The "reverse Robinhood" president

[Socrates]

George W. Bush can accurately be called the "reverse Robinhood president": The one who steals from the poor to give to the rich.

The main federal taxes are
1 estate tax (paid only by rich people- worth over 3 million dollars)
2 income tax (rich pay a higher percentage)
3 payroll tax (poor people pay a higher percentage)

How did Bush change our tax policies? Well, to help the rich and let more of the tax burden fall on the backs of the poor and middle class.

The tax that only rich people pay, he wants to eliminate.
The tax that the rich pay a higher %, he cuts significantly; mainly for the rich.
The tax that poor pay a higher %, he doesn't touch.

What's worse is, the payroll tax is supposed to be used only to pay for social security. But Bush raided the social security surplus to pay some of the other bills that were formerly paid for by the taxes on rich people.

If you believe in having a privileged class of people who are born into wealthy families (and don't even have to work for their money) and that they should pay less than the working poor and middle class who work their asses off, then Bush is your president, the "reverse Robinhood" president.

I'd rather reward hard work and help the average American than sustain an aristocracy of the wealthy at the expense of our workers.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ok this is the dumbest post ive ever written. Have you ever read Robbin Hood or seen any movies?

He took to crime because the government was over taxing the people.

He robbed from the government and gave back to those who had their money unjustly taking from them.

You have to be loose a couple screw looses or just not be thinking about what you are actually saying that Robin hood was for taxing people.

Maybe next time you might want to think about your example before you just start parroting the Democrat talking points.

 

[Socrates]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Ok this is the dumbest post ive ever written. Have you ever read Robbin Hood or seen any movies?

He took to crime because the government was over taxing the people.

He robbed from the government and gave back to those who had their money unjustly taking from them.

You have to be loose a couple screw looses or just not be thinking about what you are actually saying that Robin hood was for taxing people.

Maybe next time you might want to think about your example before you just start parroting the Democrat talking points.

The question is not whether or not we will tax people. We must tax people to pay for the infrastructure and defense that makes our economic system possible. The question is: How much should each person pay? I think the rich should pay their fair share.

The analogy with Robinhood is this: Robinhood stole from the rich to give to the poor. Bush does the opposite, making him the "reverse Robinhood president."

 

[insein]

Wow! Straight form the Democratic political playbook page 316.


"When Republicans give Tax Cuts that favor everyone, make up a story that scares the poor people into believing the Rich get more breaks then then they do. Terminology: Reverse Robinhood"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0627/p16s01-bogn.html
http://www.mnaflcio.org/Senate Vote Four.htm
http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/2003Nov/112603jm.cfm
http://www.internationaltraderelations.com/Article.ExIm Bank -- Reverse Robinhood (9.1.02).htm

Some examples of Page 316 of the Democratic Handbook.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Ok this is the dumbest post ive ever written

I dunno, you've written some pretty dumb ones...:

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Socrates
The question is: How much should each person pay? I think the rich should pay their fair share.

recent thread:
Would you support a flat tax?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I dunno, you've written some pretty dumb ones...:

You just get more and more vendictive lately. And i don't think the smilies save yourself anymore. We know how you feel.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by insein
You just get more and more vendictive lately. And i don't think the smilies save yourself anymore. We know how you feel.

Your'e right the smilies don't mean much in regards to his posts.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by insein
You just get more and more vendictive lately. And i don't think the smilies save yourself anymore. We know how you feel.

1. Do you mean vindictive?
Um, no I'm not; not out to hurt anyone, here.

2. I wasn't talking to you.

3. I just thought it was funny that Avatar was attempting to insult someone else(who's the vindictive one?) and started by insulting himself, lol. If you are going to diss someone, you can at least do it properly.: Here's another example from that same post:

"You have to be loose a couple screw looses..."


4. Lighten up.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Your'e right the smilies don't mean much in regards to his posts.

They simply imply/define emotions...

 

[MtnBiker]

Here is a perfect example:

Originally posted by nycflasher

Go drink some coffee and stop the hate, you stupid roid-raging fuckwad.

You call someone a fuckwad (a moderator btw) then use a big grin smilie to try to soften your statement. The thing is we read right through such sentiment, thus making your smilie ineffective.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by insein
Wow! Straight form the Democratic political playbook page 316.


"When Republicans give Tax Cuts that favor everyone, make up a story that scares the poor people into believing the Rich get more breaks then then they do. Terminology: Reverse Robinhood"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0627/p16s01-bogn.html
http://www.mnaflcio.org/Senate Vote Four.htm
http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/2003Nov/112603jm.cfm
http://www.internationaltraderelations.com/Article.ExIm Bank -- Reverse Robinhood (9.1.02).htm

Some examples of Page 316 of the Democratic Handbook.

We have a book?! Where have I been?!

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
We have a book?! Where have I been?!

You should be able to pick one up at your county DNC office. I have mine from the GOP!

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Socrates
The question is not whether or not we will tax people. We must tax people to pay for the infrastructure and defense that makes our economic system possible. The question is: How much should each person pay? I think the rich should pay their fair share.

The analogy with Robinhood is this: Robinhood stole from the rich to give to the poor. Bush does the opposite, making him the "reverse Robinhood president."

Infrastructure is less than 5% of the budget. thats the problem. And that doesnt change the fact that Robin Hood robbed from the government and gave it back to the people. Which makes your analogy incredibly stupid.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I dunno, you've written some pretty dumb ones...:

Of course I have. When im joking