Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[Blues Man]

No, they don't moron, the very worst they collect taxes, under the threat of imprisonment.

You just said ALL laws are enforced under threat of violence. You said that's what LEO is supposed to do now you are saying they don't

Make up your fucking mind.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

reread post 628 and get back to me

Armed men showing up to arrest you is the very definition of a threat of violence.

NO, it isn't, drama queen.
It happens to millions of people every year, without incident.

WTF?
No, violent intent.

 

[Blues Man]

NO, it isn't, drama queen.
It happens to millions of people every year, without incident.

WTF?
No, violent intent.

Of course it is. YOU just said all laws are enforced by the threat of violence. YOU said that's what LEO does now you are saying they don't.

Tell you what when you actually know what your position is on this subject get back to me.

And really I would see a neurologist if I were you as you seem to have some very severe memory issues

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You just said ALL laws are enforced under threat of violence. You said that's what LEO is supposed to do now you are saying they don't

Make up your fucking mind.

You're retarded.
The people who least of all want violence are LEO's.
Imprisonment isn't automatically........................violence.

 

[Blues Man]

You're retarded.
The people who least of all want violence are LEO's.
Imprisonment isn't automatically........................violence.

Now you are lying about what I have posted all to try and cover up your own contradicition.

Post where I said LEO WANTS violence.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Of course it is. YOU just said all laws are enforced by the threat of violence. YOU said that's what LEO does now you are saying they don't.

Tell you what when you actually know what your position is on this subject get back to me.

And really I would see a neurologist if I were you as you seem to have some very severe memory issues

WTF?
RETARD.
Do police show up at a eviction or traffic stop with guns drawn?

 

[Blues Man]

WTF?
RETARD.
Do police show up at a eviction or traffic stop with guns drawn?

you need to go back and reread your own posts.

or better yet have someone else read them to you.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You're retarded.
The people who least of all want violence are LEO's.
Imprisonment isn't automatically........................violence.

Post # 642
"Armed men showing up to arrest you is the very definition of a threat of violence".
NOW, WHO would that be?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

you need to go back and reread your own posts.

or better yet have someone else read them to you.

YOU need to reread YOURS.

 

[Blues Man]

Post # 642
"Armed men showing up to arrest you is the very definition of a threat of violence".
NOW, WHO would that be?

this is YOU making up an argument I never brought up

This is YOU attributing to me words I never said and then YOU are using these words I never said to argue against me.

So now I ask you if can quote the post where I said what you claim.

When you can't will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about what I have stated in my arguments?

Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Blues Man]

YOU need to reread YOURS.

My argument has been consistent yours has flipped and flopped

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

this is YOU making up an argument I never brought up

This is YOU attributing to me words I never said and then YOU are using these words I never said to argue against me.

So now I ask you if can quote the post where I said what you claim.

When you can't will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about what I have stated in my arguments?

Somehow I doubt it.

I told you, dumbass, THIS is YOUR post.
"Armed men showing up to arrest you is the very definition of a threat of violence".
You're worse than Trump.

 

[Blues Man]

I told you, dumbass, THIS is YOUR post.
"Armed men showing up to arrest you is the very definition of a threat of violence".
You're worse than Trump.

Yes a THREAT of violence and YOU agreed that all laws are enforced under the THREAT of violence.

Now you are saying they aren't

Maybe you don't know what the words you read actually mean. I never said LEO wanted violence YOU said that.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yes a THREAT of violence and YOU agreed that all laws are enforced under the THREAT of violence.

You're FOS.

Now you are saying they aren't

Never sted they were, does anyone with a gun frighten you?

Maybe you don't know what the words you read actually mean. I never said LEO wanted violence YOU said that.

It's in YOUR comment.
No non LEO agency in government carries a gun, as part of their job.

 

[Blues Man]

You're FOS.

Never sted they were, does anyone with a gun frighten you?

It's in YOUR comment.
No non LEO agency in government carries a gun, as part of their job.

OK so quote the post where I said that law enforcement WANTED violence.

Until you do that I will no longer respond to anything you post.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yeah, just like insurance, we have to cover the cost of what they DON'T pay.
Like friends, going out to dinner every saturday night, and one person, hasn't picked up the check in 42 years.

No, not like your dear leader.

September 29 2015
Forbes' Randall Lane wrote that he interviewed more than 80 sources and devoted "unprecedented resources" to looking at Trump's assets. After that process, he concluded that Trump's net worth was $4.5 billion.

Though it's a sizable sum, Trump has repeatedly touted his net worth as more than $10 billion.

"I'm running for president," Trump told Forbes. "I'm worth much more than you have me down [for]. I don't look good, to be honest. I mean, I look better if I'm worth $10 billion than if I’m worth $4 billion."

He further dismissed Forbes as "bankrupt" and incompetent.

And look, all I can say is Forbes is a bankrupt magazine, doesn't know what they're talking about. That's all I'm gonna say. 'Cause it's embarrassing to me."

Trump has repeatedly feuded with people who have valued his net worth lower than he does over the years. In July, he accused billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg of being jealous after Bloomberg's news service estimated his net worth was just $2.9 billion.


Many of the people who keep more of their $$$, have secretly changed the tax code to make it so.

Your dear leader is one, just grift..............Trump has been doing that, his entire life.

Sure does seem the way you post you have wealth envy. It isnt enough that the RICH pay 39% of the federal revenue while the poor pays less then 3% and the top 50% pays the total 97%, yet we just keep on giving the poor more and more money to stay poor. Talk about the person who hasnt picked up the check in 60 years. Here lets do the dining room table argument again.

Overtaxing the rich: A cautionary tale

While it might not be politically correct to suggest that the rich should get the lion’s share of tax breaks, let me share a story that provides food for thought

www.theglobeandmail.com

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.

The moral

There are a couple of lessons to be learned here. The first is an observation from my wife: If the 10 individuals had been women, they probably would have figured things out. But in all seriousness, I'm going to suggest that the approach taken by the restaurant owner in the story is exactly the right approach to divvying up tax cuts. It's how our system should work. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the greatest relief from a tax cut, in absolute dollars.

The fact is, if you overtax the rich, they just might not show up for dinner next time. After all, there are plenty of good restaurants around the world.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Sure does seem the way you post you have wealth envy. It isnt enough that the RICH pay 39% of the federal revenue while the poor pays less then 3% and the top 50% pays the total 97%, yet we just keep on giving the poor more and more money to stay poor. Talk about the person who hasnt picked up the check in 60 years. Here lets do the dining room table argument again.

Overtaxing the rich: A cautionary tale

While it might not be politically correct to suggest that the rich should get the lion’s share of tax breaks, let me share a story that provides food for thought

www.theglobeandmail.com

An opinion from a Canadian from 7 years ago, with a paywall?

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.

The moral

It's BS.
The US set up the progressive tax code, just like every other country in the world.

In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862. The act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, and replaced the Revenue Act of 1861, which had imposed a flat income tax of 3% on annual incomes above $800.

There are a couple of lessons to be learned here. The first is an observation from my wife: If the 10 individuals had been women, they probably would have figured things out. But in all seriousness, I'm going to suggest that the approach taken by the restaurant owner in the story is exactly the right approach to divvying up tax cuts. It's how our system should work. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the greatest relief from a tax cut, in absolute dollars.

They have, each and every time the republicans have passed tax cuts.

The fact is, if you overtax the rich, they just might not show up for dinner next time. After all, there are plenty of good restaurants around the world.

Do they need help packing?