Someone went through a lot of trouble to orchestrate these demonstrations

[Remodeling Maidiac]

First realize this: it is the right of the people to assemble peacefully and redress their grievances. That right is enshrined in our constitution.

Second: the someone who is responsible for these demonstrations is Donald J. Trump. His divisive rhetoric is responsible. His attitude toward women and other marginalized groups is responsible. His utter lack of respect for women and their capabilities is responsible. Had he taken the high road and honored his fellow Americans rather than further disparaging and marginalizing them would have prevented the justifiable fear many Americans have.

I guess that means all the riots & race protests of the last few years have been Obama's fault eh?

How bout OWS? Obama's fault too?



Stupid simpletons

Obama wasn't in charge of municipal police departments whose officers have been acting irresponsibly. Do you think President Obama's rhetoric encouraged policemen to shoot Black American citizens?

I think it encouraged the Dumbfucks that got shot as well as the rioters.

What's it like to be so obtuse? Black Americans shot by police are 'dumbfucks' and those who protest against the actions of our least responsible President are too?

The view from your vantage point must be ridiculously restrictive.

It is restrictive, to reality. I've lived the hoodlum lifestyle. I understand it. Not to say there aren't bad shootings because there are and not all the victims are black but to acknowledge that you would have to alter your perception. We both know that won't happen because your reality is based on what you see rather than what happens in reality.

 

[AntonToo]

That is an INSANE comment.

Left wing pushes higher taxes on the rich and corporations to spend on government programs and entitlements - how the hell does that help big business?
Left wing also pushes government oversight and regulations like anti-trust, environmental protection and higher minimum wages.

The right pushes in exactly OPPOSITE direction, which is far more 1%ter and big-business friendly.

There are certainly some big spenders on the left, but they do so DIRECTLY OPPOSITE to their personal self interests.

For example: The Patriotic Millionaires - these are people who's cause is to make millionares like themselves pay more taxes to support this country.

Self-interest is sawed into right wing ideology itself, where left wing politics usually revolve about responsibility to the society at large.

Allow me to explain.

Take Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet is a staunch democrat that has supported raising taxes on the rich, which you claimed was 'directly opposite to their personal self interests'.

Right?

Let me ask you a question. If we doubled the top marginal tax rate, to 80% or higher, how much more would Buffet pay in taxes? Do you know what Warren Buffets salary is?

$100,000 a year. Top marginal tax rate is income over $415K. So Warren Buffet would pay $0 more in tax.

So... when Warren Buffet, and thousands of other billionaire left-wing liberals demand higher taxes on the rich... it doesn't affect them. Who does it affect? The people who are trying to get rich. Not the people who are rich.

See? Rich get richer. Poor get poorer.

Another example. Warren Buffet invested millions on millions into buying BNSF railroad in 2007. Go look at some of the biggest expenditures of the 2009 'stimulus' package? Money to the railroad Unions, and money for infrastructure projects, most of which was for railroad infrastructure. I know of at least two specific examples of the stimulus money being used in projects that directly and specifically benefited BNSF.

And who pays for those infrastructure projects? Well of course we do. The public. Rich get richer. Poor get poorer.

None of these anti-poor, pro-rich views are right-wing. These are all left wing.

Take the minimum wage. A lot of left-wingers were shocked when McDonald's CEO came out in favor of a higher minimum wage, and the $15/hour minimum wage in SF was promoted.

But the moment you hear billionaire executives supporting minimum wage, you should automatically wonder why.

McDonald's is a multi-billion dollar international company. Which companies are going to be able to afford a higher minimum wage? The small indenpendent chaines, or the large mega-corps? Obviously the mega-corps. The small chain stores will go out of business.

Meaning... more customers for McDonald's. But doesn't that mean McDonald's will have to pay more money to employee?

View attachment 109455
See those high paid employees? Nope? Neither do I.

See McDonald's has the money to invest in replacements for employees. McDonald's also knows that poorer, smaller companies do not. So McDonald's knows that the smaller companies will go out of business, while they replace expensive $15/hour workers, with cheap kiosks and automation.

Rich get richer. Poor get poorer. All those former employees, have to find something else to do... if they can even find a job.

See? The left-wing is the biggest supporters of big business. Not the right-wing.

Another example, you mentioned all that regulation and 'anti-trust'.

But in reality, regulation and anti-trust, is the biggest creators of monopolies.

See, regulation by its very nature, is costly. A rough estimate is that Federal regulations alone, cost over $2 Trillion a year. Now where does that money come from? YOU. You pay the price, in higher costs to consumers. And that's just Federal. There are state and local regulations that cost companies billions every year as well.

More specifically though, which company is more able to pay that price? A big mega-corp? Or a startup? Of course the mega-corp has billions of dollars to meet all those regulations. The smaller companies do not.

So the smaller companies, merge or sell out, or close.... leaving the mega-corps to have customers with fewer options to choose from.

Take net neutrality. Government heaped hundreds of pages of regulations on the broadband internet providers. What do we see today? Altice bought Cablevision. Charter and Time Warner. Verizon Fios was sold to Frontier.

I predicted this, when Net Neutrality was debated. You heap a bunch of regulations, and smaller providers merge with larger providers, resulting in higher prices, and less consumer choice.

Rich get richer. Poor get poorer. Again, this is not a right-wing policy that is causing this. It's a left-wing policy. You help the rich get richer, and poor get poorer. Not us.

The difference between us, is that the right-wing looks at results, not the stated goals. Your goal doesn't matter. What matters is the results of your actions. The results are, poor people are harmed, and rich people benefit.

You are totally clueless, Buffet rule would tax all income, including capital gains he makes his billions from at a minimum rate.

Buffet will not be spared from Buffet rule.

Warren E Buffett, CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

View attachment 110612
Notice "Total Compensation" What does it say? $0.1 Million.
"5-Year Total Compensation" What does it say? $0.5 Million.

Where do you see "stock gains" "bonus" or "other"? -- (that means zero).

Which means.... zero. See, Buffet is brilliant, in that Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay dividends at all, which of course would be taxed, at 23%. The Buffet rule would only raise those taxes to 30% anyway.

But it doesn't matter because Buffet doesn't pay ANY dividend taxes at all.

See.... Buffet doesn't need to own the stock in the dozens of companies he's invested into, because he owns Berkshire Hathaway, and Berkshire owns the stock in all those companies.

Any dividends paid by say BNSF, ends up at Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet never sees them. Thus he never pays taxes on them.

So you could raise dividend taxes to 100% if you wanted. You still wouldn't get so much as penny more in taxes, from Warren Buffet.

Again... Taxes only prevent new people from getting wealthy. Not existing wealthy people.

Taxes are ultimately the best pro-wealthy, anti-poor policy you left-wingers ever promote.

There is a swiss-cheese sized hole in your claims - Buffet ALREADY pays 17% tax. If what you say of his income is true, he would pay right about ZERO.

Buffet's proposals would raise this 17% to 30%

No. It would not. Everything I said is not just true, but I proved it with SEC reports.

He pays 17%, on the $100,000 he directly earns. That is his income. That is what he pays..

You are helplessly clueless.

In 2010 Buffet's ~17% tax bill was 7 million on about 40 million of income.

Do yourself and everyone a favor - google check your nonsense before posting it.

 

[Andylusion]

Allow me to explain.

Take Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet is a staunch democrat that has supported raising taxes on the rich, which you claimed was 'directly opposite to their personal self interests'.

Right?

Let me ask you a question. If we doubled the top marginal tax rate, to 80% or higher, how much more would Buffet pay in taxes? Do you know what Warren Buffets salary is?

$100,000 a year. Top marginal tax rate is income over $415K. So Warren Buffet would pay $0 more in tax.

So... when Warren Buffet, and thousands of other billionaire left-wing liberals demand higher taxes on the rich... it doesn't affect them. Who does it affect? The people who are trying to get rich. Not the people who are rich.

See? Rich get richer. Poor get poorer.

Another example. Warren Buffet invested millions on millions into buying BNSF railroad in 2007. Go look at some of the biggest expenditures of the 2009 'stimulus' package? Money to the railroad Unions, and money for infrastructure projects, most of which was for railroad infrastructure. I know of at least two specific examples of the stimulus money being used in projects that directly and specifically benefited BNSF.

And who pays for those infrastructure projects? Well of course we do. The public. Rich get richer. Poor get poorer.

None of these anti-poor, pro-rich views are right-wing. These are all left wing.

Take the minimum wage. A lot of left-wingers were shocked when McDonald's CEO came out in favor of a higher minimum wage, and the $15/hour minimum wage in SF was promoted.

But the moment you hear billionaire executives supporting minimum wage, you should automatically wonder why.

McDonald's is a multi-billion dollar international company. Which companies are going to be able to afford a higher minimum wage? The small indenpendent chaines, or the large mega-corps? Obviously the mega-corps. The small chain stores will go out of business.

Meaning... more customers for McDonald's. But doesn't that mean McDonald's will have to pay more money to employee?

View attachment 109455
See those high paid employees? Nope? Neither do I.

See McDonald's has the money to invest in replacements for employees. McDonald's also knows that poorer, smaller companies do not. So McDonald's knows that the smaller companies will go out of business, while they replace expensive $15/hour workers, with cheap kiosks and automation.

Rich get richer. Poor get poorer. All those former employees, have to find something else to do... if they can even find a job.

See? The left-wing is the biggest supporters of big business. Not the right-wing.

Another example, you mentioned all that regulation and 'anti-trust'.

But in reality, regulation and anti-trust, is the biggest creators of monopolies.

See, regulation by its very nature, is costly. A rough estimate is that Federal regulations alone, cost over $2 Trillion a year. Now where does that money come from? YOU. You pay the price, in higher costs to consumers. And that's just Federal. There are state and local regulations that cost companies billions every year as well.

More specifically though, which company is more able to pay that price? A big mega-corp? Or a startup? Of course the mega-corp has billions of dollars to meet all those regulations. The smaller companies do not.

So the smaller companies, merge or sell out, or close.... leaving the mega-corps to have customers with fewer options to choose from.

Take net neutrality. Government heaped hundreds of pages of regulations on the broadband internet providers. What do we see today? Altice bought Cablevision. Charter and Time Warner. Verizon Fios was sold to Frontier.

I predicted this, when Net Neutrality was debated. You heap a bunch of regulations, and smaller providers merge with larger providers, resulting in higher prices, and less consumer choice.

Rich get richer. Poor get poorer. Again, this is not a right-wing policy that is causing this. It's a left-wing policy. You help the rich get richer, and poor get poorer. Not us.

The difference between us, is that the right-wing looks at results, not the stated goals. Your goal doesn't matter. What matters is the results of your actions. The results are, poor people are harmed, and rich people benefit.

You are totally clueless, Buffet rule would tax all income, including capital gains he makes his billions from at a minimum rate.

Buffet will not be spared from Buffet rule.

Warren E Buffett, CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

View attachment 110612
Notice "Total Compensation" What does it say? $0.1 Million.
"5-Year Total Compensation" What does it say? $0.5 Million.

Where do you see "stock gains" "bonus" or "other"? -- (that means zero).

Which means.... zero. See, Buffet is brilliant, in that Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay dividends at all, which of course would be taxed, at 23%. The Buffet rule would only raise those taxes to 30% anyway.

But it doesn't matter because Buffet doesn't pay ANY dividend taxes at all.

See.... Buffet doesn't need to own the stock in the dozens of companies he's invested into, because he owns Berkshire Hathaway, and Berkshire owns the stock in all those companies.

Any dividends paid by say BNSF, ends up at Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet never sees them. Thus he never pays taxes on them.

So you could raise dividend taxes to 100% if you wanted. You still wouldn't get so much as penny more in taxes, from Warren Buffet.

Again... Taxes only prevent new people from getting wealthy. Not existing wealthy people.

Taxes are ultimately the best pro-wealthy, anti-poor policy you left-wingers ever promote.

There is a swiss-cheese sized hole in your claims - Buffet ALREADY pays 17% tax. If what you say of his income is true, he would pay right about ZERO.

Buffet's proposals would raise this 17% to 30%

No. It would not. Everything I said is not just true, but I proved it with SEC reports.

He pays 17%, on the $100,000 he directly earns. That is his income. That is what he pays..

You are helplessly clueless.

In 2010 Buffet's ~17% tax bill was 7 million on about 40 million of income.

Do yourself and everyone a favor - google check your nonsense before posting it.

Ok, you got me. You got me good on this one.

Everyone talks about his stock in Berkshire. I didn't realize that he also had his own personal portfolio which is likely up around one or two Billion dollars in dividend paying stock. So while it's only a fraction of his $75 Billion dollar net worth, it's still large enough to generate $40 million in income.

Which is also likely why he can easily say all CEOs shouldn't take stock options and dividends.

So while you proved he's not a hypocrite in his tax policy, he's still a hypocrite because if he didn't have billions in a private portfolio, he wouldn't be able to sit around lecturing everyone that they shouldn't take stock options and dividends and bonuses.

That said, there are many tax deductions, and tax shelters, that Buffett does not use, because he doesn't have to. Dividend income is low tax, thus there is no reason to use a tax shelter.

If you jacked up taxes on dividends, I would be willing to bet my entire pay check, he'll adjust his portfolio to avoid those taxes.

We already know that since his pledge to give away some of his wealth before he dies, that he has conveniently given away only enough of his amassed fortune to meet the 30% cap on charitable deductions.

If he really didn't mind paying more tax, then why does he give just enough to get the 30% deduction, and no more? Or why doesn't he give less than the 30% deduction, and pay the tax?

He's still a hypocrite. Not as bad as I had thought. You proved me wrong on that. But he's still a hypocrite.