Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[jc456]

Conservatives look at the morality of one's actual actions. Leftists look at the "morality" of one's government policy intentions. And I do mean "intentions". They don't even care about the actual results of the policy; just what they HOPED it would do.

Private charity only covers multitudes of sins. Public policy can solve simple poverty and establish a secular and temporal, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

and show us one place that works. jeopardy music.

It is working now. We don't have true third world conditions in the US, like we used to, before we started socializing ourselves into first world prosperity.

socialism is like Palmolive, we are soaking in it.

then why did we get the movie Chi-Raq?

to help men come up with better arguments at lower cost? only wo-men complain, men get, Patriotic.

besides, i made a wood "Peace chillum" instead of a metal "tactical peace pipe", so women have less excuse to not give me some piece and some peace (and quiet), just for fun and practice.

so nothing i see.

 

[danielpalos]

Studies show that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats who will only donate if forced by taxes. So, I guess it depends on silly you want to be with stupid news stories.

You seem to be all in on stupid.

Conservatives look at the morality of one's actual actions. Leftists look at the "morality" of one's government policy intentions. And I do mean "intentions". They don't even care about the actual results of the policy; just what they HOPED it would do.

Private charity only covers multitudes of sins. Public policy can solve simple poverty and establish a secular and temporal, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Sure thing Komrade.

just practice for a divine, Commune of Heaven, dear.

Do you pray to Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao et al?

No; a divine Commune of Heaven may require, divine intervention.

 

[jc456]

Conservatives look at the morality of one's actual actions. Leftists look at the "morality" of one's government policy intentions. And I do mean "intentions". They don't even care about the actual results of the policy; just what they HOPED it would do.

Private charity only covers multitudes of sins. Public policy can solve simple poverty and establish a secular and temporal, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Sure thing Komrade.

just practice for a divine, Commune of Heaven, dear.

Do you pray to Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao et al?

No; a divine Commune of Heaven may require, divine intervention.

how divine

 

[danielpalos]

Republicans need people like you to point out how well off our poor people are

The wealthy don't need to pay more taxes.....Poor people are buying coffee

the wealthy don't need to pay more taxes the top 10% of earners already pay 70% of all income taxes

the bottom 50% pay zero % of all income taxes

and yes I hate to tell you this but if you are really poor you don't buy a $5 Crappaccino from Starfucks and you certainly don't smoke a pack a day

you buy a big tin of Folgers and make your coffee at home.

When you control most of the income...you pay most of the income taxes
Funny how that works out

I don't see many Starbucks in poor neighborhoods

No but there's a Dunkins on every corner and they sell those ridiculously expensive coffee drinks too

and there is no way that 10% of earners earn more in total than 90% of all earners

yet they still pay more in income tax than 90% of people combined

you want to talk "fair" share well it ain't what we got now

a truly fair share would be a flat percentage of everyone's income period

Show me a flat tax where the rich don't end up paying less and the poor end up paying more

why do the so called poor not have to pay income tax?

If you have an income then you should pay income tax

If you want "fair" shares then a flat tax is the only way to go that way everyone pays a share that's determined to be fair for everyone

dear, the poor and Mr. Trump, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

 

[danielpalos]

they CHOOSE to eat that garbage

Choices are often made based on what people know. If you educated people badly, they'll then eat bad food at lot.

But then you'll have excuses for why people shouldn't be educated, just so you can blame them for making bad choices.

that's bullshit too

ask anyone if a salad is healthier than a Snickers bar and tell me what they say

Yeah sure, and ask anyone which they'd prefer to eat, and many would say Snickers Bar simply because they don't know what the snickers bar will actually do to them.

Again, it's about making choices and having reasons to make those choices.

If the salad tasted better because they'd been taught how to do it, taught how to enjoy salad, then maybe they'd eat it. If they'd been taught what sugar does to their brains then maybe they'd have reasons no to eat the snickers. Some would, some wouldn't.

But education is how you change people's attitudes. Maybe if a snickers wasn't cheaper than a salad, then maybe people would also choose to eat salad.

But hey, you keep them there excuses rolling.

I don't think education is the problem when it comes to the poor and their diet.
When parents have to find the cheapest food available for their family, it’s nearly always going to be less likely to be fresh; more likely to be highly calorific, and therefore more filling.

You also have to factor in how exhausting poverty is. Often the last thing that stressed poor parents need at the end of the day is to start a meal from scratch. This is why, however well meant, the “why not buy some veg from the local market and make a lovely stew?” rationale so often takes on the ring of Marie Antoinette’s fabled suggestion to let them eat cake.

The lazy man's excuse.......I'm so tired!

what excuse for Vietnam?

 

[jc456]

the wealthy don't need to pay more taxes the top 10% of earners already pay 70% of all income taxes

the bottom 50% pay zero % of all income taxes

and yes I hate to tell you this but if you are really poor you don't buy a $5 Crappaccino from Starfucks and you certainly don't smoke a pack a day

you buy a big tin of Folgers and make your coffee at home.

When you control most of the income...you pay most of the income taxes
Funny how that works out

I don't see many Starbucks in poor neighborhoods

No but there's a Dunkins on every corner and they sell those ridiculously expensive coffee drinks too

and there is no way that 10% of earners earn more in total than 90% of all earners

yet they still pay more in income tax than 90% of people combined

you want to talk "fair" share well it ain't what we got now

a truly fair share would be a flat percentage of everyone's income period

Show me a flat tax where the rich don't end up paying less and the poor end up paying more

why do the so called poor not have to pay income tax?

If you have an income then you should pay income tax

If you want "fair" shares then a flat tax is the only way to go that way everyone pays a share that's determined to be fair for everyone

dear, the poor and Mr. Trump, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

well I believe that argument comes from the common complaint from the left of 'fair share'. so if what you say is true, then why does the left constantly make that statement?

 

[JoeNormal]

hey you can always move to a state with lower taxes. federal taxes are a constant for everyone

IDIOT

Taxes in all states go up as New BS GOP federal aid goes down. World's thickest substance. GOP dupe skull. "Let's have a flat tax!". YOU ALREADY DO. A gold mine for the rich. Time for a nap before you give me a serious headache.

look idiot we have our taxes backwards anyway

you SHOULD be paying more in state and local taxes than in federal taxes since most of your government services are provided at the state and local government level.

you drive more on local roads, your kids go to local schools, your police and fire departments are local not federal etc

the real question is why the **** does the federal government need to tax us only to give it to the states?

Simple: to have control over those states. The federal government has to steal our money, then hang it over our heads if we want our own money back. If you want your money back, then you'll do things the way the federal government wants you to do them.

Don't you live in Michigan or somesuch? If so, you get back more than you give. As a matter of fact, most of the people who complain most bitterly on this site get back more than they give.

And now you're going to explain and prove that assertion, right?

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

 

[danielpalos]

Whereas every modern country beside us has 4 weeks at least after 1 year. So by the time provincial ugly Americans have time to see the world, they're married off bloody tourists who learn nothing....

Just curious how many dozen times you have thrown up that very post on this thread alone.

Rather pointless is it not?

Not once,

Whereas every modern country beside us has 4 weeks at least after 1 year. So by the time provincial ugly Americans have time to see the world, they're married off bloody tourists who learn nothing....

Just curious how many dozen times you have thrown up that very post on this thread alone.

Rather pointless is it not?

Unless I actually work for the government, the government has and should have nothing to say about how much vacation time I have.

No wonder our New BS GOP government serves only the greedy rich now, with bleating dupes like you people...the corporations will take care of us lol...

Oh hey, you're still here. I think it's just so cute, how you keep talking and thinking people listen to you.

he usually takes a break, when y'all have nothing but fallacy left, for rebuttal.

 

[JoeNormal]

I know what I pay and I know what the tax rate is for capital gains.

capital gains are not considered regular income

never have been

And is how Warren Buffet can complain he doesn't pay enough income taxes, knowing that if they raise his rates it won't hurt him much.

Buffet is the left's favorite rich hypocrite

he takes a 100K a year salary for running one of the largest investment firms in the country then he whines that he doesn't pay enough income tax.

if he really wanted to pay more income tax he would set his salary at 10 million a year

but he won't do that now will he?

Of course not, because the REASON he ostentatiously gets such a small salary is because his REAL money is made off of his capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate.

not my point he gets such a small salary because as CEO and founder of the company, it's what he chooses to do

The top brass at GM 'generously' agreed to $1 salaries after the 2008 crash.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Taxes in all states go up as New BS GOP federal aid goes down. World's thickest substance. GOP dupe skull. "Let's have a flat tax!". YOU ALREADY DO. A gold mine for the rich. Time for a nap before you give me a serious headache.

look idiot we have our taxes backwards anyway

you SHOULD be paying more in state and local taxes than in federal taxes since most of your government services are provided at the state and local government level.

you drive more on local roads, your kids go to local schools, your police and fire departments are local not federal etc

the real question is why the **** does the federal government need to tax us only to give it to the states?

Simple: to have control over those states. The federal government has to steal our money, then hang it over our heads if we want our own money back. If you want your money back, then you'll do things the way the federal government wants you to do them.

Don't you live in Michigan or somesuch? If so, you get back more than you give. As a matter of fact, most of the people who complain most bitterly on this site get back more than they give.

And now you're going to explain and prove that assertion, right?

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

 

[Skull Pilot]

capital gains are not considered regular income

never have been

And is how Warren Buffet can complain he doesn't pay enough income taxes, knowing that if they raise his rates it won't hurt him much.

Buffet is the left's favorite rich hypocrite

he takes a 100K a year salary for running one of the largest investment firms in the country then he whines that he doesn't pay enough income tax.

if he really wanted to pay more income tax he would set his salary at 10 million a year

but he won't do that now will he?

Of course not, because the REASON he ostentatiously gets such a small salary is because his REAL money is made off of his capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate.

not my point he gets such a small salary because as CEO and founder of the company, it's what he chooses to do

The top brass at GM 'generously' agreed to $1 salaries after the 2008 crash.

were they complaining that they didn't pay enough income tax?

 

[JoeNormal]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

You have confused what happened when Reagan was president with Reaganism. Franco dropped out and does not know that Reagan favored limited government.

That's why he tripled the debt and grew gov't more than anyone in history, dupiscimus...

Reagan grew the debt? At what point was the Constitution amended to give the President the power of the purse instead of Congress having it, and where was I when this happened?

As commander in chief, he was able to raise military spending to ridiculous levels.

 

[JoeNormal]

And is how Warren Buffet can complain he doesn't pay enough income taxes, knowing that if they raise his rates it won't hurt him much.

Buffet is the left's favorite rich hypocrite

he takes a 100K a year salary for running one of the largest investment firms in the country then he whines that he doesn't pay enough income tax.

if he really wanted to pay more income tax he would set his salary at 10 million a year

but he won't do that now will he?

Of course not, because the REASON he ostentatiously gets such a small salary is because his REAL money is made off of his capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate.

not my point he gets such a small salary because as CEO and founder of the company, it's what he chooses to do

The top brass at GM 'generously' agreed to $1 salaries after the 2008 crash.

were they complaining that they didn't pay enough income tax?

I'm sure they weren't. They don't mind coming off as greedy bastards.

 

[JoeNormal]

look idiot we have our taxes backwards anyway

you SHOULD be paying more in state and local taxes than in federal taxes since most of your government services are provided at the state and local government level.

you drive more on local roads, your kids go to local schools, your police and fire departments are local not federal etc

the real question is why the **** does the federal government need to tax us only to give it to the states?

Simple: to have control over those states. The federal government has to steal our money, then hang it over our heads if we want our own money back. If you want your money back, then you'll do things the way the federal government wants you to do them.

Don't you live in Michigan or somesuch? If so, you get back more than you give. As a matter of fact, most of the people who complain most bitterly on this site get back more than they give.

And now you're going to explain and prove that assertion, right?

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[danielpalos]

When you control most of the income...you pay most of the income taxes
Funny how that works out

I don't see many Starbucks in poor neighborhoods

No but there's a Dunkins on every corner and they sell those ridiculously expensive coffee drinks too

and there is no way that 10% of earners earn more in total than 90% of all earners

yet they still pay more in income tax than 90% of people combined

you want to talk "fair" share well it ain't what we got now

a truly fair share would be a flat percentage of everyone's income period

Show me a flat tax where the rich don't end up paying less and the poor end up paying more

why do the so called poor not have to pay income tax?

If you have an income then you should pay income tax

If you want "fair" shares then a flat tax is the only way to go that way everyone pays a share that's determined to be fair for everyone

dear, the poor and Mr. Trump, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

well I believe that argument comes from the common complaint from the left of 'fair share'. so if what you say is true, then why does the left constantly make that statement?

we don't. that is right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Simple: to have control over those states. The federal government has to steal our money, then hang it over our heads if we want our own money back. If you want your money back, then you'll do things the way the federal government wants you to do them.

Don't you live in Michigan or somesuch? If so, you get back more than you give. As a matter of fact, most of the people who complain most bitterly on this site get back more than they give.

And now you're going to explain and prove that assertion, right?

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

 

[Markle]

Food gets taxed, right?

Which States Tax the Sale of Food for Home Consumption in 2017?

UPDATED
MARCH 1, 2017

BY
ERIC FIGUEROA

SAMANTHA WAXMAN
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia levy general sales taxes. Most of those states have eliminated, reduced, or offset the tax as applied to food for home consumption. (See Figure 1.) The relief strategies include full or partial exemptions from the sales tax for food purchased for home consumption and credits or rebates to offset the food tax. Of the states with sales taxes:

• Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia exempt most food purchased for consumption at home from the state sales tax. West Virginia is the state that most recently eliminated its sales tax on food (effective July 1, 2013).
• Six states tax groceries at lower rates than other goods; they are Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia.[1]
• Four states — Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, and Oklahoma — tax groceries fully but offer credits or rebates offsetting some of the taxes paid on food by some portions of the population.[2] These credits or rebates usually are set at a flat amount per family member. The amounts and eligibility rules vary, but may be too narrow and/or insufficient to give eligible households full relief from sales taxes paid on food purchases.
• Three states continue to apply their sales tax fully to food purchased for home consumption without providing any offsetting relief for low- and moderate-income families. They are Alabama, Mississippi, and South Dakota.[3]

Local governments, which in many states levy their own sales taxes, usually exempt food if food is fully exempt at the state level. Major exceptions include localities in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Grocery food purchases in those states are fully or partially exempt at the state level, but typically taxed at the local level.

Which States Tax the Sale of Food for Home Consumption in 2017?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There's a difference between those people who are unlucky and have a low metabolism, but the US is fat not because of too many people with low metabolisms, but because of the food and the lack of education based around the food.

While others would tell you it's lack of exercise. When we were kids we ate crap as well, but we didn't spend the day texting people and playing video games in front of the television. We walked to see our friends or rode our bikes. When we were kids, I bet we got mores exercise in one day than most kids today get in a week.

No dietary plan works for all people because each situation is unique.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, that's part of it too, and getting kids involved in sport is essential, again, part of educating kids into liking and understanding healthy food and also sport and exercise.

It's not about a one size fits all, it's about giving kids the motivation to keep themselves healthy, the knowledge so they can do it easily and perhaps a push with something like much higher taxes for bad food and no taxes for healthier food.

here we go again

more ham handed social engineering via taxes

taxes are only to be used to fund the necessary function of government not to punish people for behavior that you don't like

Food gets taxed, right? Ever wondered why milk is often cheaper than bottled water and other such weird pricing? Why shouldn't society try and make things more attractive?

I mean, the govt does this ALL THE TIME, especially in America with large corporations paying almost no tax as an "incentive" for them to locate or not relocate. The right doesn't have a problem with this, in fact they actively encourage it. But do it with good food or whatever and they suddenly get all jumpy.

food doesn't get taxed in my state
only idiots buy bottled water

it's not up to "society" to coerce people to do anything other than obey the law.

and really just because governemnt does shit like this all the time doesn't make it right it merely becomes accepted by people like you. you know people with a desire to control other people for their own good

Some states have food not taxed, other I believe have healthy food not taxed.

Well, it is up to society to coerce people to do things, it happens ALL THE TIME. So many decisions are made by government where this happens.

So you don't want to control people for their own good? You don't want laws against murder? Laws against stealing? Laws against violence?

You're an anarchist then!

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then there are plenty of times when you have benefited from the govt deciding that it is the govt's responsibility to take care of something.

Education being high up there. Inoculations, research, infrastructure... absolutely your life has had a massive impact. If you had been born in Somalia on the other hand....

I for one never said that SOME government programs were not beneficial have I ?

the federal government has no authority over education. The founders left that to the states. The federal highway system was begun as a defense project but now the government uses highway, eduation, and a myriad of other funding as a way to strong arm states into submission

as I said we have government backwards in this country the federal government is supposed to take a back seat to state government

The federal govt doesn't need to have authority over education in order to have an impact. The way the federal govt should operate is by developing programs, in conjunction with the states, that they can then go to all the states and say "hey, look, we've done all this research, we've tested this out in a number of states and we think this will be beneficial for your state for these reasons, would you like to take on our program?"

Well, the Canadians decided that the state govts were above the Federal govt, the Founding Fathers didn't do this. Similar in Europe at the moment, the individual nation states are losing their grip on their own power.

that's not how government operates


government is a hammer so everything looks like a nail

It's not how govt operates, but then people have votes with which they can change the way govt operates. Sure, it's not going to happen because the people are zombies and the rich have the buttons needed to get the zombies to do what they like.

In politics it's vote D or R, with food it's buy McDonald's, Coca Cola or whatever. People are being advertised to death and this is fair game, but actually doing something RIGHT is wrong.

no one is punished with a tax if they don't buy a Coke or a Big Mac are they?

and I refuse to vote D or R because in all honesty there is no difference between the two

No, no one is taxed if they don't buy something. I'm not sure what your point is.

I agree about Dems and Reps, so you should want Proportional Representation. It'd give people REAL CHOICE.