Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>No. It just shows again how I defend the rich and seek to leave the homeless and the children to die.

Well, you do disavow any tax increases to help poor people, yes? You can't do that and still pretend to be compassionate. Oh, I get it, you want low taxes so when those impoverished and homeless become millionaires their tax code will be set to help them, I see.

Yeah, taking the money other people besides yourself have earned to help the poor. Very compassionate.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>No. It just shows again how I defend the rich and seek to leave the homeless and the children to die.

Well, you do disavow any tax increases to help poor people, yes? You can't do that and still pretend to be compassionate. Oh, I get it, you want low taxes so when those impoverished and homeless become millionaires their tax code will be set to help them, I see.

Yeah, taking the money other people besides yourself have earned to help the poor. Very compassionate.

I'd rather my money was taken to help the poor than to kill tens of thousands in an immoral war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Yeah, like your tax dollars are not wasted on complete shit, that has nothing to do with helping anyone but the politicians themselves.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>No. It just shows again how I defend the rich and seek to leave the homeless and the children to die.

Well, you do disavow any tax increases to help poor people, yes? You can't do that and still pretend to be compassionate. Oh, I get it, you want low taxes so when those impoverished and homeless become millionaires their tax code will be set to help them, I see.

Yeah, taking the money other people besides yourself have earned to help the poor. Very compassionate.

I'd rather my money was taken to help the poor than to kill tens of thousands in an immoral war.

Good God, man. Learn a new tune. Maybe your classes are impressed by the same routine over and over. Me? I'd appreciate a little insight from a man as learned as yourself...not just you hitting "Ctrl+V" whenever the question of taxes is brought up.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lefty 0]

Quote

***Another tax-and-spend plan by a wealthy liberal.

The wealthy already have their money beyond the government's reach (that's why they're wealthy).

It'll be the middle class that ends up taking it in the shorts, as usual.

mh

OK, but the US taxpayer will get some payback from spending on education, but blowing $500billion and counting, plus more than 3,000 lives, on an unnecessary war has not produced anything of value to the nation as a whole.

Quote

***They have to get the money for Hillary's and Schumer's hippy museum from somewhere

Maybe you should take a look at the money being spent on the optional war you support.

Kallend, just a couple of examples of your replies from the past few days. The topics being discussed have nothing to do with the war in Iraq, yet the war always seems to get invoked...why?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Well, you do disavow any tax increases to help poor people, yes?

No. I disavow any tax increases that are disproportionate to any group of people. If you increase taxs on the poor, they should be increased on the rich and the middle class, too.

I already said that.

Quote

Forget Bush, you defend most things Republican.....proof / pudding.

And Republicans have accused be of disowning most things Democrat. proof/pudding. See, I look past party lines and think for myself. But nice to see you coming off of my being pro-Bush. Perhaps eventually you'll see that my machine gun sprays 360.

Quote

Doesn't matter if I agree or not, all I read is about those GD taxes and employers looking for a free ride.

Free ride? Is that what you call resistance to a more expensive one? Free ride my ass. I paid more in taxes in the last two years than I paid in the entire 32 previous years of my life. Free ride?

So I'd like my tax burden to be under 40%. Explain how that is a bad thing.

By the way - how much more intaxes are you willing to pay? If taking care of poor people is what you are about, name two that you are taking care of. When was the last time you opened your doors to a homeless person?

Oh, you agree that they should not be homeless. Are you willing to offer YOUR home to them? Are YOU willing to take care of them YOURSELF? Or is it simply a matter of you think someone ELSE should do it?

Hence, the difference between libertarians and Dems/GOP - libertarians take care of themselves. Dems and Reps think others should take care of others. The only difference is WHO should be taking care of whom.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Affirmative Defense is simply a defense where the defendant bears the burden of proof, that 's how I was using it.

Showing something is not true is not an affirmative defense. It's a denial. That's how you were using it.

Sure, affirmative defenses require proof - your definition is correct, but your application is wrong. Note that "affirmative defense" is a defense of technicality outside of the realm of proof. As a matter of fact something may have happened. It may be PROVEN as a fact. But the affirmative defense merely suggests that everything could be true, but the defense doesn't work.

Think of OJ - no affirmative defenses there. He didn't prove anything. HE just denied it and the prosecution didn't prove it.

Now, if OJ would have said he was insane, THAT is an affirmative defense. Prosecutors need not prove he was sane when he killed. OJ would have to establish he was NOT sane, and therefore not criminally culpable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Go worship your new master.

My choice would be Edwards, but he might be vice at best. I'll take Hillary tho. Obama would also work. It will be Hillary and Edwards I'm sure.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>No. It just shows again how I defend the rich and seek to leave the homeless and the children to die.

Well, you do disavow any tax increases to help poor people, yes? You can't do that and still pretend to be compassionate. Oh, I get it, you want low taxes so when those impoverished and homeless become millionaires their tax code will be set to help them, I see.

Yeah, taking the money other people besides yourself have earned to help the poor. Very compassionate.

This ridiculous concept that raising my taxes to and establishing welfare programs is soehow robin hood is so 7th grade.

To help you understand briefly how it works, we have been a debtor nation since 1840, so it isn;t from my pocket to theirs, we are still paying for wars and social spending our wonderful formr presidents accrued from 10's of decades ago.

As for spending, we spend ~550B per year on basic military, not counting wars, so shall we look to that and all that corp welfare?

QUESTION: How is it that we have the fewest social programs of industrialized nations, yet are going in debt? If social spending is the sword thru the heart of of any countries economy, then how does Canada, GB, etc give so much to their people, yet still are able to kick the balls out of our dollar and not rack a debt the way we do?

ANSWER: We almost match the world n military spending: 45/55. Yet some people are so distracted by social svs..... wonder why we are such a depraved country?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>No. It just shows again how I defend the rich and seek to leave the homeless and the children to die.

Well, you do disavow any tax increases to help poor people, yes? You can't do that and still pretend to be compassionate. Oh, I get it, you want low taxes so when those impoverished and homeless become millionaires their tax code will be set to help them, I see.

Yeah, taking the money other people besides yourself have earned to help the poor. Very compassionate.

I'd rather my money was taken to help the poor than to kill tens of thousands in an immoral war.

The former leads to a better society, the latter to more wars, more deficit spending, etc. And some wonder why we have so much class envy / class hate.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

***Another tax-and-spend plan by a wealthy liberal.

The wealthy already have their money beyond the government's reach (that's why they're wealthy).

It'll be the middle class that ends up taking it in the shorts, as usual.

mh

OK, but the US taxpayer will get some payback from spending on education, but blowing $500billion and counting, plus more than 3,000 lives, on an unnecessary war has not produced anything of value to the nation as a whole.

Quote

***They have to get the money for Hillary's and Schumer's hippy museum from somewhere

Maybe you should take a look at the money being spent on the optional war you support.

Kallend, just a couple of examples of your replies from the past few days. The topics being discussed have nothing to do with the war in Iraq, yet the war always seems to get invoked...why?

We're talking about gov spending, HOW THE FUCK IS MILITARY SPENDING NOT AN ISSUE? The #2 spender spends 1/9th of what we do and that DOES NOT account for the war. If we counted that they might spend 1/15th. And you want to ignore it....how convenient.

[rushmc 18]

On taxes oh smart on


As opined by Rush Limbaugh and backed up with IRS DATA

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls



The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes

(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)



October 4, 2005

This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%




*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security


Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!

The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

October 10, 2003


The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And some wonder why we have so much class envy / class hate.

I don't. I look at your posts and see an underlying hatred of the wealthy. Envy breeds hatred. You wish you had that money. As opposed to appreciating those who have done it correctly, it is far easier to tear them down and seek to destroy,.

Helping the poor DOES better society. Helping the poor makes one a better person - SO LONG AS THE PERSON HELPING THE POOR IS DOING SO WITH HIS OR HER OWN RESOURCES.

Unless it's Robin Hood. Recall - Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Also recall that the rich were the nobility - who TAXED everyone, thus making them poor. The poor were poor BECAUSE of the the taxes that were pushed upon them - for the benefit of it.

I'll ask you this - is a society of equal misery a better society than what we have now?

Stalin managed to rid Russia of the wealthy and powerful (except himself - he offed all challenges). Mao did, too. So did Pol Pot. All by pointing to an enemy (the bourgoisie). So they kiilled them all, thus ensuring that nobody had a good time (except themselves).

How many people were killed to form a more equal society - you know, without class?

It's disingenuous to suggest that class warfare is better for society than intergovernmental warfare. They are BOTH wars, and the 20th century suggests that they have similar death tolls.

You favor class warfare and envy. You disfavor interpolitical war.

I disfavor class envy and warfare. I disfavor intergovernmental warfare, as well.

I'm anti-war. You're pro-war on one topic. There's the difference between you and me.

I am anti-envy. Rather than seeking to destroy the wealthy when I was living in Section 8 housing, I decided to follow their example. I thought it is better to be like them than to try to make them be like me.

Aim high. Make each day your masterpiece. And worry not about what other people do. Envy has no place in success.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

So Willie Sutton strikes again.

Why do hedge fund managers making $millions per year get a tax break that the middle class doesn't get?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So Willie Sutton strikes again.

Why do hedge fund managers making $millions per year get a tax break that the middle class doesn't get?

Sorry, economy of scale != tax break. I believe we shot this one down in the other thread, did we not?

Funny how liberals are all about equality...until it comes to those who make more than some arbitrary figure (except themselves, of course).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

because they donate generously to politicians. It is not about doing the right thing, as Lucky correctly points out. It is about power.

SO, will you stick it to those who don't donate a lot fo money and don't need government promises? Or will you cut breaks to people who help fund campaigns?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

So Willie Sutton strikes again.

Why do hedge fund managers making $millions per year get a tax break that the middle class doesn't get?

Sorry, economy of scale != tax break. I believe we shot this one down in the other thread, did we not?

No.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So Willie Sutton strikes again.

Why do hedge fund managers making $millions per year get a tax break that the middle class doesn't get?

Sorry, economy of scale != tax break. I believe we shot this one down in the other thread, did we not?

No.

Hmm... didn't seem that way to me - but then again, I'd made several points that were never rebutted, so I suppose I came to the "shot it down" thought honestly.... rather unlike the notion that the rich getting more benefit from a tax reduction that ALL investors can take advantage of is a "break".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So Willie Sutton strikes again.

Why do hedge fund managers making $millions per year get a tax break that the middle class doesn't get?

Sorry, economy of scale != tax break. I believe we shot this one down in the other thread, did we not?

No.

And you approve of 18 billion in earmarks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So Willie Sutton strikes again.

Why do hedge fund managers making $millions per year get a tax break that the middle class doesn't get?

Sorry, economy of scale != tax break. I believe we shot this one down in the other thread, did we not?

No.

Hmm... didn't seem that way to me - but then again, I'd made several points that were never rebutted, so I suppose I came to the "shot it down" thought honestly.... rather unlike the notion that the rich getting more benefit from a tax reduction that ALL investors can take advantage of is a "break".

How can all investors get an advantage from a loophole available only to hedge fund administrators?

Try Googling "hedge fund loophole".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How can all investors get an advantage from a loophole available only to hedge fund administrators?

Try Googling "hedge fund loophole".

Well, there actually WAS one, hmm? Oh, wait, no it's not - it's just capital gains tax.

Hopefully if/when Congress gets around to "correcting" this, it won't backfire on Irma Investor in later years when she converts her retirement accounts - I'm sure it will, since they're mucking about with capital gains taxes...but they sure *showed* those evil rich capitalists a thing or two!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

How can all investors get an advantage from a loophole available only to hedge fund administrators?

Try Googling "hedge fund loophole".

Well, there actually WAS one, hmm? Oh, wait, no it's not - it's just capital gains tax.

Hopefully if/when Congress gets around to "correcting" this, it won't backfire on Irma Investor in later years when she converts her retirement accounts - I'm sure it will, since they're mucking about with capital gains taxes...but they sure *showed* those evil rich capitalists a thing or two!!

You ARE familiar with the loophole, then.

Fairly easy to deal with it without screwing with the retirement funds of the merely wealthy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How can all investors get an advantage from a loophole available only to hedge fund administrators?

Try Googling "hedge fund loophole".

Well, there actually WAS one, hmm? Oh, wait, no it's not - it's just capital gains tax.

Hopefully if/when Congress gets around to "correcting" this, it won't backfire on Irma Investor in later years when she converts her retirement accounts - I'm sure it will, since they're mucking about with capital gains taxes...but they sure *showed* those evil rich capitalists a thing or two!!

You ARE familiar with the loophole, then.

Fairly easy to deal with it without screwing with the retirement funds of the merely wealthy.

Ah, I see - so the "Party of Equality" is *actually* about making things unequal.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How can all investors get an advantage from a loophole available only to hedge fund administrators?

Try Googling "hedge fund loophole".

Well, there actually WAS one, hmm? Oh, wait, no it's not - it's just capital gains tax.

Hopefully if/when Congress gets around to "correcting" this, it won't backfire on Irma Investor in later years when she converts her retirement accounts - I'm sure it will, since they're mucking about with capital gains taxes...but they sure *showed* those evil rich capitalists a thing or two!!

You ARE familiar with the loophole, then.

Fairly easy to deal with it without screwing with the retirement funds of the merely wealthy.

Ah, I see - so the "Party of Equality" is *actually* about making things unequal.

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How is it equal already when someone making $100M a year is taxed at a lower rate than someone making $150k a year?

How is it equal when the richer person has a special tax just for him? The person making $150k/year pays the same 15% capital gains tax on *his* investments.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706