Happy 4th of July......Dont forget to thank a Liberal

[percysunshine]

That would be an amazing fact if you could prove it

Who are the richest members of Congress?

Take all the time you want on this one....

You claim the one percent are ALL Liberal Democratss

Ball is in your court

Ok...most of them.

Your volley.

 

[rightwinger]

Who are the richest members of Congress?

Take all the time you want on this one....

You claim the one percent are ALL Liberal Democratss

Ball is in your court

Ok...most of them.

Your volley.

Are you claiming that some Democrats are in the one percent?
I will have to agree with you

But there is a big difference. Wealthy Democrats are willing to raise their own taxes. They are willing to give up deductions
Wealthy Republucans are not......in fact, they want to slash benefits for the poor

 

[percysunshine]

You claim the one percent are ALL Liberal Democratss

Ball is in your court

Ok...most of them.

Your volley.

Are you claiming that some Democrats are in the one percent?
I will have to agree with you

But there is a big difference. Wealthy Democrats are willing to raise their own taxes. They are willing to give up deductions
Wealthy Republucans are not......in fact, they want to slash benefits for the poor

BS. The limo lib crowd only wants to raise taxes on the middle class. They are not stupid. Obamacare is the perfect example. It is a giant tax on the middle class with the wealth being transferred to big insurance companies and big hospitals. A 100% liberal Democrat program. Reid and Pelosi are rich enough not to care about the hoi polloi.

 

[Flopper]

your ignorance is amazing. Trying to compare today's definitions of conservative and liberal to 1776 is juvenile and disengenuous.

using today's definitions, the tories were raving liberals who supported dictatorial rule by the King of England. The founders and the revolutionaries were much more akin to today's conservatives.

You are moving the goal posts

We judge people in the time they lived. You can't expect an 18th century patriot to have 21st century values

I hate to break this to you, Winger...but the Founding Fathers didn't believe in income equality. They would have been horrified by the very idea. The majority of them were what would now be considered the "1%" crowd. They also would have been appalled at our entitlement society. When progressives claim the Founding Fathers as their own it never fails to amuse me.

They didn't believe in it because there wasn't that much of it as compared to today. By the time the Civil War came, the top 1 percent of U.S. households laid claim to 10 percent of the nation's income, versus about 7 percent during the founders' era. Today, the same group accounts for about 19 percent.

Also, consider that most of the founders were in the top 1%, so no they had no problems with income equality.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...y-its-worse-today-than-it-was-in-1774/262537/

 

[Freewill]

You claim the one percent are ALL Liberal Democratss

Ball is in your court

Ok...most of them.

Your volley.

Are you claiming that some Democrats are in the one percent?
I will have to agree with you

But there is a big difference. Wealthy Democrats are willing to raise their own taxes. They are willing to give up deductions
Wealthy Republucans are not......in fact, they want to slash benefits for the poor

Please, please name the democrat that raised their own taxes. NAME THEM. Or tell me which one gave up their deductions, NAME THEM. If you can't or don't then you have proved what you have just posted is nothing but unadulterated BS.

 

[Annie]

Nice try....but the claim was income EQUALITY

NOBODY but NOBODY claims income should be EQUAL

what exactly does "redistribute the wealth" mean then?

Good question

Income EQUALITY means everyone makes the same income. Nobody but NOBODY is suggesting that all income should be equal

Redistribution of wealth looks at where our money is going. Right now, one percent of the population controls 35 percent of the wealth. 40 percent of the population controls four tenths of a percent of the wealth

The question is....why do we continue programs that help the one percent?

Actually accepting your premise, the question would be how do YOU propose redistribution should be apportioned?

 

[Contumacious]

Nice try....but the claim was income EQUALITY

NOBODY but NOBODY claims income should be EQUAL

what exactly does "redistribute the wealth" mean then?

Good question

Income EQUALITY means everyone makes the same income. Nobody but NOBODY is suggesting that all income should be equal

Redistribution of wealth looks at where our money is going. Right now, one percent of the population controls 35 percent of the wealth. 40 percent of the population controls four tenths of a percent of the wealth

The question is....why do we continue programs that help the one percent?

There are no programs helping the 1%

Those folks are motivated, responsible, go-getters, who have marketable skills and tend to say no to bullshit.

.

.

 

[Freewill]

You are moving the goal posts

We judge people in the time they lived. You can't expect an 18th century patriot to have 21st century values

I hate to break this to you, Winger...but the Founding Fathers didn't believe in income equality. They would have been horrified by the very idea. The majority of them were what would now be considered the "1%" crowd. They also would have been appalled at our entitlement society. When progressives claim the Founding Fathers as their own it never fails to amuse me.

They didn't believe in it because there wasn't that much of it as compared to today. By the time the Civil War came, the top 1 percent of U.S. households laid claim to 10 percent of the nation's income, versus about 7 percent during the founders' era. Today, the same group accounts for about 19 percent.

Also, consider that most of the founders were in the top 1%, so no they had no problems with income equality.

U.S. Income Inequality: It's Worse Today Than It Was in 1774 - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

From a source I am sure you agree:

9 signers paid the ultimate sacrifice - their lives - for the cause of Independence. 17 (almost 1 for every 3 who signed) lost every penny they had and every piece of property they owned. Yet not a single one reneged on their pledge to stand "for the support of this Declaration".

----------------------
Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence in the weeks and months after July 4, 1776, 9 did not live to see the success of the American Revolution. Many others suffered financial losses and - in some cases - total ruin. The men listed above were not the only ones to pay a stiff price for their courage. John Adams' Boston home was looted, as was Franklin's in Philadelphia, while Thomas Jefferson barely escaped with his life in 1779 when the British Navy raided Virginia. Josiah Bartlett's house was sacked by Loyalists in 1774, even before the "Shot Heard 'Round The World"!

The "Founding Fathers" who lost their lives and fortunes - but not their honor

 

[Dad2three]

what exactly does "redistribute the wealth" mean then?

Good question

Income EQUALITY means everyone makes the same income. Nobody but NOBODY is suggesting that all income should be equal

Redistribution of wealth looks at where our money is going. Right now, one percent of the population controls 35 percent of the wealth. 40 percent of the population controls four tenths of a percent of the wealth

The question is....why do we continue programs that help the one percent?

Why don't you answer that question and provide an example of how we do continue such programs.

I agree it happens and I would like to see it end.

But the 1% like Harry Reid, use their positions to obtain more wealth....

Reid Got $1.1M In Shady NV Land Deals | Sweetness & Light

How Did Harry Reid Get Rich? | National Review Online

And there are members of the GOP who do the same.....

But, you'll keep Harry in there at all costs.

There's a popular misconception that Harry Reid has spent his entire life on the taxpayer's dole, so it would be impossible for him to become rich on his own.

The Senate majority leader has been a full-time officeholder since he was first elected to the House in 1982, but many forget he practiced law for 18 years before that. He passed the bar at the end of 1964 and was in private practice even when he held other part-time jobs, including lieutenant governor and chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. He said he had more than 100 jury trials when he was practicing.



Even before he went to Congress, Reid bought real estate and held onto it. One example: In 1979 he and law partner Bruce Alverson bought a building at 428 S. Fourth St. in Las Vegas for $89,500. In 2000, it sold for $716,000.


....Reid's net worth was about $5.4 million in 1995 and by 2006 had dropped to about $3.3 million. The reason: Reid sold much of his land to put his five children through college.




..Way back in 1982, the year he was elected to the House, Reid filed a report saying his net worth was between $1 million and $1.5 million "or more."


It gets complicated adding up what politicians are worth | Las Vegas Review-Journal

 

[Dad2three]

The Progressive "answer" to a stagnant economy and a Middle Class that's being decimated by out of control costs is to try and pull the those who HAVE become successful back to the Middle Class pack. Instead of giving the Middle Class opportunities to become successful...you "economic whiz kids" think the solution is to seize the wealth of those who have succeeded, run it through an unbelievably inefficient Federal Government and then distribute it to the poor.

Good luck on that, Sparky...it's a debacle just waiting to happen!

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!



Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!




1%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”


1%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead To Violent Class Revolution | FDL News Desk

 

[Dad2three]

what exactly does "redistribute the wealth" mean then?

Good question

Income EQUALITY means everyone makes the same income. Nobody but NOBODY is suggesting that all income should be equal

Redistribution of wealth looks at where our money is going. Right now, one percent of the population controls 35 percent of the wealth. 40 percent of the population controls four tenths of a percent of the wealth

The question is....why do we continue programs that help the one percent?

There are no programs helping the 1%

Those folks are motivated, responsible, go-getters, who have marketable skills and tend to say no to bullshit.

.

.

Conservatives deny facts and never explain their positions because they can't. Their positions have no basis in reality and are unsustainable, so the only thing they can do is obfuscate, deny, attack and deflect.



Conservatives simplistic minds

If you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.

 

[Dad2three]

what exactly does "redistribute the wealth" mean then?

Good question

Income EQUALITY means everyone makes the same income. Nobody but NOBODY is suggesting that all income should be equal

Redistribution of wealth looks at where our money is going. Right now, one percent of the population controls 35 percent of the wealth. 40 percent of the population controls four tenths of a percent of the wealth

The question is....why do we continue programs that help the one percent?

Actually accepting your premise, the question would be how do YOU propose redistribution should be apportioned?

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

 

[Dad2three]

Ok...most of them.

Your volley.

Are you claiming that some Democrats are in the one percent?
I will have to agree with you

But there is a big difference. Wealthy Democrats are willing to raise their own taxes. They are willing to give up deductions
Wealthy Republucans are not......in fact, they want to slash benefits for the poor

Please, please name the democrat that raised their own taxes. NAME THEM. Or tell me which one gave up their deductions, NAME THEM. If you can't or don't then you have proved what you have just posted is nothing but unadulterated BS.

1993 Dem Congress and Clinton, created 3 new tax brackets (from 3) and took the top rate from 35% to 39.6% WITHOUT a single GOP vote!

1%ers in Congress right?

 

[Dad2three]

Ok...most of them.

Your volley.

Are you claiming that some Democrats are in the one percent?
I will have to agree with you

But there is a big difference. Wealthy Democrats are willing to raise their own taxes. They are willing to give up deductions
Wealthy Republucans are not......in fact, they want to slash benefits for the poor

BS. The limo lib crowd only wants to raise taxes on the middle class. They are not stupid. Obamacare is the perfect example. It is a giant tax on the middle class with the wealth being transferred to big insurance companies and big hospitals. A 100% liberal Democrat program. Reid and Pelosi are rich enough not to care about the hoi polloi.

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent




The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.



Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone




"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

But Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners. "The capital gains cut alone gave the top 400 taxpayers a bigger tax cut than all the Bush tax cuts combined," says David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich – and Cheat Everybody Else.



How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[Dad2three]

Who are the richest members of Congress?

Take all the time you want on this one....

You claim the one percent are ALL Liberal Democratss

Ball is in your court

Ok...most of them.

Your volley.

One answer to these questions comes from a new analysis by Gallup that made the rounds last week. By aggregating 61 polls from 2009-2011, they were able to measure the opinions of about 400 respondents with annual incomes of $500,000 or above. Gallup reports only modest differences in their party identification: 57 percent of the 1 percent identify as or lean Republican, compared to 44 percent of the 99 percent. There are virtually no differences in how they identify ideologically: 39 percent of the 1 percent identify as conservative, compared to 40 percent of the 99 percent.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/the-politics-of-the-1-percent/

 

[Dad2three]

Because the one percent are all liberal Democrats, and that is what they wish.

.

That would be an amazing fact if you could prove it

Who are the richest members of Congress?

Take all the time you want on this one....

50 Richest Members of Congress

1.Rep. Darrell Issa R

2.Rep. Michael McCaul R

3.Sen. Mark Warner D

4.Sen. Richard Blumenthal D

5.Sen. Jay Rockefeller D

6.Rep. John Delaney D

7.Rep. Jared Polis D

8.Rep. Scott Peters D

9.Sen. Dianne Feinstein D

10.Rep. James B. Renacci R

11.Rep. Chellie Pingree D

12.Rep. Vern Buchanan R

13.Rep. Robert Pittenger R

14.Rep. Diane Black R

15.Rep. Nancy Pelosi D

16.Rep. Suzan DelBene D

17.Rep. Chris Collins R

18.Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen R

19.Sen. Jim Risch R

20.Rep. Gary G. Miller R

TEN OF TOP 20 ARE GOPers, 29 of 50 are GOPers

AND? You saying those 'job creator' Dems aren't selfish and want higher taxes on themselves?



RollCall.com - 50 Richest Members of Congress 2013

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Voting isn't a "PRIVILEGE".

It's a right.



Is that so hard to understand?

The only ones that gave you that right and set you free was the Republicans

Not a damn Democrat voted for the 14th amendment

They weren't conservatives.

Today's conservatives still call it a PRIVILEGE.

And are trying to roll it back.

There is a big problem with calling voting a right. Rights imply that they are God given without a struggle or a fight to attain them - the women's suffrage movement proved that argument wrong. Rights also imply that they can never be taken away, those who are incarcerated lost their voting rights so the argument that it's a "right" is proven invalid there too. Then there is the international "problem" that was raised in calling voting a right over a privilege as stated below.

An international perspective on voting as a right: In 2005, the European Court on Human Rights found that the United Kingdom had breached the human rights of prisoners by denying them the vote, ruling that British policies were disenfranchising 80,000 incarcerated British citizens. The Human Right Act of 1998, which had incorporated most of the European Convention on Human rights into British law, established the right to vote as an essential right of all humans. This ruling was grounded in voting as a right, not a privilege, but the British government has fought against implementing the ruling despite the 1998 law

FairVote.org | Voting: A Right, A Privilege, or A Responsibility?

You might think or believe voting is a right, but it's already been proven to be an inaccurate interpretation.

 

[Sallow]

what exactly does "redistribute the wealth" mean then?

Good question

Income EQUALITY means everyone makes the same income. Nobody but NOBODY is suggesting that all income should be equal

Redistribution of wealth looks at where our money is going. Right now, one percent of the population controls 35 percent of the wealth. 40 percent of the population controls four tenths of a percent of the wealth

The question is....why do we continue programs that help the one percent?

There are no programs helping the 1%

Those folks are motivated, responsible, go-getters, who have marketable skills and tend to say no to bullshit.

.

.

 

[Sallow]

The only ones that gave you that right and set you free was the Republicans

Not a damn Democrat voted for the 14th amendment

They weren't conservatives.

Today's conservatives still call it a PRIVILEGE.

And are trying to roll it back.

There is a big problem with calling voting a right. Rights imply that they are God given without a struggle or a fight to attain them - the women's suffrage movement proved that argument wrong. Rights also imply that they can never be taken away, those who are incarcerated lost their voting rights so the argument that it's a "right" is proven invalid there too. Then there is the international "problem" that was raised in calling voting a right over a privilege as stated below.

An international perspective on voting as a right: In 2005, the European Court on Human Rights found that the United Kingdom had breached the human rights of prisoners by denying them the vote, ruling that British policies were disenfranchising 80,000 incarcerated British citizens. The Human Right Act of 1998, which had incorporated most of the European Convention on Human rights into British law, established the right to vote as an essential right of all humans. This ruling was grounded in voting as a right, not a privilege, but the British government has fought against implementing the ruling despite the 1998 law

FairVote.org | Voting: A Right, A Privilege, or A Responsibility?

You might think or believe voting is a right, but it's already been proven to be an inaccurate interpretation.

Um.

I am not in England.

In the USA?

Voting in a right codified in the United States Constitution.

Read it sometime.

 

[rightwinger]

what exactly does "redistribute the wealth" mean then?

Good question

Income EQUALITY means everyone makes the same income. Nobody but NOBODY is suggesting that all income should be equal

Redistribution of wealth looks at where our money is going. Right now, one percent of the population controls 35 percent of the wealth. 40 percent of the population controls four tenths of a percent of the wealth

The question is....why do we continue programs that help the one percent?

There are no programs helping the 1%

Those folks are motivated, responsible, go-getters, who have marketable skills and tend to say no to bullshit.

.

.

The Golden Rule applies to those motivated, responsible go-getters

Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules

How much of our thousands of pages of tax code apply to lower middle class and middle class workers? How much of our tax code applies to the one percent?

Guess who has more influence on our tax code?