees and additional costs here in the US... they all exist in the UK too. Fee for hospital stays, fees for various treatments. Fees for using a hospital telephone. Did you know that UK hospitals charge patients, and make a profit off of using the telephone?

You pass out, wake up at the hospital, and don't have your cell phone, sure you can call your wife... for a fee.... don't worry, we'll just add that to your hospital fees.

So this claim that it's so much cheaper.... I've been to the UK, and I have friends that live there now.... not seeing this "so much cheaper" system.

And the quality of care?

Number of patients waiting 36 weeks for NHS treatment triples - BBC News

Yeah, maybe.... if you live long enough to get it. Funny how when I look up medical tourism statistics, I always see the US on the list somewhere.... and that's to be expected. In a free-market competitive system, I would expect some Americans to go shopping in the market for a better deal.

But how do you explain Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, Japan, and all the other countries with "free" high quality health care? Why does India get more visitors from Canada and the UK for health care, than the US.... when as you claim they get free government paid for care, that is just as good as the US?

Why is Japan the biggest source of medical tourism for Korea, if their government care is so great?

Maybe all your crap is wrong? Just a thought.

we don't have socialized medicine except at the V.A. level and other than the glitches that occurred after bush privatized walter reed, which seem to be relatively under control now, most service members are very satisfied with their health care. the rest of us have HEALTH INSURANCE... which only enriches the insurance industry. or do you think it benefitted us when they didn't insure people because of pre-existing conditions but dumped you from your existing coverage when you got sick?

so your entire rant about waiting periods in britain are meaningless.... since... again... we don't have socialized medicine. now, also, people with money still get private health care even in countries where there is socialized medicine. now ask those people who do wait whether they'd prefer waiting or not having any medical care.

you people are so silly... everyone i know who lives with a socialized system of medicine is pretty happy about it. but that's not even what most people on the left want anyway... a single payor system where private doctors are paid by the government but not working FOR the government... kind of like the medicaid system works.

what isn't good is the system we have where we have amazing medical care but access is not available to everyone. we are the only civilized country in the world that does what we do and it costs more and gets less than anywhere else.

and that's just a crime. but wingers don't like to solve problems. they just like to rant because it benefits them politically with the wacky base.

When subsidies funded by someone other than the person receiving them in order to be able to purchased healthcare INSURANCE, it's socialized.

When someone uses MEDICAID, a healthcare INSURANCE funded by others, it's socialized.

Access is available to everyone. You're equating access and ability to pay. If someone can't afford to pay, write a check on their behalf. That means if you claim someone didn't have access because they couldn't and you, someone that believes the person should have it doesn't pay for them yourself, you've denied them access. YOU say they have a right to it but YOU won't fund it for them yourself.

Lefties answer to solving anything they see as a problem is to let the government handle it and that involves someone else getting stuck with the bill while those benefiting from whatever it is not contributing to the cause. Food stamps is a prime example. If you know of someone that doesn't have money to buy food, buy it for them. I'll do the same in situations where I determine there is a need. What I won't do is determine on your behalf when one occurs but you can't say the same thing.

Yes, let's put an end to food stamps and send everyone who needs them over to your house so you can feed them.

Funny, we pretty much did that. It was the welfare reform the republicans pushed through in 1996. Interestingly, after kicking millions off food stamps... they didn't come over to your house... they just got a job, and started contributing to society, instead of sucking the blood out of it.

So, I'm for that plan. Let's do it again.

Depends on the job they got whether they actually contributed to society. If they didn't make much, they still didn't contribute to the income tax pot.

What a crazy way of thinking about society.

So what you are telling me is that a person could make millions of dollars worth of product, build automobiles, or medications, or a perfect example, farm food.... and in your world, unless they are paying income tax, they are not contributing to society?

So when I was working as a courier, delivering medication and medical equipment, and other packages and parcels all over the state of Ohio, but not earning enough to pay income tax.... that was not a benefit to society?

See this is left-wing logic. Whether you are left-wing or not, what you just said was left-wing thinking.

Unless someone gives money to the government, they are not a benefit to society. Unless they pay for our social programs, they are not a benefit.

No, that is wrong. All work that provides a benefit, is a benefit to society as a whole. Whether it is working at Wendy's for minimum wage, or running a multinational company... both benefit society, whether they pay tax or not.

So like I said, everyone got off welfare and got a job, went from being a boat anchor to a benefit to society.

 

[Andylusion]

The really amusing part of this thread is that everyone posting here is using social media (same Latin root word) to access free stuff (i.e., posting on a message board without paying for it).

Now the Usual Suspects will come back with "No it isn't, because Reasons!"

Yeah it is. By choice, not force.

I have no problem whatsoever, with people offering free stuff by choice. My podcast for example, is completely free. But I made the choice to allow it to be free.

The people that created this forum, could have required a subscription fee, but they made the choice not to.

I'm all for 'choice'. Welfare is not choice. If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me? I got to prison. Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.

 

[Arianrhod]

If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me? I got to prison. Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.

Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?

 

[the_human_being]

I thought I already told you to go ahead and vote Democrat that we Repubs don't want you.

No, you told that to someone else. You need to keep your Enemies List straight.

Anyway, I will find a transcript tomorrow and link y'all to it for when one side starts picking the debate apart and the other resorts to its YouTube skillz.

You can thank me later.

Be sure and hold your breath.

So you're saying "We don't need no stinkin' facts about the debate or anything else and fuck you for attempting to provide them"? Yeah, I figured that out the first day here.

No. I'm saying I don't need you to tell me anything at all. I will watch the debate myself and hear exactly what is said when it is said.

And if you try to spin it, I'll be able to consult the transcript and supply the Dramamine. Fair enough.

Your problem is that unless you actually watch it yourself, what the candidates actually say can easily be taken out of context.

 

[the_human_being]

Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!

Both parties have their tired theories.

Republican: tax cuts, deregulation, and laws that make it easier for private wealth to buy politicians.

Democrat:: raise taxes on the 1% whose 15% capital gains tax is lower than a school teacher's income tax. Regulation of business so it's harder for say cable companies to form anti-trust alliances and dived the nation into fixed no-compete zones so that they can raise prices and reduces services without losing customers.

The Republican base is to be pitied for they only have talk radio, Fox and the rightwing press to rely upon for information - so they don't know the difference between government spending for the interstate & satellite system versus spending for Johnson era welfare to the terminally poor. The first form of spending is craved and exploited by profits makers (and is an investment. Yes, business loves government help. Most major sectors have made a living off government subsidies and bailout protection - but Republican news sources never - and I mean never - report it).

The OP is likely young. He doesn't know that the corporations who rule his blessed free market have set-up s lobbying empire in D.C. - where they suck the taxpayer dry with subsidies and bailouts. The oil companies which funded Reagan and still fund Limbaugh get massive subsidies, protectionism and military support from Uncle Sucker. It's a fucking joke. There is no free market; there are only wealthy corporations and their government puppets. The socialist boogie man is a strategic distraction for low-information morons who have had very little post high school education.

Your last president gave Eli Lilly a no bid contract to charge seniors above market rates for Medicare drug purchases. Reagan was even worse when it came to sucking the taxpayer dry with his behind the scenes handouts to corporations. The OP knows none of this (but he votes)

(God help us)

The problem with you is that you are absolutely correct. Shame on you!!

 

[Andylusion]

Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!

Both parties have their tired theories.

Republican: tax cuts, deregulation, and laws that make it easier for private wealth to buy politicians.

Democrat:: raise taxes on the 1% whose 15% capital gains tax is lower than a school teacher's income tax. Regulation of business so it's harder for say cable companies to form anti-trust alliances and dived the nation into fixed no-compete zones so that they can raise prices and reduces services without losing customers.

The Republican base is to be pitied for they only have talk radio, Fox and the rightwing press to rely upon for information - so they don't know the difference between government spending for the interstate & satellite system versus spending for Johnson era welfare to the terminally poor. The first form of spending is craved and exploited by profits makers (and is an investment. Yes, business loves government help. Most major sectors have made a living off government subsidies and bailout protection - but Republican news sources never - and I mean never - report it).

The OP is likely young. He doesn't know that the corporations who rule his blessed free market have set-up s lobbying empire in D.C. - where they suck the taxpayer dry with subsidies and bailouts. The oil companies which funded Reagan and still fund Limbaugh get massive subsidies, protectionism and military support from Uncle Sucker. It's a fucking joke. There is no free market; there are only wealthy corporations and their government puppets. The socialist boogie man is a strategic distraction for low-information morons who have had very little post high school education.

Your last president gave Eli Lilly a no bid contract to charge seniors above market rates for Medicare drug purchases. Reagan was even worse when it came to sucking the taxpayer dry with his behind the scenes handouts to corporations. The OP knows none of this (but he votes)

(God help us)

The sad part is, you don't even understand the Republican position.

Tax cuts take away the reason to buy politicians. When you jack up taxes, you give the elite the power they need to engage in corruption.

Same with regulation. If you deregulate the industry, what reason would corporations have to buy off politicians and change the regulations? Politicians know this, that is exactly why they convince the mindless lemmings to support more and more regulations, so they can then sell those exemptions and modifications to the highest bidder.

We are against those things, because they create corruption. What you are by implication in favor of, is what creates the corruption.

 

[the_human_being]

Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!

Both parties have their tired theories.

Republican: tax cuts, deregulation, and laws that make it easier for private wealth to buy politicians.

Democrat:: raise taxes on the 1% whose 15% capital gains tax is lower than a school teacher's income tax. Regulation of business so it's harder for say cable companies to form anti-trust alliances and dived the nation into fixed no-compete zones so that they can raise prices and reduces services without losing customers.

The Republican base is to be pitied for they only have talk radio, Fox and the rightwing press to rely upon for information - so they don't know the difference between government spending for the interstate & satellite system versus spending for Johnson era welfare to the terminally poor. The first form of spending is craved and exploited by profits makers (and is an investment. Yes, business loves government help. Most major sectors have made a living off government subsidies and bailout protection - but Republican news sources never - and I mean never - report it).

The OP is likely young. He doesn't know that the corporations who rule his blessed free market have set-up s lobbying empire in D.C. - where they suck the taxpayer dry with subsidies and bailouts. The oil companies which funded Reagan and still fund Limbaugh get massive subsidies, protectionism and military support from Uncle Sucker. It's a fucking joke. There is no free market; there are only wealthy corporations and their government puppets. The socialist boogie man is a strategic distraction for low-information morons who have had very little post high school education.

Your last president gave Eli Lilly a no bid contract to charge seniors above market rates for Medicare drug purchases. Reagan was even worse when it came to sucking the taxpayer dry with his behind the scenes handouts to corporations. The OP knows none of this (but he votes)

(God help us)

The sad part is, you don't even understand the Republican position.

Tax cuts take away the reason to buy politicians. When you jack up taxes, you give the elite the power they need to engage in corruption.

Same with regulation. If you deregulate the industry, what reason would corporations have to buy off politicians and change the regulations? Politicians know this, that is exactly why they convince the mindless lemmings to support more and more regulations, so they can then sell those exemptions and modifications to the highest bidder.

We are against those things, because they create corruption. What you are by implication in favor of, is what creates the corruption.

Well, it must also be the Democrat position as well, would you not be forced to agree?

 

[Andylusion]

Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!

Both parties have their tired theories.

Republican: tax cuts, deregulation, and laws that make it easier for private wealth to buy politicians.

Democrat:: raise taxes on the 1% whose 15% capital gains tax is lower than a school teacher's income tax. Regulation of business so it's harder for say cable companies to form anti-trust alliances and dived the nation into fixed no-compete zones so that they can raise prices and reduces services without losing customers.

The Republican base is to be pitied for they only have talk radio, Fox and the rightwing press to rely upon for information - so they don't know the difference between government spending for the interstate & satellite system versus spending for Johnson era welfare to the terminally poor. The first form of spending is craved and exploited by profits makers (and is an investment. Yes, business loves government help. Most major sectors have made a living off government subsidies and bailout protection - but Republican news sources never - and I mean never - report it).

The OP is likely young. He doesn't know that the corporations who rule his blessed free market have set-up s lobbying empire in D.C. - where they suck the taxpayer dry with subsidies and bailouts. The oil companies which funded Reagan and still fund Limbaugh get massive subsidies, protectionism and military support from Uncle Sucker. It's a fucking joke. There is no free market; there are only wealthy corporations and their government puppets. The socialist boogie man is a strategic distraction for low-information morons who have had very little post high school education.

Your last president gave Eli Lilly a no bid contract to charge seniors above market rates for Medicare drug purchases. Reagan was even worse when it came to sucking the taxpayer dry with his behind the scenes handouts to corporations. The OP knows none of this (but he votes)

(God help us)

The sad part is, you don't even understand the Republican position.

Tax cuts take away the reason to buy politicians. When you jack up taxes, you give the elite the power they need to engage in corruption.

Same with regulation. If you deregulate the industry, what reason would corporations have to buy off politicians and change the regulations? Politicians know this, that is exactly why they convince the mindless lemmings to support more and more regulations, so they can then sell those exemptions and modifications to the highest bidder.

We are against those things, because they create corruption. What you are by implication in favor of, is what creates the corruption.

Well, it must also be the Democrat position as well, would you not be forced to agree?

Well, no. Democrats support more regulations, and more taxes, and more corruption. When Al Gore was asking companies for money, with veiled threats.... what threat do you think he implied? More taxes and more regulation. It's the defacto left-wing position.

Al Gore, and all the left wing, know the ignorant supporters will back them if they call for more of either, and that's how they extort money.

 

[Conservative65]

we don't have socialized medicine except at the V.A. level and other than the glitches that occurred after bush privatized walter reed, which seem to be relatively under control now, most service members are very satisfied with their health care. the rest of us have HEALTH INSURANCE... which only enriches the insurance industry. or do you think it benefitted us when they didn't insure people because of pre-existing conditions but dumped you from your existing coverage when you got sick?

so your entire rant about waiting periods in britain are meaningless.... since... again... we don't have socialized medicine. now, also, people with money still get private health care even in countries where there is socialized medicine. now ask those people who do wait whether they'd prefer waiting or not having any medical care.

you people are so silly... everyone i know who lives with a socialized system of medicine is pretty happy about it. but that's not even what most people on the left want anyway... a single payor system where private doctors are paid by the government but not working FOR the government... kind of like the medicaid system works.

what isn't good is the system we have where we have amazing medical care but access is not available to everyone. we are the only civilized country in the world that does what we do and it costs more and gets less than anywhere else.

and that's just a crime. but wingers don't like to solve problems. they just like to rant because it benefits them politically with the wacky base.

When subsidies funded by someone other than the person receiving them in order to be able to purchased healthcare INSURANCE, it's socialized.

When someone uses MEDICAID, a healthcare INSURANCE funded by others, it's socialized.

Access is available to everyone. You're equating access and ability to pay. If someone can't afford to pay, write a check on their behalf. That means if you claim someone didn't have access because they couldn't and you, someone that believes the person should have it doesn't pay for them yourself, you've denied them access. YOU say they have a right to it but YOU won't fund it for them yourself.

Lefties answer to solving anything they see as a problem is to let the government handle it and that involves someone else getting stuck with the bill while those benefiting from whatever it is not contributing to the cause. Food stamps is a prime example. If you know of someone that doesn't have money to buy food, buy it for them. I'll do the same in situations where I determine there is a need. What I won't do is determine on your behalf when one occurs but you can't say the same thing.

Yes, let's put an end to food stamps and send everyone who needs them over to your house so you can feed them.

Funny, we pretty much did that. It was the welfare reform the republicans pushed through in 1996. Interestingly, after kicking millions off food stamps... they didn't come over to your house... they just got a job, and started contributing to society, instead of sucking the blood out of it.

So, I'm for that plan. Let's do it again.

Depends on the job they got whether they actually contributed to society. If they didn't make much, they still didn't contribute to the income tax pot.

What a crazy way of thinking about society.

So what you are telling me is that a person could make millions of dollars worth of product, build automobiles, or medications, or a perfect example, farm food.... and in your world, unless they are paying income tax, they are not contributing to society?

So when I was working as a courier, delivering medication and medical equipment, and other packages and parcels all over the state of Ohio, but not earning enough to pay income tax.... that was not a benefit to society?

See this is left-wing logic. Whether you are left-wing or not, what you just said was left-wing thinking.

Unless someone gives money to the government, they are not a benefit to society. Unless they pay for our social programs, they are not a benefit.

No, that is wrong. All work that provides a benefit, is a benefit to society as a whole. Whether it is working at Wendy's for minimum wage, or running a multinational company... both benefit society, whether they pay tax or not.

So like I said, everyone got off welfare and got a job, went from being a boat anchor to a benefit to society.

That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.

 

[Arianrhod]

That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.

Semi-coherent and riddled with inaccuracies. Can you show (using facts) that left wing = poor? We both know you can't, but let me raise the question anyway.

 

[Conservative65]

That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.

Semi-coherent and riddled with inaccuracies. Can you show (using facts) that left wing = poor? We both know you can't, but let me raise the question anyway.

I didn't say left wing = poor. Perhaps you should learn to read for comprehension for incorrectly claiming someone said what you claim they said.

I said left wing THINKING believes it's OK for poor people to not pay income taxes and they justify it by saying they pay other taxes. The left wing also thinks that by paying someone more, it means they will automatically pay income taxes. When their argument about income taxes made toward those opposing the $15/hour minimum wage, as just an example, is pay them more and they'll pay income taxes, their THINKING is what I said.

Show me where I said left wing = poor.

 

[Arianrhod]

That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.

Semi-coherent and riddled with inaccuracies. Can you show (using facts) that left wing = poor? We both know you can't, but let me raise the question anyway.

I didn't say left wing = poor.

So you claim that the multiplicity of posts you've strewn all over the board about "I'm not paying for your stuff" was just generic? I may have missed your posting them in reply to a right-leaning or moderate poster. Perhaps you can point some of those out.

 

[Conservative65]

That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.

Semi-coherent and riddled with inaccuracies. Can you show (using facts) that left wing = poor? We both know you can't, but let me raise the question anyway.

I didn't say left wing = poor.

So you claim that the multiplicity of posts you've strewn all over the board about "I'm not paying for your stuff" was just generic? I may have missed your posting them in reply to a right-leaning or moderate poster. Perhaps you can point some of those out.

I'm claiming I never said what you apply to me. If you can show me where I said left wing = poor, do so. If you can't, don't make such claims.

I didn't point toward any ideological leaning nor did I say left wing = poor. What I said, and what I'll say again, is LEFT WINGER IDEOLOGY thinks that one person owes another person something and whether the recipient is left, right, or dead in the middle means nothing as I don't go by what they believe but what far too many expect someone else to be forced to do for them.

 

[Arianrhod]

That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.

Semi-coherent and riddled with inaccuracies. Can you show (using facts) that left wing = poor? We both know you can't, but let me raise the question anyway.

I didn't say left wing = poor.

So you claim that the multiplicity of posts you've strewn all over the board about "I'm not paying for your stuff" was just generic? I may have missed your posting them in reply to a right-leaning or moderate poster. Perhaps you can point some of those out.

I'm claiming I never said what you apply to me. If you can show me where I said left wing = poor, do so. If you can't, don't make such claims.

I didn't point toward any ideological leaning nor did I say left wing = poor. What I said, and what I'll say again, is LEFT WINGER IDEOLOGY thinks that one person owes another person something and whether the recipient is left, right, or dead in the middle means nothing as I don't go by what they believe but what far too many expect someone else to be forced to do for them.

So when you say "your stuff" you mean "you" generic. Got it.

 

[Conservative65]

That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.

Semi-coherent and riddled with inaccuracies. Can you show (using facts) that left wing = poor? We both know you can't, but let me raise the question anyway.

I didn't say left wing = poor.

So you claim that the multiplicity of posts you've strewn all over the board about "I'm not paying for your stuff" was just generic? I may have missed your posting them in reply to a right-leaning or moderate poster. Perhaps you can point some of those out.

I'm claiming I never said what you apply to me. If you can show me where I said left wing = poor, do so. If you can't, don't make such claims.

I didn't point toward any ideological leaning nor did I say left wing = poor. What I said, and what I'll say again, is LEFT WINGER IDEOLOGY thinks that one person owes another person something and whether the recipient is left, right, or dead in the middle means nothing as I don't go by what they believe but what far too many expect someone else to be forced to do for them.

So when you say "your stuff" you mean "you" generic. Got it.

So you can't provide any proof of YOUR claim that I said left wing = poor. Got it.

 

[Andylusion]

If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me? I got to prison. Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.

Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?

Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders

 

[Arianrhod]

If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me? I got to prison. Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.

Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?

Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders

It's not what you think it is. Try reading more than the headline.