Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dems, the working poor, don't love class warfare, because they ARE LOSING THAT BATTLE. In the last 30 years 1% wealthy grows four fold while the middle class' wealth shrinks.
It's 51% as of 2009 based on a Congressional study.
This is your government telling you that 51% of Americans end up paying no federal income tax. That means 49% are carrying the burden for all.
This came out May 2011 so it's not new news.
No. Apparently this is too complex for you to understand. The lower 49% of wager earners do pay payroll tax. Which brings almost as much money in as income tax.
You want to only focus on income tax so you can make middle class and poor wage earners look bad.
Dems, the working poor, don't love class warfare, because they ARE LOSING THAT BATTLE. In the last 30 years 1% wealthy grows four fold while the middle class' wealth shrinks.
Exactly.
Look how bad the rich is doing in the "Class Warfare" that right wingers are crying about......boo hoo..
No. Apparently this is too complex for you to understand. The lower 49% of wager earners do pay payroll tax. Which brings almost as much money in as income tax. You want to only focus on income tax so you can make middle class and poor wage earners look bad.
Why are you confusing payroll tax with federal income tax ?
They are NOT the same.
No one is focusing on it..a question was asked where that 47% came from which upped to 51% in 2009.
They've found that it allows them to easily manipulate their base, and gets them so worked up that it distracts them from what the Democrats really do ...
Quote:
"What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place.
...Whatever the president's real motives are, the extensive series of loophole-rich financial "reforms" that the Democrats are currently pushing may ultimately do more harm than good. In fact, some parts of the new reforms border on insanity, threatening to vastly amplify Wall Street's political power by institutionalizing the taxpayer's role as a welfare provider for the financial-services industry. At one point in the debate, Obama's top economic advisers demanded the power to award future bailouts without even going to Congress for approval - and without providing taxpayers a single dime in equity on the deals."
"...a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics out Friday morning shows that Obama is relying more on Wall Street to fund his re-election this year than he did in 2008."
Imaginary sit down between Bill Gates and Bill Ayres circa 1979:
Gates: It's gotten to the point where you can get a computer that used to fill a room and cost a mint to buy & maintain. Now you can put it on a desk top. I envision a whole new industry. I envision thousands of fulfilling, well-paying jobs around the world, and a huge boon for my hometown of Seattle.
People could use them instead of typewriters--a $20,000 Wang word processor, right in your home. With a modem you could have a BBS (early 'internet'). Housewives could store their receipes [that was a much-talked-about potential application back then].
And I think it could make me a very rich man. I dropped out of Harvard to pursue it.
Ayers: So in other words, you're saying, you want to stick it to the poor. You want to steal what few coins they have jingling in their threadbare pockets. Then take the food right out of their mouths. Why you EE-VILLLE..... *rushes at Gates with uprasied fist...fade to black**
Imaginary sit down between Bill Gates and Bill Ayres circa 1979:
Gates: It's gotten to the point where you can get a computer that used to fill a room and cost a mint to buy & maintain. Now you can put it on a desk top. I envision a whole new industry. I envision thousands of fulfilling, well-paying jobs around the world, and a huge boon for my hometown of Seattle.
People could use them instead of typewriters--a $20,000 Wang word processor, right in your home. With a modem you could have a BBS (early 'internet'). Housewives could store their receipes [that was a much-talked-about potential application back then].
And I think it could make me a very rich man. I dropped out of Harvard to pursue it.
Ayers: So in other words, you're saying, you want to stick it to the poor. You want to steal what few coins they have jingling in their threadbare pockets. Then take the food right out of their mouths. Why you EE-VILLLE.....
I didn't read this post cause I got to the part where it said "Bill Ayers" and knew right away I was dealing with the stupidest, most inane, right wing propaganda. On par with birtherism.
What should be done is to focus the total tax burden on the wealthy v the poor and middle class.
In other words...
"Give me MORE free stuff!!! I'm special! I deserve it!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
