Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: rxwineWas he convicted of a crime? Then he should go to prison if that is the sentence. Some people seem to have trouble with how the system works. Need a review?
I did not ask if he was convicted. I am asking liberals if Dan Rather should have went to prison for interfering with the election of 2004 based on his fake news.
Quote: SOOPOOI want a liberal to address these numbers. 2 million out of our 325 million pay 70% of our taxes. I guess the numbers are just shocking to me. Do you truly believe that it is fairer for the 'rich' to pay even more? How much is enough? Should the top 2 million Americans pay 90% of our taxes? How about all of the taxes?
Because the top 2 million have 70% of the income wealth then yeah its fair they pay 70% of our taxes
If they feel the lower class are getting the better deal why dont they make am AP move and divest themselves of their wealth and live poor thereby avoiding higher taxes?
Quote: aceofspadesAre you offering odds?
What exactly do you believe President Trump to be guilty of? (please cite legal statutes rather than vague allegations of "collusion" (which is not a crime) so that we can have an intelligent discussion of the legal matters)
I'll let Bob Mueller answer that question. Seriously though, if he did nothing wrong, why not let Mueller finish?
Quote: darkozBecause the top 2 million have 70% of the income wealth then yeah its fair they pay 70% of our taxes
If they feel the lower class are getting the better deal why dont they make am AP move and divest themselves of their wealth and live poor thereby avoiding higher taxes?
Cite?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: darkozBecause the top 2 million have 70% of the income wealth then yeah its fair they pay 70% of our taxes
If they feel the lower class are getting the better deal why dont they make am AP move and divest themselves of their wealth and live poor thereby avoiding higher taxes?
Cite?
You expect a citation -- Trump Derangement Syndrome does not allow for factual arguments by the Left
Quote: aceofspadesAre you offering odds?
What exactly do you believe President Trump to be guilty of? (please cite legal statutes rather than vague allegations of "collusion" (which is not a crime) so that we can have an intelligent discussion of the legal matters)
Obstruction of justice for starters.
Quote: gamerfreakQuote: aceofspadesAre you offering odds?
What exactly do you believe President Trump to be guilty of? (please cite legal statutes rather than vague allegations of "collusion" (which is not a crime) so that we can have an intelligent discussion of the legal matters)
Obstruction of justice for starters.
Statute citation please
Are you claiming his firing of Comey was 'obstruction of justice' - if so, that means you must somehow believe that a President using one of his enumerated Article II (US Const.) can be deemed to have obstructed justice for doing exactly what the US Const. allows him to do
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: darkozBecause the top 2 million have 70% of the income wealth then yeah its fair they pay 70% of our taxes
If they feel the lower class are getting the better deal why dont they make am AP move and divest themselves of their wealth and live poor thereby avoiding higher taxes?
Cite?
You expect a citation -- Trump Derangement Syndrome does not allow for factual arguments by the Left
Citation shows its even worse
https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: gamerfreakQuote: aceofspadesAre you offering odds?
What exactly do you believe President Trump to be guilty of? (please cite legal statutes rather than vague allegations of "collusion" (which is not a crime) so that we can have an intelligent discussion of the legal matters)
Obstruction of justice for starters.
Statute citation please
Are you claiming his firing of Comey was 'obstruction of justice' - if so, that means you must somehow believe that a President using one of his enumerated Article II (US Const.) can be deemed to have obstructed justice for doing exactly what the US Const. allows him to do
Context matters.
Killing someone is usually illegal. But generally it’s not of someone is breaking into your home.
The president simply firing the FBI is not illegal. The president firing the FBI director specifically for the reason that he wouldn’t end the investigation into him is obstruction of justice, making it illegal.
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: gamerfreakQuote: aceofspadesAre you offering odds?
What exactly do you believe President Trump to be guilty of? (please cite legal statutes rather than vague allegations of "collusion" (which is not a crime) so that we can have an intelligent discussion of the legal matters)
Obstruction of justice for starters.
Statute citation please
Are you claiming his firing of Comey was 'obstruction of justice' - if so, that means you must somehow believe that a President using one of his enumerated Article II (US Const.) can be deemed to have obstructed justice for doing exactly what the US Const. allows him to do
Context matters.
Killing someone is usually illegal. But generally it’s not of someone is breaking into your home.
The president simply firing the FBI is not illegal. The president firing the FBI director specifically for the reason that he wouldn’t end the investigation into him is obstruction of justice, making it illegal.
Quote: aceofspadesSo should they be divested of the wealth they accumulated -- I'll bet if you did that, and gave everyone in the country an equal share thereof -- the exact same percentages would crop up again - those who make money know how to make money and start businesses
I agree with you there
But then they would still be taxed accordingly
Quote: gamerfreakQuote: aceofspadesQuote: gamerfreakQuote: aceofspadesAre you offering odds?
What exactly do you believe President Trump to be guilty of? (please cite legal statutes rather than vague allegations of "collusion" (which is not a crime) so that we can have an intelligent discussion of the legal matters)
Obstruction of justice for starters.
Statute citation please
Are you claiming his firing of Comey was 'obstruction of justice' - if so, that means you must somehow believe that a President using one of his enumerated Article II (US Const.) can be deemed to have obstructed justice for doing exactly what the US Const. allows him to do
Context matters.
Killing someone is usually illegal. But generally it’s not of someone is breaking into your home.
The president simply firing the FBI is not illegal. The president firing the FBI director specifically for the reason that he wouldn’t end the investigation into him is obstruction of justice, making it illegal.
Kindly refer me to the section of the US Const. or any other statute that states the reason for the firing is taken into account under Article II
Quote: darkozI agree with you there
But then they would still be taxed accordingly
How would your idea change taxation?
Quote: SOOPOOI want a liberal to address these numbers. 2 million out of our 325 million pay 70% of our taxes. I guess the numbers are just shocking to me. Do you truly believe that it is fairer for the 'rich' to pay even more? How much is enough? Should the top 2 million Americans pay 90% of our taxes? How about all of the taxes?
I'm a moderate, not a liberal. But I can read a graph.
I'm not sure where you got the specific 70/70 number, but the graph above comes close to demonstrating the income gap you are complaining about . This is not total wealth, it's income. And the numbers are even more lopsided than this, a 2013 report.
Keep in mind that everyone pays the same amount at the same dollar thresholds, which are graduated to reflect the cost of basic subsistence. Standard deductions are also a flat amount per head, no matter the income level.
I think it's entirely appropriate, with the lopsided earnings, that taxes fall in the proportion you quoted as well, assuming it's an accurate assessment.
I think this chart below, demonstrates even better the reason for the tax "inequity" you claim, but it's not quite as comparable to your statistic. However, look at where the 90% falls vs the rest of the bars.
Please read especially closely the text under this graph. It indicates the income disparities in ratios that are truly stunning.
Those screen shots are giving me anxiety.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm a moderate, not a liberal. But I can read a graph.
I'm not sure where you got the specific 70/70 number, but the graph above comes close to demonstrating the income gap you are complaining about . This is not total wealth, it's income. And the numbers are even more lopsided than this, a 2013 report.
Keep in mind that everyone pays the same amount at the same dollar thresholds, which are graduated to reflect the cost of basic subsistence. Standard deductions are also a flat amount per head, no matter the income level.
I think it's entirely appropriate, with the lopsided earnings, that taxes fall in the proportion you quoted as well, assuming it's an accurate assessment.
I think this chart below, demonstrates even better the reason for the tax "inequity" you claim, but it's not quite as comparable to your statistic. However, look at where the 90% falls vs the rest of the bars.
Please read especially closely the text under this graph. It indicates the income disparities in ratios that are truly stunning.
Assuming all those facts and figures are correct - how does it affect you as an individual?
Knowing you, I would not think you would want income redistribution - would you? You invented a casino game and I am sure, if it became the most popular casino game of all time and made you $100million in royalties, you would not want to give every person in the US $30 each -- or, maybe you would???
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: beachbumbabsI'm a moderate, not a liberal. But I can read a graph.
I'm not sure where you got the specific 70/70 number, but the graph above comes close to demonstrating the income gap you are complaining about . This is not total wealth, it's income. And the numbers are even more lopsided than this, a 2013 report.
Keep in mind that everyone pays the same amount at the same dollar thresholds, which are graduated to reflect the cost of basic subsistence. Standard deductions are also a flat amount per head, no matter the income level.
I think it's entirely appropriate, with the lopsided earnings, that taxes fall in the proportion you quoted as well, assuming it's an accurate assessment.
I think this chart below, demonstrates even better the reason for the tax "inequity" you claim, but it's not quite as comparable to your statistic. However, look at where the 90% falls vs the rest of the bars.
Please read especially closely the text under this graph. It indicates the income disparities in ratios that are truly stunning.
Assuming all those facts and figures are correct - how does it affect you as an individual?
Knowing you, I would not think you would want income redistribution - would you? You invented a casino game and I am sure, if it became the most popular casino game of all time and made you $100million in royalties, you would not want to give every person in the US $30 each -- or, maybe you would???
Oddly enough, that's the top-end amount they estimated we would earn over the 20 years if the game was as big a success as they thought. Good call, counselor.
Yeah, I pay my taxes as both an obligation and a privilege. Even in retirement. 35 years in a row since I didn't earn enough to pay in. And I get great value for my tax dollar. So, if our game had earned enough to do that, I would have been proud to pay them.
The same country that allows you to be a very well-compensated lawyer and SooPoo a very well-compensated doctor, and me a well-compensated whatever I am, asks you to give back some for the public good.
When was the last time you went hungry or without a roof over your head? Drove on only private roads and bridges and didn't pay the owners for transit? Flew without ATC services? Slept uneasy because you didn't have police or fire fighters a phone call away? Or because there weren't 1-2 million others in uniform defending this country?
My taxes are well invested, and so are yours.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: aceofspadesQuote: beachbumbabsI'm a moderate, not a liberal. But I can read a graph.
I'm not sure where you got the specific 70/70 number, but the graph above comes close to demonstrating the income gap you are complaining about . This is not total wealth, it's income. And the numbers are even more lopsided than this, a 2013 report.
Keep in mind that everyone pays the same amount at the same dollar thresholds, which are graduated to reflect the cost of basic subsistence. Standard deductions are also a flat amount per head, no matter the income level.
I think it's entirely appropriate, with the lopsided earnings, that taxes fall in the proportion you quoted as well, assuming it's an accurate assessment.
I think this chart below, demonstrates even better the reason for the tax "inequity" you claim, but it's not quite as comparable to your statistic. However, look at where the 90% falls vs the rest of the bars.
Please read especially closely the text under this graph. It indicates the income disparities in ratios that are truly stunning.
Assuming all those facts and figures are correct - how does it affect you as an individual?
Knowing you, I would not think you would want income redistribution - would you? You invented a casino game and I am sure, if it became the most popular casino game of all time and made you $100million in royalties, you would not want to give every person in the US $30 each -- or, maybe you would???
Oddly enough, that's the top-end amount they estimated we would earn over the 20 years if the game was as big a success as they thought. Good call, counselor.
Yeah, I pay my taxes as both an obligation and a privilege. Even in retirement. 35 years in a row since I didn't earn enough to pay in. And I get great value for my tax dollar. So, if our game had earned enough to do that, I would have been proud to pay them.
The same country that allows you to be a very well-compensated lawyer and SooPoo a very well-compensated doctor, and me a well-compensated whatever I am, asks you to give back some for the public good.
When was the last time you went hungry or without a roof over your head? Drove on only private roads and bridges and didn't pay the owners for transit? Flew without ATC services? Slept uneasy because you didn't have police or fire fighters a phone call away? Or because there weren't 1-2 million others in uniform defending this country?
My taxes are well invested, and so are yours.
I was not talking about paying taxes - was talking about wealth redistribution
Quote: rxwineDo you vote?
Yes? No?
Get more people to vote for lower taxes on the wealthy through their representatives. No one is forcing you to become wealthy and pay higher taxes or stay in the country if you don't like it.
It's pretty much the same answer I have for myself for anything I don't like.
Many people on your side of the aisle have been talking for years and years about fixing the tax system in many ways which they never get around to doing or convincing other people to do it their way.
Heck, wealthy people I suppose are special interest group if they want to be. Not normally one of the charities on anyone's list. Yeah, probably why they end up worrying about themselves with little help except what they can buy. So... tears for the wealthy.
I vote. I meet with my state Assemblyman and state Senator. They know me by name. I meet with my Congressman. I have met with my state's Senators, when they are willing, but usually with one of their aides. I am content with the tax system we had under Obama. And I will be content under the tax system we have under Trump. I am very happy to stay in the country and subsidize dozens of families. I am not for a flat tax. I believe the wealthy can and should pay a higher percentage of their income. My point is that the 'takers' should at least be made aware that there is an extremely small minority of people that are subsidizing THEM. Interestingly, when I make a donation to a charity the beneficiaries always in some way send a thank you. When I pay enough taxes to make up for a dozen families that pay none, I get a "you should pay for 15 families...." No tears needed for me.
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: beachbumbabsQuote: aceofspadesQuote: beachbumbabsI'm a moderate, not a liberal. But I can read a graph.
I'm not sure where you got the specific 70/70 number, but the graph above comes close to demonstrating the income gap you are complaining about . This is not total wealth, it's income. And the numbers are even more lopsided than this, a 2013 report.
Keep in mind that everyone pays the same amount at the same dollar thresholds, which are graduated to reflect the cost of basic subsistence. Standard deductions are also a flat amount per head, no matter the income level.
I think it's entirely appropriate, with the lopsided earnings, that taxes fall in the proportion you quoted as well, assuming it's an accurate assessment.
I think this chart below, demonstrates even better the reason for the tax "inequity" you claim, but it's not quite as comparable to your statistic. However, look at where the 90% falls vs the rest of the bars.
Please read especially closely the text under this graph. It indicates the income disparities in ratios that are truly stunning.
Assuming all those facts and figures are correct - how does it affect you as an individual?
Knowing you, I would not think you would want income redistribution - would you? You invented a casino game and I am sure, if it became the most popular casino game of all time and made you $100million in royalties, you would not want to give every person in the US $30 each -- or, maybe you would???
Oddly enough, that's the top-end amount they estimated we would earn over the 20 years if the game was as big a success as they thought. Good call, counselor.
Yeah, I pay my taxes as both an obligation and a privilege. Even in retirement. 35 years in a row since I didn't earn enough to pay in. And I get great value for my tax dollar. So, if our game had earned enough to do that, I would have been proud to pay them.
The same country that allows you to be a very well-compensated lawyer and SooPoo a very well-compensated doctor, and me a well-compensated whatever I am, asks you to give back some for the public good.
When was the last time you went hungry or without a roof over your head? Drove on only private roads and bridges and didn't pay the owners for transit? Flew without ATC services? Slept uneasy because you didn't have police or fire fighters a phone call away? Or because there weren't 1-2 million others in uniform defending this country?
My taxes are well invested, and so are yours.
I was not talking about paying taxes - was talking about wealth redistribution
Yeah. So was i, though I sidebarred a bit towards the end.
I don't think it's wealth re-distribution at the levels we have, though I have serious issues with this latest tax cut being so tilted and fiscally irresponsible.
The TOP tax before the thing was 39.6%, and only on.the money that exceeded the threshold. The rest was taxed at lesser rates. There were many deductions to further reduce that rate, and it didn't include capital gains or earned interest on investments, so the effective rate was much, much lower.
The military is currently 57% of the budget. That's what high-end payers are really financing; spending part of their earnings to defend the rest of it.
But redistribution : those programs are less than 5% of the budget. Perhaps if you think of your part of the 70% SooPoo is quoting doesn't pay for that (leaves another 25% you also don't pay for) it might be more palatable.
Quote: darkozBecause the top 2 million have 70% of the income wealth then yeah its fair they pay 70% of our taxes
If they feel the lower class are getting the better deal why dont they make am AP move and divest themselves of their wealth and live poor thereby avoiding higher taxes?
Many do. Since we don't pay taxes based on wealth but do based on income, it is possible. Everyone is aware of the biggest tax evader in history, Warren Buffet (legal of course). He has Berkshire Hathaway NOT pay dividends because the government taxes those at a high rate. Instead of distributing the money it is plowed back into the company, making the stock value rise. But unless you sell shares that added value is not taxed at any level.
The top 2 million do not have 70% of the income, some percentage less. If you add up the millions who make 20, 30, 40k who pay no taxes at all, the top 2million might make somewhere in the low 60% of the income, but it really doesn't change your point.
And I like your honesty. It is a rare person who says they are fine with others paying so they don't have to. Many will do it, few will admit it....
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm a moderate, not a liberal. But I can read a graph.
Please read especially closely the text under this graph. It indicates the income disparities in ratios that are truly stunning.
Sorry... I tried to sift through what you posted but my brain shut down. I am fully aware of silly incomes that have evolved in the US today. Kardashians making 10 figures to let us know who they are sleeping with the moment they turn 18. Basketball players getting 40 million a year. A guitarist for a band worth a half billion dollars calling himself The Edge. A talk show host now up to a billion I think (Oprah someone?)
I AGREE with you and most Americans that the rich should pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes. THEY DO. By a lot! It is the incessant babble that some tax bill lowered a 40 million dollar a years total to 16 million from 17 million as if he is now not contributing.....
Quote: aceofspadesAre you offering odds?
What exactly do you believe President Trump to be guilty of? (please cite legal statutes rather than vague allegations of "collusion" (which is not a crime) so that we can have an intelligent discussion of the legal matters)
I support the investigation
I am not sure what Trump and his associates are exactly guilty of.
That's Mueller's job and the leaks have been few.
That's why I support ALL investigations regarding anybody in DC.
I did not know what or if Clinton was guilty of so that's why I had no issue with the Benghazi investigation
Power corrupts
I would love to have an intelligent conversation with you on all the legal charges when Mueller lays his cards on the table
Trying to discuss the facts of the investigation right now is impossible because its just reading tea leaves.
You being a lawyer, I certainly would love to read your response when Mueller lays his cards on the table.
Take the NFL draft. We can discuss who picked great and who picked crummy but its all meaningless.
We wont know what teams picked well till 5 years down the road. We don't know what all the legal charges are until Mueller lays his cards on the table.
Quote: SOOPOOI want a liberal to address these numbers. 2 million out of our 325 million pay 70% of our taxes. I guess the numbers are just shocking to me. Do you truly believe that it is fairer for the 'rich' to pay even more? How much is enough? Should the top 2 million Americans pay 90% of our taxes? How about all of the taxes?
Is it 70% or 90%
In either case, the number is meaningless without knowing the percent of wealth and income owned by those people.
If A-Rod and I both paid the exact same percentage in taxes, he would pay much more in taxes. Is that fair? Does it make sense to somehow tax him at a lower rate than someone at the poverty level. Do we want to take more money from the family that owns four houses and has millions in resources or from the family renting an apartment and looking to put together a down payment on their first house.
Quote: EvenBobI never know what this means. Troll is
a meaningless word now for somebody
who's post you don't like.
"In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."
There are plenty of people on this forum whose posts and opinions I don't like, yet I don't accuse them of trolling.
Your posts show repeated examples of the above, to also include ignoring factual evidence, making obvious and demonstrably false statements, and making completely irrational and nonsensical comments. This is why I'm personally convinced you are trolling (at least with regards to the political topics).
But it's not like I hate you or anything. I'm just going to ignore anything you have to say in non-gambling arena.
Quote: beachbumbabs
The military is currently 57% of the budget. That's what high-end payers are really financing; spending part of their earnings to defend the rest of it.
But redistribution : those programs are less than 5% of the budget. Perhaps if you think of your part of the 70% SooPoo is quoting doesn't pay for that (leaves another 25% you also don't pay for) it might be more palatable.
See, BBB, this is where you lose credibility. The military is around 16% of the federal budget. Your phony 57% number removes things like Medicare, Social security, and other things called "non discretionary". They ARE STILL PART OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET!
I'll say it again. I pay enough taxes for dozens of families to pay none. That is ok. Just stop with the rhetoric that if I paid for one less family it is some horrible mistake that an evil Republican has foisted upon society.
Quote: SOOPOOI AGREE with you and most Americans that the rich should pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes. THEY DO. By a lot!
Didn't Warren Buffet say he is paying a lower tax rate then his secretary
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html
Quote: aceofspadesStatute citation please
Are you claiming his firing of Comey was 'obstruction of justice' - if so, that means you must somehow believe that a President using one of his enumerated Article II (US Const.) can be deemed to have obstructed justice for doing exactly what the US Const. allows him to do
There's still one answer that can't possibly have a citation because it's a possible future, and I can only cite some in the legal community.
The Supreme Court can settle the issue at a future date if there is a challenge. It could settle it in a narrow way for or against Trump & co.
How many times have they had to clarify what amendments cover on specific and more narrow matters for instance?
That's their job. Interpret the Constitution.
Quote: terapinedDidn't Warren Buffet say he is paying a lower tax rate then his secretary
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html
I've addressed WB, the best legal tax evader in history, bar none. He pays himself a falsely low income, while piling up stock value appreciation, and he instructs his company not to pay out dividends. He is a genius at wealth accumulation. It is why in a previous post I mentioned that taxing income fails short of the true progressive/liberal agenda; it is wealth that needs to be taxed.
If you consider FICA contributions, meant to fund YOUR social security payout in the future (no laughing please...) a tax and not a contribution/investment, then he may pay a higher percentage. We all pay around 8% of our income up to 130k or so. So if you make 40million or 130k you pay the same in FICA. It is done that way because the maximum you can get is based on 130k.
Quote: SOOPOOSee, BBB, this is where you lose credibility. The military is around 16% of the federal budget. Your phony 57% number removes things like Medicare, Social security, and other things called "non discretionary". They ARE STILL PART OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET!
I'll say it again. I pay enough taxes for dozens of families to pay none. That is ok. Just stop with the rhetoric that if I paid for one less family it is some horrible mistake that an evil Republican has foisted upon society.
This is the image I referenced when I quoted the 57% etc. I've seen others with similar numbers. The caption does not reflect my personal opinion in being snarky about the Republicans.
This supposedly reflects actual spending. I'm not sure what your numbers mean, whether proposed, estimated, actual, etc. But when I'm pulling numbers out of my butt, I say so. In this case, I'm quoting. I'd appreciate you not attacking my credibility any further.
Quote: billryanFICA is not meant to fund YOUR Social Security. It is to fund OUR Social Security. I'm surprised you don't understand the difference in the two missions.
I think I use YOUR in the same way I would use a future OUR. The mission is the same. My point is it originally started as a 'contribution' concept, but now is really just another tax.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is the image I referenced when I quoted the 57% etc. I've seen others with similar numbers. The caption does not reflect my personal opinion in being snarky about the Republicans.
This supposedly reflects actual spending. I'm not sure what your numbers mean, whether proposed, estimated, actual, etc. But when I'm pulling numbers out of my butt, I say so. In this case, I'm quoting. I'd appreciate you not attacking my credibility any further.
I hate quoting these gigantic posts, but BBB, you didn't notice the RIDICULOUS graph you posted omitted Medicare, Debt service, social security, etc.? My point is if you are a "journalist" trying to prove a point that Republicans = bad, Democrats = good you will use this GROSSLY misleading pie chart. So any conclusions you made are worth SQUAT.
"Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team, said President Donald Trump did not have to comply with any potential subpoenas from special counsel Robert Mueller."
Exactly right..
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: beachbumbabsThis is the image I referenced when I quoted the 57% etc. I've seen others with similar numbers. The caption does not reflect my personal opinion in being snarky about the Republicans.
This supposedly reflects actual spending. I'm not sure what your numbers mean, whether proposed, estimated, actual, etc. But when I'm pulling numbers out of my butt, I say so. In this case, I'm quoting. I'd appreciate you not attacking my credibility any further.
I hate quoting these gigantic posts, but BBB, you didn't notice the RIDICULOUS graph you posted omitted Medicare, Debt service, social security, etc.? My point is if you are a "journalist" trying to prove a point that Republicans = bad, Democrats = good you will use this GROSSLY misleading pie chart. So any conclusions you made are worth SQUAT.
Medicare comes out of FICA payments. Social security does as well. As does unemployment. It's an error of thinking to include them into general expenditures when they have their own (and separate) lines of revenue. (Sidebar edit: WHY is it fair that EVERYONE pays 7.62% on their first 100k or so, and then it stops being deducted? Why shouldn't it be that same percentage of ALL income? You aren't double-taxed in FICA.)
Same with the FAA (which is also not listed). It transitioned out of the general tax expenditures a couple decades ago, and is now paid for by the Aviation Trust Fund and a few other revenue streams. As is the Post Office, as a quasi -govt corporation. Even though it's required in the Constitution, the govt does not fund it any longer.
Not sure where debt service is on this; I think the chart is meant to demonstrate program/department spending out of the general tax collection, and they left debt service out on purpose, as a non-program budget item. I would have to agree that not including at least an indication that it's held separate from this is somewhat duplicitous. The budget items would have to include both the principal debt amount, and the interest we pay on that debt, except that this Congress has budgeted NOTHING towards paying the principal down.
But including it would only reduce all percentages proportionately. And I think their point is well taken. This is what your INCOME tax money is ACTUALLY being spent on.
Judge Rejects Mueller's Request for Delay in Russian Troll Farm Case
A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.
Quote: billryanFICA is not meant to fund YOUR Social Security. It is to fund OUR Social Security. I'm surprised you don't understand the difference in the two missions.
Isn’t Madoff sitting in jail for the exact same thing?
Quote: EvenBobJudges are pig piling on Mueller now.
Judge Rejects Mueller's Request for Delay in Russian Troll Farm Case
Yawn
The investigation continues
Why are conservatives going crazy over this?
Relax, sit back, and lets see what Mueller has
No reason for conservatives to go nuts, yet :-)
Quote: EvenBobGiuliani:
Boy has he fallen
Taking down the mob to Rudy "He'll get his facts straight" Giulani clown lawyer
Good luck with him heading the Trump lawyer team. ROTFL
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is the image I referenced when I quoted the 57% etc. I've seen others with similar numbers. The caption does not reflect my personal opinion in being snarky about the Republicans.
http://i65.tinypic.com/dw3oli.jpg
This supposedly reflects actual spending. I'm not sure what your numbers mean, whether proposed, estimated, actual, etc. But when I'm pulling numbers out of my butt, I say so. In this case, I'm quoting. I'd appreciate you not attacking my credibility any further.
Whew, 68%. I feel much better now.
Quote: SOOPOO
It is a rare person who says they are fine with others paying so they don't have to. Many will do it, few will admit it....
I don't mind that I've paid local taxes for years, and someone moves here into a low budget rental and basically benefits from all the facilities and infrastructure they never got taxed for. And I don't mind the roads repaired that I will never drive on that taxes went to. And I don't mind programs they provide for other various services I may never use.
But if you want to be thanked for something, if in the remotest possible possibility I am ever am your patient in anesthesia, I will thank you if I wake up, and then you can thank me when I pay the big ass bill. Okay, insurance will pay it, but I've been paying for that all along.
Quote: AZDuffmanI did not ask if he was convicted. I am asking liberals if Dan Rather should have went to prison for interfering with the election of 2004 based on his fake news.
If that was the sentence and if he was convicted yes. Otherwise no. You shouldn't send HillaryRather to prison if you haven't convicted herhim.
How is it Rather is going to prison without proving the crime in court first? That's what I want to know?
Quote: rxwineIf that was the sentence and if he was convicted yes. Otherwise no. You shouldn't send HillaryRather to prison if you haven't convicted herhim.
How is it Rather is going to prison without proving the crime in court first? That's what I want to know?
Quit with the nonsense and just answer the questions.
1. Do you think Rather interfered with the 2004 election by using fake news?
2. Should he have gone to prison for it?
3. How is that different from claimed Russian interference today?
See, just looking for consistency here. Rather's fake news was far more damaging than a few Russians posting of Facebook, yet he was never charged with anything. Heck, we could almost say his report was the invention of fake news.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineIf that was the sentence and if he was convicted yes. Otherwise no. You shouldn't send HillaryRather to prison if you haven't convicted herhim.
How is it Rather is going to prison without proving the crime in court first? That's what I want to know?
Quit with the nonsense and just answer the questions.
You don't like what you're getting, can't help you.
1. Do you think Rather interfered with the 2004 election by using fake news?
No. Not proven. Never was proven he did it or had intent to do.
2. Should he have gone to prison for it?
No. See above.
3. How is that different from claimed Russian interference today?
If they ever show up in court, it will be proven or not. They are indicted, Rather was not indicted.Quote:See, just looking for consistency here. Rather's fake news was far more damaging than a few Russians posting of Facebook, yet he was never charged with anything. Heck, we could almost say his report was the invention of fake news.
Damage could be case for sentencing more severely, not necessarily innocence.There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Quote: beachbumbabsNot sure where debt service is on this; I think the chart is meant to demonstrate program/department spending out of the general tax collection, and they left debt service out on purpose, as a non-program budget item. I would have to agree that not including at least an indication that it's held separate from this is somewhat duplicitous. The budget items would have to include both the principal debt amount, and the interest we pay on that debt, except that this Congress has budgeted NOTHING towards paying the principal down.
According to this article from politifact the discrepancy is due to mandatory v discretionary expenses.
As for the tax/wealth issue you might find this page of interest. In the past 50 years those that fall below the 50% mark have basically gone nowhere while the top 10% has close to doubled their income. We're becoming more and more of the halves and have nots.
Happy sunday!
Quote:Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.
People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.
Jack Straw, who as foreign secretary was involved in earlier efforts to restrict Iranian weapons, said: “These are extraordinary and appalling allegations but which also illustrate a high level of desperation by Trump and [the Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, not so much to discredit the deal but to undermine those around it.”
According to incendiary documents seen by the Observer, investigators contracted by the private intelligence agency were told to dig into the personal lives and political careers of Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, and Kahl, a national security adviser to the former vice-president Joe Biden. Among other things they were looking at personal relationships, any involvement with Iran-friendly lobbyists, and if they had benefited personally or politically from the peace deal.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/revealed-trump-team-hired-spy-firm-for-‘dirty-ops’-on-iran-arms-deal/ar-AAwQbIu?ocid=spartanntp
Well, maybe it is fake news. We'll see.
Quote: Hullabaloo
As for the tax/wealth issue you might find this page of interest. In the past 50 years those that fall below the 50% mark have basically gone nowhere while the top 10% has close to doubled their income. We're becoming more and more of the halves and have nots.
The flaw as always is assuming you are in either 50% and thinking in that 50% you stay. Most people will move up or down income quintiles in their lifetimes. You usually move up as you get more skills and invest more money. You might fall if you earn a lot more while young, like a pro ball player or some other thing.
Quote: SteverinosIt has never trickled down and it never will. Period.
It does all the time. Or do you not see how much better the lower income classes live now vs. 50 years ago?
