Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 194

Thread: OMG! Limbaugh nails the liberal interpretation of "The Rich"

  1. #101
    The Republican Agenda HadEnough2's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,124
    Thanks
    1583

    From
    Washington State
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    I think white liberals don't understand conservatives have differing values than they do. So, they demean them. There's nothing new here, biggotry has existed for as long as there have been different tribes of men.
    ....no I think white conservatives preach of their values but just can't live by them.

  2. #102
    The Republican Agenda HadEnough2's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,124
    Thanks
    1583

    From
    Washington State
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Are you making the point christians encourage criminal activity? Wow, just wow.
    No, I'm just saying this.

    Atheists don't commit as much crime as the Religious do

  3. #103
    The Republican Agenda HadEnough2's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,124
    Thanks
    1583

    From
    Washington State
    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    Obama's Disgusting Use of Warren Buffett's Secretary as a Prop - The Rush Limbaugh Show

    Oh, this is so true to life. At the very least, Libs and Progs ought to be hammering their rich to do the right thing and volunrtarily fork it over. Maybe Gates and a few others are doing it. But what about so many others? Streisand, Pelosi, Hanks, Spielberg, Soros, and on and on. How about some investigative reporting in that direction?!

    Can't wait to hear why you chew out the GOP rich, but never your own.
    The GOP has always stood by the wealthiest Americans. I think if you asked the people you listed above including Gates, Buffett, and Soros they would say (and have said) that they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Name a Republican that has said that. I'm sure there are a few, right? Polls have indicated that as much as 70% of American think the wealthiest should pay more. Republicans are on the wrong side again.

  4. #104
    Senior Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,909
    Thanks
    1039

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Fine, let them write all the checks they want. As far as I'm concerned we all, at least for the 49% of us who actually pay taxes" pay far too much now. I think we all need to pay less in taxes.
    The rich or 5% pay most of the taxes now. I wondered how much taxes would be enough to pay their fair share. When would it stop , 40% 50%? Its really not fair to tax one group for the whole country. I think its more fair to have a flat tax. It really should be about every American paying their fair share, not just one group. If all taxes were shared by the entire country then maybe we could support all the entitlements and budgets we are currently incurring. One group (rich) cannot finance the entire budget. I am sure there is a way the flat tax could be implemented so its fair for everyone.

  5. #105
    melanin challenged Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    41,966
    Thanks
    14460

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The rich or 5% pay most of the taxes now. I wondered how much taxes would be enough to pay their fair share. When would it stop , 40% 50%? Its really not fair to tax one group for the whole country. I think its more fair to have a flat tax. It really should be about every American paying their fair share, not just one group. If all taxes were shared by the entire country then maybe we could support all the entitlements and budgets we are currently incurring. One group (rich) cannot finance the entire budget. I am sure there is a way the flat tax could be implemented so its fair for everyone.
    Actually, federal tax rates are at historic lows. It's state and local taxes that are so high and they're quite regressive. Meaning that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy.



    (The chart is from Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)

    So a flat federal income tax would only make things worse for the poor.

  6. #106
    Ida Tarbell Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    34,546
    Thanks
    7280

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    Again, I'm not looking at criminal acts. I'm looking at political agendas.


    That is right...I am "selecting" the MSM and it's penchant to ignore the private lives of those on the left side. The press did not look into the life of Ms. Brosanek all these months since her employment came to light. Even now, no one is reporting her actual income. Joe the plumber was probed immediately.
    "Joe the Plumber" injected himself directly into a political campaign with a public statement; no one knew anything about him and he was quite suddenly a celebrity. Ms. Brosanek was used by someone else as an example--no one even knew what she looked like or probably even her name (she was just 'Buffet's secretary'). They would rather naturally make assumptions that might or might not turn out to be true, but the desire to know more wasn't really there in the same way. It's a question of newsworthiness, which is driven as much by the foibles of human personality as anyone's political agenda. Any story involving animals or children will get more press, regardless, because people are more interested in animals and children. When they see a new, loud face, they want to know more about it.

    The right has its own attack press. Why didn't they do it? If they had, the rest of the MSM would have been forced to carry the story, assuming it resonated with readers and viewers.

    This is why I find your claims so weak--there are tons of news outlets doing various qualities of reporting and with various sorts of bias. All sorts of things don't get reported in the MSM press, including the really far left stuff you'll only find in places like Pacifica radio or the small, free press papers you find in major cities. But the stuff that really sticks does get play in the MSM. The fact is, the MSM is owned by conservative forces, pretty much entirely. It's GE, Fox News Corp, Disney, Capital Cities/ABC, Time-Warner, Viacom. Not exactly a bunch of radical lefties.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 28th January 2012 at 10:44 AM.

  7. #107
    Senior Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17,872
    Thanks
    2919

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by HadEnough2 View Post
    ....no I think white conservatives preach of their values but just can't live by them.

    All white conservatives? Really? Does this mean all white democrats are closet homosexuals?



    Meet Jim mcgreevey, former new jersey governor. Married, children, opposed gay marriage..........until he gave his boyfriend

    a state job and was outed. Now he wants to be an Episcopalian Priest.



  8. #108
    Senior Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17,872
    Thanks
    2919

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by HadEnough2 View Post
    The GOP has always stood by the wealthiest Americans. I think if you asked the people you listed above including Gates, Buffett, and Soros they would say (and have said) that they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Name a Republican that has said that. I'm sure there are a few, right? Polls have indicated that as much as 70% of American think the wealthiest should pay more. Republicans are on the wrong side again.

    Uh-huh. Do you actually pay attention to what's going on out there with these two parties? The leadership of both parties comes from the same social class. Just whose social class do you think they are more interested in preserving? If you have graduated high school you should know that. If you haven't you know that now.


    source
    By Pat Garofalo on Sep 21, 2010 at 5:30 pmLast week, a number of House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stating their objection to allowing the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans to expire. Some of these Blue Dogs, who are breaking with President Obama in order to borrow and spend $830 billion on tax breaks for the richest Americans, are relying on discredited Republican arguments to bolster their position.However, some of them are also claiming that a household earning $250,000 per year isn’t actually rich, once geographic differences are taken into account. “Where we come from, those people are living paycheck to paycheck,” said Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY).First, as Daniel Gross ably pointed out, “even if you look at the wealthiest metropolitan areas — Washington ($85,236), San Francisco ($76,068), Boston ($70,334), and New York ($63,957) — a quarter of a million dollars a year dwarfs the median income.” Not only that, but as a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out, two-thirds of the House Democrats who are looking to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the rich come from districts with a below average number of households making a quarter-million per year:Of the 31 House Democrats who signed the letter in support of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, 22 represent districts where the share of taxpayers rich enough to pay higher taxes under Obama’s plan is less than the national average of 2.1 percent. Of those 31 House Democrats, 13 represent districts where less than 1 percent of taxpayers are rich enough to face higher taxes under Obama’s plan.Even in McMahon’s district, just two percent of households earn that much. In total, there are only 30 districts (out of 436 in the country) where at least 5 percent of households would be affected by the expiring tax cuts. Just two of those districts are represented by House Democrats who signed the letter to Pelosi.It’s also worth remembering that those making more than $250,000 would still receive a tax break on their income up to that amount, relative to where their tax rate was in the 1990′s. Under Obama’s plan, a millionaire will still pay roughly $6,300 less in taxes than they would if the entirety of the Bush tax cuts expire. So even the exceedingly few households represented by these lawmakers that would be affected if the Bush tax cuts expire would be keeping some of their tax breaks.The House Democrats also asserted in their letter that the richest two percent of taxpayers are responsible for 25 percent of consumer spending. However, CTJ noted that these households account for 21 percent of total pretax cash income and “their share of total personal consumption is certainly not higher than their share of total income.” In all, this two percent of taxpayers is responsible for roughly 8 percent of consumer spending, CTJ estimated..........

  9. #109
    Senior Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17,872
    Thanks
    2919

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by HadEnough2 View Post
    I found your article.....interesting. Having said that I found this article interesting as well. I don't normally disparage sources so I won't this time either. However I do feel far more comfortable with my source "psychology today" and the author of this article. So, I'll just have to agree to disagree.

    For what it's worth, I consider myself an athiest but my personal experiences lead me to believe, like the good dr here, that people of faith tend to be a little bit better at some things than us athiests especially when you consider the very best mass murderers of the 20th century were all athiests; stalin, mao, pol pot, ect..... That isn't something that makes me proud to be an athiest.



    source
    Spirit, science, and health.
    by Thomas Plante, PhD Do we need religion to be ethical?While not essential, religion potentially helps people be and stay good.
    Published on March 27, 2011 by Thomas G. Plante, Ph.D. in Do the Right Thing........


    .........Religious engagement and practices encourages and supports "clean living." Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, marital infidelity, alcoholism, unprotected sexual activity as well as being more likely to engage in pro social behaviors such as volunteerism and charity. Thus, those who tend to report being spiritual, religious, or both tend to behave themselves pretty well. In a nutshell, people in the church choir usually don't rob banks. Check out Harold Koenig's Handbook of Religion and Health as well as his Handbook of Religion and Mental Health for excellent reviews if interested in the scholarly support for this.

    Religion and spirituality encourages ethical behavior in their sacred scripture readings, in their models or exemplars for behavior (not only well known religious figures such as saints and founding members of religious traditions but also among religious elders, pastors, teachers, and congregants).

    My point really is that overall, research supports the view that spiritual and religious practices (e.g., meditation, Church sponsored social justice ministries, religious service attendance) have certain physical, mental, community health, and ethical benefits.........

  10. #110
    Senior Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17,872
    Thanks
    2919

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Actually, federal tax rates are at historic lows. It's state and local taxes that are so high and they're quite regressive. Meaning that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy.



    (The chart is from Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)

    So a flat federal income tax would only make things worse for the poor.
    In all fairness excessive taxation makes things worse for all of us. I live in arkansas. Our incomes are low. Our taxes are low. We have a balanced budget. I'll take that over california any day of the week.

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 31st January 2012, 06:23 PM
  2. 30th January 2012, 05:06 PM
  3. 28th January 2012, 04:26 PM
  4. 28th January 2012, 11:56 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed