- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.
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.
Feel free to participate or not.
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?
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?
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.
I say we raise taxes on them. You game?
I say we raise taxes on them. You game?
Why? It won't help the poor.
I've never been against raising taxes on the rich but all of the rich, not just business owners and CEO's.
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?
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.
What happened to the 43% who pay zero taxes?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 peopleOutstanding, 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.
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. —
"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."
“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 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
It can be used to fund programs that do.
Tax revenues can fund programs that make that happen.
>>The government doesn't get anyone out of poverty it keeps people there.
BS RW rhetoric.
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?
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.
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!!!!!!!!!
So instead of using actual argument all you can do is use appeal to emotion.
envy is not a good argument and I wish liberals would just admit that is all this is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?