Can socialists in this country explain how taxing American corporations/companies more is good?

[francoHFW]

I don't believe what you SAY. You already said EVERYONE pays a between a certain percentage in taxes then provided a graph that disproved your own claim.

BS. I said for months that fees have to be counted to get the poor into the 20% range. At any rate, the point holds- much of the middle class pays more than the richest in all taxes and fees, the fed income tax obsession of GOP is brainwashed nonsense, and the middle class and the country are going to hell under this Reaganism.

Are you still claiming that your graph shows the 20 - 30% for everyone. I don't give a damn what YOU say. You presented a chart claiming it said what it didn't say then want to include something the chart simply doesn't show.

YEAH- Maybe it's just 19.7%!!!! (sarcasm duh). WTF is wrong with you? The richest don't pay enough and we're going to hell. And you're an idiot. LOL!

Using your chart, it's way less than 19.7%. What was it, 17.5%?

If it weren't for those you chastise paying what they pay, the freeloaders relying on food stamps wouldn't have a damn thing but an empty hand.

NOT COUNTING FEES, SHYTTEHEAD. Ay caramba.

It's the middle class paying because of GOP pander to the rich/giant corps, stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

Because Obama has vetoed every program designed to cut government spending .... check it out.

The spending that helps the nonrich, yes.

You mean handing freeloaders something for nothing.

Stupid, ignorant comment.

Why don't you tell me what someone getting a taxpayer funded handout has done to EARN it.

Most people on stamps have or do work. Bob paid taxes all his life, his employer closes shop and Bob goes on stamps to help out until he's back to work .

Any one of us could end up being Bob.

I've been where Bob is, twice. Neither time did I take a dime. That's the difference between me and Bob. I don't expect others to take care of me and he does.

Typical doom and gloom Liberal outlook.

If someone using food stamps works, they don't need food stamps.

 

[Conservative65]

This says otherwise and it references HHS numbers:

www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-american-welfare-hits-recorded-high

108 million freeloader using non-contributory program. That means they get but don't put in.

Another 43 million receiving contributory programs. That means they had to put in in order to get out.

Even with your number, and it's not true, that mean 1 in every 4 people in this country is a freeloader. You don't seem to care.

Can't get the link to work.

It's www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-americans-welfare-hits-recorded-high

Thanks . Couple things .

The stat only goes back to 1993. And the basis can be a little misleading . For example , SSI . If you have a disabled kid he can be getting SSI . The whole household now counts as "receiving welfare ". That's a bit misleading . Same as if you had a family taking care of some elderly relative .

Now if you want to talk about the issue if SSI being overdone . I'm with you .

My source showed individuals not households.

From your link .

HHS has calculated the percentage of all persons in the United States who live in families that receive “welfare” going back to fiscal 1993. It has not calculated a percentage for years prior to that.

As defined in the report ("Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors"), a welfare recipient is any person living in a family where someone received benefits from any of just three programs—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps).

It also say 108 million people benefit from means tested welfare. If the household gets more because more people live there and it would be less if they didn't, the individual is getting the benefit.

 

[Timmy]

The spending that helps the nonrich, yes.

You mean handing freeloaders something for nothing.

Stupid, ignorant comment.

Why don't you tell me what someone getting a taxpayer funded handout has done to EARN it.

Most people on stamps have or do work. Bob paid taxes all his life, his employer closes shop and Bob goes on stamps to help out until he's back to work .

Any one of us could end up being Bob.

I've been where Bob is, twice. Neither time did I take a dime. That's the difference between me and Bob. I don't expect others to take care of me and he does.

Typical doom and gloom Liberal outlook.

If someone using food stamps works, they don't need food stamps.

We'll maybe bob had it worse . Did you take unemployment ? Is that really any different ?

 

[Conservative65]

I don't believe what you SAY. You already said EVERYONE pays a between a certain percentage in taxes then provided a graph that disproved your own claim.

BS. I said for months that fees have to be counted to get the poor into the 20% range. At any rate, the point holds- much of the middle class pays more than the richest in all taxes and fees, the fed income tax obsession of GOP is brainwashed nonsense, and the middle class and the country are going to hell under this Reaganism.

Are you still claiming that your graph shows the 20 - 30% for everyone. I don't give a damn what YOU say. You presented a chart claiming it said what it didn't say then want to include something the chart simply doesn't show.

YEAH- Maybe it's just 19.7%!!!! (sarcasm duh). WTF is wrong with you? The richest don't pay enough and we're going to hell. And you're an idiot. LOL!

Using your chart, it's way less than 19.7%. What was it, 17.5%?

If it weren't for those you chastise paying what they pay, the freeloaders relying on food stamps wouldn't have a damn thing but an empty hand.

NOT COUNTING FEES, SHYTTEHEAD. Ay caramba.

Your source doesn't show fees. When you add it after the fact without proof that what you say is what you say, the only thing that counts if what the chart shows. Not my fault you can't add.

 

[Timmy]

Can't get the link to work.

It's www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-americans-welfare-hits-recorded-high

Thanks . Couple things .

The stat only goes back to 1993. And the basis can be a little misleading . For example , SSI . If you have a disabled kid he can be getting SSI . The whole household now counts as "receiving welfare ". That's a bit misleading . Same as if you had a family taking care of some elderly relative .

Now if you want to talk about the issue if SSI being overdone . I'm with you .

My source showed individuals not households.

From your link .

HHS has calculated the percentage of all persons in the United States who live in families that receive “welfare” going back to fiscal 1993. It has not calculated a percentage for years prior to that.

As defined in the report ("Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors"), a welfare recipient is any person living in a family where someone received benefits from any of just three programs—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps).

It also say 108 million people benefit from means tested welfare. If the household gets more because more people live there and it would be less if they didn't, the individual is getting the benefit.

Actually the opposite is true . A house with mom + dad + baby will get less than a house wh just mom + baby . That paradox has been debated since day one .

 

[Conservative65]

You mean handing freeloaders something for nothing.

Stupid, ignorant comment.

Why don't you tell me what someone getting a taxpayer funded handout has done to EARN it.

Most people on stamps have or do work. Bob paid taxes all his life, his employer closes shop and Bob goes on stamps to help out until he's back to work .

Any one of us could end up being Bob.

I've been where Bob is, twice. Neither time did I take a dime. That's the difference between me and Bob. I don't expect others to take care of me and he does.

Typical doom and gloom Liberal outlook.

If someone using food stamps works, they don't need food stamps.

We'll maybe bob had it worse . Did you take unemployment ? Is that really any different ?

What the **** do you think I didn't take a dime means? I didn't take a dime means I didn't take a dime at all. It's that simple.

Typical doom and gloom again.

Why don't you tell me just how much of what someone else earned is Bob's fair share.

 

[Conservative65]

It's www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-americans-welfare-hits-recorded-high

Thanks . Couple things .

The stat only goes back to 1993. And the basis can be a little misleading . For example , SSI . If you have a disabled kid he can be getting SSI . The whole household now counts as "receiving welfare ". That's a bit misleading . Same as if you had a family taking care of some elderly relative .

Now if you want to talk about the issue if SSI being overdone . I'm with you .

My source showed individuals not households.

From your link .

HHS has calculated the percentage of all persons in the United States who live in families that receive “welfare” going back to fiscal 1993. It has not calculated a percentage for years prior to that.

As defined in the report ("Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors"), a welfare recipient is any person living in a family where someone received benefits from any of just three programs—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps).

It also say 108 million people benefit from means tested welfare. If the household gets more because more people live there and it would be less if they didn't, the individual is getting the benefit.

Actually the opposite is true . A house with mom + dad + baby will get less than a house wh just mom + baby . That paradox has been debated since day one .

Depends on whether mom and dad are married. If mom and dad are not married and both qualify, the total they will get is more than if they are married. Seen the situation play out live with the granddaughter of a friend of my mother in law. She and the baby daddy were going to get married until they found out doing so meant they would get less. Decided not to get married.

I have a solution. Let the baby mama that chose what to do with her body support her kid since she, alone, made the choice and told the rest of us to butt out when she did.

 

[Timmy]

Thanks . Couple things .

The stat only goes back to 1993. And the basis can be a little misleading . For example , SSI . If you have a disabled kid he can be getting SSI . The whole household now counts as "receiving welfare ". That's a bit misleading . Same as if you had a family taking care of some elderly relative .

Now if you want to talk about the issue if SSI being overdone . I'm with you .

My source showed individuals not households.

From your link .

HHS has calculated the percentage of all persons in the United States who live in families that receive “welfare” going back to fiscal 1993. It has not calculated a percentage for years prior to that.

As defined in the report ("Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors"), a welfare recipient is any person living in a family where someone received benefits from any of just three programs—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps).

It also say 108 million people benefit from means tested welfare. If the household gets more because more people live there and it would be less if they didn't, the individual is getting the benefit.

Actually the opposite is true . A house with mom + dad + baby will get less than a house wh just mom + baby . That paradox has been debated since day one .

Depends on whether mom and dad are married. If mom and dad are not married and both qualify, the total they will get is more than if they are married. Seen the situation play out live with the granddaughter of a friend of my mother in law. She and the baby daddy were going to get married until they found out doing so meant they would get less. Decided not to get married.

I have a solution. Let the baby mama that chose what to do with her body support her kid since she, alone, made the choice and told the rest of us to butt out when she did.

It's not the married part. It's whether they are living together .

That's great you never took a dime . But all of us are an accident or sickness away from being Bob .

And I think people who cheat the system should be strung up in the town square as a warning to others.

 

[Conservative65]

My source showed individuals not households.

From your link .

HHS has calculated the percentage of all persons in the United States who live in families that receive “welfare” going back to fiscal 1993. It has not calculated a percentage for years prior to that.

As defined in the report ("Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors"), a welfare recipient is any person living in a family where someone received benefits from any of just three programs—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps).

It also say 108 million people benefit from means tested welfare. If the household gets more because more people live there and it would be less if they didn't, the individual is getting the benefit.

Actually the opposite is true . A house with mom + dad + baby will get less than a house wh just mom + baby . That paradox has been debated since day one .

Depends on whether mom and dad are married. If mom and dad are not married and both qualify, the total they will get is more than if they are married. Seen the situation play out live with the granddaughter of a friend of my mother in law. She and the baby daddy were going to get married until they found out doing so meant they would get less. Decided not to get married.

I have a solution. Let the baby mama that chose what to do with her body support her kid since she, alone, made the choice and told the rest of us to butt out when she did.

It's not the married part. It's whether they are living together .

That's great you never took a dime . But all of us are an accident or sickness away from being Bob .

And I think people who cheat the system should be strung up in the town square as a warning to others.

These two were living together. It's the reason they didn't get married. They were, under the law, individuals and as two individuals they received more combined than they would get if a married couple.

Still the doom and gloom?

Do you consider someone using EBT (food stamp card) indicating they've said they couldn't afford to buy their own food using cash to buy things like beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc. as cheating the system? If they have cash to buy those other things, shouldn't they be using it to buy their food instead of those other things?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's the middle class paying because of GOP pander to the rich/giant corps, stupid.

Which is why all the Wall Street banks and multinational corporations are solidly lined up behind Hillary?

roflmao, you morons cant even keep your bullshit straight.

 

[Timmy]

From your link .

HHS has calculated the percentage of all persons in the United States who live in families that receive “welfare” going back to fiscal 1993. It has not calculated a percentage for years prior to that.

As defined in the report ("Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors"), a welfare recipient is any person living in a family where someone received benefits from any of just three programs—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps).

It also say 108 million people benefit from means tested welfare. If the household gets more because more people live there and it would be less if they didn't, the individual is getting the benefit.

Actually the opposite is true . A house with mom + dad + baby will get less than a house wh just mom + baby . That paradox has been debated since day one .

Depends on whether mom and dad are married. If mom and dad are not married and both qualify, the total they will get is more than if they are married. Seen the situation play out live with the granddaughter of a friend of my mother in law. She and the baby daddy were going to get married until they found out doing so meant they would get less. Decided not to get married.

I have a solution. Let the baby mama that chose what to do with her body support her kid since she, alone, made the choice and told the rest of us to butt out when she did.

It's not the married part. It's whether they are living together .

That's great you never took a dime . But all of us are an accident or sickness away from being Bob .

And I think people who cheat the system should be strung up in the town square as a warning to others.

These two were living together. It's the reason they didn't get married. They were, under the law, individuals and as two individuals they received more combined than they would get if a married couple.

Still the doom and gloom?

Do you consider someone using EBT (food stamp card) indicating they've said they couldn't afford to buy their own food using cash to buy things like beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc. as cheating the system? If they have cash to buy those other things, shouldn't they be using it to buy their food instead of those other things?

Yes I'd consider them cheats .

Couples together may get more short term, but will be thrown off or have money cut fast because one of them will be expected to get a job ASAP . A single parent will get more time because someone has to watch the kid .

 

[francoHFW]

BS. I said for months that fees have to be counted to get the poor into the 20% range. At any rate, the point holds- much of the middle class pays more than the richest in all taxes and fees, the fed income tax obsession of GOP is brainwashed nonsense, and the middle class and the country are going to hell under this Reaganism.

Are you still claiming that your graph shows the 20 - 30% for everyone. I don't give a damn what YOU say. You presented a chart claiming it said what it didn't say then want to include something the chart simply doesn't show.

YEAH- Maybe it's just 19.7%!!!! (sarcasm duh). WTF is wrong with you? The richest don't pay enough and we're going to hell. And you're an idiot. LOL!

Using your chart, it's way less than 19.7%. What was it, 17.5%?

If it weren't for those you chastise paying what they pay, the freeloaders relying on food stamps wouldn't have a damn thing but an empty hand.

NOT COUNTING FEES, SHYTTEHEAD. Ay caramba.

Your source doesn't show fees. When you add it after the fact without proof that what you say is what you say, the only thing that counts if what the chart shows. Not my fault you can't add.

If only you could think, dupe....

 

[Conservative65]

It also say 108 million people benefit from means tested welfare. If the household gets more because more people live there and it would be less if they didn't, the individual is getting the benefit.

Actually the opposite is true . A house with mom + dad + baby will get less than a house wh just mom + baby . That paradox has been debated since day one .

Depends on whether mom and dad are married. If mom and dad are not married and both qualify, the total they will get is more than if they are married. Seen the situation play out live with the granddaughter of a friend of my mother in law. She and the baby daddy were going to get married until they found out doing so meant they would get less. Decided not to get married.

I have a solution. Let the baby mama that chose what to do with her body support her kid since she, alone, made the choice and told the rest of us to butt out when she did.

It's not the married part. It's whether they are living together .

That's great you never took a dime . But all of us are an accident or sickness away from being Bob .

And I think people who cheat the system should be strung up in the town square as a warning to others.

These two were living together. It's the reason they didn't get married. They were, under the law, individuals and as two individuals they received more combined than they would get if a married couple.

Still the doom and gloom?

Do you consider someone using EBT (food stamp card) indicating they've said they couldn't afford to buy their own food using cash to buy things like beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc. as cheating the system? If they have cash to buy those other things, shouldn't they be using it to buy their food instead of those other things?

Yes I'd consider them cheats .

Couples together may get more short term, but will be thrown off or have money cut fast because one of them will be expected to get a job ASAP . A single parent will get more time because someone has to watch the kid .

It happens far more than most people realize.

They, under the way they were doing things, were considered more like roommates than a couple. They knew how to beat the system.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you still claiming that your graph shows the 20 - 30% for everyone. I don't give a damn what YOU say. You presented a chart claiming it said what it didn't say then want to include something the chart simply doesn't show.

YEAH- Maybe it's just 19.7%!!!! (sarcasm duh). WTF is wrong with you? The richest don't pay enough and we're going to hell. And you're an idiot. LOL!

Using your chart, it's way less than 19.7%. What was it, 17.5%?

If it weren't for those you chastise paying what they pay, the freeloaders relying on food stamps wouldn't have a damn thing but an empty hand.

NOT COUNTING FEES, SHYTTEHEAD. Ay caramba.

Your source doesn't show fees. When you add it after the fact without proof that what you say is what you say, the only thing that counts if what the chart shows. Not my fault you can't add.

If only you could think, dupe....

All I needed to do was look at the chart you posted and that it didn't say what you claimed it said. I don't have to think you're an idiot and a liar, I know because I've thought about it.

 

[Indeependent]

That doesn't include social security, retard. I referenced MEANS-TESTED programs. Do you know what that means.

It's clear you don't know the difference between Contributory programs (Social Security, Medicare) and Non-Contributory programs (the 13 where someone doesn't contribute to the pot from which they draw).

Retard, here is number of people receiving means-tested programs:

52 million - 21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month

The only way to make into 100 million is to throw in social security, which is where you I thought you were getting your number from...but nope, I stand corrected, you were just using bullshit number.

This says otherwise and it references HHS numbers:

www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-american-welfare-hits-recorded-high

108 million freeloader using non-contributory program. That means they get but don't put in.

Another 43 million receiving contributory programs. That means they had to put in in order to get out.

Even with your number, and it's not true, that mean 1 in every 4 people in this country is a freeloader. You don't seem to care.

Send the business visas home, bring back off-shored white collar jobs and send trespassers home.
Nah!!!

Deport the illegal, offer those jobs to freeloaders, cut them off from the dole if they turn those jobs down.

Solve two problems. Illegals gone and freeloaders either working or they get nothing.

Deport Business Visas...I know you won't go where it hurts your wallet.

 

[Conservative65]

That doesn't include social security, retard. I referenced MEANS-TESTED programs. Do you know what that means.

It's clear you don't know the difference between Contributory programs (Social Security, Medicare) and Non-Contributory programs (the 13 where someone doesn't contribute to the pot from which they draw).

Retard, here is number of people receiving means-tested programs:

52 million - 21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month

The only way to make into 100 million is to throw in social security, which is where you I thought you were getting your number from...but nope, I stand corrected, you were just using bullshit number.

This says otherwise and it references HHS numbers:

www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-american-welfare-hits-recorded-high

108 million freeloader using non-contributory program. That means they get but don't put in.

Another 43 million receiving contributory programs. That means they had to put in in order to get out.

Even with your number, and it's not true, that mean 1 in every 4 people in this country is a freeloader. You don't seem to care.

Send the business visas home, bring back off-shored white collar jobs and send trespassers home.
Nah!!!

Deport the illegal, offer those jobs to freeloaders, cut them off from the dole if they turn those jobs down.

Solve two problems. Illegals gone and freeloaders either working or they get nothing.

Deport Business Visas...I know you won't go where it hurts your wallet.

Don't hire them.

 

[francoHFW]

YEAH- Maybe it's just 19.7%!!!! (sarcasm duh). WTF is wrong with you? The richest don't pay enough and we're going to hell. And you're an idiot. LOL!

Using your chart, it's way less than 19.7%. What was it, 17.5%?

If it weren't for those you chastise paying what they pay, the freeloaders relying on food stamps wouldn't have a damn thing but an empty hand.

NOT COUNTING FEES, SHYTTEHEAD. Ay caramba.

Your source doesn't show fees. When you add it after the fact without proof that what you say is what you say, the only thing that counts if what the chart shows. Not my fault you can't add.

If only you could think, dupe....

All I needed to do was look at the chart you posted and that it didn't say what you claimed it said. I don't have to think you're an idiot and a liar, I know because I've thought about it.

Keep obsessing on one detail, dupe. And absolutely miss the point. Idiot.

 

[Indeependent]

Retard, here is number of people receiving means-tested programs:

52 million - 21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month

The only way to make into 100 million is to throw in social security, which is where you I thought you were getting your number from...but nope, I stand corrected, you were just using bullshit number.

This says otherwise and it references HHS numbers:

www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-american-welfare-hits-recorded-high

108 million freeloader using non-contributory program. That means they get but don't put in.

Another 43 million receiving contributory programs. That means they had to put in in order to get out.

Even with your number, and it's not true, that mean 1 in every 4 people in this country is a freeloader. You don't seem to care.

Send the business visas home, bring back off-shored white collar jobs and send trespassers home.
Nah!!!

Deport the illegal, offer those jobs to freeloaders, cut them off from the dole if they turn those jobs down.

Solve two problems. Illegals gone and freeloaders either working or they get nothing.

Deport Business Visas...I know you won't go where it hurts your wallet.

Don't hire them.

I don't; every MNC does.

 

[Conservative65]

Using your chart, it's way less than 19.7%. What was it, 17.5%?

If it weren't for those you chastise paying what they pay, the freeloaders relying on food stamps wouldn't have a damn thing but an empty hand.

NOT COUNTING FEES, SHYTTEHEAD. Ay caramba.

Your source doesn't show fees. When you add it after the fact without proof that what you say is what you say, the only thing that counts if what the chart shows. Not my fault you can't add.

If only you could think, dupe....

All I needed to do was look at the chart you posted and that it didn't say what you claimed it said. I don't have to think you're an idiot and a liar, I know because I've thought about it.

Keep obsessing on one detail, dupe. And absolutely miss the point. Idiot.

The detail I state is the point. The point is your source didn't show what you claimed and you tried to add in things the source doesn't include.