Ending BUSH Tax Cuts

[Mensch1351]

I voted that ALL the tax cuts should end -- then let the Democrats introduce a bill to reduce middle income tax cuts and let the Republicans defend the wealthy for inclusion.

You know --- while I don't begrudge anyone the "right" to earn whatever they can.................just how much money does any ONE person/family need in this life??? My parents were successful "union" middle class people (who tended to vote Republican by the way). But in their ENTIRE LIVES they probably never earned more than $1.5 million ($50K per year over 40 years would be $2 million) and my dad was earning $47.00 per week when they married in 1946!

Soooooooooooooooo -- I accumulate $10 million, $20 million, $50 million+ in this life and I live VERY VERY comfortably --- while I see (or vote) for those who may not have had the advantage of college, etc. to make $10 per hour!!! I support industries who outsource good jobs overseas because they can hire 24 Chinese for what they pay 1 American. I don't really seem "grateful" for the hundreds of people who work for me at a lower pay because I need my yearly profit margin to be "greater than" the year before. I'm willing to charge "whatever the market will bear" for my product. I have really no concept what it's like to live off of $35,000 per year because I'm WAY out of that reality. And for whatever reason I feel little obligation to give back to my country in a "fair share" of taxes for the tremendous opportunity it has provided me to EARN such great wealth. I constantly manuever the systerm in MY favor because after all, "I am a wealth creator, so I deserve........and every body else doesn't!" I'm just trying hard here to REALLY understand the mindset of the wealthy?

You want the truth -- the plain, God awful truth??
Whatever you amass over your lifetime will dissapate within 5 generations (yes -- it will be "spread around!")
If you pay $10,000 per HOUR for a really really nice nursing home when you're old -- the quality of care you'll receive will be directly related to the ATTITUDE of the person working that shift!
And if you died tomorrow -- everything you hold "dear" will either be sold, given away, or taken out to the trash!

Just HOW MUCH becomes "enough"???

You see -- for some unknown reason I always believed that in America, that it was the "obligation" of the wealthy to be so grateful for what this country allowed them to become that they might in some way feel some compulsion to create ways to pull the rest of the "less" fortunate up.

And for my final "rant" --- I'm sick to death of the conservatives touting that we live in a CHRISTIAN nation, when I see absolutely nothing in their attitude that even remotely resembles Christianity when it comes to MONEY!

If God has blessed you financially the REAL question he'll ask you in a face to face is going to be, "I blessed you beyond your wildest imagination in a country that I blessed beyond it's wildest dreams. BUT -- I blessed you to BE a blessing, not to buy more houses, fancier cars, take nicer vacations and consume 50% of the world's good while you only occupied 5% of the world's population. How did what I gave you benefit -- ME? Did you even "see" the "least of these" or did you just moan that somehow you were asked to give MORE because you HAD more? How could you sleep at night when your brother/sister cried for bread, medical care, etc. And this was in your own nation -- not in some foreign land!"

Maybe the wealthy need to look up all those passages in the New Testament that deal with the "rich"! Then once again look in the mirror and ask, "Just how MUCh is -------- enough?" Or to quote Rick Warren, "I believe it's NOT a sin to BE rich -- but I do believe it's a sin to DIE rich!"

 

[Mensch1351]

One final quote I haven't heard in a long time: The rich help the poor in THIS life -- the poor help the rich in the life to come!" Another truth -- "when the church did away with the threat of a retributive hell --- all hell broke loose!" THAT's a quote from ME!

 

[KTF40]

And for my final "rant" --- I'm sick to death of the conservatives touting that we live in a CHRISTIAN nation, when I see absolutely nothing in their attitude that even remotely resembles Christianity when it comes to MONEY!

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

"Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election."

If you can find any evidence that states this is factually innaccurate, feel free to post it.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Eat the rich. Take everything they own and split it amongst ourselves. If they protest, shoot them. Especially financial industry workers. Or maybe we should just force them in prison cells and then flea bomb them to death, the fate parasites deserve.

I've been calling for prison cells for years for these theives... They refused to be held accountable, so now we'll have to riot if they keep this shit up.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

"Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election."

If you can find any evidence that states this is factually innaccurate, feel free to post it.

lololol... From the article describing how they drew this far reaching conclusion...

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sounds very scientific to me!


In other news, researchers have discovered that conservatives lack a normal human brain. They have only a brain stem capable of performing basic motor functions like eating, shitting, complaining and reproducing... but sadly a conservative cannot think for themselves or adapt to a changing environment, and must rely on constant adult supervision for survival.

 

[dandelion]

Just an observation: people are moaning about the rich, but I would think most wealth is indirectly controlled in the form of companies. Company directors control that wealth and have absolutely no social conscience as a rich man might (might!). Directors have an absolute duty to make as much money as possibe. Not give away a penny. No enlightened rich men any more running companies thinking about either the well being of their workers or of the state they operate in. Some people suggested bill gates shouldnt be taxed so much, but bill gates has decided he isnt being taxed enough and has been giving the money away to social causes as fast it comes in. Might wonder what has happened to all the microsoft money which went to other shareholders?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

"Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election."

If you can find any evidence that states this is factually innaccurate, feel free to post it.

Considering the issue completely embodies class warfare and not the typical partisan liberal/conservative drivel, this entire post of yours is rather irrelevant. But yeah, "go red states", eh?

 

[Mensch1351]

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

"Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election."

If you can find any evidence that states this is factually innaccurate, feel free to post it.

And here is another interesting part of the article:
Rich vs. Poor
The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations. But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

 

[maxcok]

And here is another interesting part of the article:
Rich vs. Poor
The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations. But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

I posted some information on this awhile back in another thread here.

It demolishes the myth that the rich are charitable and the poor benefit from their largesse.

 

[KTF40]

And here is another interesting part of the article:
Rich vs. Poor
The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations. But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Well that may be true, but the point of my post is I'm just saying no need to blast Republicans when a study proves they are more charitable than Democrats.

lololol... From the article describing how they drew this far reaching conclusion...

Sounds very scientific to me!

That was just some 20/20 study. The actual study they cite for "real evidence" if you will was done by a professor at Syracuse University.

Considering the issue completely embodies class warfare and not the typical partisan liberal/conservative drivel, this entire post of yours is rather irrelevant. But yeah, "go red states", eh?

I like how you pay attention and focus on the rich vs poor portion of the study, but completely ignore the republican vs democrat part of the study.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I like how you pay attention and focus on the rich vs poor portion of the study, but completely ignore the republican vs democrat part of the study.

I didn't ignore anything. I don't have to copy/paste or refute everything you type. However, if you really pay attention to what's going on you'd realize that the Republican vs. Democrat part is irrelevant. That is, unless, you want to assume that one party has no poor people in it or vice versa and I know you don't want to risk looking that foolish around here.

The issue regarding taxes has ALWAYS been about social & financial class before any political affiliation, race or any other divisive label comes into play. The greedy people in power always want to make it about everything else besides their financial gluttony and their desperation to obtain more at the expense of everyone else. So yeah, you can try to have your fruitless point about whether or not red states donate more money to charity than blue states if you want. All I know is when I decide to give back to my community or provide a voice for those who are struggling out there, I don't do so with the intention of only helping out "poor liberals". Too bad you can't seem to let go of your own political dogmatism if even for a moment.

 

[deleted15807]

Tax cuts have been the conservative answer for any and all political conditions. Economy is good? Cut taxes to stimulate further growth. Economy is bad? Cut taxes to reduce the drag on growth. Tax revenue is up? cut taxes to reward the people who paid in. Tax revenue is down? Cut taxes because the Laffer Curve ensures that revenue will go up if you do so. Nation at war? Cut taxes for no obvious reason. Nation at peace? Cut taxes to enjoy a peace dividend. And of course those tax cuts are aimed at the wealthiest Americans more than anybody else. And of course the wealthy hate taxes more than anything else.

 

[KTF40]

I didn't ignore anything. I don't have to copy/paste or refute everything you type. However, if you really pay attention to what's going on you'd realize that the Republican vs. Democrat part is irrelevant. That is, unless, you want to assume that one party has no poor people in it or vice versa and I know you don't want to risk looking that foolish around here.

The issue regarding taxes has ALWAYS been about social & financial class before any political affiliation, race or any other divisive label comes into play. The greedy people in power always want to make it about everything else besides their financial gluttony and their desperation to obtain more at the expense of everyone else. So yeah, you can try to have your fruitless point about whether or not red states donate more money to charity than blue states if you want. All I know is when I decide to give back to my community or provide a voice for those who are struggling out there, I don't do so with the intention of only helping out "poor liberals". Too bad you can't seem to let go of your own political dogmatism if even for a moment.

The truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. Like I said to the poster above, feel free to provide evidence that states otherwise. Until then, this fact can't be ignored as you seem to want to do.

And please don't ignore this quote either which has nothing to do with money from the link I posted which directly contradicts your class warfare argument.

"And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

There's also a fact mentioned in the study that states conservatives donate more of their time to charity than liberals, but I can't find the exact quote at the moment. Just general statements saying that. Apparently there is a statement in this article that says so but I can't be arsed to pay for it. Charity's Political Divide - News - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas

And as a conservative who volunteers for the Red Cross, I can say that I would only provide further evidence to validate those claims.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Republicans are more charitable than Democrats.

And now you're treading in territory that makes you look even more ignorant. You've based this ignorance on information as pertaining to states and how they usually vote during a presidential election, instead of looking at the actual individuals who do the contributing.

Like I said to the poster above, feel free to provide evidence that states otherwise. Until then, this fact can't be ignored as you seem to want to do.

Your fact can be ignored because ultimately, whether or not Republicans are more charitable (by state) is no indicator as to who we should listen to when it comes to taxes. Yes, I know it sucks that you worked so hard to have an "indisputable fact", but please stop trying to distort the issue with such irrelevant banter.

And please don't ignore this quote either which has nothing to do with money from the link I posted which directly contradicts your class warfare argument.

"And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

I love how you're trying to spin every piece of info you can to make it seem as if everyone should be adhering to the conservative plan when it comes to Bush's Tax Cuts all because of some vague studies based on charitable states and whether or not someone donates blood. Keep discrediting yourself, please. It's fun watching you scavenge among political tripe and partisan sewage to have an unavailing discussion point.

And as a conservative who volunteers for the Red Cross, I can say that I would only provide further evidence to validate those claims.

I don't care where you work or who you volunteer at. It doesn't make you an expert on the subject matter by any stretch of your fragmented imagination. Seriously, if I was really interested in attacking your beliefs and proving you wrong (again), it wouldn't be that hard to do. It would be very easy to take every single state that tends to vote Republican during a presidential election, break the actual vote down by district to get a percentage as to how many people voted one way or the other, and use corresponding census data to correlate the amount of people in each district to charity if you REALLY wanted to see if Liberals or Conservatives are more charitable... something that I know you can't (and won't do) because it would expose your ignorance even further. However, I'm not going to bother cluttering this thread with such nonsense because, as I stated before several times, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

Now, can you stay on topic or do you need to continually jerk off to some distorted figures about supposed conservative generosity? Your call.

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

The truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. Like I said to the poster above, feel free to provide evidence that states otherwise. Until then, this fact can't be ignored as you seem to want to do.

And please don't ignore this quote either which has nothing to do with money from the link I posted which directly contradicts your class warfare argument.

"And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

There's also a fact mentioned in the study that states conservatives donate more of their time to charity than liberals, but I can't find the exact quote at the moment. Just general statements saying that. Apparently there is a statement in this article that says so but I can't be arsed to pay for it. Charity's Political Divide - News - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas

And as a conservative who volunteers for the Red Cross, I can say that I would only provide further evidence to validate those claims.

democratic poor live on welfare and feel they are owed, repulbican poor work for what they can get and are embarrased to take handouts.

 

[maxcok]

The truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. Like I said to the poster above, feel free to provide evidence that states otherwise.

Please feel free to provide unbiased factual evidence that proves your idiotic premise first.

There's also a fact mentioned in the study that states conservatives donate more of their time to charity than liberals, but I can't find the exact quote at the moment. Just general statements saying that.

..

And as a conservative who volunteers for the Red Cross, I can say that I would only provide further evidence to validate those claims.

Yes, your unverifiable anecdotal self-sacrifice is just the icing on the validation cake, ain't it?

You're a fukn ideological illogical idiot, and nothing you say here has any merit.

democratic poor live on welfare and feel they are owed, repulbican poor work for what they can get and are embarrased to take handouts.

And you're a bigger one.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

democratic poor live on welfare and feel they are owed, repulbican poor work for what they can get and are embarrased to take handouts.

This couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the correlation of state populations and their unemployment rates, could it?

I mean, if we really want to use statistics, California, New York and Texas are in the top
three for welfare caseloads in this country -

California: 1,085,627
New York: 341,004
Texas: 333,435
Welfare Caseloads total recipients (most recent) by state

Are the most populated -
1. California (39,9 mil)
2. Texas (24,78 mil.)
3. New York (19,5 mil.)

And all have high unemployment rates as of October 2010:
California - 12.4
New York - 8.3
Texas - 8.1
Unemployment Rates for States


Nah... according to you it's all about the mindsets of Democrats and Republicans, and your bigoted beliefs about both. Screw the numbers of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You just know people and how they think based on who they vote on.

So much for hoping this thread would be free from rabid ignorance.

 

[B_RedDude]

Since, according to you, poor Republicans scrape more and don't rely on the government, is that why so many more of them seem to be white trash?

democratic poor live on welfare and feel they are owed, repulbican poor work for what they can get and are embarrased to take handouts.

 

[KTF40]

And now you're treading in territory that makes you look even more ignorant. You've based this ignorance on information as pertaining to states and how they usually vote during a presidential election, instead of looking at the actual individuals who do the contributing.

No, I base it upon an academic study that includes that factor as well as a variety of others.

For example, findings like this "Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)", cannot be explained just by state by state comparisons. This also included in the study.

Your fact can be ignored because ultimately, whether or not Republicans are more charitable (by state) is no indicator as to who we should listen to when it comes to taxes. Yes, I know it sucks that you worked so hard to have an "indisputable fact", but please stop trying to distort the issue with such irrelevant banter.

I've never stated that so this statement is irrelevant. This is you thinking you know what my opinion is on the matter of taxes. But of course, you don't know what my opinion is because I haven't stated it.

I love how you're trying to spin every piece of info you can to make it seem as if everyone should be adhering to the conservative plan when it comes to Bush's Tax Cuts all because of some vague studies based on charitable states and whether or not someone donates blood. Keep discrediting yourself, please. It's fun watching you scavenge among political tripe and partisan sewage to have an unavailing discussion point.

Where have I said, "everyone should be adhering to the conservative plan when it comes to Bush's Tax Cuts?"

I haven't you fucking moron.

Tell you what, just to prove what a dumb shitbag you really are, I disagreed with the Bush tax cuts. When you're going to fight two wars, it's not the time for tax cuts unless you are going to offset them somehow which wasn't done. Does that sound like me telling everyone to follow conservatives on tax policy? Of course not, dummyboy.

I don't care where you work or who you volunteer at. It doesn't make you an expert on the subject matter by any stretch of your fragmented imagination. Seriously, if I was really interested in attacking your beliefs and proving you wrong (again), it wouldn't be that hard to do. It would be very easy to take every single state that tends to vote Republican during a presidential election, break the actual vote down by district to get a percentage as to how many people voted one way or the other, and use corresponding census data to correlate the amount of people in each district to charity if you REALLY wanted to see if Liberals or Conservatives are more charitable... something that I know you can't (and won't do) because it would expose your ignorance even further. However, I'm not going to bother cluttering this thread with such nonsense because, as I stated before several times, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

Now, can you stay on topic or do you need to continually jerk off to some distorted figures about supposed conservative generosity? Your call.

Please do this. Please provide your own academic study that disproves the findings of the one I posted. Stop bitching and whining at every single one of my posts and provide some actual evidence that disproves the academic study that is posted.

Until then, you can put that liberal dick back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.

Please feel free to provide unbiased factual evidence that proves your idiotic premise first.

If an academic study by a professor at a liberal institution like Syracuse University isn't enough for you, that's too fucking bad. Go cry about it. Tell you what, why don't you post any study, biased or not, that disproves the one done by the professor.

Yes, your unverifiable anecdotal self-sacrifice is just the icing on the validation cake, ain't it?

You can pay to see the article for yourself if you want. Don't need to take my word for it.

You're a fukn ideological illogical idiot, and nothing you say here has any merit.

Coming from you of all people, that really means.... nothing lol

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No, I base it upon an academic study that includes that factor as well as a variety of others.

Stop lying. You provided one link, saw a few words that you wanted to see and ran with it.

I've never stated that so this statement is irrelevant. This is you thinking you know what my opinion is on the matter of taxes. But of course, you don't know what my opinion is because I haven't stated it.

Trust me, you're not that deep of a thinker. If I made a wild guess, I'm sure I'd hit it right on the nail and you'd deny it.

Where have I said, "everyone should be adhering to the conservative plan when it comes to Bush's Tax Cuts?" I haven't you fucking moron.

Well, if you haven't paid attention the Bush Tax Cuts IS the thread topic. You're the one who came on this thread talking about states that are more charitable. It's almost as if you walked into a Star Trek Convention and in the middle of a discussion between whether or not Vulcans can have better sex than William Shatner, you stood up and yelled that you knew how to take a shit in a bucket. The similarities are glaring. But I digress, of course... I was trying to give you the benefit of a doubt, that you had an actual point that was somewhat related to the thread topic. Alas, just like your assumption of me being a fucking moron, I shouldn't have assumed that you can figure out when actual words or dog feces comes flying out of your hole. I guess everyone can make mistakes once in a while, eh?

Tell you what, just to prove what a dumb shitbag you really are, I disagreed with the Bush tax cuts.

Well, that doesn't prove anything except that you know how to swear. And we all know you're full of shit so that excrement will come out of any orifice on your body. We've come to expect that from you around here. But please, do continue.

When you're going to fight two wars, it's not the time for tax cuts unless you are going to offset them somehow which wasn't done. Does that sound like me telling everyone to follow conservatives on tax policy? Of course not, dummyboy.

Keep preaching the obvious, Aristotle.

Please do this. Please provide your own academic study that disproves the findings of the one I posted. Stop bitching and whining at every single one of my posts and provide some actual evidence that disproves the academic study that is posted. Until then, you can put that liberal dick back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.

Well, if I could self suck then I would be in porn. But I digress... it's wonderful to see that you're so desperate to piss me off that you're willing to embed a homophobic attack into your already politically bigoted nonsense. As if having a dick in my mouth is supposed to be a bad thing. You do realize telling that to a gay man doesn't really have the same impact as telling it to one of your boyfriends that you secretly want to blow, right? Of course not. Maybe if someone was sucking on your dick on a regular basis, you wouldn't even had to have resorted to such a ridiculous annotation?

But who'd fuck a dumbass like you?

If an academic study by a professor at a liberal institution like Syracuse University isn't enough for you, that's too fucking bad. Go cry about it. Tell you what, why don't you post any study, biased or not, that disproves the one done by the professor.

*YAWN* You're gonna make this too easy for me, aren't ya?
First off, the ABC News article you sourced obtained opinions from a questionable person by the name of Arthur Brooks in 2006, based on findings he published in a book on the compassionate conservative around the same time, which was four years ago and before our current recession. If you weren't so busy looking for the usual "LIBERAL BAD" nonsense to post you may have been able to do your own research and put together a more accurate finding that reflects the current state of our nation. But no, you wanted to tell me to shut the fuck up instead. Brilliant.

You could have then used your own brain (instead of hiding behind the thoughts of a professor since you obviously don't have the cerebral capacity to come up with your own arguments) and created a refutal using a ranking of charitable states as of December 2009 like this one and also a chart of our country based on election results like this one. But no, you'd rather call me a fucking moron. Stellar.

You could have then looked at the lists of highest charitable states (based on percentage) and found that out of the five listed, THREE of them are Blue States as of the 2008 Election. You could have also looked at the second level and saw out of the 30 states listed, 19 out of 30 are Blue States as of the 2008 Election. And ironically in the lowest percentile, 8 out of the 14 states that are listed the majority of them were Red States as of the 2009 Election. That's contradictory to your "red states are more charitable than blue states" garbage of before and I didn't need to pay any website to read their articles in order to figure this out either... I mean, if that was really the thread discussion and I really cared at all what comes out of your mouth.

At this point you can take your political bigotry and get out my face. But I already know that you're foaming at the mouth to shoot down my counterargument only because the professor that's telling you what you want to hear has degrees and is printed on a major news website. Go ahead and assume it, formulate another ignorant response and make a fool of yourself some more. Adhere to that overplayed, LPSG politically bigoted script... that's what morons like you always do around here.

You didn't learn the last time you and I sparred on this board. I embarrassed you then and I'll have no problem doing it again. Now kindly, little boy, stay on topic or shut the fuck up.