Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are getting a tax cut. For 8 years Obama taxed the crap out of us. Unemployment is down, food stamp usage is down, can we have 6 more years of this please

Please shut the f#ck up with your pathetic lies. Tax burden was higher under Reagan than Obama:

lol wasn't obama responsible for continuing the Bush tax cuts? So he rode up the deficit and taxed Americans more than any other president at the same time? lol you guys!

What is the gross income for the data represented in this chart? What is the AGI? How is middle class defined? I’ve posted my tax picture before:

Obama year 2016

Single no dependents -income 130,000
Fed income tax. 23,000
Property tax 12000
State inc. tax. 4,000
Soc. Sec + Med. 10,000
Gas and sales abt. $ 2,000
No mortgage Interest to deduct. Taxes = $51,000.
Plus I pay student loans not deductible with AGI over 65,000

Am I middle class? Or am I the wealthy that needs to pay more?

Post your taxes that you pay.

So you own a million dollar house free and clear?

Anonymous wrote:[...]"Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.


The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 15
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Works of John Adams. Edited by Charles Francis Adams. 10 vols. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1850--56. See also: Butterfield; Cappon; Warren-Adams Letters

I found the more important words. Coincidentally, they are the part conservatives don't understand. Those puppets just voted to steal from 98% of us. Enjoy 2018, thief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are getting a tax cut. For 8 years Obama taxed the crap out of us. Unemployment is down, food stamp usage is down, can we have 6 more years of this please

Please shut the f#ck up with your pathetic lies. Tax burden was higher under Reagan than Obama:

lol wasn't obama responsible for continuing the Bush tax cuts? So he rode up the deficit and taxed Americans more than any other president at the same time? lol you guys!

What is the gross income for the data represented in this chart? What is the AGI? How is middle class defined? I’ve posted my tax picture before:

Obama year 2016

Single no dependents -income 130,000
Fed income tax. 23,000
Property tax 12000
State inc. tax. 4,000
Soc. Sec + Med. 10,000
Gas and sales abt. $ 2,000
No mortgage Interest to deduct. Taxes = $51,000.
Plus I pay student loans not deductible with AGI over 65,000

Am I middle class? Or am I the wealthy that needs to pay more?

Post your taxes that you pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like John Adams called it about right 230 years ago.

Precisely. The problem is that the liberals will neither read nor comprehend that quote, so I have something more pithy that basically says the same thing:

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin

You know who just voted themselves money? Millionaire GOP Senators.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as GNP continues to grow to 4% and beyond, and the stock market passes 25,000, his popularity will grow. In the end a good economy benefits everyone. Most people outside of the coasts have no idea what net neutrality is, and will not be effected by it. On the other hand, if they have good jobs and growing wages, they will have no desire to change the course.

Hillary’s popularity is shrinking.

FTFY

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

+ 1 We are now in a spot where half the people are "too poor" to contribute to the federal revenue base and liberals don't see a problem with that? Sorry, but if a poor person can afford to buy a $200 pair of sneakers, he can pay $100 to the government instead and "sacrifice" with a $100 pair.

Right, the "poors" should be REALLY suffering. They deserve that.

You probably think "trickle down" works too.

WTF? Having to "make do" with a $100 pair of sneakers is suffering? How awful we are, expecting poor people to go without a $200 pair. Heartless!

Yes, let's focus on what shoes people are wearing. That's the important thing here. F*ing scum conservatives.

Not only do you miss the point, you have to throw in cursing insults. Such a liberal you are!

LOL. "Liberal", as if it's an insult. Take a look in the mirror, you greedy scum. You focus on the poor while rich fill each others' pockets. Talk about unsustainable.

Anonymous wrote:Looks like John Adams called it about right 230 years ago.

Precisely. The problem is that the liberals will neither read nor comprehend that quote, so I have something more pithy that basically says the same thing:

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin

Looks like John Adams called it about right 230 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, let's focus on what shoes people are wearing. That's the important thing here. F*ing scum conservatives.

CHAPTER 16 | Document 15

John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
1787 Works 6:8--9

Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.


The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 15
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Works of John Adams. Edited by Charles Francis Adams. 10 vols. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1850--56. See also: Butterfield; Cappon; Warren-Adams Letters

Anonymous wrote:
You call me an idiot? How many times do I have to tell you that expecting a poor person to go without a $200 pair of sneakers is not a punishment. "You are going to have to wear a $100 pair of shoes as punishment for being poor!" These liberal attitudes that poor people are entitled to throw out (taxpayer) unnecessarily or otherwise they're being punished is the source of a lot of problems.

I hate disingenuous, strawman arguments. Newsflash, apparently breaking: many liberals know poor people - sometimes, liberals are poor people! - and poor people frequently go without. Not without $200 shoes, but with one or two pairs total. From Walmart. Handed down. TJMax. Goodwill.

You make assumptions about the behaviors of poor people based on the stories you hear from right wing media and it's total baloney. If businesses shared the vast profits they reap with people who actually do the work, you'd have fewer people needing assistance. Evidently this is a difficult concept for some.

Anonymous wrote:As long as GNP continues to grow to 4% and beyond, and the stock market passes 25,000, his popularity will grow. In the end a good economy benefits everyone. Most people outside of the coasts have no idea what net neutrality is, and will not be effected by it. On the other hand, if they have good jobs and growing wages, they will have no desire to change the course.

The GDP has not grown at 4% or beyond. You are already banking on a forecast of one single quarter. Go count the 4% growth quarters over the last eight years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

+ 1 We are now in a spot where half the people are "too poor" to contribute to the federal revenue base and liberals don't see a problem with that? Sorry, but if a poor person can afford to buy a $200 pair of sneakers, he can pay $100 to the government instead and "sacrifice" with a $100 pair.

Right, the "poors" should be REALLY suffering. They deserve that.

You probably think "trickle down" works too.

WTF? Having to "make do" with a $100 pair of sneakers is suffering? How awful we are, expecting poor people to go without a $200 pair. Heartless!

Yes, let's focus on what shoes people are wearing. That's the important thing here. F*ing scum conservatives.

Not only do you miss the point, you have to throw in cursing insults. Such a liberal you are!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's has nothing to do with "deserving". It's time the able bodied pick themselves up.

Can't subsidize them forever, even though you would like that to happen.

Intergenerational welfare has to stop.

Then why are you bitching about shoes?

That was ME talking about poor people wasting money on $200 shoes....not the PP you're replying to. Why do liberals always assume they are talking to ONE conservative? Can't you tell the difference in writing style and content? Jeez.

You mean there is more than one f-ing idiot dotard?

You dotards all want to punish people for their sins - being poor, getting pregnant, etc.

You call me an idiot? How many times do I have to tell you that expecting a poor person to go without a $200 pair of sneakers is not a punishment. "You are going to have to wear a $100 pair of shoes as punishment for being poor!" These liberal attitudes that poor people are entitled to throw out (taxpayer) unnecessarily or otherwise they're being punished is the source of a lot of problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

+ 1 We are now in a spot where half the people are "too poor" to contribute to the federal revenue base and liberals don't see a problem with that? Sorry, but if a poor person can afford to buy a $200 pair of sneakers, he can pay $100 to the government instead and "sacrifice" with a $100 pair.

Right, the "poors" should be REALLY suffering. They deserve that.

You probably think "trickle down" works too.

WTF? Having to "make do" with a $100 pair of sneakers is suffering? How awful we are, expecting poor people to go without a $200 pair. Heartless!

Yes, let's focus on what shoes people are wearing. That's the important thing here. F*ing scum conservatives.

Anonymous wrote:Given Trump’s huge unpopularity and the unpopularity of the net neutrality (80% was against the rollback) and the tax plan, when will people get fed up with GOP path? Will it only happen at the next election? Or are we going to see more open resistance?

I think Citizens United means they don’t have to care. They work for their donors and only their donors.