Shocker: Politicians getting richer; 7 out of the top 10 are democrats.

There's nothing wrong with Democratic politicians working loopholes in the system to line their own pockets. We've had this discussion already.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] There's nothing wrong with Democratic politicians working loopholes in the system to line their own pockets.[/QUOTE]

Damn, this is how Democrats get rich? I'm doing it wrong.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']I know this will come as a HUGE SHOCK to the people here who are hypnotised into believing that the democrats (or any politician for that matter) are your friends, but here we go:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...ast-year-as-economy-faltered#mwpphu-container

Democrat defense force in 3,2,1...[/QUOTE]

You're like a back-ass country hick who throws his trash in the river and high-tails in outta there.

On the off-chance that you are still reading this thread, the problem is that you may hear but you never fucking listen.

Anyone with half a brain knows that almost all of the politicians have sold us out. The only choice remaining is whether you want to choose the party that is transparently cheerleading policy for the rich (Republicans) or the party that divies most of the money to the rich but provides a meager amount of services to the other 95 percent of us (Democrats)

We have two parties, right and farther right. We call moderates "socialists".
 
[quote name='camoor']You're like a back-ass country hick who throws his trash in the river and high-tails in outta there.

On the off-chance that you are still reading this thread, the problem is that you may hear but you never fucking listen.

Anyone with half a brain knows that almost all of the politicians have sold us out. The only choice remaining is whether you want to choose the party that is transparently cheerleading policy for the rich (Republicans) or the party that divies most of the money to the rich but provides a meager amount of services to the other 95 percent of us (Democrats)

We have two parties, right and farther right. We call moderates "socialists".[/QUOTE]

Democrats giving meager services to people, LOL. You mean money to big pharma, political contributers, etc?

And I'm a hick? Why don't you take one giant step back and think about the fact that while democrat and republican lawmakers have turned america into their own personal cheerleaders, they get richer while we get poorer.

And you are here arguing over democrats giving more meager help? You are seriously delusional and one of the main reasons why these politicians have been allowed to ass rape America.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Democrats giving meager services to people, LOL. You mean money to big pharma, political contributers, etc?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']or the party that divies most of the money to the rich but provides a meager amount of services to the other 95 percent of us (Democrats)[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']divies most of the money to the rich[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']rich[/QUOTE]

[quote name='AdultLink']big pharma, political contributers, etc?[/QUOTE]

derp
 
Cheerleader party of the rich versus giving most of their money to the rich and providing meager services... Try reading better.

Both are cheerleading parties of the rich. Unless you somehow can think for yourselves soon, they will take everything from you while telling you to attack the other side.

Stop being a dumbass and think about the situation.
 
Tell me, which party has Senatorial candidates trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

Sorry, not 'destroy', it's called 'privatize' now.
 
The amount that politicians get paid isn't a democrat or republican thing, its just a straight up waste of our money. Regular salary is $174,000 and the majority and minority leaders get an extra $20,000 on top of that. The Speaker of the House? A whopping $223,000

This puts them, with their salary alone (not counting their spouse's), in the 94th percentile among average US Household incomes. Let's not even get started on all their reimbursements for expenses...

If we absolutely have to spend that money on government salaries, give it to the people who do the real hard work and matter, teachers, fireman, military, police, etc.
 
Wait, how is the fact that the extremely wealthy are becoming wealthier an attack on *Democrats*?

This is fucking stupid. You want to see their wealth not grow as much? Support rolling back the Bush tax cuts.
 
You really think the democrats would do that? That would be the least of our worries anyway. We need to get rid of corporations grip on washington, reverse that ruling on corporations giving unlimited amounts of money to congress critters, reduce high executive payouts and remove golden parachutes, rebuild the middle class....

It would go a long way if people would stop fighting each other and start figuring out who the enemy truly is. It doesn't matter what measily amount the democrats or republicans give people, the buck stops with them.
 
[quote name='AdultLink'] Democrat defense force in 3,2,1...[/QUOTE]

You're so rabidly partisan AdultLink. Take some advice from this brilliant guy:

[quote name='AdultLink']It would go a long way if people would stop fighting each other and start figuring out who the enemy truly is.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='AdultLink']It would go a long way if people would stop fighting each other and start figuring out who the enemy truly is.[/QUOTE]

This sentence might have borne a little more weight if you hadn't, you know, gone with such a divisive thread title.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']This sentence might have borne a little more weight if you hadn't, you know, gone with such a divisive thread title.[/QUOTE]

Would the title have been better if it said "3 out of top ten are Republicans"?
 
I will say this - AdultLink is suddenly making more sense then he ever did before.

Of course it's kind of like the 3rd episode of "The Biggest Loser" - AL sure you made a little progress but you've got a long way to go kiddo.

Look at it this way - at least you aren't UB, that guy is fucking hopeless.
 
[quote name='camoor']Look at it this way - at least you aren't UB, that guy is fucking hopeless.[/QUOTE]

Says the guy who can rarely make a post without hurling personal insults at those he disagrees with. Two thumbs up.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] You want to see their wealth not grow as much? Support rolling back the Bush tax cuts.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately this would weaken the economy and possibly lead to another recession. Don't take it from me, economists make this convincing claim. The rich spend the most money on our goods and services. Now after we get out of this economic crisis then we should definitely roll back the tax cuts and increase them even further.
 
[quote name='J7.']Unfortunately this would weaken the economy and possibly lead to another recession. Don't take it from me, economists make this convincing claim. The rich spend the most money on our goods and services. Now after we get out of this economic crisis then we should definitely roll back the tax cuts and increase them even further.[/QUOTE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Yeah, that isn't this guy's thesis. Of course, Krugman is a flaming socialist pig.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Yeah, that isn't this guy's thesis. Of course, Krugman is a flaming socialist pig.[/QUOTE]

It is hilarious to see someone argue that making a TAX CUT permanent would be GIVING money to the person receiving the tax cut. Isn't it their money to begin with? So if it is their money to begin with, wouldn't it be more like the government not taking as much, instead of the government giving them money lol.

Thats like saying the money we get back at the end of the year from paying our taxes is just extra money the government is nice enough to give us, and that we are actually gaining something from it.

I also wonder how many of those people making $500,000+ just sit on the hands with all their money, and don't do any good with it for the economy. Oh thats right rich people don't spend money...

Anyways this isnt about rich people making money, its about rich politicians making money. They (millionaires) are all evil you know, nearly all 3,000,000 of them in the US (I find a 1 in a 100 shot to be a millionaire pretty good). They probably all inherited their money anyway, theres no way any of them built their wealth from the ground up, and even if they did, they deserve to distribute it to people less fortunate because they don't make enormous charitable donations as it is. They probably hoard all of their money in offshore accounts so that they don't have to pay taxes,(curious) and never spend a dime in this country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']I also wonder how many of those people making $500,000+ just sit on the hands with all their money, and don't do any good with it for the economy. Oh thats right rich people don't spend money...[/QUOTE]

How many times must we kill this mythology about trickle-down economics? It's like the Hydra, disprove one trickle-down thread with facts and two pop up in it's place.
 
[quote name='camoor']How many times must we kill this mythology about trickle-down economics? It's like the Hydra, disprove one trickle-down thread with facts and two pop up in it's place.[/QUOTE]

Consider the source, who do you think would win in a debate about economics?

Nobel prize winner or whatever the hell knoell does?
 
[quote name='camoor']How many times must we kill this mythology about trickle-down economics? It's like the Hydra, disprove one trickle-down thread with facts and two pop up in it's place.[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about trickle down economics? I am simple stating that you believe rich people contribute nothing to the economy, so their money will be better spent in the governments hands. I believe the government should have as little control over any of our money as possible except where necessary. Which would have to equal less spending.

I can only imagine how pissed I would be if I was rich, made $750,000 a year. Only to have the government come in and take $240,000 of it because they "feel we should have to pay more". But better yet, be condemned as evil by the public because I make so much but am pissed when the government wants to take eveeeen more, because "us rich people have to pay our share".

I am sorry but my "poorer" share of 30,000 is 4,000 dollars. Their share of $750,000 is $240,000 dollars. I kiiiiinda think their "fair" share is covered.

Edit Some of you even believe people who make over the highest tax bracket should be taxed at 90%.

Not to mention the bush tax cuts cover cuts to lower brackets than the highest one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003

Cut the god damn spending already.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am simple stating that you believe rich people contribute nothing to the economy.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone is gonna fall for it knoell.
 
That reminds me, did anyone in the Forbes 400 ever win Warren Buffet's $1 million wager that none of them are taxed at a higher rate than their secretaries?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']That reminds me, did anyone in the Forbes 400 ever win Warren Buffet's $1 million wager that none of them are taxed at a higher rate than their secretaries?[/QUOTE]

If this is true then the bush tax cuts dont even affect those richest people, but help everyone under them. (well except the people who don't end up paying anything).

If he is truely getting a tax rate of 17% how is this any fault of the Bush tax cuts?
 
I'm wondering what metric over the last 10 years you could use to claim that the Bush tax cuts helped anyone.

For the record, I'm not for tax cuts for ANYONE. Not the lower or middle classes either. Though we could conceivably cut taxes across the board if we closed enough loopholes so that it would effectively be a tax increase, Kennedy style.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']That reminds me, did anyone in the Forbes 400 ever win Warren Buffet's $1 million wager that none of them are taxed at a higher rate than their secretaries?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely nothing is stopping Mr. Buffet from writing blank checks to the government.
 
What do you think the point of his wager was? I dont believe it was a call to charity. I suppose if charity was an adequate replacement for fiscal policy, he probably would write them checks.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I'm wondering what metric over the last 10 years you could use to claim that the Bush tax cuts helped anyone.

For the record, I'm not for tax cuts for ANYONE. Not the lower or middle classes either. Though we could conceivably cut taxes across the board if we closed enough loopholes so that it would effectively be a tax increase, Kennedy style.[/QUOTE]

If the government would stop increasing spending, then the deficit would not be rising, and the people would have slightly more money. I don't see how that hurts - if the government stops increasing its spending.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']What do you think the point of his wager was? I dont believe it was a call to charity. I suppose if charity was an adequate replacement for fiscal policy, he probably would write them checks.[/QUOTE]

The point of his wager? Being rich and saying "Gotcha". If he really cared about how much he was taxed vs how much he thinks he should be taxed, we'd be seeing him cut checks to the feds above and beyond what he is required to pay in taxes each year.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The point of his wager? Being rich and saying "Gotcha". If he really cared about how much he was taxed vs how much he thinks he should be taxed, we'd be seeing him cut checks to the feds above and beyond what he is required to pay in taxes each year.[/QUOTE]
If his concern was how much he personally was taxed, that might be the case. But that is not his concern. His concern is policy, and what the tax rates are for everyone.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The point of his wager? Being rich and saying "Gotcha". If he really cared about how much he was taxed vs how much he thinks he should be taxed, we'd be seeing him cut checks to the feds above and beyond what he is required to pay in taxes each year.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Warren Buffett']First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death.[/QUOTE]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/index.htm

Warren is sending it to the right place. He knows what anyone with half-a-brain knows - a majority of any money given to the US government goes right back to the rich.

Wall Street is like a thug that dangles the US economy over a balcony while demanding a bailout. CEOs have figured out that it's easier to game the system instead of old-fashioned winning market share and selling product. The rich have all sorts of loopholes and tax breaks on top of those loopholes.

If you want examples of the awful rich, you would do better to start with David and Charles Koch or the Walton family.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I'm wondering what metric over the last 10 years you could use to claim that the Bush tax cuts helped anyone.

For the record, I'm not for tax cuts for ANYONE. Not the lower or middle classes either. Though we could conceivably cut taxes across the board if we closed enough loopholes so that it would effectively be a tax increase, Kennedy style.[/QUOTE]

I got a $300 check from the government twice.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Who said anything about trickle down economics? I am simple stating that you believe rich people contribute nothing to the economy, so their money will be better spent in the governments hands. I believe the government should have as little control over any of our money as possible except where necessary. Which would have to equal less spending.

I can only imagine how pissed I would be if I was rich, made $750,000 a year. Only to have the government come in and take $240,000 of it because they "feel we should have to pay more". But better yet, be condemned as evil by the public because I make so much but am pissed when the government wants to take eveeeen more, because "us rich people have to pay our share".

I am sorry but my "poorer" share of 30,000 is 4,000 dollars. Their share of $750,000 is $240,000 dollars. I kiiiiinda think their "fair" share is covered.

Edit Some of you even believe people who make over the highest tax bracket should be taxed at 90%.

Not to mention the bush tax cuts cover cuts to lower brackets than the highest one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_an...on_Act_of_2003

Cut the god damn spending already.[/QUOTE]

Just speaking for myself, I would be fine with extending all tax cuts for 99% of people.

Tax cuts for the top 1% should be rolled back, and there's nothing socialistic about that. Rolling taxes from 35% to 38.6% is not socialism.
 
Any idea that has a liberal source or even sounds like it could is automatically socialist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']where do you guys see Obama is a socialist being talked about? honest question, I just never see it much.[/QUOTE]
Then you aren't looking for it. Just search on your favorite video site, you should find quite a bit.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']I know this will come as a HUGE SHOCK to the people here who are hypnotised into believing that the democrats (or any politician for that matter) are your friends, but here we go:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...ast-year-as-economy-faltered#mwpphu-container

Democrat defense force in 3,2,1...[/QUOTE]

Its not a huge shock because everyone knows this already. This is like starting a thread telling everyone the sun will rise in the morning or that water is wet.

What would be a shock is if anyone ever actually did anything about it, which will never happen. Only way anything will happen is when the entire system finally collapses under its own weight due to no one caring about the supports and only the top levels of the structure.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']favorite video site?

I don't visit youtube or any sites of that nature if thats what you meant.[/QUOTE]

I see it mostly among teabaggers.
 
[quote name='Clak']Then you aren't looking for it. Just search on your favorite video site, you should find quite a bit.[/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure you hear Republican congressmen and wannabe Republican congressmen say it all the time.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']where do you guys see Obama is a socialist being talked about? honest question, I just never see it much.[/QUOTE]

I heard Glenn Beck lamenting Obama for choosing "socialists" in his cabinet months ago, but I don't listen to him too often. I remember Rush comparing Nancy Pelosi to a Stalinist a couple of weeks ago for wanting to investigate the funding behind the mosque opposition.
 
I only read the first page since I didn't need to read you all stepping up to the trough and laughing at each other...

I think it may have been Jefferson that said we should only elect offcials that are willing to give up power. Same guy that said that political parties would be the death of the nation. Smart guy, well other than the slavery bit but you can't win 'em all I guess.

The fact of the matter is that as long people vote party over principle we're going to be stuck in this wheel spinning state where one small change happens every 5-6 years and the rest of the time is bickering nonsense because the only things that matter are keeping guns and getting rid or abortions on one side and basically getting rid of guns and keeping abortions on the other.

Instead of the guy that's mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore running for office and putting his regular life and job on the line, we now have a politcal class that is mostly graduates of the Kennedy school of politics that go into "Civil Service" as a career choice instead of going into politics in an effort to really try and make anything better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top