Anonymous wrote:

And finally, who gives a fuck whether you want to pay your taxes or not, you narcissistic twat? That's one of the core responsibilities of living in the United States. Just because the GOP has been able to distract a lot of angry poor people from the fact that they're getting fucked over by pitting elderly white people against "everyone else" ("I want my country back!!") doesn't mean that they'll be successful forever. At some point in the somewhat near future, those old folks are going to be dead, and the 95% of the country that's been getting the shaft is going to be coming after the money--either with pitchforks or with an adjustment to marginal tax rates.

I think you're mistaking "liberal ranting" for "disgust at supposedly educated Americans (you're educated? Really?....) who can't be bothered to read a newspaper, book, or any other source of information." I'm neither liberal nor conservative; but frankly willful ignorance disgusts me. And between the

Teabaggers and the various fringe-nuts

on the left and right, we're getting it in spades.

Wow! I just love that new civility that the left keeps touting so much...

Please, keep it up. At this rate, the democrats will win for sure in 2012.

And finally, who gives a fuck whether you want to pay your taxes or not, you narcissistic twat? That's one of the core responsibilities of living in the United States. Just because the GOP has been able to distract a lot of angry poor people from the fact that they're getting fucked over by pitting elderly white people against "everyone else" ("I want my country back!!") doesn't mean that they'll be successful forever. At some point in the somewhat near future, those old folks are going to be dead, and the 95% of the country that's been getting the shaft is going to be coming after the money--either with pitchforks or with an adjustment to marginal tax rates.

I think you're mistaking "liberal ranting" for "disgust at supposedly educated Americans (you're educated? Really?....) who can't be bothered to read a newspaper, book, or any other source of information." I'm neither liberal nor conservative; but frankly willful ignorance disgusts me. And between the

Teabaggers and the various fringe-nuts

on the left and right, we're getting it in spades.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone agrees that a couple making 400K a year is wealthy. And if you ask people on the street, many will say that those people aren't paying enough in taxes. If they don't say that, they sure don't sound grateful for the 50% we are contributing. I'm not looking for gratitude but I don't want to be told I don't pay my fair share and that I should start giving something back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

I don't believe that a tax code change qualifies as pitting one economic class against the other. Otherwise, Bush is guilty of class warfare.

Right, that's the part I don't understand. Right now we've got historically low tax rates. Raising those rates by some percentage is a legitimate policy option. How on Earth is talking about that option "warfare"? Are the wingnuts who want to privatize social security engaging in "class warfare" too?

Is that right? I am finding it hard to believe the conflicting sources I find online.

Here is my position. My DH and I make 400K a year. It's a lot, I know. (Trust me, I know because I did not come from any money at all.) But our effective tax rate is 50% (state, federal, SS, etc.). We have kids. It's frustrating to go to school for a long time, put in the years, work long hours, give half of your money to the government, and then be told you aren't giving enough. You are selfish and greedy.

Can you see why that might frustrate me?

And before someone goes there, let me say that just because I have worked long and hard it does not mean I don't realize that many people have worked long and hard to make much less. I know they have. I don't think that justifies a 50% effective tax rate.

No, because the proposed tax changes don't affect you. You would have to make 2.5 times that before the first penny of extra tax would come out of your pocket.

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll stop calling it class warfare when you stop calling the murder of innocent lives "pro choice".

Sure, but a fetus in the first two trimesters isn't "a life". So it's not "murder", and neither is a fetus in any sense "innocent". So you'll need to stop using the term "pro-life" and use "forced pregnancy advocate".

Forcibly taking money from high income earners to fund failed programs (stimulus) and new boondogles (Obamacare) and then branding the people who don't want to give up their money as evil is class warfare.

It would sound more convincing if you actually made enough to be part of that group.

PP is an "aspirational" douchebag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

I don't believe that a tax code change qualifies as pitting one economic class against the other. Otherwise, Bush is guilty of class warfare.

Right, that's the part I don't understand. Right now we've got historically low tax rates. Raising those rates by some percentage is a legitimate policy option. How on Earth is talking about that option "warfare"? Are the wingnuts who want to privatize social security engaging in "class warfare" too?

Is that right? I am finding it hard to believe the conflicting sources I find online.

Here is my position. My DH and I make 400K a year. It's a lot, I know. (Trust me, I know because I did not come from any money at all.) But our effective tax rate is 50% (state, federal, SS, etc.). We have kids. It's frustrating to go to school for a long time, put in the years, work long hours, give half of your money to the government, and then be told you aren't giving enough. You are selfish and greedy.

Can you see why that might frustrate me?

And before someone goes there, let me say that just because I have worked long and hard it does not mean I don't realize that many people have worked long and hard to make much less. I know they have. I don't think that justifies a 50% effective tax rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

I don't believe that a tax code change qualifies as pitting one economic class against the other. Otherwise, Bush is guilty of class warfare.

Right, that's the part I don't understand. Right now we've got historically low tax rates. Raising those rates by some percentage is a legitimate policy option. How on Earth is talking about that option "warfare"? Are the wingnuts who want to privatize social security engaging in "class warfare" too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

I don't believe that a tax code change qualifies as pitting one economic class against the other. Otherwise, Bush is guilty of class warfare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll stop calling it class warfare when you stop calling the murder of innocent lives "pro choice".

Sure, but a fetus in the first two trimesters isn't "a life". So it's not "murder", and neither is a fetus in any sense "innocent". So you'll need to stop using the term "pro-life" and use "forced pregnancy advocate".

Forcibly taking money from high income earners to fund failed programs (stimulus) and new boondogles (Obamacare) and then branding the people who don't want to give up their money as evil is class warfare.

It would sound more convincing if you actually made enough to be part of that group.

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll stop calling it class warfare when you stop calling the murder of innocent lives "pro choice".

Sure, but a fetus in the first two trimesters isn't "a life". So it's not "murder", and neither is a fetus in any sense "innocent". So you'll need to stop using the term "pro-life" and use "forced pregnancy advocate".

Forcibly taking money from high income earners to fund failed programs (stimulus) and new boondogles (Obamacare) and then branding the people who don't want to give up their money as evil is class warfare.

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.