He claims it can easily be covered by taxing the richest among us. But …
So?
At least they will be punished.
Punished for what exactly?
Working hard?
No, the rich do not really work. “Working Americans” means everyone but those with higher incomes.
Those with higher incomes have it because they unfairly and greedily grab a disproportionate share of the pie, and to date the government has let the stinking rich keep most of their big pie grabs, out of Republicans being filthy hateful whores for the rich and against working Americans.
In their spare time from trying to order you on what you can and cannot do in the bedroom and to mandate you attend their church, of course. Filthy scum suckers.
They should all die. I hope Cheney is dead soon. Maybe Bu$Hitler will croak soon too. Can’t be soon enough, for all the money that belonged to working Americans he gave to the rich with his tax giveaways.
The rich – meaning anyone having a successful small business or a successful professional, on up – should be punished for being greedy fat cats that have more than the next person. That’s not fair. Taxing them far more heavily is just fair. Gotta “spread the wealth,” don’tcha know!
“How many plumbers you know that are making a quarter-million dollars a year?”
Just greed thinking that you want to own a small business and make more than that. Any more than that should be taxed to the hilt. “White man’s greed runs a world in need,” as Mr Obama has been taught and seen fit to quote.
Of course that greed is to be punished. That’s only fair.
[quote]Dr_Razor wrote:
Punished for what exactly?
Working hard?[/quote]
For the audacity of making what the free market determined they were worth. That’s up to us and our elected officials to decide, comrade.
[quote]Dr_Razor wrote:
He claims it can easily be covered by taxing the richest among us. But …
It seemed like there was more to the plan…Oh, there was.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, the rich do not really work. “Working Americans” means everyone but those with higher incomes.
Those with higher incomes have it because they unfairly and greedily grab a disproportionate share of the pie, and to date the government has let the stinking rich keep most of their big pie grabs, out of Republicans being filthy hateful whores for the rich and against working Americans.
In their spare time from trying to order you on what you can and cannot do in the bedroom and to mandate you attend their church, of course. Filthy scum suckers.
They should all die. I hope Cheney is dead soon. Maybe Bu$Hitler will croak soon too. Can’t be soon enough, for all the money that belonged to working Americans he gave to the rich with his tax giveaways.
The rich – meaning anyone having a successful small business or a successful professional, on up – should be punished for being greedy fat cats that have more than the next person. That’s not fair. Taxing them far more heavily is just fair. Gotta “spread the wealth,” don’tcha know!
“How many plumbers you know that are making a quarter-million dollars a year?”
Just greed thinking that you want to own a small business and make more than that. Any more than that should be taxed to the hilt. “White man’s greed runs a world in need,” as Mr Obama has been taught and seen fit to quote.
Of course that greed is to be punished. That’s only fair.[/quote]
Well how many plumbers do you know taking in more than 250,000 in income? Like say a percentage? .01% of all plumbers? And how did you think free lunching tax cuts for the rich wouldn’t lead to tax increases on the rich down the road?
On the other hand the majority of us, the vast majority of us will be getting taxed less. So…theoretically you’re thrilled about that since we all agree 95% of working families are also working really hard.
Did you ever answer my question on how it is that Obama will give an “income tax cut” to 95% of income earners, when 40% do not pay any income tax at all?
(You had stated Obama was giving a tax cut to 95%. And no, he did not mean only to 95% of those paying taxes, but 95% of income earners.)
??
Is that “tax cut” not Newspeak for “send 40% of income earners – whose votes Obama wants – a check which is money taken from others whose votes Obama does not need?”
As for the rest of your post, too stupid to reply to other than with exactly that comment and with the note that it yet further reinforces your disdain (at best) for those that employ people and produce goods and services people willingly choose to pay good money for,
e.g. those that succeed in establishing a small business with a few employees, as this greedy fool in question was planning, in his case in the plumbing business.
An aspiration to be ridiculed, and punished with heavy taxation if achieved, in your “mind.” Better to take that money and send it to the 40% and call it an “income tax cut,” you clearly feel.
Or do you oppose such income redistribution? (And if you do, what will your fellow travelers think of you if you admit it? Che would be so disappointed. And what would Vladimir Ilyich say.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Did you ever answer my question on how it is that Obama will give an “income tax cut” to 95% of income earners, when 40% do not pay any income tax at all?
(You had stated Obama was giving a tax cut to 95%. And no, he did not mean only to 95% of those paying taxes, but 95% of income earners.)
??
Is that “tax cut” not Newspeak for “send 40% of income earners – whose votes Obama wants – a check which is money taken from others whose votes Obama does not need?”
As for the rest of your post, too stupid to reply to other than with exactly that comment and with the note that it yet further reinforces your disdain (at best) for those that employ people and produce goods and services people willingly choose to pay good money for,
e.g. those that succeed in establishing a small business with a few employees, as this greedy fool in question was planning, in his case in the plumbing business.
An aspiration to be ridiculed, and punished with heavy taxation if achieved, in your “mind.” Better to take that money and send it to the 40% and call it an “income tax cut,” you clearly feel.
Or do you oppose such income redistribution? (And if you do, what will your fellow travelers think of you if you admit it? Che would be so disappointed. And what would Vladimir Ilyich say.)[/quote]
Punished? Exactly how did that same tax rate punish them in the 90’s. It did not. It won’t now. They’ll make more, I’ll make more and the debt will go down.
Prosperity for all=good! Debt down=good! What you voted for was prosperity for one class (presumably not yours) no gain for the other 95% (who also “work hard”) and massive debt, thanks to less revenue. One is kind of better than the other, and generally toddlers are able to make the distinction.
And again what’s the total % of all taxes paid by me vs. them? Looks pretty flat to me, and it should be a bit more progressive don’t ya think. (or did you think income was the only tax—in other words…are you living with your parents?)
Buy a functioning brain cell, please. Do whatever you have to to accomplish this: it truly needs doing.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Buy a functioning brain cell, please. Do whatever you have to to accomplish this: it truly needs doing.[/quote]
Usually when wingnuts get owned on facts they move on. Looks like you’re moving on. Sucks for you.
But it was hilarious that you compared the Clinton tax rates/ and the 90’s to Che! It just sucked everybody making more money, and all that revenue!