• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Income Inequality Hypocrisy Of Obama And Clinton

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
They fight for income inequality but how have their own personal finances done over the last several years compared to the poor? Hasn't there been a huge growing gap in income equality there? They rail against the difference between the one percent and the poor while at the very same time their own finances are growing exponentially compared to the poor. Those greedy owners of large corporations, CEO's and others on Wall Street just keep on getting richer and richer at the expense of the poor and Obama and Clinton want to lead the charge against them. Hypocrisy at it's finest?
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Under Obama and Clinton the income inequality has increased. Obama and Clinton have made the very wealthy much more wealthy. This is reflective of government policy, not hard work, creativity, or entreprenural drive.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
75,606
Reaction score
44,098
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You dare to doubt whether HRC (or Obama) speaking for an hour is worth $250K? Sure they are part of the 1% but they really care about those blowing each other away in "the hoods" while they travel the globe in private jets with armed security preaching the evils of income equality and glow bull warming while calling for gun control.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,989
Reaction score
32,888
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You dare to doubt whether HRC (or Obama) speaking for an hour is worth $250K? Sure they are part of the 1% but they really care about those blowing each other away in "the hoods" while they travel the globe in private jets with armed security preaching the evils of income equality and glow bull warming while calling for gun control.

Isn't the hypocrisy just completely mind bowing?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
75,606
Reaction score
44,098
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not if the sheeple (and the MSM) simply ignore it completely and elect you president. They are doing what works politically on the national level - the GOP not so much lately. The basics of income redistribution have been proven politically solid - take some (more) from the top 1% and give it to bottom 15% and then win national elections (by 10%?). So long as the other 84% are not left feeling too screwed over (by the constant growth in federal power) then the idea works wonderfully.
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Is there any point to this thread? I mean other than an opportunity to post mindless attacks on Democratic politicians? I suppose that's standard fare for some in this community.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
How can one consistently rail against income inequality while at the very same time they are as guilty as those on Wall Street as their own personal income grows exponentially compared to those they claim to want to represent, while earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal income from those very same people they claim to want to take down? Only a mindless and brainwashed minion would believe them. Ask Bernie what the thinks.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,745
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is there any point to this thread? I mean other than an opportunity to post mindless attacks on Democratic politicians? I suppose that's standard fare for some in this community.

I believe this is a participation optional forum. Feel free to participate or not.
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Feel free to participate or not.

I just asked if there was any point to it. That's all the participation it deserves, imo. One of many worthless MR contributions.
 

pdog

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,969
Reaction score
1,226
Location
Searching for answers.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They fight for income inequality but how have their own personal finances done over the last several years compared to the poor? Hasn't there been a huge growing gap in income equality there? They rail against the difference between the one percent and the poor while at the very same time their own finances are growing exponentially compared to the poor. Those greedy owners of large corporations, CEO's and others on Wall Street just keep on getting richer and richer at the expense of the poor and Obama and Clinton want to lead the charge against them. Hypocrisy at it's finest?

I say we raise taxes on them. You game?
 

pdog

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,969
Reaction score
1,226
Location
Searching for answers.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They fight for income inequality but how have their own personal finances done over the last several years compared to the poor? Hasn't there been a huge growing gap in income equality there? They rail against the difference between the one percent and the poor while at the very same time their own finances are growing exponentially compared to the poor. Those greedy owners of large corporations, CEO's and others on Wall Street just keep on getting richer and richer at the expense of the poor and Obama and Clinton want to lead the charge against them. Hypocrisy at it's finest?

I say we raise taxes on them. You game?
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I say we raise taxes on them. You game?

Why? It won't help the poor.

The only thing that moves people out of poverty is job skills and education.
If they refuse to do either then how is taxing the rich going to help them?

The government doesn't get anyone out of poverty it keeps people there.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How can one consistently rail against income inequality while at the very same time they are as guilty as those on Wall Street as their own personal income grows exponentially compared to those they claim to want to represent, while earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal income from those very same people they claim to want to take down? Only a mindless and brainwashed minion would believe them. Ask Bernie what the thinks.

Guilty? Guilty of what? Making money?

Weakest Argument EVAH!!
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I say we raise taxes on them. You game?

I've never been against raising taxes on the rich but all of the rich, not just business owners and CEO's. But, everyone over the poverty line should be paying at least some taxes, not zero. It is ridiculous to claim that someone who pays millions in taxes is not paying their fair share while 43% pay zero. And, we should not raise taxes to spend more. We should raise taxes to cut down on the budget deficit.
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I say we raise taxes on them. You game?

Outstanding, pdog!

MR is on a campaign in this community to delegitimise the call for efforts to address the extremely unjust and highly dysfunctional explosion in income inequality that has developed over the past thirty-five years. In this thread, he plays the simple-minded game of claiming that the wealth accumulated over the years by the Clintons makes them hypocrites. (Fwiw, I have no idea why he includes the Obummers in this. What information does he have that irks him regarding their income? The only thing I've heard about it is that they have given a LOT more to charity over the years than the grotesque pig that's been put up to run against Hellory by the ignorant toads that voted for him in the GOP primaries.)

Excellent job of exposing the … hypocrisy … of the point raised in this thread. OK, MR, let's raise the taxes on those crooked, scheming, murdering Clintons a few percent. Are you saying they oppose that proposal?

Hillary Clinton proposes raising taxes on high-income taxpayers, modifying taxation of multinational corporations, repealing fossil fuel tax incentives, and increasing estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes. — "An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Policy Center,, Mar 3, 2016​

"I want to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share, which they have not been doing. I want the Buffett Rule to be in effect, where millionaires have to pay 30 percent tax rates instead of 10 percent to nothing in some cases." — "3rd Democratic debate transcript," WaPo, Dec 19, 2015​

"We've come a long way from my days going door-to-door for the Children's Defense Fund and earning $16,450 as a young law professor in Arkansas — and we owe it to the opportunities America provides. I want more Americans to have the chance to work hard and get ahead, just like we did. And reforming the tax code can help."

“Reforming our tax code to promote strong, fair, long-term growth is a centerpiece of my campaign, and I will continue outlining specific new ideas in the months ahead."

"Families like mine that reap rewards from our economy have a responsibility to pay our fair share. And it's not just the right thing to do — it's also good for growth. To create jobs and raise incomes, our country needs resources to make big investments in infrastructure, innovation, clean energy, and education. That's vital if we're going to make the economy work for everyone, not just those already at the top." — "Statement from Hillary Clinton on the Release of Her Federal Tax Returns," hillaryclinton.com, Jul 31,2015​

Why? It won't help the poor.

It can be used to fund programs that do.

>>The only thing that moves people out of poverty is job skills and education.

Tax revenues can fund programs that make that happen.

>>If they refuse to do either then how is taxing the rich going to help them?

Refuse to do what?

>>The government doesn't get anyone out of poverty it keeps people there.

BS RW rhetoric.

I've never been against raising taxes on the rich but all of the rich, not just business owners and CEO's.

Who's making that distinction? Not Hellory.

>>everyone over the poverty line should be paying at least some taxes, not zero.

They do. Last year, the bottom quintile (less than $22K) paid 19.2% of it's income in taxes. That's an average of $4,200. Not enough for ya?

>>It is ridiculous to claim that someone who pays millions in taxes is not paying their fair share while 43% pay zero.

How many households pay millions in taxes? The average income of the top one-tenth of one percent is $1.7 million, and they pay an average of $413K in federal taxes annually. Sound familiar? I posted that the other day.

>>we should not raise taxes to spend more. We should raise taxes to cut down on the budget deficit.

What good will that accomplish? Take money out of the private sector to reduce a deficit that is 2.4% of GDP?
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Outstanding, pdog!

MR is on a campaign in this community to delegitimise the call for efforts to address the extremely unjust and highly dysfunctional explosion in income inequality that has developed over the past thirty-five years. In this thread, he plays the simple-minded game of claiming that the wealth accumulated over the years by the Clintons makes them hypocrites. (Fwiw, I have no idea why he includes the Obummers in this. What information does he have that irks him regarding their income? The only thing I've heard about it is that they have given a LOT more to charity over the years than the grotesque pig that's been put up to run against Hellory by the ignorant toads that voted for him in the GOP primaries.)

Excellent job of exposing the … hypocrisy … of the point raised in this thread. OK, MR, let's raise the taxes on those crooked, scheming, murdering Clintons a few percent. Are you saying they oppose that proposal?

Hillary Clinton proposes raising taxes on high-income taxpayers, modifying taxation of multinational corporations, repealing fossil fuel tax incentives, and increasing estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes. — "An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Policy Center,, Mar 3, 2016​

"I want to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share, which they have not been doing. I want the Buffett Rule to be in effect, where millionaires have to pay 30 percent tax rates instead of 10 percent to nothing in some cases." — "3rd Democratic debate transcript," WaPo, Dec 19, 2015​

"We've come a long way from my days going door-to-door for the Children's Defense Fund and earning $16,450 as a young law professor in Arkansas — and we owe it to the opportunities America provides. I want more Americans to have the chance to work hard and get ahead, just like we did. And reforming the tax code can help."

“Reforming our tax code to promote strong, fair, long-term growth is a centerpiece of my campaign, and I will continue outlining specific new ideas in the months ahead."

"Families like mine that reap rewards from our economy have a responsibility to pay our fair share. And it's not just the right thing to do — it's also good for growth. To create jobs and raise incomes, our country needs resources to make big investments in infrastructure, innovation, clean energy, and education. That's vital if we're going to make the economy work for everyone, not just those already at the top." — "Statement from Hillary Clinton on the Release of Her Federal Tax Returns," hillaryclinton.com, Jul 31,2015​



It can be used to fund programs that do.

>>The only thing that moves people out of poverty is job skills and education.

Tax revenues can fund programs that make that happen.

>>If they refuse to do either then how is taxing the rich going to help them?

Refuse to do what?

>>The government doesn't get anyone out of poverty it keeps people there.

BS RW rhetoric.



Who's making that distinction? Not Hellory.

>>everyone over the poverty line should be paying at least some taxes, not zero.

They do. Last year, the bottom quintile (less than $22K) paid 19.2% of it's income in taxes. That's an average of $4,200. Not enough for ya?

>>It is ridiculous to claim that someone who pays millions in taxes is not paying their fair share while 43% pay zero.

How many households pay millions in taxes? The average income of the top one-tenth of one percent is $1.7 million, and they pay an average of $413K in federal taxes annually. Sound familiar? I posted that the other day.

>>we should not raise taxes to spend more. We should raise taxes to cut down on the budget deficit.

What good will that accomplish? Take money out of the private sector to reduce a deficit that is 2.4% of GDP?

What happened to the 43% who pay zero taxes? There you go using cherry picked stats again with the 2.4% of GDP figure. What about our national debt to GDP ratio?

United States Government Debt to GDP | 1940-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Other figures are 500 BILLION dollars in yearly deficits with a 20 TRILLION dollar national debt and rising every year. These are the figures, not 2.4.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
44,523
Reaction score
9,507
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They fight for income inequality but how have their own personal finances done over the last several years compared to the poor? Hasn't there been a huge growing gap in income equality there? They rail against the difference between the one percent and the poor while at the very same time their own finances are growing exponentially compared to the poor. Those greedy owners of large corporations, CEO's and others on Wall Street just keep on getting richer and richer at the expense of the poor and Obama and Clinton want to lead the charge against them. Hypocrisy at it's finest?

I'm always a tad amused that the extremely rich actors in their ostentatious Hollywood estates who campaign for less income inequality seem to keep a lot of the money they earn. Well in Hollywood when they are there and not in their equally ostentatious estates in Colorado or the Caribbean.

Is there any reason why the extremely wealthy in Hollywood who rail against income inequality STILL demand 20 million per movie and then work the tax system to keep as much of it as they can?

Shouldn't they be happy to just get $15.00/hour?

If they just voluntarily gave most of their income to the Federal tax folks, seems like they could kill a couple birds with a single stone.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm always a tad amused that the extremely rich actors in their ostentatious Hollywood estates who campaign for less income inequality seem to keep a lot of the money they earn. Well in Hollywood when they are there and not in their equally ostentatious estates in Colorado or the Caribbean.

Is there any reason why the extremely wealthy in Hollywood who rail against income inequality STILL demand 20 million per movie and then work the tax system to keep as much of it as they can?

Shouldn't they be happy to just get $15.00/hour?

If they just voluntarily gave most of their income to the Federal tax folks, seems like they could kill a couple birds with a single stone.

Yep. That is hypocrisy at it's finest. They rail against the CEO's for making so much money at the expense of the little guy while these very same rich actors demand multi-millions per movie, at the expense of the little guy who has to pay inflated prices to see their movies.
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What happened to the 43% who pay zero taxes?

It's right there where it's always been — in the imagination of RWers who pretend that FIT is the only tax collected in this country.

>>There you go using cherry picked stats again with the 2.4% of GDP figure.

You said you want increased tax revenues to be used exclusively to decrease the deficit. That's why I talked about … the deficit.

>>What about our national debt to GDP ratio?

It's higher than I'd like it to be. What put it there? Policies you advocate.

>>Other figures are 500 BILLION dollars in yearly deficits

No, that's not "another figure." It's part of deficit/GDP — 2.4%.

>>a 20 TRILLION dollar national debt

Created by GOP SSE policies and a very expensive overseas military adventure that we got lied into by RW creeps like Dickhead Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld, the kind of sluts who vehemently denigrate Obummer's foreign policy.

>>These are the figures, not 2.4.

2.4% looks like a figure to me, and in fact it's the relevant one in this context.

Yep. That is hypocrisy at it's finest. They rail against the CEO's for making so much money at the expense of the little guy while these very same rich actors demand multi-millions per movie, at the expense of the little guy who has to pay inflated prices to see their movies.

What a load of bull**** that is. Now you don't like the free market, where people can get paid whatever people will pay them. And who's forcing anyone to go see a film? Complete nonsense.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
15,579
Reaction score
14,006
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
How can one consistently rail against income inequality while at the very same time they are as guilty as those on Wall Street as their own personal income grows exponentially compared to those they claim to want to represent, while earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal income from those very same people they claim to want to take down?

Were they poor and making the economic case against income inequality, I suspect you'd dismiss it as sour grapes, envy, "taker" mentality, whatever. FDR and JFK were old money, the Clintons and Obamas are new money, I don't care either way. It's their policies that interest me, not the morality play that's going on in your head.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It's right there where it's always been — in the imagination of RWers who pretend that FIT is the only tax collected in this country.

>>There you go using cherry picked stats again with the 2.4% of GDP figure.

You said you want increased tax revenues to be used exclusively to decrease the deficit. That's why I talked about … the deficit.

>>What about our national debt to GDP ratio?

It's higher than I'd like it to be. What put it there? Policies you advocate.

>>Other figures are 500 BILLION dollars in yearly deficits

No, that's not "another figure." It's part of deficit/GDP — 2.4%.

>>a 20 TRILLION dollar national debt

Created by GOP SSE policies and a very expensive overseas military adventure that we got lied into by RW creeps like Dickhead Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld, the kind of sluts who vehemently denigrate Obummer's foreign policy.

>>These are the figures, not 2.4.

2.4% looks like a figure to me, and in fact it's the relevant one in this context.



What a load of bull**** that is. Now you don't like the free market, where people can get paid whatever people will pay them. And who's forcing anyone to go see a film? Complete nonsense.

The liberal mind has a lot of short circuits. As to the last point, it is liberals who talk about the CEO's and the one percent, but never say anything about going after the super rich Hollywood elite who take advantage of the little guy every day. It's only business owners, CEO's and the one percent. That's the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
it is liberals who talk about the CEO's and the one percent, but never say anything about going after the super rich Hollywood elite who take advantage of the little guy every day.

Take advantage? Total BS. How are actors taking advantage of anyone? And where is the liberal proposal to exclude them from tax increases on the rich? Yer really having a bad day, even by yer standards.

>>It's only business owners, CEO's and the one percent. That's the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!

No, that's simply another truly bizzare pile of barf that you and yer unthinking allies like to puke up.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Outstanding, pdog!

MR is on a campaign in this community to delegitimise the call for efforts to address the extremely unjust and highly dysfunctional explosion in income inequality that has developed over the past thirty-five years. In this thread, he plays the simple-minded game of claiming that the wealth accumulated over the years by the Clintons makes them hypocrites.
So instead of using actual argument all you can do is use appeal to emotion. Yep people making money for liberals is a bad thing because then they are no longer dependent on government. in fact the less people
that are dependent on government for help the more the liberal ideology loses it's power, however the fact is that people mostly the middle class have been moving up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

Excellent job of exposing the … hypocrisy … of the point raised in this thread. OK, MR, let's raise the taxes on those crooked, scheming, murdering Clintons a few percent. Are you saying they oppose that proposal?

If they made the money honestly I don't care how much money they have. it has no affect on me. just as if bill gates or warren buffett make another billion dollars. it has no affect on me my wife or what I make.
the fact that you think it does shows that you need to do more studying on how economics actually works.

If anything I want taxes lowered for everyone. all high taxes do is stop middle income and lower income people from moving up in wealth.

Hillary Clinton proposes raising taxes on high-income taxpayers, modifying taxation of multinational corporations, repealing fossil fuel tax incentives, and increasing estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes. —


rhetoric is rhetoric no matter how much she repeats herself. according to her they are broke so her grasp on reality is a little off.

"I want to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share, which they have not been doing. I want the Buffett Rule to be in effect, where millionaires have to pay 30 percent tax rates instead of 10 percent to nothing in some cases.
"We've come a long way from my days going door-to-door for the Children's Defense Fund and earning $16,450 as a young law professor in Arkansas — and we owe it to the opportunities America provides. I want more Americans to have the chance to work hard and get ahead, just like we did. And reforming the tax code can help."​


then she would actually propose real tax code reform not anti-wealth except for me reform.

“Reforming our tax code to promote strong, fair, long-term growth is a centerpiece of my campaign, and I will continue outlining specific new ideas in the months ahead."

I will believe it when she does it.

"Families like mine that reap rewards from our economy have a responsibility toamake the economy work for everyone, not just those already at the top." — "Statement from Hillary Clinton on the Release of Her Federal Tax Returns," hillaryclinton.com, Jul 31,2015


so why isn't she paying her fair share now? ol wait she is broke according to her.
you can't create jobs and raise incomes by taxing wealth. it does the direct opposite.

It can be used to fund programs that do.

we already fund these programs. giving them more money has done little to help the situation.
people actually have to want to do it.

Tax revenues can fund programs that make that happen.

again people have to want to do it.

>>The government doesn't get anyone out of poverty it keeps people there.

BS RW rhetoric.

Yes we know that rhetoric is all that you have in all of your arguments.


They do. Last year, the bottom quintile (less than $22K) paid 19.2% of it's income in taxes. That's an average of $4,200. Not enough for ya?

The bottom 50% of workers paid 2.8% of the income tax. of those 50% the bottom 40% either paid 0 in taxes or got back more than
what they paid in. so I don't know where you are getting your numbers but they are horribly wrong.

How many households pay millions in taxes? The average income of the top one-tenth of one percent is $1.7 million, and they pay an average of $413K in federal taxes annually. Sound familiar? I posted that the other day.

Why can you not actually address what was said.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The liberal mind has a lot of short circuits. As to the last point, it is liberals who talk about the CEO's and the one percent, but never say anything about going after the super rich Hollywood elite who take advantage of the little guy every day. It's only business owners, CEO's and the one percent. That's the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!

you normally don't go after those that support you.
the fact is that all those evil 1%'ers are mostly business people that create jobs
and invest in peoples companies etc ...
it is easy to demonize people that allow people the freedom of not depending on the government.

envy is not a good argument and I wish liberals would just admit that is all this is.
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So instead of using actual argument all you can do is use appeal to emotion.

How is that an appeal to emotion? I'm quite certain that no one in human history has consistently butchered the application of logical fallacies as much as you do, ludin. And when I point these out, you don't even slow down. It is truly entertaining to see you make such a complete fool of yerself. Please do keep it up.

>>people making money for liberals is a bad thing because then they are no longer dependent on government. in fact the less people that are dependent on government for help the more the liberal ideology loses it's power

More of yer mindless gibberish. Completely unsupported nonsense.

>>I don't care how much money they have.

Who suggested that you do? MR started this thread to say they're hypocrites, so apparently he does.

>> it has no affect on me my wife or what I make. the fact that you think it does shows that you need to do more studying on how economics actually works.

Again with utter nonsense, as always. When did I say that the Clinton's income affects you? You don't understand how income inequality affects the economy, and I have no doubt that studying won't help you to understand anything.

>>all high taxes do is stop middle income and lower income people from moving up in wealth.

Just more unsupported garbage. Taxes on upper-income households have been reduced dramatically over the past thirty-five years compared to 1946-1979, the era when the lower and middle classes did a lot better. Once again, the facts directly contradict yer RW rubbish.

>>rhetoric is rhetoric no matter how much she repeats herself.

How is that rhetoric? Those are nothing but explicit legislative proposals. Keep posting, ludin. I can't think of a better way for the policies I oppose to be undermined.

>>then she would actually propose real tax code reform not anti-wealth except for me reform.

It is actual reform. And what's this "not for me" drivel? I'll say this — yer posts make MR look like a relative genius.

>>I will believe it when she does it.

She's been doing it. Yer inability to hear her may result from the location of yer head.

>>so why isn't she paying her fair share now?

Because the tax code doesn't require it.

>>you can't create jobs and raise incomes by taxing wealth. it does the direct opposite.

You can't fund the public sector without taxes. In recent decades, fat cats have been raking in the dough at everyone else's expense while their taxes have been reduced dramatically. In recent years, Obummer got taxes raised on upper-income households, and the result has been more than fourteen million full-time, private jobs being created. Wrong again. Yer always wrong. A perfect reverse barometer for discerning the truth.

>>we already fund these programs.

Not enough.

>>giving them more money has done little to help the situation.

Poverty cut in half.

>>people actually have to want to do it.

So you figure they don't want better educations and better jobs.

>>we know that rhetoric is all that you have in all of your arguments.



>>The bottom 50% of workers paid 2.8% of the income tax.

FIT is not the only tax collected in this country. The bottom three quintiles paid fourteen percent of federal taxes last year, while collecting twenty-one percent of national income. The top quintile paid 69% of federal taxes, while collecting 51% of national income.

>>of those 50% the bottom 40% either paid 0 in taxes or got back more than what they paid in.

The bottom two quintiles paid four percent of federal taxes while collecting eleven percent of national income.

Overall, the top quintile paid 32% of its income in taxes and the bottom four paid an average of 25%.

>>I don't know where you are getting your numbers but they are horribly wrong

CBO.

>>Why can you not actually address what was said.

I did. MR misrepresented when he said talked about people "paying millions in taxes," and he lied, just like you always do, when he said that "43% pay zero."

envy is not a good argument and I wish liberals would just admit that is all this is.

Ascribing envy to liberals is an argument that only works with RW toads. All this RW crap helps drive moderates and Independents to vote for Democrats. Keep spewing it.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom