06-22-2015 04:39 PM
196 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    No one is complaining about our current tax system except conservatives because they have been advocating for the rich for some reason. It does no good for the common man for someone who makes more than them to get tax breaks. Period.

    I disagree on the guns rights, we need to clamp down on gun rights ASAP. People need to come to the 21st century, there isn't a need for everyone to carry a gun or really need one. A lot of countries have outlawed guns period or restricted them and have a much lower gun crime rate. And giving illegal gun holders a longer sentence is frivolous. That's like giving someone with a dime bag a longer sentence. Laws like that hurt minorities more than anyone.

    There is no such thing as a true free market and capitalism. And how do you want less government but want more government intervention in small business?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    I'll just cover a few of your earlier things with this too.

    Why don't you pay for everyone that makes less than you? Do you think that is fair? How about I don't work and you pay more to cover me and I'll sit home and watch TV and you pay my share?

    Oh many others besides conservatives are complaining about tax rates. In fact, libertarians want a flat tax rate more than anyone.

    And now here you come with stomping on the Constitution.

    You don't believe in equality. If you are against a right, someone will come after your right.

    Why do Progressives not understand if one right falls, they will all eventually fall?

    Almost all murders with guns are committed by people with one or more precious illegal gun charge. An illegal gin charge should carry a heavy sentence. If I can legally own a gun, I don't have to justify it, just like people don't have to justify exercising their first amendment right.

    Anyone comfortable with the government deciding what rights we need and don't need, is an enemy of our Constitution.

    Who in their right mind wants a government to tell us what our rights are? People like that are giving the government more power and voluntarily giving away their rights.

    Obviously you don't understand socialism, it is taking from those with more and giving to those with less on order to make everyone be at the same level.
    05-14-2015 06:56 AM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Giving tax breaks for small businesses isn't promoting one over the other. In Atlanta, GA they did an incentive program there. Property tax breaks for people that rented empty buildings to local individuals at a lower rent cost and other things to help grow back the once thriving city that was dying, to build back the economy and downtown there.
    Giving one entity preferential treatment over another is exactly promoting one over the other. That said, it doesn't mean doing so it's necessarily a bad thing. I know cities and states give tax breaks to businesses all the time to entice them into an area, and yes it works. That's why I pointed out earlier that the Fair Tax eliminates corporate taxes. It promotes all businesses, but does do equally while killing much of the lobbying power of big business. If you want to promote a small business, I get that. Competition is great for society, I just don't think government should be able to hide it in the tax code. Look at all the so called "corporate welfare" that goes on. Do you think it'd be anywhere near that much if it had to be listed as an entry in the spending side of the budget instead of being special tax breaks?

    And if you think simply giving a tax break here and there will boost the local economy, what do you think eliminating all corporate taxes nation wide would do? It'd likely be the biggest economic boom this country has seen. And while replacing that with the 23% (inclusive) Fair Tax rate may seem daunting, we're already paying 22% (inclusive) in embedded taxes. Plus there's the prebate that would lower the effective a rate and actual cost of living for most people, but that's another subject in itself.
    05-14-2015 08:25 AM
  3. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    Giving one entity preferential treatment over another is exactly promoting one over the other. That said, it doesn't mean doing so it's necessarily a bad thing. I know cities and states give tax breaks to businesses all the time to entice them into an area, and yes it works. That's why I pointed out earlier that the Fair Tax eliminates corporate taxes. It promotes all businesses, but does do equally while killing much of the lobbying power of big business. If you want to promote a small business, I get that. Competition is great for society, I just don't think government should be able to hide it in the tax code. Look at all the so called "corporate welfare" that goes on. Do you think it'd be anywhere near that much if it had to be listed as an entry in the spending side of the budget instead of being special tax breaks?

    And if you think simply giving a tax break here and there will boost the local economy, what do you think eliminating all corporate taxes nation wide would do? It'd likely be the biggest economic boom this country has seen. And while replacing that with the 23% (inclusive) Fair Tax rate may seem daunting, we're already paying 22% (inclusive) in embedded taxes. Plus there's the prebate that would lower the effective a rate and actual cost of living for most people, but that's another subject in itself.
    Oh I agree with all of what you are saying here. The only reason I think we need the breaks for small business right now is because they have been put so far behind the Eight Ball in the last many years, people can't even get a small business started.

    That part is something I would consider a temporary measure to give small businesses a level playing field.

    None of that will help a lot until we have a true free market and true capitalism. We can't have true capitalism until lobbyists are done away with. The amount that large companies pay for lobbyists each year, is outrageous. Utility companies have huge budgets for lobbyists and every regulation they can get passed, causes us to pay more for their services.

    It is all tied together, lobbyists, term limits (with term limits, Congress has nothing to be bought by lobbyists) tax reform and giving a temporary boost for small business, so they can start at the beginning and not behind. Once the economy boosts, that won't be necessary, unless cities like Detroit want to do something similar to help bring that city back.
    05-14-2015 08:56 AM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    Actually you are wrong there. The middle class was doing well under Clinton and since Obama has been in office, it has been basically destroyed.

    What if I told you.. You can dislike Obama and not be a right winger?

    What if I also told you, you don't have to be right or left? Our Founding Fathers were much more moderate. I tend to agree with how our Founding Fathers set things up.
    How nice of you to exclude GWB under this claim. And yes there was a spike for the middle class under Clinton, but before that, Reagan made it known that he was against middle class ideals. If you don't believe me, ask the traffic controllers that he fired.
    A895 likes this.
    05-14-2015 05:16 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    Could it be because all politicians are pretty much part of the same social clique?
    We would then have to accept the possibility that George W. Bush could be punished as a war criminal, but no one has the political will to actually hold him accountable.
    05-14-2015 05:20 PM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    I'll just cover a few of your earlier things with this too.

    Why don't you pay for everyone that makes less than you? Do you think that is fair? How about I don't work and you pay more to cover me and I'll sit home and watch TV and you pay my share?

    Oh many others besides conservatives are complaining about tax rates. In fact, libertarians want a flat tax rate more than anyone.

    And now here you come with stomping on the Constitution.

    You don't believe in equality. If you are against a right, someone will come after your right.

    Why do Progressives not understand if one right falls, they will all eventually fall?

    Almost all murders with guns are committed by people with one or more precious illegal gun charge. An illegal gin charge should carry a heavy sentence. If I can legally own a gun, I don't have to justify it, just like people don't have to justify exercising their first amendment right.

    Anyone comfortable with the government deciding what rights we need and don't need, is an enemy of our Constitution.

    Who in their right mind wants a government to tell us what our rights are? People like that are giving the government more power and voluntarily giving away their rights.

    Obviously you don't understand socialism, it is taking from those with more and giving to those with less on order to make everyone be at the same level.
    If a person gets rich, I hate to break it to you, but he/she doesn't get rich without the U.S. infrastructure in place. Businesses couldn't do well if we have dirt roads or if all employees are out sick because of bad environmental conditions. And yet to ask them to pay a little more, somehow that's some sort of cardinal sin. Self made millionaires and billionaires understand this concept. People like Warren Buffet, BIll Gates, and other self made understand that they made it big because of their ideas, but they also understand that a lot of things were in place that helped them. That's why you will only see people that want to fight against rich paying taxes are old money schleps that got their money from daddy (the Walton family comes to mind as does that buffoon Trump). If you look at Sam Walton's philosophy, he believed in community. He believed in investing in his employees. His children and grand children would most likely be a disgrace to him if he were alive today.
    A895 likes this.
    05-14-2015 05:23 PM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    We would then have to accept the possibility that George W. Bush could be punished as a war criminal, but no one has the political will to actually hold him accountable.
    His mom, the Quaker Oats man/the person on the $1.00 will come after you.....
    05-14-2015 05:24 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    And yet to ask them to pay a little more...
    No, they are being asked to pay a lot more, and not to simply cover infrastructure.

    People like Warren Buffet, BIll Gates, and other self made understand that they made it big because of their ideas, but they also understand that a lot of things were in place that helped them. That's why you will only see people that want to fight against rich paying taxes are old money schleps that got their money from daddy (the Walton family comes to mind as does that buffoon Trump).
    When those rich people that claim they need to pay more taxes actually volunteer to pay those taxes, then they'll have credibility. No reasonable person is saying the rich should pay zero taxes, only that they have already been taxed enough and it's the government that needs to reign in spending on many fronts. The left loves to trot out the old "the rich should pay their fair share" line, but I've yet to see anyone explain exactly what is their fair share.
    05-14-2015 05:33 PM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    His mom, the Quaker Oats man/the person on the $1.00 will come after you.....
    Actually, I was thinking Malaysia would be the one that would go after Bush.

    In 2011, Malaysia convicted George W. Bush in absentia for war crimes. So, all you need is someone who would be willing to arrest Bush.

    Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (website link)

    From the website:

    "After full hearing for 4 days, the Tribunal on November 22, 2011 issued unanimous verdict that found both George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq War."
    05-14-2015 05:56 PM
  10. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    How nice of you to exclude GWB under this claim. And yes there was a spike for the middle class under Clinton, but before that, Reagan made it known that he was against middle class ideals. If you don't believe me, ask the traffic controllers that he fired.
    Exclude GWB from what claim? Why do you think I'm a GWB fan?

    I didn't like him as a POTUS. The only thing I liked about him as a POTUS was his support and continued support of our military.

    Reagan huh? So you don't know the mess Carter made and Reagan fixed? Even many far left admit Reagan brought us off an economic cliff.

    Also, people on the left and right hold Reagan up as some GOP standard. Reagan was actually very liberal for the GOP, he was much more of a moderate.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    05-14-2015 10:11 PM
  11. A895's Avatar
    I'll just cover a few of your earlier things with this too.

    Why don't you pay for everyone that makes less than you? Do you think that is fair? How about I don't work and you pay more to cover me and I'll sit home and watch TV and you pay my share?
    Oh, seriously? You are personally handing out money to those in poverty? Do tell. I have no issue paying taxes, that's your issue.

    Oh many others besides conservatives are complaining about tax rates. In fact, libertarians want a flat tax rate more than anyone.

    And now here you come with stomping on the Constitution.

    You don't believe in equality. If you are against a right, someone will come after your right.
    Taxes, is not about equality. It never was, ti was about being able to pay money to the government based on income and goods and services. Equality has ZERO to do with that. Real equality is real social issues, not conservatives sticking up for people who make way more than them.


    Almost all murders with guns are committed by people with one or more precious illegal gun charge. An illegal gin charge should carry a heavy sentence.
    No, an illegal gun charge shouldn't be a heavy sentences. We have a overcrowded prison system with more than half taken up with minorities. The U.S. has the biggest prison population in the world, what good does it do throw MORE people in jail? It only wastes money, time and peoples freedom. What makes it worse is that we need HUGE prison reform. If guns are such an issues wouldn't the first thought be to clamp down on guns themselves to make it harder for criminals to get them? Or just get rid of guns completely. That we have less "scared" cops being trigger happy because "they think they saw or thought someone had a gun" and those who do carry illegal weapons will be more obvious and be dealt with.


    If I can legally own a gun, I don't have to justify it, just like people don't have to justify exercising their first amendment right.
    What do people need a gun for? Honestly? The main reason for the second amendment was because they thought one day we might need to maintain a civilian military population. But that is redundant now that we have the most powerful military in the world, and wars now are fought thousands of miles away by drones being piloted by someone in a building a somewhere.


    Anyone comfortable with the government deciding what rights we need and don't need, is an enemy of our Constitution.
    We vote for the government yes? So if enough people are FOR restricting gun rights, is that not the will of the people?



    Who in their right mind wants a government to tell us what our rights are? People like that are giving the government more power and voluntarily giving away their rights.

    Obviously you don't understand socialism, it is taking from those with more and giving to those with less on order to make everyone be at the same level.
    No, wrong. Socialism is when everyone in the civilian population is on equal level economically, and materialistically etc. The original idea was that of people are on the same level, it lets people have more time to be more creative. It was never about taking from anyone. But socialism realistically always ends up as fascism, or communism or a dictatorship. That is why every time someone cries "socialism!" I internally facepalm.
    05-15-2015 01:20 AM
  12. A895's Avatar
    No, they are being asked to pay a lot more, and not to simply cover infrastructure.



    When those rich people that claim they need to pay more taxes actually volunteer to pay those taxes, then they'll have credibility. No reasonable person is saying the rich should pay zero taxes, only that they have already been taxed enough and it's the government that needs to reign in spending on many fronts. The left loves to trot out the old "the rich should pay their fair share" line, but I've yet to see anyone explain exactly what is their fair share.
    Their fair share is having a higher tax rate than those who make less. Period. They are rich, they don't need blue collar/white collar america defending them. If anything those who make less, should have no issue with the rich being taxed more. I see no way how someone who makes $1,000,000 needs someone who makes $40,000 to defend their tax rate.
    05-15-2015 01:23 AM
  13. A895's Avatar
    Exclude GWB from what claim? Why do you think I'm a GWB fan?

    I didn't like him as a POTUS. The only thing I liked about him as a POTUS was his support and continued support of our military.

    Reagan huh? So you don't know the mess Carter made and Reagan fixed? Even many far left admit Reagan brought us off an economic cliff.

    Also, people on the left and right hold Reagan up as some GOP standard. Reagan was actually very liberal for the GOP, he was much more of a moderate.
    No, Reagan has been the the the old painting over the fireplace for the GOP for a long time. They sit down and stare up at the painting and wonder "WWRD" (What Would Reagan Do?).
    05-15-2015 01:25 AM
  14. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    And you have just shown why I said earlier that I refused to get into a huge political debate here.

    Either you are unable to comprehend percentages, rights and socialism or you just pretend to be unable.

    Either way the result is the same, less fun than banging my head into a brick wall over and over.
    05-15-2015 01:27 AM
  15. A895's Avatar
    And you have just shown why I said earlier that I refused to get into a huge political debate here.

    Either you are unable to comprehend percentages, rights and socialism or you just pretend to be unable.

    Either way the result is the same, less fun than banging my head into a brick wall over and over.
    That's the way to do it, don't address any points, just insult the person.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    05-15-2015 05:57 AM
  16. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    Never insulted you and I've already addressed the points, more than once. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over.

    If you think everyone paying a 10% tax rate means the rich would not still be paying the most largest portion of taxes, there is no discussing with you. I do not think you can not comprehend that. I do believe you are able to do simple math. The only other option is you pretend you can't comprehend it.

    10% of $100 million is a whole lot more than 10% of $25,000. Anyone with the ability to count, can understand that.

    Anyone that says the rich should be punished and pay more, because they are rich, and really believes that, is probably someone that believes they should be taken care of themselves.

    Again, sales tax, no different than income tax. It is a flat percentage and it is the same percentage if you buy an item that cost $5 or $500. You pay more actual dollars in tax when you buy the $500 item. Again, simple math and of you can log into this site and post, you can understand the rich would still be paying a higher tax rate.

    The poor actually very seldom pay any taxes and even get money back, even when they haven't paid any taxes at all.

    Did you know that you can not work, get grants for school, go to school, have no income, not pay a dime, not pay for school and then file a return and the government give you about $400 back for an education credit? You make money. If you have dependents, you can get even more money and also then get welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing and health care and then get paid cash at the end of the year and never pay a dime of taxes.

    It is not the job of the rich to carry the burden of the poor nor to take care of them. They are not the mommy and daddy of the poor. Not only do the rich pay a higher rate, pay for that free money for those that don't pay taxes, they also give the most to charitable organizations that also give money and programs to help the poor.

    It is not the government's job nor the rich, to take care of anyone.

    The other thing that makes no sense, is when someone is being taken care of by someone else, then the one paying the bills has control. No one wants that though. They want people to take care of them and then say it is none of their business how the money is spent. That is the epitome of disgusting entitlement.

    The fact you think Reagan was old establishment GOP, someone on the right, tells me you don't know enough about Reagan for me to bother with discussing that with you. Discussion absent facts, goes no where.

    And the final and big thing.. Anyone that thinks it is ok and desires for anyone to touch a single right, can't be taken seriously by me.

    People do not get to vote on Constitutional rights or civil rights of others. Rights are not up for vote, government doesn't have the power to take rights away, they didn't give rights to us.

    For left and far right just love trying to do away with rights of others, but will scream bloody murder when someone comes after a right they enjoy.

    That is hypocrisy, intolerance, inequality and someone that really doesn't understand the Constitution. We don't have to justify why we choose to exercise our rights, even rights you don't agree with.

    No, the 2nd Amendment was not just for a militia, it is an INDIVIDUAL right.

    You don't have to justify exercising your first amendment right and I don't have to justify exercising my second amendment right.

    Also, anyone that thinks the majority should be allowed to vote away the rights of the minority, sure can see the big picture at all. Also someone that believes that, probably believes we are a Democracy and we are not. Our country is not run by mob rule.

    If the majority get to vote away rights of the minority, they don't agree with, then we are not all created equal and in direct violation of the Declaration of Independence.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    If the majority determine the rights of the minority, that is not equality.

    So no, someone that refuses to use critical thinking skills and can't see these things.. There is no use in discussion, we would be talking apples and oranges.

    FDR made the biggest changes to our Federal Government, but the moving away from the Republic started way before then. FDR is responsible for giving the Federal Government all this power they never were intended to have and he is the reason our Federal Government was allowed to grow to the monster it is now. There is a reason the Founding Fathers set up our government the way they did and it was not to allow another government to take away rights, tell people what they could think, feel or say, or to be ruled over by a government. That is why our Fore Fathers left and came here, that is why our Founding Fathers fought and and many died.

    I know it is really popular for the far left to call us a Democracy, but that is not correct. They do that for two reasons. Some don't know any better and the rest know if they keep saying that enough, then citizens will start believing it is true and will believe things like majority voting away the rights of the minority is something that should be allowed.

    Also the fact that you seem to be unable to see the bigger picture and realize if you can't vote away the 2nd Amendment right of people, it won't be long before there is a majority that will not agree with your 1st Amendment right and will vote it away.

    Oh and please, by all means, tell me what one more gun law we need that will stop people from killing someone with a gun. Besides the fact that criminals, by definition, do not follow laws, and we already have thousands of gun laws, murder is against the law. Hasn't stopped murders from happening though.

    So what gun law do we not already have, will stop killers from killing?

    A lot of countries banned guns and weird, their murders by stabbing, blunt objects and numerous other ways of killing, went up. More odd the placed here that have the most strict gun laws, have the highest rate of gun crime and gun deaths. Oddly, only the criminals in those cities have guns.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    05-15-2015 07:25 AM
  17. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    If a person gets rich, I hate to break it to you, but he/she doesn't get rich without the U.S. infrastructure in place. Businesses couldn't do well if we have dirt roads or if all employees are out sick because of bad environmental conditions. And yet to ask them to pay a little more, somehow that's some sort of cardinal sin. Self made millionaires and billionaires understand this concept. People like Warren Buffet, BIll Gates, and other self made understand that they made it big because of their ideas, but they also understand that a lot of things were in place that helped them. That's why you will only see people that want to fight against rich paying taxes are old money schleps that got their money from daddy (the Walton family comes to mind as does that buffoon Trump). If you look at Sam Walton's philosophy, he believed in community. He believed in investing in his employees. His children and grand children would most likely be a disgrace to him if he were alive today.
    Another strange fact.. The businesses used to take care of the infrastructure, not the government. If they has a business, they built and maintained the roads to their business.

    The government doesn't even pay for infrastructure now. While they maintain a good bit of it, they do not pay for it, the people pay for it.

    Again, the government can not and does not generate income. All money the government gets, comes from the people. Those that became rich by businesses they built, paid for all that infrastructure, with taxes.

    Where do you think all government at all levels, local, state and federal, get their money?

    They get all their money from taxpayers, the do not generate one single dime of income. So Bill Gates paid for infrastructure, he wasn't given it by the government.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    05-15-2015 07:31 AM
  18. anon8126715's Avatar
    Exclude GWB from what claim? Why do you think I'm a GWB fan?

    I didn't like him as a POTUS. The only thing I liked about him as a POTUS was his support and continued support of our military.

    Reagan huh? So you don't know the mess Carter made and Reagan fixed? Even many far left admit Reagan brought us off an economic cliff.

    Also, people on the left and right hold Reagan up as some GOP standard. Reagan was actually very liberal for the GOP, he was much more of a moderate.
    Reagan was more liberal than Obama. Reagan also spent a lot. And lets see we weren't at war under Jimmy Carter.
    05-15-2015 06:31 PM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    Until the PEOPLE start holding leaders responsible by voting them out, nothing will change, so far it hasn't changed.
    Well said. We have the right to vote, so why not use it?

    For example, if people were unhappy with George W. Bush, they could have voted him out of office in 2004.
    05-16-2015 02:20 AM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    Never insulted you and I've already addressed the points, more than once. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over.

    If you think everyone paying a 10% tax rate means the rich would not still be paying the most largest portion of taxes, there is no discussing with you. I do not think you can not comprehend that. I do believe you are able to do simple math. The only other option is you pretend you can't comprehend it.

    10% of $100 million is a whole lot more than 10% of $25,000. Anyone with the ability to count, can understand that.
    And anyone that knows their history knows that the wealthiest people are paying themselves obscenely higher rates than they were back even 20 years ago. Like I said, go back to the 50s and see what the tax rate was on the rich and their average salaries were (here let me help you) CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio Ballooned 1,000 Percent Since 1950: Report . Please don't insult our intelligence with Rush Limbaugh talking points about the rich paying so much more than everyone else. Yes 10% of $1,000,000 is more than 10% of $25,000, no one is arguing that. To try to act like that's all that matters is outright deception. If taxes are just sooo oppressive for the rich, then why don't they just cut their salaries down to $25,000? That would solve it right?

    I can definitely see why you don't like having a debate about it, I guess I would hate it too if all my ideas were proved wrong.

    Anyone that says the rich should be punished and pay more, because they are rich, and really believes that, is probably someone that believes they should be taken care of themselves.
    Umm, you think that all you want if it helps you try to quantify your maligned ideology. Mine is pretty simple, a person works 40+ hours it doesn't matter what they do, whether it's scrub toilets, hand out cancerous unhealthy fast food to customers, work all day out in the fields picking our nation's fruits and vegetables, or sit outside all day twirling a sign for a local business. That person deserves to earn enough to make a modest living, without having to sign up for welfare of ANY KIND. If the giants of industry don't see it fit to pay these people a wage that they can live modestly, then guess what, Uncle Sam will take care of them via food stamps, healthcare, etc. And guess who should foot that bill? Not the middle class, and maybe not even the upper middle class, but those people that make more an a year than some people make in 10 years. If you think that's too much to ask, then when these people start rioting (like you're seeing in some of our most oppressive cities) then don't start crying about how people are acting like animals on the street, because ANY PERSON in those types of conditions will eventually reach their breaking point.


    Again, sales tax, no different than income tax. It is a flat percentage and it is the same percentage if you buy an item that cost $5 or $500. You pay more actual dollars in tax when you buy the $500 item. Again, simple math and of you can log into this site and post, you can understand the rich would still be paying a higher tax rate.
    Simple alright.... So, in order to make it "simple", why don't we charge the rich person a "PERCENTAGE" of their salaries for such items? Lets say a rich guy that makes $1,000,000 a year wants to buy some food. Lets see, the poor guy making $25,000 a year, he pays $2.50 for some food, so lets charge the rich guy $1000 for the same food. I mean since you're all about "simple". ......Simple indeed....


    The poor actually very seldom pay any taxes and even get money back, even when they haven't paid any taxes at all.
    Yes "the poors", because they live such a lavish lifestyle, trying to figure out where their next meal will come from, trying to figure out if it's best to pay their grocery bill or their electric bill. Damn them poors!!


    Did you know that you can not work, get grants for school, go to school, have no income, not pay a dime, not pay for school and then file a return and the government give you about $400 back for an education credit? You make money. If you have dependents, you can get even more money and also then get welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing and health care and then get paid cash at the end of the year and never pay a dime of taxes.
    OMG you should totally host a "get rich quick" TV show! Oh wait, yeah you have to pay that student loan back, and even though large corporations can file bankruptcy, squander their employees' retirement funds, a student loan can't be written off via bankruptcy....Awee...sooo close!


    It is not the job of the rich to carry the burden of the poor nor to take care of them. They are not the mommy and daddy of the poor. Not only do the rich pay a higher rate, pay for that free money for those that don't pay taxes, they also give the most to charitable organizations that also give money and programs to help the poor.
    Sure, that worked so well for Marie Antoinette. Let them eat cake right?

    It is not the government's job nor the rich, to take care of anyone.
    Sure it's not, but when a rich person's house is robbed or caught on fire, guess who they come running for......

    The other thing that makes no sense, is when someone is being taken care of by someone else, then the one paying the bills has control. No one wants that though. They want people to take care of them and then say it is none of their business how the money is spent. That is the epitome of disgusting entitlement.
    You're right, it doesn't make sense, this paragraph I mean. Or are you referring to the GWB bailout via TARP?

    The fact you think Reagan was old establishment GOP, someone on the right, tells me you don't know enough about Reagan for me to bother with discussing that with you. Discussion absent facts, goes no where.
    Here are some cold hard facts for you

    Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

    Who is More Conservative: Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?*|*Cenk Uygur

    I can see why a Rush Limbaugh minion would try to avoid "facts" when trying to talk up Ronald Reagan.


    And the final and big thing.. Anyone that thinks it is ok and desires for anyone to touch a single right, can't be taken seriously by me.
    In reference to what? Or are you using the old "I'm a patriot and my thoughts are aligned with those of the founding fathers" failed GOP Jedi mind-trick? I guess Reagan must have no credibility, as he fired those air traffic controllers that were "peacefully assembling"?



    As much fun as it's been to pick apart all the flaws in your post, I'm going to stop here. I can only be subject to so much right-wing radio babble before my brain starts to feel its toxic effects.

    I will say this much though, while some people think that they're so clever embracing the right wing's faux-Darwinian attitudes when it comes to enacting and enforcing policy (I embrace survival of the fittest, therefore I must be one of the fittest!), when it really comes down to it, they're not the fittest, not the smartest, and not the greatest at practically anything. They're merely pawns that have been brainwashed into believing that "greed is good" or "my time will come". I have news for you, "It's not", and "it most likely won't". For all the bravado that you attempt, you still fail at understanding what's most important, life.
    A895 likes this.
    05-16-2015 01:20 PM
  21. A895's Avatar
    [√] Rekt
    [ ] Not Rekt

    Posted via the Android Central App
    05-17-2015 09:58 AM
  22. Scott7217's Avatar
    If someone wants to charge GWB with war crimes, there is no way to not charge Obama with even more war crimes.
    This is probably the real reason why we haven't seen George W. Bush brought up on charges for war crimes. If people investigate, they might also uncover incriminating evidence under the Obama administration. It's probably better to simply not bring any attention at all.
    05-18-2015 01:31 AM
  23. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    This is probably the real reason why we haven't seen George W. Bush brought up on charges for war crimes. If people investigate, they might also uncover incriminating evidence under the Obama administration. It's probably better to simply not bring any attention at all.
    Oh there will be for Obama for sure. Anwar al-Awlaki is the main one and that still bothers me. If an American is fighting against this country and they get killed in an airstrike or otherwise, oh well. With Anwar al-Awlaki, he never took up arms against the USA. He should have come back here for trial, we should have gone to Yemen and captured him, he did commit treason. I have a huge issue with Hunting him down in Yemen, along with other Americans and killing them with Hellfire missiles.

    We have no military strategy in Iraq right now, we are out of Iraq and yet, we are still bombing. Don't get me wrong, we need to do something about ISIS, but even the military has told Obama without a concrete military strategy in Iraq, the airstrikes will do little. I don't see how bombing people with strategic purpose, is not a war crime. I don't know how hunting down Americans and executing them without trial, and calling it part of the war on terrorism, is not war crimes.

    Obama has his little illegal war in Libya and Libya is still falling apart because of that and unlike Iraq, we do not have troops there to help and get anything up and running.

    Look at what Obama did in Egypt. The people living there know how much Obama had his hands n the Arab Spring. Finally the military took over Egypt because with Morsi, things had gotten so bad. That Obama Arab Spring is what spilled into Syria and look at the mess there.

    If people want Bush to answer for things, Obama has even more to answer for. Obama is the one in office and in charge, when al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, was able to come back to life. Bush didn't do that.
    05-18-2015 05:56 PM
  24. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    Also Obama's drone policy, isn't even on the edge of war crimes, it is becoming an international security threat.

    Not to mention that Obama continued the so called Bush War Crimes, long after he took office.

    If GWB is guilty of those being war crimes, Obama is just as guilty, because he did it also.
    05-18-2015 05:58 PM
  25. A895's Avatar
    Oh there will be for Obama for sure. Anwar al-Awlaki is the main one and that still bothers me. If an American is fighting against this country and they get killed in an airstrike or otherwise, oh well. With Anwar al-Awlaki, he never took up arms against the USA. He should have come back here for trial, we should have gone to Yemen and captured him, he did commit treason. I have a huge issue with Hunting him down in Yemen, along with other Americans and killing them with Hellfire missiles.

    We have no military strategy in Iraq right now, we are out of Iraq and yet, we are still bombing. Don't get me wrong, we need to do something about ISIS, but even the military has told Obama without a concrete military strategy in Iraq, the airstrikes will do little. I don't see how bombing people with strategic purpose, is not a war crime. I don't know how hunting down Americans and executing them without trial, and calling it part of the war on terrorism, is not war crimes.

    Obama has his little illegal war in Libya and Libya is still falling apart because of that and unlike Iraq, we do not have troops there to help and get anything up and running.

    Look at what Obama did in Egypt. The people living there know how much Obama had his hands n the Arab Spring. Finally the military took over Egypt because with Morsi, things had gotten so bad. That Obama Arab Spring is what spilled into Syria and look at the mess there.

    If people want Bush to answer for things, Obama has even more to answer for. Obama is the one in office and in charge, when al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, was able to come back to life. Bush didn't do that.
    You really think Obama is responsible single handily for the Arab Spring? Wow. Giving him way too much credit.

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-18-2015 06:09 PM
196 ... 23456 ...

Similar Threads

  1. volume control on a bush tablet
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2015, 12:42 AM
  2. Hi'm George!
    By George Wilkie in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-02-2014, 03:42 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD