Why do repubs insist on tax breaks for the wealthy but insist on ending income tax credits for...

[HereWeGoAgain]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

The tax code was never intended to be a welfare program, that's why.

So...why doesn't that apply to the wealthy? Subsidies? Loopholes? Breaks?

That was already addressed.
Again...because they pay taxes.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Because the mother ******* poor don't pay chit in taxes... What % of Americans are "poor." What % do they pay in all collected taxes?

And I don't know anyone that wants to tax the poor more, simply limit or end the welfare they don't pay for seeing as it fails to life anybody out of poverty as it's intention was.

The real question is why did you vote for someone that went to a well known racist church for 20+ years, is the least trusted President in US history, spies on anyone he wants, even allies... and recently took us back into Iraq after Bush got us out.

The working poor do.

And then they get it all back.
Thats not paying taxes,thats loaning uncle sam a few bucks.

 

[Flash]

I think the more pertinent question is why do Libtards insist on massive government spending and the associated high taxation that goes with it?

The better answer is to have low taxes for everybody so they can spend more of their own money instead of having to give it to some corrupt bureaucrat, elected by special interest groups, to spend for them on wasteful, inefficient and often corrupt government projects.

 

[Flash]

At the root of every Liberal that bitches about the rich not paying enough taxes is a greedy, envious piss ant socialists.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You don't dispute it. Republican tax policy created the 47%.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You don't dispute it. Republican tax policy created the 47%.

They had help.
But at least you're done spewing that "tax cuts for the rich" crap that you and all your lib buddies on here dish out every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You don't dispute it. Republican tax policy created the 47%.

They had help.
But at least you're done spewing that "tax cuts for the rich" crap that you and all your lib buddies on here dish out every day.

The tax cuts for the rich were even bigger.

 

[SwimExpert]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.

Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's ******* ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.

 

[emilynghiem]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

Because people who earn their own money by working for it themselves
consider it to be their money first, BEFORE they pay taxes to govt.

The poor are tired of being treated as criminals for being poor.
The rich are tired of being treated as criminals for being rich.

The politicians exploit both the rich and poor from their fear of being cheated by the other.

And both parties need to separate and pay for their own programs and cost of their legislative policies
instead of making the other group feel forced to pay for things they don't believe in.

Taxpayers should only be responsible for funding govt policies we ALL agree on.
Anything we don't agree on, and/or don't trust the other parties not to screw up through govt,
should be funded separately through the party that believes in supporting such a policy.

We'd stop all the lies, propaganda, and cheating taxpayers out of our money and into debts,
if we held political parties and leaders to pay for the programs they attest will work better.
Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to impliment that would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.

Instead, if we keep playing along with the games these politicians use, to blame the other party while getting away with wasting and abusing taxpayer money, then we can never catch the crooks. so we keep paying the bills, while parties and politicians distract us by pointing the finger at each other. If people of all parties got together, made lists of all the shenanigans we didn't agree to fund, authorize govt to spend waste or abuse, and demand restitution, refunds or credits back, we could reclaim all our tax money that has been wasted and invest those credits into financing solutions and reforms, while charging the costs back to the wrongdoers who ran up our debts like a bad credit card bill we never agreed to pay. I hope we get smart soon, and turn the tables on govt running completely amok, like a bull in a china shop, charging all the damaged and debts to us instead of going after the parties that profited off abuses of public resources, laws and authority for their own benefits.

We can do that much more simply by getting rid of social services at the federal level and letting the states manage their own welfare and education.

Do that and get back to me in 20 years. We'll compare policy and results along with the economies of Liberal vs Conservative states.

Yes, and we can speed up this process by holding parties responsible for their own policies and programs they "believe" in funding. if liberals believe in handouts, they can pay for those through their own party programs and handout all they want to.

Other people have equal right to exercise charity through means that meet their standards of accountability, such as churches or nonprofit training programs that focus on healthy relations and development, and not just handing out funds rewarding people for having children as a welfare ticket.

Let people who believe in microlending practice that. Reward taxpayers for investing directly into cost-effective school programs, medical facilities and education, and internships that provide public services on a sustainable basis.

Give taxpayers a choice in what programs to fund under which type of management to serve the various populations. Many people would much rather fund churches and charities to do the work responsibly, rather than go through govt that can't be trusted not to muck things up.

If we organize and separate by party, then it won't take the whole state all voting in agreement on the same reforms to change the laws. We could agree to separate jurisdiction by party, or else sue to force a separation by "political beliefs".
and then the citizens are free to set up and fund their own programs through their party networks and membership base.

Only the programs that all citizens of that state agree to vote on should remain public will qualify for public funding, and the ones that don't remain private per citizens parties or other business, charity, school or nonprofit groups to manage locally.

Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).

Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.

Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt,
punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.

Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You don't dispute it. Republican tax policy created the 47%.

They had help.
But at least you're done spewing that "tax cuts for the rich" crap that you and all your lib buddies on here dish out every day.

The tax cuts for the rich were even bigger.

How is that possible? The tax cuts for the bottom 47% amounted to over 100% of their income tax liabilities. The tax cuts for the rich werent even close to that.

 

[The Rabbi]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.

Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's ******* ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.

You're an idiot. Like that's news.
People with children are taxed less since they have greater household expenses.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

So, who else to give tax breaks to if not the one's paying the bulk of taxes?

 

[The Rabbi]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

So, who else to give tax breaks to if not the one's paying the bulk of taxes?

The bottom 47% already not only pay no federal taxes, they get more back than they pay in. They are effectively in negative rate territory. How is that remotely "fair"??

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

So, who else to give tax breaks to if not the one's paying the bulk of taxes?

The bottom 47% already not only pay no federal taxes, they get more back than they pay in. They are effectively in negative rate territory. How is that remotely "fair"??

It's only fair if you buy into the notion of the tax system as a mere tool for wealth redistribution.

 

[SwimExpert]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.

Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's ******* ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.

You're an idiot. Like that's news.
People with children are taxed less since they have greater household expenses.

Rabbi demonstrating once again why he is a liberal, statist piece of shit. If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's that simple. It's not my job to pay for your children. Of course, you'll probably never understand that since you're the spawn of the entitlement junkie mentality, raised and taught to suckle at the government teat at every opportunity.

 

[SwimExpert]

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

This is really an odd thing to say. Because the truth is that the ACA doesn't reflect a belief in health care as a right. If anything, the fanboi crowd believe that, and they've convinced themselves the ACA reflects that. But the truth is that the ACA reflects a belief that health insurance is an obligation even for people who do not use healthcare.

 

[The Rabbi]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.

Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's ******* ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.

You're an idiot. Like that's news.
People with children are taxed less since they have greater household expenses.

Rabbi demonstrating once again why he is a liberal, statist piece of shit. If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's that simple. It's not my job to pay for your children. Of course, you'll probably never understand that since you're the spawn of the entitlement junkie mentality, raised and taught to suckle at the government teat at every opportunity.

blahblahblah. The state has an interest in fostering families. You want to argue the tax code shouldnt be used for social enginnering? Fine. I agree. But thats the reason.
dumbass.

 

[SwimExpert]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.

Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's ******* ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.

You're an idiot. Like that's news.
People with children are taxed less since they have greater household expenses.

Rabbi demonstrating once again why he is a liberal, statist piece of shit. If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's that simple. It's not my job to pay for your children. Of course, you'll probably never understand that since you're the spawn of the entitlement junkie mentality, raised and taught to suckle at the government teat at every opportunity.

blahblahblah. The state has an interest in fostering families. You want to argue the tax code shouldnt be used for social enginnering? Fine. I agree. But thats the reason.
dumbass.

The state has an interest in making sure you don't breed. Let's triple your taxes, and quintuple them if you become a parent.

 

[Ernie S.]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

Because people who earn their own money by working for it themselves
consider it to be their money first, BEFORE they pay taxes to govt.

The poor are tired of being treated as criminals for being poor.
The rich are tired of being treated as criminals for being rich.

The politicians exploit both the rich and poor from their fear of being cheated by the other.

And both parties need to separate and pay for their own programs and cost of their legislative policies
instead of making the other group feel forced to pay for things they don't believe in.

Taxpayers should only be responsible for funding govt policies we ALL agree on.
Anything we don't agree on, and/or don't trust the other parties not to screw up through govt,
should be funded separately through the party that believes in supporting such a policy.

We'd stop all the lies, propaganda, and cheating taxpayers out of our money and into debts,
if we held political parties and leaders to pay for the programs they attest will work better.
Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to impliment that would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.

Instead, if we keep playing along with the games these politicians use, to blame the other party while getting away with wasting and abusing taxpayer money, then we can never catch the crooks. so we keep paying the bills, while parties and politicians distract us by pointing the finger at each other. If people of all parties got together, made lists of all the shenanigans we didn't agree to fund, authorize govt to spend waste or abuse, and demand restitution, refunds or credits back, we could reclaim all our tax money that has been wasted and invest those credits into financing solutions and reforms, while charging the costs back to the wrongdoers who ran up our debts like a bad credit card bill we never agreed to pay. I hope we get smart soon, and turn the tables on govt running completely amok, like a bull in a china shop, charging all the damaged and debts to us instead of going after the parties that profited off abuses of public resources, laws and authority for their own benefits.

We can do that much more simply by getting rid of social services at the federal level and letting the states manage their own welfare and education.

Do that and get back to me in 20 years. We'll compare policy and results along with the economies of Liberal vs Conservative states.

Yes, and we can speed up this process by holding parties responsible for their own policies and programs they "believe" in funding. if liberals believe in handouts, they can pay for those through their own party programs and handout all they want to.

Other people have equal right to exercise charity through means that meet their standards of accountability, such as churches or nonprofit training programs that focus on healthy relations and development, and not just handing out funds rewarding people for having children as a welfare ticket.

Let people who believe in microlending practice that. Reward taxpayers for investing directly into cost-effective school programs, medical facilities and education, and internships that provide public services on a sustainable basis.

Give taxpayers a choice in what programs to fund under which type of management to serve the various populations. Many people would much rather fund churches and charities to do the work responsibly, rather than go through govt that can't be trusted not to muck things up.

If we organize and separate by party, then it won't take the whole state all voting in agreement on the same reforms to change the laws. We could agree to separate jurisdiction by party, or else sue to force a separation by "political beliefs".
and then the citizens are free to set up and fund their own programs through their party networks and membership base.

Only the programs that all citizens of that state agree to vote on should remain public will qualify for public funding, and the ones that don't remain private per citizens parties or other business, charity, school or nonprofit groups to manage locally.

Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).

Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.

Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt,
punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.

Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.

I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. I would love to separate the country by political party for 20 years just to prove that one is self sustaining and viable and one is doomed to bankruptcy.
BUT we don't have a government where that could be done without rewriting the US Constitutions and the constitutions of every state in the nation.
The red state, blue state concept could be tried nearly overnight.