Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Don't worry Nitwit, loves to bully people into answering his questions. That is the typical response when we ask HIM a question. Funny though Trump won, now both parties are supposed to come together, just like Obama asked before he started Fundamentally Transforming the US into a 3rd world nation, which much divisiveness. Marxism at its most corruptness.Oh please ... say yes ... do it. Say you're going to hold Obama accountable for the standard you're setting for the guy two months from taking office. Say you'll do that ...
Go
Stop being an eternal scum bucket......Here answer the following simple question moron:
Should we or should we NOT believe what Trump has proposed on his website?
Yes .....or No.......???
You would think after 8 years of the most Socialist Bi Racial president ever in the history of the US, that the income inequality would of gone away. But when you point to events like the Key Stone Pipeline that would of employed many union members, it was all about Warren Buffets Railroads that carried that oil, making Warren that much richer. Such stupid people who vote Democrat and think they will do something for them.... Keep them on the plantation, that is what Democrats do.I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.
Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.
My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!
Great, I'm not interested in discussing that. Again, my post have all been concerning what I consider to be a more pressing issue, the income gap.
False dichotomy. There is nothing inconsistent about NOT giving the well off another tax cut and taking on policies that actually reduce income gap.
Take a look at most equatable developed countries, find any with low tax rates? Nope.
Your claim, no links, so I know you made it all up. Provide link to site to support your LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES
lol wtf? if you baseless say LIES 4 times it makes it so?
Scandinavian countries consistently have some of the lowest income disparities among developed economies and are generally high taxing, free college and healthcare, high minimum wage, big on trade unions and other lefty style policies. "Socailist" Bernie always brought them up as policy examples.
Here's what income inequality looks like around the world
A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.
As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.
On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are
I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.
However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.
What does "contribute" mean?
Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.
Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Explain the differenceI have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.
Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.
My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!
We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him
He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.
Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?Seems that the war on poverty for the past 50 years has been a failure like the war on drugs. Maybe it is time to change the failed policies that keep the poor in poverty and allow supply side economics to raise all boats.How much money spent on the war on poverty?
Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.
War on Poverty at 50 -- despite trillions spent, poverty ...
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/war-on-poverty-at-50-despite-trillions-spent-pove…
How about we come up with a definition of poverty that truly represents a persons standard of living?
The current definition-
Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).
There is no measure on the standard of living. In other words, a family of four who inherited a house worth $1 million which they live in, and has $2 million in a bank account paying 1% interest ($20,000 annually) would be listed as living in poverty. If they moved the money from the bank into a trust they would no longer be listed as poverty stricken.
I think it would be more useful to define poverty by ones standard of living as opposed to their income. Would anybody argue that people in poverty today have a higher standard of living than a middle income individual 100 years ago?
https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf
During the course of this century, the afford- ability and availability of consumer goods have greatly increased. Even most poor Americans have a cornucopia of choices that a century ago the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts could not have purchased. Today more than 98 percent of American homes have a telephone, electricity, and a flush toilet. More than 70 percent of Americans own a car, a VCR, a microwave, air conditioning, cable TV, and a washer and dryer. At the turn of the century, almost no homes had those modern conveniences. And although Americans feel that they are more squeezed for time than ever, most adults have twice as much leisure time as their counterparts did 100 years ago.
Don't worry Nitwit, loves to bully people into answering his questions. That is the typical response when we ask HIM a question. Funny though Trump won, now both parties are supposed to come together, just like Obama asked before he started Fundamentally Transforming the US into a 3rd world nation, which much divisiveness. Marxism at its most corruptness.Oh please ... say yes ... do it. Say you're going to hold Obama accountable for the standard you're setting for the guy two months from taking office. Say you'll do that ...
Go
Stop being an eternal scum bucket......Here answer the following simple question moron:
Should we or should we NOT believe what Trump has proposed on his website?
Yes .....or No.......???
I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.
However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.
What does "contribute" mean?
Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.
Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Explain the differenceRidiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.
My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!
We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him
He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.
Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?Seems that the war on poverty for the past 50 years has been a failure like the war on drugs. Maybe it is time to change the failed policies that keep the poor in poverty and allow supply side economics to raise all boats.How much money spent on the war on poverty?
Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.
War on Poverty at 50 -- despite trillions spent, poverty ...
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/war-on-poverty-at-50-despite-trillions-spent-pove…
How about we come up with a definition of poverty that truly represents a persons standard of living?
The current definition-
Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).
There is no measure on the standard of living. In other words, a family of four who inherited a house worth $1 million which they live in, and has $2 million in a bank account paying 1% interest ($20,000 annually) would be listed as living in poverty. If they moved the money from the bank into a trust they would no longer be listed as poverty stricken.
I think it would be more useful to define poverty by ones standard of living as opposed to their income. Would anybody argue that people in poverty today have a higher standard of living than a middle income individual 100 years ago?
https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf
During the course of this century, the afford- ability and availability of consumer goods have greatly increased. Even most poor Americans have a cornucopia of choices that a century ago the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts could not have purchased. Today more than 98 percent of American homes have a telephone, electricity, and a flush toilet. More than 70 percent of Americans own a car, a VCR, a microwave, air conditioning, cable TV, and a washer and dryer. At the turn of the century, almost no homes had those modern conveniences. And although Americans feel that they are more squeezed for time than ever, most adults have twice as much leisure time as their counterparts did 100 years ago.
There are two types of people.
Liberals - can never be happy, even when they are fucking the rest of US, they just cant find inner happiness(ie. God)
Everyone else - Can find each individual happiness, either through God or other means, just want to live their lives in peace, and left the FUCK alone.
Liberal look at the happy people, and ask, how can you be happy when other people are miserable. At that time the fucking begins... Unaffordable Healthcare is a prime example.
There are two types of people.
Liberals - can never be happy, even when they are fucking the rest of US, they just cant find inner happiness(ie. God)
Everyone else - Can find each individual happiness, either through God or other means, just want to live their lives in peace, and left the FUCK alone.
Liberal look at the happy people, and ask, how can you be happy when other people are miserable. At that time the fucking begins... Unaffordable Healthcare is a prime example.
There are two types of people.
Liberals - can never be happy, even when they are fucking the rest of US, they just cant find inner happiness(ie. God)
Everyone else - Can find each individual happiness, either through God or other means, just want to live their lives in peace, and left the FUCK alone.
Liberal look at the happy people, and ask, how can you be happy when other people are miserable. At that time the fucking begins... Unaffordable Healthcare is a prime example.
I'm liberal, I'm also quite happy...soo bullshit?
Besides conservatives in many ways DO NOT leave people alone on a number of issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, drug policies etc.
I also need government to NOT leave people alone to rob my house, pollute environment and monopolize markets. It's that area where one's freedom is encroaching on freedom of others.
There are two types of people.
Liberals - can never be happy, even when they are fucking the rest of US, they just cant find inner happiness(ie. God)
Everyone else - Can find each individual happiness, either through God or other means, just want to live their lives in peace, and left the FUCK alone.
Liberal look at the happy people, and ask, how can you be happy when other people are miserable. At that time the fucking begins... Unaffordable Healthcare is a prime example.
I'm liberal, I'm also quite happy...soo bullshit?
Besides conservatives in many ways DO NOT leave people alone on a number of issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, drug policies etc.
I also need government to NOT leave people alone to rob my house, pollute environment and monopolize markets. It's that area where one's freedom is encroaching on freedom of others.
You sure are angry for someone who is "happy."
And yes, socons don't leave people alone, they are like you. While they are a significant minority of the Republican party, you continually lie that they are all the Republican party
So you have to have government fuck the rest of US so you can be happy? When NORMAL people are left alone to do what is within their bounds and laws, they can exceed expectations. When you have shitheads like you, who cant live without government then the rest of US must be miserable. That is the liberal way of "EQUALITY". Gay marriage doesn't work, you know that, you cant legitimately have a common child between the two "PARTNERS" and there will always be resentment from one of the gays. You know that right? Leave it up to liberals to FUCK the rest of US..There are two types of people.
Liberals - can never be happy, even when they are fucking the rest of US, they just cant find inner happiness(ie. God)
Everyone else - Can find each individual happiness, either through God or other means, just want to live their lives in peace, and left the FUCK alone.
Liberal look at the happy people, and ask, how can you be happy when other people are miserable. At that time the fucking begins... Unaffordable Healthcare is a prime example.
I'm liberal, I'm also quite happy...soo bullshit?
Besides conservatives in many ways DO NOT leave people alone on a number of issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, drug policies etc.
I also need government to NOT leave people alone to rob my house, pollute environment and monopolize markets. It's that area where one's freedom is encroaching on freedom of others.
So you have to have government fuck the rest of US so you can be happy? When NORMAL people are left alone to do what is within their bounds and laws, they can exceed expectations. When you have shitheads like you, who cant live without government then the rest of US must be miserable. That is the liberal way of "EQUALITY". Gay marriage doesn't work, you know that, you cant legitimately have a common child between the two "PARTNERS" and there will always be resentment from one of the gays. You know that right? Leave it up to liberals to FUCK the rest of US..There are two types of people.
Liberals - can never be happy, even when they are fucking the rest of US, they just cant find inner happiness(ie. God)
Everyone else - Can find each individual happiness, either through God or other means, just want to live their lives in peace, and left the FUCK alone.
Liberal look at the happy people, and ask, how can you be happy when other people are miserable. At that time the fucking begins... Unaffordable Healthcare is a prime example.
I'm liberal, I'm also quite happy...soo bullshit?
Besides conservatives in many ways DO NOT leave people alone on a number of issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, drug policies etc.
I also need government to NOT leave people alone to rob my house, pollute environment and monopolize markets. It's that area where one's freedom is encroaching on freedom of others.
Libtard, it is the government that is causing the FREE MARKET to come up short. Remember this "You didn't build that", or "Energy Prices must necessarily skyrocket", or "We are going to bankrupt the coal industry"? Real nice of the government to pick up the slack(or destroy Free Markets as typical of Marxists). I am tired of shitheads like you who feel pity for yourselves, because the Capitalist way is against you, but when you sit on your sorry ass, and don't work, then I shouldn't have to pay for you. I started without anything, I got SKILLS and used them to amass a great fortune. I had God on my side, he gave me the rights to achieve my own personal happiness, you libtards, turned away from God, now YOU have to deal with it.So you have to have government fuck the rest of US so you can be happy? When NORMAL people are left alone to do what is within their bounds and laws, they can exceed expectations. When you have shitheads like you, who cant live without government then the rest of US must be miserable. That is the liberal way of "EQUALITY". Gay marriage doesn't work, you know that, you cant legitimately have a common child between the two "PARTNERS" and there will always be resentment from one of the gays. You know that right? Leave it up to liberals to FUCK the rest of US..There are two types of people.
Liberals - can never be happy, even when they are fucking the rest of US, they just cant find inner happiness(ie. God)
Everyone else - Can find each individual happiness, either through God or other means, just want to live their lives in peace, and left the FUCK alone.
Liberal look at the happy people, and ask, how can you be happy when other people are miserable. At that time the fucking begins... Unaffordable Healthcare is a prime example.
I'm liberal, I'm also quite happy...soo bullshit?
Besides conservatives in many ways DO NOT leave people alone on a number of issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, drug policies etc.
I also need government to NOT leave people alone to rob my house, pollute environment and monopolize markets. It's that area where one's freedom is encroaching on freedom of others.
If you don't like gay marriage, then by all means, don't get gay married.
And no, I don't know that you are right, on the contrary I think you are wrong, wrong and wrong again.
I'm not out to have government "fuck you", I'm out to have government pick up the slack where free market solution comes up short. To make aure we minimally take care of those less fortunate amongst us and to make sure Americans are more free to advance themselves, less bound by the shackles of their circumstance.
