Patriotic or just plain stupid?

Let us remember that the "religious Right", those icons such as Pat Robertson, etc. get millions and yet pay NO TAXES AT ALL, not on their income, not property taxes on their houses, not sales tax on their purchases, not on their cars.

We are going through the Crytal Cathedral bankruptcy here, where it turns out every member of "Reverend" Shueller's family, every executive of the church, including the bookkeeper were getting HUGE TAX FREE "housing payments", some as larger as SIX FIGURES PER MONTH on TOP of a paycheck.

Oh, yeah, the rich are "smarter", all right! But "earned it"? For many, they are just better thieves and liars.

 

What a typically clueless retort.
What they are saying is that they support fair taxation of the rich, including themselves.

 

Stop making jealous comments, start learning to better yourself and become a millionaire yourself.

 

You have that right; and the populace on DP appear to be preparing by bending over. LOL

 

What a typically clueless retort; what I am saying is that it is idiotic to think that if these morons give more of their wealth to an irresponsible Government that wastes billions, the budget will suddenly balance itself.

What I am also saying is that if these morons want to throw away their money to Uncle Sam instead of doing something productive with, who is stopping them from sending MORE?

What I am saying is that I would rather see these clueless morons take the money and put it to good use through charities or investments rather than send it to a bunch of clueless fiscal morons in Washington who can't balance a check book.

Hopefully now you will "get it".

 

What a stupid claim; if this is all you can glean from my comments, it is obvious you have a comprehension problem.

 

That's just an inaccurate assumption. The rich aren't necessarily smarter. Many don't have to rudimentary intelligence to run their own 'money making machine' businesses. They hire others to do that for them. Coming up with a product or service that provides wealth does not translate to having high I.Q.'s. Luck, perseverance, good marketing and filling a need. That's what it takes.
The rest of your points are generally accurate though..with a few modifications.

 

Who the hell is stupid enough to think giving it to the Government is for the benefit of the Nation? The Government is the least responsible, least efficient, of all institutions, if they gave them 10, 000 dollars they would be lucky if the Nation got a thirty percent net usage of the money. Who could be that dumb?

Oh I know, anybody that is looking to push an agenda and really not do anything at all....Now, who would actually believe these people had honest intentions in the first place...? mmmm?
I know, the same type of people, with the same type of agenda....

Not all Democrats are Hypocrites, but most Hypocrites usually are Democrats.

 

So they don't pay their workers? Is that what you are saying?

"They only want to earn money"...oh horrors! How dare them!

 

Reagan did and Reagan tried; but he had a politician named Tipp O’Neil who was a crony Partisan Democrat who believed that things had to be his way or the highway. Of course those increases in taxes never did a thing to reduce the deficit.

Wrong again; but at least you are consistent; he agreed to a tax increase knowing that it was Democrats who controlled the house but then we have the lying Democrats who had also promised spending cuts which never materialized; again proving my case that tax increases have never led to balanced budgets.

Apparently you are immune to facts and selectively choose a tiny few you falsely think support your laughably naive notions about how Government works.

We could use a dose of sanity; something Progressive Liberals have never shown any comprehension of.

Wrong again; but you probably were too young to remember and your selective memory based on a Liberal bias prevent you from comprehending facts.

It was correct the first time; but again why would anyone expect you to comprehend that?

There you go again; pretending we didn’t have 9-11, fight two wars and deal with a huge natural disaster. Of course I am still waiting for the proof that one can fight wars without getting into deficits; Kosovo was a laughably stupid example.

But then you are desperate to support your laughably stupid claims as well.

Once again you are being very selective in your disingenuous hyperbole; 1950 top marginal rates go from 82% to 91% deficit for 1950 was 3.1 billion; 1951 budget surplus 6.1 billion thanks to no huge spending increases; 1952 budget deficit 1.5 billion; 1953 budget deficit 6.49 billion; 1954 budget deficit 1.15 billion………

What is evidenced is that the increase in tax rates did not cause a surplus and subsequently from 1950 to 1964 there were far greater deficits due to SPENDING than there were surpluses.

Your efforts to avoid the FACTS have been noted.

When marginal rates were increased again in 1968 and ‘69 from 70% to 75.5% and 78% we saw a massive increase in the deficit from 8.6 billion to 25.1 billion. Then a small surplus of 3.2 billion In 1969 to again a deficit of 2.8 billion the following year of 1970.

So when normal intelligent people look at this data; they can easily surmise that contrary to your desperate claims to the contrary, massive increases in tax rates do NOTHING to reduce deficits but rather, the SPENDING CUTS are what contribute to a balanced budget.

All Congress has to do is hold their spending to the normal increase in GDP in any given year to maintain a balanced budget indefinitely. Unfortunately and thanks to gullible idiots, they continue to spend this nation into a vast hole of debt with no end in sight and have gullible lemmings who clamor to have more of their wealth confiscated like these idiot millionaires on the idiot belief that suddenly politicians might become fiscally responsible. The historic record as I have shown, does not support that idiot assertion.

Cute, but quite stupid and uninformed given the data.

There you go again; pretending that wars are fought with surpluses.

 

People like me do not suffer if these moron millionaires do not have more of their wealth confiscated by an irresponsible Government. Where do you come up with this stupidity? My combined income for last year was in excess of $280K.

I find this rhetoric fascinatingly ignorant and quite common from uninformed Liberal Progressives claiming that more Government theft is good for the people.

I am quite certain that the irony of your own remarks escape you.

Carry on; facts are obviously not your forte'. But then, we expect this from Liberal Progressives Euro’s who lemming like believe that giving the Government more is a good idea.

 

And the non-taxation of some is what? Is that "fair?"

You don't want everyone to "pay their fair share" you just want the "rich" to pay more...period. And, the reason being is because you probably are not "rich" you probably did not risk, or chance anything in your life...you probably do not provide jobs, pay more taxes then 70% of the country already, support your community as much as that "rich" guy...and you most likely work for one that you despise. It's a shame that instead of admiring someone who does all of that, you would instead want to strip away more of their success. You do not aspire to make it on your own, you only aspire to take the wealth of others...that's a shame. You must not feel very good about yourself.

 

I find it amusing how so many people are willing to be beat over the head with the same Hammer...

 

Wow, this is a great thread.

 

The Dems didn't have veto override majorities.

I am correct as a matter of fact.

The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/02/ba...-taxes-opinions-contributors-rob-shapiro.html

Posted above.

I'm not the one fabricating facts.

Bush got hammered by Buchanan for it far more than Clinton.

Due to Bush turning his back on his "read my lips" pledge, Buchanan found support in the economically battered and conservative state of New Hampshire. Making Bush's tax-hikes a central theme of his campaign, Buchanan enjoyed healthy grass-roots support despite lagging behind the President in pre-primary polling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1992

There you go again, making excuses for the spend crazy republicans while laughably attempting to give them credit for Clinton's surplus.l

Some folks think facts are better support than your laughably stupid blather. That is up to them.

It was in fact *another* example of a tax increase being followed by a surplus in response to your implied assertion it never happened.

What is your evidence that it did?

Do you have a clue of what FACTS are?

If so, please explain how the historic record of tax increases and surpluses I cited with references to official sources are not FACTS.

So what? I never claimed that a deficits didn't happen after a moderate tax increase.

Take your strawman elsewhere.

Normal intelligent people understand that when you have a moderate increase in tax rates that increases tax revenues.

All the government had to do was continue the same course it was on in 2000, when the biggest budget problem we had was whether the Clinton surpluses would be too big.

Boy did we take a wrong turn.

No, completely consistent with the data.

Strawman.

 

There you have it folks, ignore the historic record of Government spending, ignore the fact that Liberals continue to rant about Republican deficits that pale in comparison to Democrat deficits and ignore the fact that deficits are the result of too much spending and not revenue.

Yes folks, in the idiot world of Liberals, the ONLY reason we have a fiscal problem in State and Federal budgets is because those darned rich people are not taxed enough.

This is the lunatic bizzarro world of the Liberal who hypocritically believes that Government is a GOOD thing; but only if their "deciders" are in charge and that every societal problem can be solved by allowing the legal theft of massive amounts of our hard earned wealth.

Do not ask them for historic results of their efforts; after all, we should not judge their ideology by its massive failure to produce any results, but rather by the fact that these uninformed hypocrites care more than anyone else.

 

There you have it folks, after the lame attempt to make an argument has been destroyed, a steaming pile of putrid sniveling and whining without an iota of fact, evidence, logic or reason, ranting and insulting others which is all that ideological, hyper-partison ignorant morons in the world of conservatives can come up with.

Carry on.

 

Patriotic Lapel Pins.

Somehow, I suspect that corrupt politicians display patriotic lapel pins most often. They know that when it comes to patriotism, Americans are easily persuaded. Patriotism is the Achilles heel of their constituents. It impairs their judgment. Ron Paul appears to be our most thoughtful, patriotic candidate for the White House. Yet, he seldom wears a lapel pin.