snowbear37 wrote:
More liberal/progressive crap!
of course :roll:
snowbear37 wrote:
Every person that is on the government dole (welfare, ebt cards, free phones, etc.) has "unearned income".
Ok... So how does that change anything I've said? Or are you just... reacting.
snowbear37 wrote:
The socialist vs. progressive argument may have been somewhat valid in 1947, but things have changed (you may have noticed). The modern lib/progressive always yaks about "compromise".
And how exactly does that constitute a change?
snowbear37 wrote:
The conservatives are supposed to "compromise", but the libs/progressives/socialists don't want to hear it. They want what they want, the exact way they want it.
Who doesn't? Don't you want what you want, the exact way you want it? And whether or not the conservatives want to compromise is up to them, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. So what it is exactly that you think the "libs/progressives/socialists" don't want to hear? So far... you aren't really saying much.
snowbear37 wrote:
Whether you call yourself a liberal, progressive, or socialist, the goals are the same: steal from the "wealthy" to give to the "poor".
Ah... yes, of course. The famous b***h line. Every conservative sheep in the flock tosses that one out. There's lot's of unqualified b***h lines out there... "all men are pigs", "conservatives are stupid"... these derogatory stereotypes come in handy when your arguments can't keep up with your emotions. Just don't expect me to be impressed.
snowbear37 wrote:
The only problem is that wh**ever you steal from the wealthy will never be enough to satisfy the poor.
That's the only problem? Well, my friend you have nothing to worry about then, because satisfying the poor with stolen cash isn't the objective of progressives OR socialists. All the progressives want is a safety net to prevent people from starving in the streets and the socialists are more concerned about workers sharing ownership of what they produce.
snowbear37 wrote:
You talk about "compromise". How about "compromising and having those people that "collect money and services from the government pay something back in the form of taxes??
That's pretty much the idea... seems your not so different from a progressive after all. ;)
snowbear37 wrote:
Not only do 47% of the people in this country NOT pay taxes, but many get a "refund" from the government.
That's a fallacy. I laugh every time I see a 53% bumper sticker and think "what an i***t". That 53% figure represents the percentage of people who didn't pay enough tax during the year so they owe at the end. The remaining 47% percent are the people who paid the right amount during the year and break even or overpaid during the year and get a refund.
It's funny as hell to watch people who don't pay enough taxes during the year declaring themselves as part of the 53% who pay taxes while insisting that those who overpaid their taxes don't pay any at all. It's even funnier when people who DO overpay their taxes and get the difference refunded think that because they had to pay taxes they are part of the 53%.
snowbear37 wrote:
How does one get a refund from something they never paid in the first place?
LOL - if you actually tried to understand how taxes work instead of parroting the b***h lines, you would know that they don't.
snowbear37 wrote:
The greed of the top 1% of taxpayers requires them to pay 70% of the total taxes paid in this country each year.
Well, after your 47% fallacy, I'm a little wary of accepting more numbers from you as having any basis in t***h and I can't remember what the actual numbers are. I'd have to look. But I know that the higher up the income ladder you go the more you pay and that results in a small percentage of people with the highest income paying the largest percentage of tax. But no one pays more than 30% of his/her own income; that is the ceiling on the tax brackets. I currently pay 28%, which I'm guessing based on your rough demeanor is more than you pay. A few years back during my peak I was paying 30%, but even then I didn't pay nearly as much as let's say Rush Limbaugh, one of the biggest cry-babies in the top 5% who's annual income is in the multi-millions. I was paying the same percentage that he did, but I was very close to the bottom of that bracket. So 30% of what I made was a tiny speck compared to 30% of what he made. But conversely, the 70% that I got to keep was also a tiny speck compared to the 70% he was keeping. According to the conservatives that scream for a flat tax there isn't anything wrong with that.
Again, I gotta laugh at how people like Rush get poor people like you to sympathize with their plight having the burden of paying "70%" of the taxes. Aw, boo-hoo.
snowbear37 wrote:
If the government taxed them at 100%, it still wouldn't pay for everything that the government wastes on entitlement programs.
If you're still referring to the top 1%, probably not. That's because the common reference to the "1%" is based on wealth and your 100% is based on income tax... tax on wages. The top 1% of the wealthiest people don't even need wages. According to Romney's excuses for hardly paying any income tax, his income in 2011 was actually less than mine. So no, I wouldn't expect the top 1% to have much income to tax. But wealth is a whole different story. As Churchill made quite clear.
With more than 80% of the wealth in this country crammed into the top 5% you could probably tax their wealth at 10% and have enough money not only to "waste on entitlement programs" but also pay off our national debt.
snowbear37 wrote:
The definition of "wealthy" in this country has changed to "anyone making a profit".
LOL... well, the term is very ambiguous, but profit doesn't always lead to wealth. When I was running a small business most of my profits went to supporting a family. I was only able to save a small fraction of it and that was the extent of my wealth. My definition of "wealthy" is any accumulation of wealth that is self-sustainable... in other words enough money that if invested wisely could yield enough returns that additional income from wages is no longer necessary.
snowbear37 wrote:
These people are expected to work hard, employ people, and give more and more of the fruits of their labor to those that do not work, have children they cannot afford, and complain that wh**ever they get "free" is not enough.
Yeah, the people that *I* consider wealthy can hardly be expected to work hard unless it's what they like to do. I personally don't expect much of anything from them. It's nice when they use their money to build companies and provide jobs, but people in the middle-class can do that too, you don't need self-sustaining wealth to start a company, that's what business loans are for.
I guess *some* people might "expect" the "haves" to work their asses off and give free stuff to the "have-nots". I personally don't know any... don't remember actually meeting any. It's certainly not tenant of progressive or socialist thought. But your welcome to your delusions, they certainly amuse me. Although I do feel a slight pang of discomfort at seeing people like you bent over the table with your pants down, profusely defending those who are screwing you.
snowbear37 wrote:
The "government" now does legally what Jesse James had to use a gun to do.
I think a more accurate analogy is that the government does what Jesse's gun used to do and it's the people that control the government that does what Jesse used to do.
...and seriously, if there is any robbing going on it's the rich robbing the poor not the other way around. It's just that the rich tend to be smarter and seem to have no trouble confusing the poor about what's really happening. So... how is your ass feeling?