Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by madgator, Jan 21, 2014.
hey , where can i find a class for this 'reading comprhehension' at? LMAO
research the OPPOSING view on redistribution of wealth. try it. you'll hate it, but you'll possibly come away understanding that it's all not black and white. including your view.
No. He should have created a simple flattened system with no deductions or credits and paid for the war by setting the rates accordingly.
You nor I know the intelligence that had a majority of congress vote to send this country to war...
Google it. Because apparently you have trouble with it...
I am on record as saying Iraq was a huge and costly mistake but while it added to our debt it did not take away from all the liberal social programs- why I am expected to pay in more taxes for liberal social programs which your boy has gone crazy adding to
i used to think like you. the flat rate. but it does impose more hardship on the poor. you're welcome to research that too.
None of this is "redistribution".
I love how instead of showing the actual percentage of the tax cut each person got it takes a person making $3 million and compares it dollar wise to an average middle class family. When in reality most of the millionaires earnings had the rate only dropped from 39.1% to 35% while the middle class family enjoyed much larger drops (yes the rich person enjoyed these drops as well but not on most of their earnings)...
Oh and btw...that millionaire did not get the actual redistribution of doubling the child tax credit or the stimulate the economy credit. They paid for them. Now maybe they had a clunker to trade in...
No. It makes Washington (edit:would make Washington) act responsibly verse using pawns it can control.
Will I get the garbage you posted with an envy agenda verse reality?
Sorry if I offended you. It was truly an attempt at humor. Forgot the smiley face.
what does not impose more hardship on the truly poor than the less poor, middle class upper middle class moderately rich rich and the filthy rich?
You shouldn't even bother trying to engage in a discussion with a liberal when they can't even define the terms they are arguing about. There is not ONE liberal on this board who has defined the term "the rich" with specific figures. They won't because they like to argue the abstract, not the specific. Does "the rich" start at $100K, $250K, $30K? They refuse to give a definition.
It is just like they care about the idea behind a plan, not the results. If the results don't match their idea, they just want to throw more money at it. They can't seem to grasp the notion that results are what actually matter, not the idea behind it. If the results show the policy is a failure, then it should be scrapped or modified. But, they refuse to even consider either of those options. They just want to take more from "the rich". I guess their definition of "the rich" is really "everybody but me" because they are too embarrassed to actually give their definition.
A grammar refresher class wouldn't hurt either.
Well they seem to have a right to my hard earned money
Got a letter from Aetna today. Looks like we will have to find another doctor. Our doctor, the one my kids have had since birth, will no longer be covered under our "new and improved" plan.
I am amazed that Obama hasn't already been run out of Washington... Nixon was for lies that were considerably less damaging to Americans. Of course, when compared to Obama, Nixon was a class act.