[Cardfan1]

My posts prove beyond any question that I'm no Bezos fan. This nation's tax structure is patently unfair to retired people, especially those over 70. Further other than the well off, I consider Congress' treatment, (by way of burdensome taxation to the grave) of those who are over 70 and who've distinguished themselves by a lifetime of self sufficiency, to be indefensible. I do however, understand free enterprise a little better than you. But hey, nobody's perfect.

You may be correct on tax injustice for people over 70. I've never looked into it that much. I do find it ridiculous that social security and retirement income is taxed for middle class retirees. That $12 copay means a whole lot to a retiree not so much to the billionaires. Just 20.4 million to Mr. Bezos.

[Bob Seger]

:lmao:

I must be pushing your buttons, because you have resorted to name calling and insults.

nicker:

Just calling a spade a spade.

[TheRealThing]

He may pay more than my whole county. But more doesn't equal fair.
I never said Bezos didn't pay taxes. I commented on how little a dollar means to him in relationship to us common folk. For him to pay a rate of taxes that is similar to middle class Americans is absurd, and for Amazon to get the corporate to zero is ludicrous.

Washing the argument with hard work hero worship doesn't nullify the issue. The past two tax cuts have allowed the rich to get richer while the middle class is still stuck spinning their wheels. Bezos is one of those guys that has benefited and has taken full advantage of the system. Can't blame him for that, but you can blame those who have allowed the shortfalls in funding to help themselves, or their rich friends.

Of those relative few Americans who do earn money in this land, the top 1% pay 43.6% of all taxes collected. Backdrop that against the 45% of able bodied Americans who pay no taxes at all. Many of those Americans get a freebie yearly bonanza in the form of large unearned tax refunds courtesy of other taxpayers.

If you want to be an activist try taking on the real problem here. Liberals have basically been successful in equating a life of sloth and or lack of motivation, with self sufficient folk's lifetime of paying their own way. In fact, the US Constitution guarantees all men equality of opportunity here in this land. But in turning that ideal on it's head, liberals say all men have the right to be happy, even those who don't particularly make an effort to provide for themselves or their family. We have the 'right to pursue happiness.' Not expect to have happiness handed to us thru the various forms of welfare.

The net affect of all the revisionist blather, has been to redefine the true nature of the US entitlement structure. For example, if I work for my entire lifetime and I pay into, or my employer pays into as part of my earnings package, a personal retirement plan; that constitutes an entitlement (under legal contract) from which I may draw after retirement. Same for Social Security. I pay SS taxes my whole working life and as the result, am promised by the same government which withdrew those weekly taxes, that I will be paid a certain amount after I am old and unable to work. I am entitled to that money because I helped to provide it.

Along comes the liberal and tries to say those who don't work, or haven't worked much, are due entitlements as well. They're needy. And the checks, relatively commensurate to the checks of those who worked for their whole life, roll in. Put another way. One guy got up everyday, rain or shine, cold and heat, day or night, and faithfully went to work. Providing for his family, he pressed on diligently day after day, year after year until time took his ability to continue in the work place away. On the opposite end of the spectrum, another guy doesn't get up, isn't particularly motivated to be successful and expects to live off of the gifts of others. The truth is there is a vast difference between entitlements and welfare. But or course, once liberals redefine them they become the same thing. As a matter of fact, older people who should be being honored are actually scorned as having become a drain on US economy, while the young and the listless are given the place of honor. Even to the point where it is they who deserve perpetual assistance.

Bottom line--- Old people who knocked themselves out to make their own way in this world, find themselves at the end of their lives now mind you. Paying to provide food, housing, healthcare, cell phones and you name it, to able bodied youth. Added to this incredible injustice was Barack Obama's dismantling of their own personal healthcare in the adoption of the ACA. At the very time when old folks find themselves facing the most severe challenges in this life, they are forced to pay for the healthcare of the young. While in many cases a steady stream of big bucks go out the door for healthcare coverage and many procedures are not even covered. When co-pays and out of pocket costs are considered, not to mention drug costs they realize that some conditions will just have to be endured. And even then it's largely a choice between care and keeping a roof over their heads. All of this with their own mortality looming large.

There is nothing noble or dear about an existence characterized by want, and as I have pointed out repeatedly here on this forum. God, The Arbitrator of what constitutes morality in this world, has said in clear and concise terms that man is to work. He is to work and he is to be able to eat "in the sweat of his face." The whole argument of helping he poor is based in liberal mischaracterizations. That said, yes we are to help. Churches and charitable organizations should and do abound in this effort. But legislating moral behavior is not the government's purview. And yet every last argument made in this election season's Democrat debates have been completely and only about giving people free stuff. Ascribing nobility to the human condition is nothing more lofty than secular humanism. Which is BTW, man's alternative to Christianity. In any case, it is God Whom provides for this life, not Democrats.

[Cardfan1]

Of those relative few Americans who do earn money in this land, the top 1% pay 43.6% of all taxes collected. Backdrop that against the 45% of able bodied Americans who pay no taxes at all. Many of those Americans get a freebie yearly bonanza in the form of large unearned tax refunds courtesy of other taxpayers.

If you want to be an activist try taking on the real problem here. Liberals have basically been successful in equating a life of sloth and or lack of motivation, with self sufficient folk's lifetime of paying their own way. In fact, the US Constitution guarantees all men equality of opportunity here in this land. But in turning that ideal on it's head, liberals say all men have the right to be happy, even those who don't particularly make an effort to provide for themselves or their family. We have the 'right to pursue happiness.' Not expect to have happiness handed to us thru the various forms of welfare.

The net affect of all the revisionist blather, has been to redefine the true nature of the US entitlement structure. For example, if I work for my entire lifetime and I pay into, or my employer pays into as part of my earnings package, a personal retirement plan; that constitutes an entitlement (under legal contract) from which I may draw after retirement. Same for Social Security. I pay SS taxes my whole working life and as the result, am promised by the same government which withdrew those weekly taxes, that I will be paid a certain amount after I am old and unable to work. I am entitled to that money because I helped to provide it.

Along comes the liberal and tries to say those who don't work, or haven't worked much, are due entitlements as well. They're needy. And the checks, relatively commensurate to the checks of those who worked for their whole life, roll in. Put another way. One guy got up everyday, rain or shine, cold and heat, day or night, and faithfully went to work. Providing for his family, he pressed on diligently day after day, year after year until time took his ability to continue in the work place away. On the opposite end of the spectrum, another guy doesn't get up, isn't particularly motivated to be successful and expects to live off of the gifts of others. The truth is there is a vast difference between entitlements and welfare. But or course, once liberals redefine them they become the same thing.

Bottom line--- Old people who knocked themselves out to make their own way in this world, find themselves at the end of their lives now mind you. Paying to provide food, housing, healthcare, cell phones and you name it, to able bodied youth. Added to this incredible injustice was Barack Obama's dismantling of their own personal healthcare in the adoption of the ACA. At the very time when old folks find themselves facing the most severe challenges in this life, they are forced to pay for the healthcare of the young. While in many cases a steady stream of big bucks go out the door for healthcare coverage and many procedures are not even covered. When co-pays and out of pocket costs are considered, not to mention drug costs they realize that some conditions will just have to be endured. And even then it's largely a choice between care and keeping a roof over their heads. All of this with their own mortality looming large.

There is nothing noble or dear about an existence characterized by want, and as I have pointed out repeatedly here on this forum. God, The Arbitrator of what constitutes morality in this world, has said in clear and concise terms that man is to work. He is to work and he is to be able to eat "in the sweat of his face." The whole argument of helping he poor is based in liberal mischaracterizations. That said, yes we are to help. Churches and charitable organizations should and do abound in this effort. But legislating moral behavior is not the government's purview. And yet every last argument made in this election season's Democrat debates have been completely and only about giving people free stuff. Ascribing nobility to the human condition is nothing more lofty than secular humanism. Which is BTW, man's alternative to Christianity. In any case, it is God Whom provides for this life, not Democrats.

That 2012 45% Romney quote isn't completely accurate: 18.1 percent of American households paid neither federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy Center. Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9 percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year, which includes low-income families and students.

It's not surprising that the 1% pays that much in taxes because they make 90% of the income in the nation.

In all seriousness how many middle class people in this nation would quit their job tomorrow if the govt took over healthcare? How many would go on the dole because their kids get to go to college for free?

It's silly notion to believe that hardworking people who are getting slammed by those two institutions would throw their hands up and quit the minute they got relief.

[TheRealThing]

That 2012 45% Romney quote isn't completely accurate: 18.1 percent of American households paid neither federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy Center. Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9 percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year, which includes low-income families and students.

It's not surprising that the 1% pays that much in taxes because they make 90% of the income in the nation.

In all seriousness how many middle class people in this nation would quit their job tomorrow if the govt took over healthcare? How many would go on the dole because their kids get to go to college for free?

It's silly notion to believe that hardworking people who are getting slammed by those two institutions would throw their hands up and quit the minute they got relief.

Yeah well, not as silly (or as inaccurate) as this ^^ post. I have never suggested that working people would quit work, but that doesn't stop you from real time revision now does it?

AFTR, choices be darned, if Dems get back in the driver's seat government run healthcare is a done deal. Only the dishonest or the willfully ignorant would claim otherwise. The percentages of paying non-paying tax payers came from Market Watch. Lie on your own terms.

[Cardfan1]

Yeah well, not as silly (or as inaccurate) as this ^^ post. I have never suggested that working people would quit work, but that doesn't stop you from real time revision now does it?

AFTR, choices be darned, if Dems get back in the driver's seat government run healthcare is a done deal. Only the dishonest or the willfully ignorant would claim otherwise. The percentages of paying non-paying tax payers came from Market Watch. Lie on your own terms.

Maybe you’re not, but it does seem the first thing you bring up when discussing the expansion of Medicare is those already who have their hand out and aren’t working. It could be an inadvertent comparison.

I saw that number from Marketwatch, but it’s more complicated. That number includes folks who are workers who may receive a credit and also billionaires who use losses and loopholes, so the 18.8% is more accurate (it’s complicated too). 45% of Americans aren’t bums.

A study published last week from Yale, Florida, and Maryland Universities says Medicare for all would save Americans would save $450 billion annually and prevent 68,000 deaths. That certainly sounds like doomsday for the United States of America.

[Hoot Gibson]

Maybe you’re not, but it does seem the first thing you bring up when discussing the expansion of Medicare is those already who have their hand out and aren’t working. It could be an inadvertent comparison.

I saw that number from Marketwatch, but it’s more complicated. That number includes folks who are workers who may receive a credit and also billionaires who use losses and loopholes, so the 18.8% is more accurate (it’s complicated too). 45% of Americans aren’t bums.

A study published last week from Yale, Florida, and Maryland Universities says Medicare for all would save Americans would save $450 billion annually and prevent 68,000 deaths. That certainly sounds like doomsday for the United States of America.

Remind us again how much money Obamacare was supposed to save us. Some people are just stuck on stupid.

Government estimates of the cost of proposed entitlements are never even in the ballpark of actual costs.

[Cardfan1]

Remind us again how much money Obamacare was supposed to save us. Some people are just stuck on stupid.

Government estimates of the cost of proposed entitlements are never even in the ballpark of actual costs.

4.14 trillion in a decade
As of 2018 2.3 trillion per Office of the Actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Probably not going to make the 4.14 trillion.

Obamacare has had a long politicized decade with a 1/3 of the states not fully participating, so there was no way its effectiveness would meeting projections.

Obamacare is flawed won’t argue with that.

[TheRealThing]

Maybe you’re not, but it does seem the first thing you bring up when discussing the expansion of Medicare is those already who have their hand out and aren’t working. It could be an inadvertent comparison.

I saw that number from Marketwatch, but it’s more complicated. That number includes folks who are workers who may receive a credit and also billionaires who use losses and loopholes, so the 18.8% is more accurate (it’s complicated too). 45% of Americans aren’t bums.

A study published last week from Yale, Florida, and Maryland Universities says Medicare for all would save Americans would save $450 billion annually and prevent 68,000 deaths. That certainly sounds like doomsday for the United States of America.

Not that a clairvoyant could discern what your first sentence really says, but---

is it even possible for you to speak factually? When speaking of free healthcare for the privileged poor, we are discussing the expansion of Medicaid. Medicare = care as the US government has legally contracted with respect to the working citizenry. Medicaid = medical welfare. But you're certainly not kidding anyone with your efforts to conflate the two.

Medicare recipients earned their health care. The only time their hands were 'out,' is when they were from their youth, plying their trades. Now Medicaid folks? not so much. However young folks on Medicaid are often the victims of their parents. Parents who let them run wild and fail to instill any real sense of personal or moral responsibility within them. Thusly armed with raging though unbridled hormones, themselves yet babies, they proceed to make babies. Millions of them who BTW, are 100% dependent on the taxpayers. The Medicaid safety net in such case does afford opportunity for reflection and a move to a personally responsible lifestyle. Even if their educational degree is to that end, from the school of hard knocks. Still, that happy scenario is far from the norm as the vast majority of Medicaid recipients do so by choice.

You were predictably wrong when you leaped to your reductive and shallow assumption. You alleged I quoted Rhinomey. Never said the full 45% are bums, and please spare me your efforts to revise my own sourcing. What a load of monkey puke. You're intent is to berate the top 1% who generate so much by way of wealth and opportunity in this land. All the while giving an unearned pass to the Nancy Pelosi-esque, welfare dependent aspiring artists. What I said was 45% don't pay income tax. And, what I said is the aged in this land, after a lifetime of laudable efforts in self sufficiency, are forced to pay high income taxes until the day they die. We, with a head scratching level of compassion, want to hand a dignified level of life's needs to those struggling with financial self motivation. While at the same time we ruthlessly continue to slam the aged with high taxation. That continues FTR no matter how hard that may be for them, even for the number of days they may languish in pain on their death beds.

[Cardfan1]

Not that a clairvoyant could discern what your first sentence really says, but---

is it even possible for you to speak factually? When speaking of free healthcare for the privileged poor, we are discussing the expansion of Medicaid. Medicare = care as the US government has legally contracted with respect to the working citizenry. Medicaid = medical welfare. But you're certainly not kidding anyone with your efforts to conflate the two.

Medicare recipients earned their health care. The only time their hands were 'out,' is when they were from their youth, plying their trades. Now Medicaid folks? not so much. However young folks on Medicaid are often the victims of their parents. Parents who let them run wild and fail to instill any real sense of personal or moral responsibility within them. Thusly armed with raging though unbridled hormones, themselves yet babies, they proceed to make babies. Millions of them who BTW, are 100% dependent on the taxpayers. The Medicaid safety net in such case does afford opportunity for reflection and a move to a personally responsible lifestyle. Even if their educational degree is to that end, from the school of hard knocks. Still, that happy scenario is far from the norm as the vast majority of Medicaid recipients do so by choice.

You were predictably wrong when you leaped to your reductive and shallow assumption. You alleged I quoted Rhinomey. Never said the full 45% are bums, and please spare me your efforts to revise my own sourcing. What a load of monkey puke. You're intent is to berate the top 1% who generate so much by way of wealth and opportunity in this land. All the while giving an unearned pass to the Nancy Pelosi-esque, welfare dependent aspiring artists. What I said was 45% don't pay income tax. And, what I said is the aged in this land, after a lifetime of laudable efforts in self sufficiency, are forced to pay high income taxes until the day they die. We, with a head scratching level of compassion, want to hand a dignified level of life's needs to those struggling with financial self motivation. While at the same time we ruthlessly continue to slam the aged with high taxation. That continues FTR no matter how hard that may be for them, even for the number of days they may languish in pain on their death beds.

Medicare is govt sponsored healthcare for those 65 and older. If you have been on Medicaid your entire life without a job and hit 65 you will transition to Medicare/Medicaid mixture. Sanders calls his plan Medicare for all because it has zero income limitations or requirements unlike Medicaid.

Medicaid has income requirements. If you make generally over 33k in a household you will not qualify for Medicaid. Just a reminder starting police officers, teachers, soldiers and in general any full time worker making under $20 an hour WOULD qualify for Medicaid with full or partial benefits. So not all people utilizing Medicaid in its current form are bums.

So what were you saying when you said 45% of Americans don’t pay taxes? Maybe it’s the medium, but a lot of it is your tone, which suggests a disgust for people you think don’t do enough in this nation. Unfortunately wherever you get your information grossly inflates the “Pelosi art students” when in reality there are a ton of people living paycheck to paycheck whose incomes don’t pass the threshold of being taxed. However, nothing but admiration for the billionaires who can avoid paying taxes. Go figure. I guess you need to head to New York and hang with those folks because most of the people here in Kentucky are busting their tail, and really could use the healthcare that Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare for all, or whatever could provide relief from the surprises they get every time someone in their household gets sick.

My problem with the 1% is they are generating and keeping their wealth with the help of politicians while their workers struggle and our country is struggling. I’m not advocating punishing taxes like during the 40s, 50s, 60s, but maybe go back to Clinton era, so we can help the middle class and shrink this massive debt
swells every time we have a Republican tax cut.

[TheRealThing]

Medicare is govt sponsored healthcare for those 65 and older. If you have been on Medicaid your entire life without a job and hit 65 you will transition to Medicare/Medicaid mixture. Sanders calls his plan Medicare for all because it has zero income limitations or requirements unlike Medicaid.

Medicaid has income requirements. If you make generally over 33k in a household you will not qualify for Medicaid. Just a reminder starting police officers, teachers, soldiers and in general any full time worker making under $20 an hour WOULD qualify for Medicaid with full or partial benefits. So not all people utilizing Medicaid in its current form are bums.

So what were you saying when you said 45% of Americans don’t pay taxes? Maybe it’s the medium, but a lot of it is your tone, which suggests a disgust for people you think don’t do enough in this nation. Unfortunately wherever you get your information grossly inflates the “Pelosi art students” when in reality there are a ton of people living paycheck to paycheck whose incomes don’t pass the threshold of being taxed. However, nothing but admiration for the billionaires who can avoid paying taxes. Go figure. I guess you need to head to New York and hang with those folks because most of the people here in Kentucky are busting their tail, and really could use the healthcare that Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare for all, or whatever could provide relief from the surprises they get every time someone in their household gets sick.

My problem with the 1% is they are generating and keeping their wealth with the help of politicians while their workers struggle and our country is struggling. I’m not advocating punishing taxes like during the 40s, 50s, 60s, but maybe go back to Clinton era, so we can help the middle class and shrink this massive debt
swells every time we have a Republican tax cut.

Your first two paragraphs were a total smoke screen meant to make you look professorial, I guess. They don't change my assessment of Medicare versus Medicaid one iota.

As to my tone and taxes. I could care less how you feel about my tone. As to taxes. First, the 45% stat I cited addresses households, and only those who actually do bother to work, and who fail to earn enough to qualify under law to pay taxes. Many more millions of folks do not work at all, and therefore do not pay taxes because they do not make money. But for you to say I faulted those who don't make much money and therefore don't pay taxes is a lie. I will say it is immoral when able bodied people refuse to work whether because they think it's beneath them, or whether they're just lazy. Now I'm not talking about the temporarily unemployed here either. But poor people have never been turned away in this nation when they needed health care. Your mischaracterizations are shameful. In any case, you are a clinic in revisionist lies in and of yourself, are you not?

Your last paragraph is more threadbare Dem talking points. :dudecomeon:

[Cardfan1]

Your first two paragraphs were a total smoke screen meant to make you look professorial, I guess. They don't change my assessment of Medicare versus Medicaid one iota.

As to my tone and taxes. I could care less how you feel about my tone. As to taxes. First, the 45% stat I cited addresses households, and only those who actually do bother to work, and who fail to earn enough to qualify under law to pay taxes. Many more millions of folks do not work at all, and therefore do not pay taxes because they do not make money. But for you to say I faulted those who don't make much money and therefore don't pay taxes is a lie. I will say it is immoral when able bodied people refuse to work whether because they think it's beneath them, or whether they're just lazy. Now I'm not talking about the temporarily unemployed here either. But poor people have never been turned away in this nation when they needed health care. Your mischaracterizations are shameful. In any case, you are a clinic in revisionist lies in and of yourself, are you not?

Your last paragraph is more threadbare Dem talking points. :dudecomeon:

I don’t expect what I say will change anything you think, but your assessment of both programs was a generalization.

Man, you’re really trying to make that 45% work.
That stat is thrown out there by wealthy conservatives to make folks want to punch down. “Look at all these sloths not working while you and I are carrying this nation.” But in reality it’s not true. That number is convoluted with several demographics, but that’s never explained because that is not the message that the these people want to perpetuate. It’s the only way millionaires and billionaires can relate with the middle class voter: hate the lower class.

Of course when the curtain is jerked away we find that those folks have their handout as much or more than those who are on hard times or even the straight out lazy. Takes a lot of welfare checks to equal the tax cuts and other corporate welfare that have been handed out recently from BOTH parties.

When you make the outlandish comments you make you do lump in those people who are on hard times or just starting out. So it’s not a lie. You may not really feel that way, but it’s what comes across. Maybe you should be more specific.

Is there a minority of people who take advantage of the social services? Damn right. I don’t agree with those people. I wish they would get out and participate instead of being a drain, but the worst thing those people do is tarnish the people who are trying to get ahead or recover from an industry shutting down, or an injury, or get an education.

Poor people have not been turned away, but the middle class has been duped on and suckered by the wealthy. You guys on here repeat exactly what they want you to: amaze at our feats and hate the poor/lazy and immigrants.

[TheRealThing]

I don’t expect what I say will change anything you think, but your assessment of both programs was a generalization.

Man, you’re really trying to make that 45% work.
That stat is thrown out there by wealthy conservatives to make folks want to punch down. “Look at all these sloths not working while you and I are carrying this nation.” But in reality it’s not true. That number is convoluted with several demographics, but that’s never explained because that is not the message that the these people want to perpetuate. It’s the only way millionaires and billionaires can relate with the middle class voter: hate the lower class.

Of course when the curtain is jerked away we find that those folks have their handout as much or more than those who are on hard times or even the straight out lazy. Takes a lot of welfare checks to equal the tax cuts and other corporate welfare that have been handed out recently from BOTH parties.

When you make the outlandish comments you make you do lump in those people who are on hard times or just starting out. So it’s not a lie. You may not really feel that way, but it’s what comes across. Maybe you should be more specific.

Is there a minority of people who take advantage of the social services? Damn right. I don’t agree with those people. I wish they would get out and participate instead of being a drain, but the worst thing those people do is tarnish the people who are trying to get ahead or recover from an industry shutting down, or an injury, or get an education.

Poor people have not been turned away, but the middle class has been duped on and suckered by the wealthy. You guys on here repeat exactly what they want you to: amaze at our feats and hate the poor/lazy and immigrants.

Whooo-eee! Let that soap opera music play. :biggrin:


Genesis 1:26-28 (KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Genesis 3:18-19 (KJV)
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV)
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.



See anything in God's Word that would suggest people are somehow victims of circumstance? I don't. We are to work. Men are to be the head of the house, a house for which they are responsible. The slings and arrows of this life are according to God's own plan and as such are the direct result of man having fallen from grace due to willful sin. And yet, everything we need to provide a living here on earth is attainable. Through work. Put another way, it's a vastly easier proposition to find a job in the US than trying to scratch one's living from the ground. Which BTW is the Lord's edict for us all. Thus in any case, nobody's been mistreated in this land of opportunity, and the secular humanist's claims of personal suffering are for most, patently untrue. The only thing that separates the VAST majority of folks from a life of self sufficiency as outlined by God, is a lack of motivation.

[Hoot Gibson]

I don’t expect what I say will change anything you think, but your assessment of both programs was a generalization.

Man, you’re really trying to make that 45% work.
That stat is thrown out there by wealthy conservatives to make folks want to punch down. “Look at all these sloths not working while you and I are carrying this nation.” But in reality it’s not true. That number is convoluted with several demographics, but that’s never explained because that is not the message that the these people want to perpetuate. It’s the only way millionaires and billionaires can relate with the middle class voter: hate the lower class.

Of course when the curtain is jerked away we find that those folks have their handout as much or more than those who are on hard times or even the straight out lazy. Takes a lot of welfare checks to equal the tax cuts and other corporate welfare that have been handed out recently from BOTH parties.

When you make the outlandish comments you make you do lump in those people who are on hard times or just starting out. So it’s not a lie. You may not really feel that way, but it’s what comes across. Maybe you should be more specific.

Is there a minority of people who take advantage of the social services? Damn right. I don’t agree with those people. I wish they would get out and participate instead of being a drain, but the worst thing those people do is tarnish the people who are trying to get ahead or recover from an industry shutting down, or an injury, or get an education.

Poor people have not been turned away, but the middle class has been duped on and suckered by the wealthy. You guys on here repeat exactly what they want you to: amaze at our feats and hate the poor/lazy and immigrants.

Approximately 45 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. None. Not only that, but many of those 45 percent are recipients of federal welfare payments that fall under the heading of the "earned income tax credit." Is it fair that so many Americans do not pay a penny in federal income taxes? Not unless you are a Marxist who believes Karl's mantra of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Your ilk takes it a step further than good ole Karl did, with you ideology of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his wants."

According to you, although billionaires and other members of the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country pay far more of the federal tax bill than all of the 50 percent of Americans who pay little or no federal taxes combined, that top 1 percent is still not paying their fair share because they have more wealth than they need.

Communists and liberals like Bernie Sanders are only winning elections because of the Marxists like you who support them.

You believe that if you had things your way, the middle class would expand at the expense of the billionaires who you would relieve of their hard earned wealth but the opposite is true. In real life, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, then Peter simply takes his remaining money, leaves the game, and never looks back. If Paul had the ability and motivation to be successful, then he would not depend on thieves to support him.

[Cardfan1]

Approximately 45 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. None. Not only that, but many of those 45 percent are recipients of federal welfare payments that fall under the heading of the "earned income tax credit." Is it fair that so many Americans do not pay a penny in federal income taxes? Not unless you are a Marxist who believes Karl's mantra of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Your ilk takes it a step further than good ole Karl did, with you ideology of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his wants."

According to you, although billionaires and other members of the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country pay far more of the federal tax bill than all of the 50 percent of Americans who pay little or no federal taxes combined, that top 1 percent is still not paying their fair share because they have more wealth than they need.

Communists and liberals like Bernie Sanders are only winning elections because of the Marxists like you who support them.

You believe that if you had things your way, the middle class would expand at the expense of the billionaires who you would relieve of their hard earned wealth but the opposite is true. In real life, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, then Peter simply takes his remaining money, leaves the game, and never looks back. If Paul had the ability and motivation to be successful, then he would not depend on thieves to support him.

I’ve already made this argument previously in the thread. That 45% includes a lot of people. I know it’s hard to understand but when you make less than 40-50k in a household you will pay no tax or another situation in you can spend a decade writing off 900 million. Both pay zero taxes.

[Cardfan1]

Approximately 45 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. None. Not only that, but many of those 45 percent are recipients of federal welfare payments that fall under the heading of the "earned income tax credit." Is it fair that so many Americans do not pay a penny in federal income taxes? Not unless you are a Marxist who believes Karl's mantra of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Your ilk takes it a step further than good ole Karl did, with you ideology of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his wants."

According to you, although billionaires and other members of the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country pay far more of the federal tax bill than all of the 50 percent of Americans who pay little or no federal taxes combined, that top 1 percent is still not paying their fair share because they have more wealth than they need.

Communists and liberals like Bernie Sanders are only winning elections because of the Marxists like you who support them.

You believe that if you had things your way, the middle class would expand at the expense of the billionaires who you would relieve of their hard earned wealth but the opposite is true. In real life, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, then Peter simply takes his remaining money, leaves the game, and never looks back. If Paul had the ability and motivation to be successful, then he would not depend on thieves to support him.

I’ve already made this argument previously in the thread. That 45% includes a lot of people. I know it’s hard to understand but when you make less than 40-50k in a household you will pay no tax or another situation in you can spend a decade writing off 900 million. Both pay zero taxes.

[Cardfan1]

Sorry about the double post. Kentucky cell service.

[Hoot Gibson]

I’ve already made this argument previously in the thread. That 45% includes a lot of people. I know it’s hard to understand but when you make less than 40-50k in a household you will pay no tax or another situation in you can spend a decade writing off 900 million. Both pay zero taxes.

Making an argument and repeatedly lying are not synonymous for most people. For you, the two are synonymous.

[Cardfan1]

Making an argument and repeatedly lying are not synonymous for most people. For you, the two are synonymous.

I am not arguing that 45% pay no federal income tax. I am arguing that number doesn't tell the whole story of who is in that 45%.

In fact those who use that number to infer that our nation is a nation of lazy people are extremely misleading, which is close to lying.

[Cardfan1]

Whooo-eee! Let that soap opera music play. :biggrin:


Genesis 1:26-28 (KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Genesis 3:18-19 (KJV)
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV)
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.



See anything in God's Word that would suggest people are somehow victims of circumstance? I don't. We are to work. Men are to be the head of the house, a house for which they are responsible. The slings and arrows of this life are according to God's own plan and as such are the direct result of man having fallen from grace due to willful sin. And yet, everything we need to provide a living here on earth is attainable. Through work. Put another way, it's a vastly easier proposition to find a job in the US than trying to scratch one's living from the ground. Which BTW is the Lord's edict for us all. Thus in any case, nobody's been mistreated in this land of opportunity, and the secular humanist's claims of personal suffering are for most, patently untrue. The only thing that separates the VAST majority of folks from a life of self sufficiency as outlined by God, is a lack of motivation.

In all seriousness, couldn't we find as many or more verses of scripture saying we should renounce wealth and give to the poor?

At what point have I said people shouldn't work? Not once.

People are sometimes victim circumstances beyond their control: health, closed industry, family constraints.

[TheRealThing]

I am not arguing that 45% pay no federal income tax. I am arguing that number doesn't tell the whole story of who is in that 45%.

In fact those who use that number to infer that our nation is a nation of lazy people are extremely misleading, which is close to lying.

You are the one who started all this percentage talk, when you railed post after post after post, about the top 1% not paying enough income tax to take care of poor people and pay down debt. All we did was point out that the US leans over backwards as it is to accommodate the poor and the lower class, in that 45% of them do not pay income tax as it is. And we haven't even touched on the reality here concerning welfare. One trillion a year in assistance payments from federal and state governments. Even then we're not vectoring in Church benevolence, thousands of charities, Mom and Dad, Grandparents and others.

One would think, by your bleeding heart mischaracterizations of how the poor are treated in this land, (which in my mind are lies BTW) you're trying to deflect from the fact that you've been pushing your covert political agenda, unfairly complaining about the top 1%, slamming them and the system (capitalism) and the tax laws they are forced by law, to conform.

[TheRealThing]

In all seriousness, couldn't we find as many or more verses of scripture saying we should renounce wealth and give to the poor?

At what point have I said people shouldn't work? Not once.

People are sometimes victim circumstances beyond their control: health, closed industry, family constraints.

Nope, that's more secular humanism at the worst and legalism at best. And your argument here belies the rest of what you have said in this thread.

But sell what you have, give it to the poor, and then come back on here and hold up your standard.

[Bob Seger]

Nope, that's more secular humanism at the worst and legalism at best. And your argument here belies the rest of what you have said in this thread.

But sell what you have, give it to the poor, and then come back on here and hold up your standard.

Well that pretty much shuts them all up, when you put it that way.


Dividends from multi-million dollar books deals and owning 3 homes are not for sale, TRT.

[Cardfan1]

You are the one who started all this percentage talk, when you railed post after post after post, about the top 1% not paying enough income tax to take care of poor people and pay down debt.All we did was point out that the US leans over backwards as it is to accommodate the poor and the lower class, in that 45% of them do not pay income tax as it is. And we haven't even touched on the reality here concerning welfare. One trillion a year in assistance payments from federal and state governments. Even then we're not vectoring in Church benevolence, thousands of charities, Mom and Dad, Grandparents and others.

One would think, by your bleeding heart mischaracterizations of how the poor are treated in this land, (which in my mind are lies BTW) you're trying to deflect from the fact that you've been pushing your covert political agenda, unfairly complaining about the top 1%, slamming them and the system (capitalism) and the tax laws they are forced by law, to conform.

So if the USA bends over backwards to defend the poor and they bend over backward to help the rich. Then who is left out...

I've actually tried to defend the middle class and the working poor (the majority of Kentucky's population) even though you keep trying to the throw the non-working up.

I've come to the conclusion you must not know the difference.

[Cardfan1]

Nope, that's more secular humanism at the worst and legalism at best. And your argument here belies the rest of what you have said in this thread.

But sell what you have, give it to the poor, and then come back on here and hold up your standard.

:lame:

[TheRealThing]

So if the USA bends over backwards to defend the poor and they bend over backward to help the rich. Then who is left out...

I've actually tried to defend the middle class and the working poor (the majority of Kentucky's population) even though you keep trying to the throw the non-working up.

I've come to the conclusion you must not know the difference.

Funny thing about that, other than your obvious bent for socialism and your knack for sidestepping relevancy, I've come to somewhat of the same conclusion about you.

[TheRealThing]

Nope, that's more secular humanism at the worst and legalism at best. And your argument here belies the rest of what you have said in this thread.

But sell what you have, give it to the poor, and then come back on here and hold up your standard.

Well that pretty much shuts them all up, when you put it that way.


Dividends from multi-million dollar books deals and owning 3 homes are not for sale, TRT.

:lame:

LOL You rest your case Bob. nicker:

[Cardfan1]

LOL You rest your case Bob. nicker:

Nah... it's just classic false virtue when somebody wants use scripture to explain a point.

[Cardfan1]

Funny thing about that, other than your obvious bent for socialism and your knack for sidestepping relevancy, I've come to somewhat of the same conclusion about you.

We have already covered that everybody on here loves their socialism. You guys just like the govt handouts to go to those that have plenty.

Sidestepping relevancy...hardly.

[TheRealThing]

Nah... it's just classic false virtue when somebody wants use scripture to explain a point.

Au contraire.

Liberals, such as yourself, have made a living planting virtue flags on false high ground. Quoting God's Word exposes the dishonesty of that practice.