Here is what I want to know from Democrats at USMB....

[sealybobo]

I have never said Hillary is a socialist. Again, you try to lump everyone into one group. I have always maintained Hillary is for Corporations at the expense of the middle class.

You still haven't told me what the Democrats have done for the middle class in the last few years.

They weren't passing anti middle class policies like the Republicans. They weren't giving tax breaks to the rich which means they weren't shifting the tax burden more onto us.

When did Republicans ever shift the tax burden to the middle-class?

I'll challenge you right here and right now:

As a middle-class working man, I can easily list several expenses that I have to pay for thanks to the Democrat party and in particular, DumBama. I want you to show me one......just one expense I had to suffer under Republican leadership.

The truth of the matter is that under Democrat control, the wealthy and middle-class get screwed, because their money is transferred to the so-called poor, or otherwise those that don't feel like working.

The Republicans (and mostly the conservatives) are all for the middle-class. If there was never an Obama, nor a Democrat led Congress, I would be doing so much better today financially.

When the rich and corporations got huge tax breaks and the debt doubles, that shifts more of the tax burden on us.

Gov Rick Snyder gave corporations tax breaks and now says he has to raise our taxes to fix the roads. Because we don't have any money he says. That's a great example

Exactly,

All at the same time the big corporations are outsourcing to china, replacing American workers with h1b's and giving their board/ceo most o the profit. All while the super rich with the huge tax breaks shits on the poor and middle class!!!

That is the republican plan for America.

And the Democrat plan is what, what we've been experiencing?

You know, the FACT that median family income has been reduced since DumBama took over while at the same time, he puts a WELCOME MAT on our borders? The fact that our illegals have outnumbered all those so-called new job creations in this country? The fact that the rich have never gotten richer than under DumBama?

Try to challenge those facts please.

Right wing spin.

 

[Boss]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

 

[Boss]

Yes, we're talking about Communism which is what you want. We did not have this after WWII, we've never had Communist government here. We used to run ******* Commies out of the country on a rail. The rich have NEVER paid high income tax because RICH people don't have to earn ******* income. They're RICH! So when you raise earned income tax rates, they simply stop earning incomes and put their money in securities and offshore trust funds that you can't get your grubby little Commie hands on.

Well, guy, that's why you have capital gains taxes and corporate taxes and inheritence taxes. You get them sooner or later.

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93% and 33% unionization. That might not be "communism", but it was the rich realizing it was a better alternative.

We had unprecedented growth after WWII because government wasn't shackling industry and business with every kind of birdbrain regulation they could think up. People of that generation had a strong work ethic and since we kicked everyone's ass in the war, we were the top dogs in the world economy for the next 20 years. No one else could compete because their factories and infrastructure had been turned to rubble.

Okay, guy, despite the fact you are deluded that we won WWII (nope, the Soviets did, Sorry. It was the Soviets.) the fact is, after WWII, Industry was HIGHLY Regulated, unionized and government controlled.

True, we didn't have things like OSHA or the EPA yet, because we didn't realize those things were important until people started dropping dead from work related stuff or the Cayahuga river caught on fire.

And, no, the rest of the world caught back up within ten years of us. They are ahead of us because after WWII, the New Deal Democrats set up their systems the right way, the way Repubilcans never allowed to happen here.

All I hear is more liberal blather and defense of Socialist Communism.

 

[sealybobo]

And this is any less true of the GOP? I say its even worse with Republicans.

All those things you say she'll do, are basically what the Republicans will do. And funny didn't Republicans say the Clinton's were lefty liberals? Were they lying?

I see through the right wing talking points. One minute you argue she's a dino the next she's a socialist. Which is it?

I have never said Hillary is a socialist. Again, you try to lump everyone into one group. I have always maintained Hillary is for Corporations at the expense of the middle class.

You still haven't told me what the Democrats have done for the middle class in the last few years.

They weren't passing anti middle class policies like the Republicans. They weren't giving tax breaks to the rich which means they weren't shifting the tax burden more onto us.

When did Republicans ever shift the tax burden to the middle-class?

I'll challenge you right here and right now:

As a middle-class working man, I can easily list several expenses that I have to pay for thanks to the Democrat party and in particular, DumBama. I want you to show me one......just one expense I had to suffer under Republican leadership.

The truth of the matter is that under Democrat control, the wealthy and middle-class get screwed, because their money is transferred to the so-called poor, or otherwise those that don't feel like working.

The Republicans (and mostly the conservatives) are all for the middle-class. If there was never an Obama, nor a Democrat led Congress, I would be doing so much better today financially.

When the rich and corporations got huge tax breaks and the debt doubles, that shifts more of the tax burden on us.

Gov Rick Snyder gave corporations tax breaks and now says he has to raise our taxes to fix the roads. Because we don't have any money he says. That's a great example

What about the huge tax burdens the democrats have placed on Californians?

People in California have always paid more taxes than people in Arkansas or Kentucky. For some reason people and corporations still love to live there.

Did California give all the rich tax breaks then turn around and raise taxes on the poor and middle class?

I would object if California cut Sean penn's taxes and then raised taxes on the middle class.

 

[Redfish]

Clintons are sellouts with a record of loose dealing yet sound fiscal policy. Bush record is massive spending while decreasing taxes leaving a giant bill and a bad recession and a messed up middle east with Iraq in chaos.

Bush is one of our worst presidents, bottom 10.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but Jeb is not George.

That family sold our country out and fucked everyone over, complete disgrace. Jeb can **** off.

what planet are you on? Did you sleep through the last 7 years? talking about selling the country down the river----------Obama doubled the debt, weakened our military, divided the country, made the US the laughing stock of the world, made Putin look like a real leader.

You ***** about the Bush tax cuts--------------WELL ASSHOLE OBAMA EXTENDED THEM, THEY ARE NOW THE OBAMA TAX CUTS.

 

[Redfish]

I have never said Hillary is a socialist. Again, you try to lump everyone into one group. I have always maintained Hillary is for Corporations at the expense of the middle class.

You still haven't told me what the Democrats have done for the middle class in the last few years.

They weren't passing anti middle class policies like the Republicans. They weren't giving tax breaks to the rich which means they weren't shifting the tax burden more onto us.

When did Republicans ever shift the tax burden to the middle-class?

I'll challenge you right here and right now:

As a middle-class working man, I can easily list several expenses that I have to pay for thanks to the Democrat party and in particular, DumBama. I want you to show me one......just one expense I had to suffer under Republican leadership.

The truth of the matter is that under Democrat control, the wealthy and middle-class get screwed, because their money is transferred to the so-called poor, or otherwise those that don't feel like working.

The Republicans (and mostly the conservatives) are all for the middle-class. If there was never an Obama, nor a Democrat led Congress, I would be doing so much better today financially.

When the rich and corporations got huge tax breaks and the debt doubles, that shifts more of the tax burden on us.

Gov Rick Snyder gave corporations tax breaks and now says he has to raise our taxes to fix the roads. Because we don't have any money he says. That's a great example

What about the huge tax burdens the democrats have placed on Californians?

People in California have always paid more taxes than people in Arkansas or Kentucky. For some reason people and corporations still love to live there.

Did California give all the rich tax breaks then turn around and raise taxes on the poor and middle class?

I would object if California cut Sean penn's taxes and then raised taxes on the middle class.

Your view of history is as phony as your left wing rhetoric. Corporations are leaving California by the dozens and moving to tax friendly states.

The Bush tax cuts (now the Obama tax cuts) cut tax rates for everyone who pays taxes, not just the rich--------------you really are one of the dumbest posters on this forum.

 

[Redfish]

They weren't passing anti middle class policies like the Republicans. They weren't giving tax breaks to the rich which means they weren't shifting the tax burden more onto us.

When did Republicans ever shift the tax burden to the middle-class?

I'll challenge you right here and right now:

As a middle-class working man, I can easily list several expenses that I have to pay for thanks to the Democrat party and in particular, DumBama. I want you to show me one......just one expense I had to suffer under Republican leadership.

The truth of the matter is that under Democrat control, the wealthy and middle-class get screwed, because their money is transferred to the so-called poor, or otherwise those that don't feel like working.

The Republicans (and mostly the conservatives) are all for the middle-class. If there was never an Obama, nor a Democrat led Congress, I would be doing so much better today financially.

When the rich and corporations got huge tax breaks and the debt doubles, that shifts more of the tax burden on us.

Gov Rick Snyder gave corporations tax breaks and now says he has to raise our taxes to fix the roads. Because we don't have any money he says. That's a great example

Exactly,

All at the same time the big corporations are outsourcing to china, replacing American workers with h1b's and giving their board/ceo most o the profit. All while the super rich with the huge tax breaks shits on the poor and middle class!!!

That is the republican plan for America.

And the Democrat plan is what, what we've been experiencing?

You know, the FACT that median family income has been reduced since DumBama took over while at the same time, he puts a WELCOME MAT on our borders? The fact that our illegals have outnumbered all those so-called new job creations in this country? The fact that the rich have never gotten richer than under DumBama?

Try to challenge those facts please.

Right wing spin.

Nope, those are facts.

 

[rightwinger]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

Lot of profit made in WW2

 

[Redfish]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

Lot of profit made in WW2

a lot of profit was made by the Clinton foundation---------whats your point?

 

[rightwinger]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

Lot of profit made in WW2

a lot of profit was made by the Clinton foundation---------whats your point?

My point is you are outright lying

If the Clinton foundation was making illegal profits, I can assure you that our Republucan Congress would be all over it

 

[Redfish]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

Lot of profit made in WW2

a lot of profit was made by the Clinton foundation---------whats your point?

My point is you are outright lying

If the Clinton foundation was making illegal profits, I can assure you that our Republucan Congress would be all over it

stand by, its coming. So is Hillary's indictment.

 

[Seawytch]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

Lot of profit made in WW2

a lot of profit was made by the Clinton foundation---------whats your point?

My point is you are outright lying

If the Clinton foundation was making illegal profits, I can assure you that our Republucan Congress would be all over it

What?!? Fishy lying? It must be a day ending in a "y".

 

[JoeB131]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

This would be the same Reagan who quadrupled the national debt after cutting taxes for the rich and shifting the burden on the poor?

Then Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and lo and behold, we had balanced budgets.

See, Right Wing Math. It's like Right Wing Science... talking snakes and pixie dust.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
democrats are able to support either of their candidates unlike republicans that have only offered poor and devicev choices.

the demo's have the luxury as the process proceeds to chose the better candidate that proves to have the best chance for victory in Nov..

Sanders and Hillary are vastly different, Sanders is for the individuals, the people. Clinton is for big money, corporatism. That is like night and day. Are you more about winning or principles?

Bernie would be a better president but can he win? I think we should nominate a real liberal. I'm with bernie

So winning is more important than principles?

Well if Republicans could run a far right candidate they would but since they can't win they run McCain and Romney.

I was worried about nominating a black. Didn't think he'd win. I was wrong.

But yes, electablity matters.

So winning more important than principles, to you. Interesting.

PAPA: So winning is more important than principles ...

But yes, electablity matters.

those two are not so far apart as being implied and Bernie has made his agenda into a national debate Southern republicans are now forced to respond to ... there are many democrats who are wealthy and investors, Hillary will not alienate their value by foolishly disrupting the economic structure that sustains this country as a premier world leader.

electability does matter and it is disingenuous not to believe H is a principled candidate - the judiciary, all judges are appointed - particularly the SCOUTS.


expl. Bernie would work to tax stock transactions - an anathema to investing democrats and an issue H would understand as counter productive for a viable economy.
.

 

[JoeB131]

All I hear is more liberal blather and defense of Socialist Communism.

I'm sorry you didn't learn reading comprehension in Home School. You should probably ask for your money back.

 

[Redfish]

Sanders and Hillary are vastly different, Sanders is for the individuals, the people. Clinton is for big money, corporatism. That is like night and day. Are you more about winning or principles?

Bernie would be a better president but can he win? I think we should nominate a real liberal. I'm with bernie

So winning is more important than principles?

Well if Republicans could run a far right candidate they would but since they can't win they run McCain and Romney.

I was worried about nominating a black. Didn't think he'd win. I was wrong.

But yes, electablity matters.

So winning more important than principles, to you. Interesting.

PAPA: So winning is more important than principles ...

But yes, electablity matters.

those two are not so far apart as being implied and Bernie has made his agenda into a national debate Southern republicans are now forced to respond to ... there are many democrats who are wealthy and investors, Hillary will not alienate their value by foolishly disrupting the economic structure that sustains this country as a premier world leader.

electability does matter and it is disingenuous not to believe H is a principled candidate - the judiciary, all judges are appointed - particularly the SCOUTS.


expl. Bernie would work to tax stock transactions - an anathema to investing democrats and an issue H would understand as counter productive for a viable economy.
.

you leave out two important factors.

1. Bernie is an idiot
2. Hillary is a criminal

 

[Boss]

Lot of profit made in WW2

Not from the 93% top marginal income tax rates.

 

[rightwinger]

And yes, after WWII, we had a top marginal rate of 93%

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

Lot of profit made in WW2

a lot of profit was made by the Clinton foundation---------whats your point?

My point is you are outright lying

If the Clinton foundation was making illegal profits, I can assure you that our Republucan Congress would be all over it

stand by, its coming. So is Hillary's indictment.

Republicans have been predicting her indictments for 25 years

 

[Boss]

This would be the same Reagan who quadrupled the national debt after cutting taxes for the rich and shifting the burden on the poor?

LMFAO... So now, just in this thread alone, Reagan has gone from tripling to quadrupling the debt! And not a BIT of that is the fault of spend-happy Democrats who never met a spending bill they didn't like and never filled every bill with as much pork as they could cram in it.

Then Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and lo and behold, we had balanced budgets.

And that glorious "surplus" that never existed but is often claimed... which was actually created with smoke and mirrors by including the Social Security trust fund in the general budget,

By the way.... the RICH don't pay taxes... you mean the highest income earners... and for the record, they are currently paying more than they paid under Clinton.

 

[Moonglow]

And as Reagan pointed out... 93% of ZERO isn't very much revenue!

Lot of profit made in WW2

a lot of profit was made by the Clinton foundation---------whats your point?

My point is you are outright lying

If the Clinton foundation was making illegal profits, I can assure you that our Republucan Congress would be all over it

stand by, its coming. So is Hillary's indictment.

Republicans have been predicting her indictments for 25 years

Along with an Iran with nuclear capability...