Obama and the Democrats are willing to "FORCE" the elderly to eat cat food!

so...
your entire point is that Democrats are heartless bastards for even thinking about going along with what Republicans want?

Oh, give it a rest, please. Obama doesn’t want to cut Medicare. Republicans want to force him to cut Medicare.

Oh please. What in the hell is Obama's mission statement for this economy. Does anybody know? I don't think he even knows.

What a load of BS. Can you say Paul Ryan budget which every Teapublican voted for. You know the one that eliminates Social Security. This has to be one of the worst attempts to spin the Teapublican message I have every seen.

Bull crap back at ya. It does not eliminate it. Did you read it? I did. Where does it get eliminated? It gets changed to choices, and does not affect anyone 55 and over.

It is apparent that you did not. It does eliminated Soc. Sec. and replaces it with a voucher. I am 54 (will be 55 in Jan.) so I get screwed. I paid for something I will not receive.

Yes you will. By the time it goes into effect you will be grandfathered into the system.

Could someone PLEASE tell me why Senior Citizens are "sacred cows" and the rest of us have to pay for it? In case you guys didn't know it, 65 is NOT an age where most people are a) incapable of working, b) living on "cat food" or c) at the end of their life span!

Maybe we need to suck it up and re-evaluate "senior citizen" to define it to someone who is within 5-10 years of the end of an average life span - like it was INTENDED TO BE when SS and then Medicare were implemented!

And just were does it say that? I have numerous chronic illness such as Diabetes, High blood pressure and have 3 heart attacks and 2 Cardiac catheterization procdures. I have been told by my physician that I will need a Cardiac bypass in the near future. So just what insurance company is going to insure me with the Teapublican voucher?

greg-709692

In case you missed it BAD1V, Ryans bill didn't pass the Senate, so your not gonna lose anything on that one. This one proposed by Obama, may go through.

You have now admitted that it is not President Obama's plan but the Teapublican proposal that he is trying to negotiate from.

What the President said was everything is on the table. Again that is how normal people negotiate. Unlike the Teapublicans who are refusing to consider raising tax's on their rich benefactors.

Like G.E?

I'll play your little game. Yes like G.E and Fox,BP, Exon and many others. Just because MSNBC is owned by G.E does mean their tax's should raised.

but, but, but, I thought you supported higher taxes on the rich greedy corporations. Obama's little pet G.E. paid so very much already in taxes....oh wait...no they didn't.

Can you read I said they should pay higher tax's? The Teapublicans are the ones who do not want their tax's raise.

Okay, now I'll play your game. If we raise taxes on the big bad corporations, who do you think ultimately pays for them?

Here you go. Since they did not pay any maybe you think that is alright. Or could we just stop the subsides the Oil companies receive. Oh I forgot the Teapublicans are against that to.

As to G. E being anyone "little pet" do you having any proof of that, or is that just more Teapublican spin?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/06/90299/exxon-tax/

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Look it up yourself. Google it. Please answer my question.

BAD1V, the memos have definitely left an impression on you.

You have the talking points down perfectly!

• Paul Ryan budget which every Teapublican voted for. You know the one that eliminates Social Security
• so I get screwed
• You have now admitted that it is not President Obama's plan but the Teapublican proposal that he is trying to negotiate from.
• What the President said was everything is on the table.
• Unlike the Teapublicans who are refusing to consider raising tax's on their rich benefactors.
• Fox (surprised it took this long frankly)
• The Teapublicans are the ones who do not want their tax's raise.
• subsides the Oil companies receive
• I said they should pay higher tax's?
• Best of all-you posted a ThinkProgress article as "evidence".....

lol

1. Just who do you think is paying for it now. Have been to the grocery story or put gas in your car. If you have you would know that the prices are going up anyway.

2.You made that ridicules comment it is up to you to provided proof. Don't worry I'll wait.

Scooter-3472268 can you refute anything I have posted? Or are you just going to complain about them?

Yup, go ahead and hold your breath. I said google it yourself or are you afraid of what you'll find?

The prices of everything is going up already anyway you say? You are willing to pay more?

Just as I thought another BS Teapublican statement with nothing to substantiate it. Oh I am so surprised. Lol

Well are you willing to pay more? Answer me, or are you just going to throw out more witless insults?

Yes I am. Next talking point. Are you willing to provide proof to your comment as I ask?

Could someone PLEASE tell me why Senior Citizens are "sacred cows" and the rest of us have to pay for it? In case you guys didn't know it, 65 is NOT an age where most people are a) incapable of working, b) living on "cat food" or c) at the end of their life span!

Because like it or not that was the promise made to Senior Citizens, you work a certain number of years and when you retire you get SS and Medicare. Why should a person 65 or over have to go back to work when they have retired? What companies are going to hire them when unemployed people over 50 cannot find work?

BAD1V - Published in the New York Times:

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

Published: March 24, 2011

Search for this article. It should get ya started. Mean while back at the ranch do your own search to refute it.

Did you find it. It's really good.

Runner99 no I did not would you care to provide a link.

greg-709692

BAD1V:

I've never met anyone in the real world that "Wants" to pay more, and mean it, unless it's government.

Just were did I say I wanted to pay more tax's. I was ask if I was willing to. Which I am if it means that it used to help the elderly and poor. But not to subsidies big Oil companies. So your comment is without merit.

Hope this works

Having a hard time getting it to post.

Why should a person 65 or over have to go back to work when they have retired?

Have you noticed what's become of the economy lately? Walk into any Home Depot or Lowe's, or a ticket taker at your local theater, and count the retirees.

I wouldn't think you'd be willing to pay more for milk or bread or any other product, would you?

What you are basically admitting to is that you like being blackmailed. If a company sells a commodity (oil would be one) and has guaranteed revenue so high that it dwarfs all other companies on planet Earth why should they receive a subsidy, and why should getting rid of a subsidy for them directly increase the cost of gasoline? OPEC sets the world rate and that has a much bigger effect than a subsidy.

Could someone PLEASE tell me why Senior Citizens are "sacred cows" and the rest of us have to pay for it?

kjmgirl

Could someone PLEASE tell me why taxcuts for the rich are "sacred cows" and the rest of us have to pay for them?

Tax cuts for the rich, my ass! Why don't you do some homework on that - MOST of the cuts were for the "Poor" - those making less than $50K per year - those who don't even PAY any income tax any more.

oh sniff, poor babies...they have done quite well during the recession, they can afford to pay what they paid under Clinton. The poor...not so much.

Tax cuts for the rich, my ass! Why don't you do some homework on that - MOST of the cuts were for the "Poor" - those making less than $50K per year - those who don't even PAY any income tax any more.

You are asking someone else to do their homework and you actually believe that people making less than 50k don't pay income taxes? If they don't pay income taxes how can their income taxes be cut? What fantastical world do you live in? Apparently in your world the middle class are dancing in the streets with pools of money and the unemployment rate....well that's just hitting the banking CEO's...since most of them still have their jobs maybe you should tell them how bad their lives suck...so far it doesn't look like they understand their role of the oppressed slovenly pauper who happens to be a CEO.

The rich include hedge fund managers, CEOs, most directors in large companies who if they live on long term capital gains they are taxed at 15% vs someone whose making 50k which is 25% (how the &^ck that are taxed at 25% when you believe they pay none is beyond me...but whatever) . Start adding in loopholes for jets, second homes and you've got quite a good deal.

KC 77 #14.0 I doubt you and i would agree on much but minus the class hatred here is my take on your post.For what it is worth.

1. there is no logical or economically sound argument for hedge fund managers etc to pay capital gains tax. Here is why they should and it is not because they are rich. Dealing in securities is their JOB and for that reason their income should be taxed at ordinary income.

2 There is a solid place for capital gains tax at a reduced rate. Suppose you build a farm or small business. the money you used to buy it is was after tax dollars. If due to age or health or whatever you sell that it the gain should not be tax free but at some level of capital gains tax.(15% sound good) Same with cashing in your savings. These or special conditions not their regular job. This way of handling would bring in new revenue with out punishing a family for saving for kids eduction or retirement.

3. 69 million(42%) families with incomes below $50,000 pay no FEDERAL INCOME tax. Most of those are under $30,000 but some are at $50K and some are at $500K The Bush tax cuts took about 30% of the population who were paying 15% income taxes off of the tax roles. Thus their cut was from 15% to 0. The highest bracket was paying 39% and they were dropped to 35% ( rounded) thus their cut was 4%. If allowed to expire in their entirety, the roughly 30% of the country will get a new tax at 15% of their income and rich ( and everybody in between ) will get an increase of 4%. or more. Draw whatever conclusions from this you want but these are the facts without a suggestion as to what to do.

5. Reagan in the tax reform act of 1986 along with Tip O'Neil eliminated loopholes. After he was gone both parties , over the years put them and more back in. Some of this was done in Reagan's name and i assure he would not approve after going through hell to get them removed in the first place. Many in the top brackets do not pay the full rate due to these obscenities. Particularly bad are the subsidies to those who don't need it or promote failed ideas like Ethanol.I make a distinction between loopholes and legit business expenses. Some of the people i read seem to think that revenue is the same as net income. Lets join and get rid of this crap without hurting SMALL business.

KC 77 #14.0 I doubt you and i would agree on much but minus the class hatred here is my take on your post.For what it is worth.

There's no class hatred. I just don't agree with people using their financial power to ruin this country... that's all. Easy.

1. there is no logical or economically sound argument for hedge fund managers etc to pay capital gains tax. Here is why they should and it is not because they are rich. Dealing in securities is their JOB and for that reason their income should be taxed at ordinary income.

Then you and I agree. Because if their capital gains are taxed as regular income they most likely would be paying 35% compared to 15%.

2 There is a solid place for capital gains tax at a reduced rate. Suppose you build a farm or small business. the money you used to buy it is was after tax dollars. If due to age or health or whatever you sell that it the gain should not be tax free but at some level of capital gains tax.(15% sound good) Same with cashing in your savings. These or special conditions not their regular job. This way of handling would bring in new revenue with out punishing a family for saving for kids eduction or retirement.

For physical assets like houses.... no problem. For stocks/bonds? Hell no

3. 69 million(42%) families with incomes below $50,000 pay no FEDERAL INCOME tax. Most of those are under$30,000 but some are at $50K and some are at $500K The Bush tax cuts took about 30% of the population who were paying 15% income taxes off of the tax roles. Thus their cut was from 15% to 0. The highest bracket was paying 39% and they were dropped to 35% ( rounded) thus their cut was 4%. If allowed to expire in their entirety, the roughly 30% of the country will get a new tax at 15% of their income and rich ( and everybody in between ) will get an increase of 4%. or more. Draw whatever conclusions from this you want but these are the facts without a suggestion as to what to do.

Now this statement is kind of deceiving. Because their are three tax brackets which make up 50k and below. First off any single person making 50k is paying taxes....PERIOD (unless they have some mighty weird living arrangements where they can rack up on deductions and tax credits) most people in that 25% are paying taxes. There are tax credits but they are most definitely paying taxes at this tax bracket. The notion that they aren't is really BS.

Second your breakdown of tax rates are just wrong. You can look them up yourself. Bah here you go.

That 50% of people not paying federal income taxes really isn't telling us who. Nor is it telling us how many kids they have. What are their deductions vs income? You need to know that before you can actually say who is paying. Because the number of tax credits exploded during this time it's not hard to have people with families above and below the 50k mark not paying very many taxes but this isn't the same for single people. Meaning it's not so cut and dry as people are trying to make it.

5. Reagan in the tax reform act of 1986 along with Tip O'Neil eliminated loopholes. After he was gone both parties , over the years put them and more back in. Some of this was done in Reagan's name and i assure he would not approve after going through hell to get them removed in the first place. Many in the top brackets do not pay the full rate due to these obscenities. Particularly bad are the subsidies to those who don't need it or promote failed ideas like Ethanol.I make a distinction between loopholes and legit business expenses. Some of the people i read seem to think that revenue is the same as net income. Lets join and get rid of this crap without hurting SMALL business.

I agree with this completely. Except I don't agree with Reagan lowering the top tax bracket. We didn't have the kind of deficits we started to see in the 80's before this.

KIC 77 you misunderstand my point on no taxes The $50K is just a line above and below there are people not paying . As i said most are under $30K but not all.l The $30 K does not relate to per capita but to per return. These numbers are based upon tax paying entities They represent tax returns some are single and pay no tax some are married and pay no tax, some have different numbers of dependent and pay no taxes. this is not was social statement but a numbers one. etc. Simply put if there were only 100 tax returns filed 42 of them would have no taxes attached regardless of gross income or the number of actual people rep[resented by the return. I would have to look it up but it believe the per capita number is around $10K. I had a heart attack and the recovery year I posted only $11,000 and paid no tax. As your comment on houses that is already handled in the one time over 55 house sale deal. People who are not rich buy a few stocks for a rainy day. They should not be punished punished for saving most of our people problems revolve around people who for what ever reason through low income or stupid behavior have nothing to fall back on. The family with a few stocks is not going to be on food stamps etc at my expense and I do not want to punish them for being responsible enough to save. A little econ 101 in any society savings equals investment. One of our structural problems is the lack of aggregate savings (known as the MPS) Chinese people who work for a can of worms have an aggregate MPS of over 20%. Even with low wages the savings gene is very strong over there as it once was here in the 1800's. I know seniors that buy a bond a month on a $25000 a year income by doing without . Here is another point on the deficits. You are correct about when they really began. The problem however is that Deficits build up if not paid off. We never seriously tried. Clinton's surplus great as it was , was mostly structural due to the peace dividend after the collapse of the Soviet Union. . To his credit he did not squander it but handled it masterfully . Shortly after election Bush began military spending again and that is mostly what caused his deficits. You can't lower taxes and go to war . LBJ tried it and we had rampant inflation under Carter who also was unlucky to catch it. i can't remember but i think maybe the tax cuts came before 9/11 but do not know. In any case fair or unfair the numbers have caught up with us with Obama in office. Clinton got lucky and Obama did not neither one is responsible for what happened during their admins . That being said we got to stop spending. Don't tell anyone but Cantor is and @!$%# and should be shot for blackmailing on someth8ing this serious. That doesn't mean I 'm not for republican solutions but doing it this way is just wrong. Hope this clears me up a little. You seem almost smart enough to be a republican. . lol. Parting shot deficits come from spending more than you take in not taking in too little. A simple rule of thumb Govt spending should be no more that 20% GDP except in war. If that were law we will solve this forever.

KIC 77 you misunderstand my point on no taxes The $50K is just a line above and below there are people not paying .

That's just it. There is no line. It depends on your deductions, dependents, marital status and more plus income. Saying everyone below 50k doesn't pay taxes is wrong and is not correct.

People who are not rich buy a few stocks for a rainy day. They should not be punished punished for saving most of our people problems revolve around people who for what ever reason through low income or stupid behavior have nothing to fall back on. The family with a few stocks is not going to be on food stamps etc at my expense and I do not want to punish them for being responsible enough to save. A little econ 101 in any society savings equals investment. One of our structural problems is the lack of aggregate savings (known as the MPS) Chinese people who work for a can of worms have an aggregate MPS of over 20%. Even with low wages the savings gene is very strong over there as it once was here in the 1800's. I know seniors that buy a bond a month on a $25000 a year income by doing without .

Well I was just trying to keep it simple. But we can do a progressive tax rate on capital gains and that would solve that completely.

Parting shot deficits come from spending more than you take in not taking in too little. A simple rule of thumb Govt spending should be no more that 20% GDP except in war. If that were law we will solve this forever.

Ah no. Anyone who has seen a ledger before will tell you expenditures and revenue matter. What conservatives are trying to say is we should only worry about expenditures (in the middle of a recession no less). If that was a business you would be done for because you won't survive unless you figure out how to increase revenue. Tell that crap to a CEO (a good one anyways) and I promise you he/she will laugh his/her butt off. Revenue matters just as much as expenditures. Anyone who says differently quite frankly isn't being honest.

It's not about "class warfare" - I'm not rich myself. It's about having some skin in the game. You don't pay a penny of income tax - you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to demand that someone ELSE pays MORE than they do now!

It's not about "class warfare" - I'm not rich myself. It's about having some skin in the game. You don't pay a penny of income tax - you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to demand that someone ELSE pays MORE than they do now!

You don't believe the crash of the banking sector hurt the lower rungs of people? You don't believe they had skin in the game? If you believe that then you need to get out more. The crap that happened on Wall Street hurt specifically the middle and lower rungs of our society while the upper class.... well let's just say they are not hurting ok?

What in the hell does the banking crash have to do with nearly half of Americans NOT paying income tax? Why does it mean that the "rich" should pay even MORE when most pay NOTHING? And maybe - just MAYBE - the upper class isn't "hurting" but lost far more than the lower rungs can even imagine. But hey, F them! Who CARES if they worked for what they lost? Who gives a @!$%# if they lost their homes, too. After all $250,000 a year isn't REALLY all that much if you live in LA or San Fran or NYC and have a family. It's all about Me Me Me, isn't it? Screw everyone else as long as I don't have to pay!

What in the hell does the banking crash have to do with nearly half of Americans NOT paying income tax?

JOBS maybe? How about a place to live?

Why does it mean that the "rich" should pay even MORE when most pay NOTHING?

First they don't pay nothing. So get your facts straight. Hell the payroll tax cuts off at 100k or so (everyone pays that), so anyone above that isn't paying any more than those making 100k.

And maybe - just MAYBE - the upper class isn't "hurting" but lost far more than the lower rungs can even imagine.

LMAO LMAO... maybe their soul. But I doubt much else.

But hey, F them! Who CARES if they worked for what they lost? Who gives a @!$%# if they lost their homes, too.

I actually do care about what they've lost. What I can't stand is the BS notion that they somehow have suffered anywhere near at the level as those at the middle class level. For the amount of destruction they've caused?!?! Please. WAH WAH so they lost their second house. We have people standing in lines at the food bank to eat and you want me to feel sorry for a hedge fund manager who helped create this mess? Are you feeling ok?

After all $250,000 a year isn't REALLY all that much if you live in LA or San Fran or NYC and have a family.

Wasn't it the conservatives who were telling people they should just move?!? Well take your own advice pack up the kids and get ta movin... somewhere like Alabama or Mississippi. Those are right to work states. The salaries should be absolutely fabulous there. /s

It's all about Me Me Me, isn't it? Screw everyone else as long as I don't have to pay!

and that's precisely what those at the top think. How the hell do you think they got there?!?

That argument is so @!$%#ing old and so @!$%#ing tired that I am tired of @!$%#ing answering it. I said INCOME TAX. FICA and Medicare are NOT INCOME TAX, NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER @!$%#ING WILL BE!

I live in an area where a "living wage" is just over the minimum wage. I don't HAVE to move anywhere - I was simply parroting the garbage that liberals spew when screaming about a living wage.

And it's absolutely OBSCENE to blame the mortgage melt-down on the "rich". FYI, in case you had not NOTICED, the vast majority of the mess was made by people who wouldn't afford the stupid house they bought, and PURCHASED IT ANYWAY! So get your facts straight!

I am really sick and @!$%#ing tired of everybody blaming "the rich" for all their problems! Who the @!$%# are liberals gonna blame when all the rich have their money re-distributed to everybody else and the people who don't pay their mortgage STILL don't pay their mortgage?

Don't give me the @!$%# about unemployed losing their homes - sure that DID happen, but not until 2 or 3 years AFTER the Sub-prime disaster (which started in 2006)- and Do NOT tell me I'm wrong - I am absolutely RIGHT.

That argument is so @!$%#ing old and so @!$%#ing tired that I am tired of @!$%#ing answering it.

Maybe because you're too quick to create a fantastical world where the middle class are living on easy street. If you didn' t believe that maybe you wouldn't be so tired of defending something you keep ignoring. You can't really get away from the fact that there are taxes/ tax breaks that the rich get that the middle class don't. That's the problem. You're promoting for the rich to pay less while they have tax breaks that others don't get. They can get paid in the form of capital gains, while everyone else who does pay income tax get's taxed at a higher rate.

I live in an area where a "living wage" is just over the minimum wage. I don't HAVE to move anywhere - I was simply parroting the garbage that liberals spew when screaming about a living wage.

Yup and I answered your hypothetical situation with the same callous, soulless evil rhetoric that conservatives spit... for the person in NYC/San Fran they should just move. How's that?

And it's absolutely OBSCENE to blame the mortgage melt-down on the "rich".

The poor created mortgage backed securities?

The poor lobbied against Graham Leach Bliley Act with the millions of dollars they didn't have?

The poor created TARP? Really now?

The poor bought off Moody's to rate mortgage backed securities that were trash triple A? That's news. We've got some powerful @#s poor people up in here.

I'm going to go ahead assume (I know the dangers of that but it's just too funny at this point) that you also believe that after Mary Ann, or Jim finish working their job as Walmart greeter that they took a taxi to visit Timothy Giethner so they can bargain for a really low annual borrowing rate from the Fed....... that will adjust.....upwards... That really won't help them but they'll do it to keep it consistent with the ARM they forced the banks to give them the day before.

Maybe you think it's obscene because the truth hurts?

FYI, in case you had not NOTICED, the vast majority of the mess was made by people who wouldn't afford the stupid house they bought, and PURCHASED IT ANYWAY! So get your facts straight!

So the poor people I'm guessing with nothing more than the shirts on their backs walked into the bank and forced the mortgage broker to give them an ARM loan that would double and triple to a rate they couldn't afford? Really? The poor people forced the banks to give them mortgages of $350,000? What legislation is that? If you say the CRA i'll make you read it here and now.

Wow. You've got your own reality going there! Nobody FORCED any mortgage people to give them ARMs. What kind of stupid idiot "poor person" enters into a $350K mortgage?

You don't think CRA had anything to do with it? Tell it to someone who hasn't BEEN IN THE BUSINESS for 16 years. And before you slam ME, I have NEVER given anyone an ARM, or an Option ARM. I don't DO "liar loans" and I NEVER closed a loan that defaulted. EVER.

You don't know what in the hell you're talking about, obviously. Do you know ALL OF THE "incarnations" of the CRA? Do you KNOW that a great deal of the problem with the sub-prime mortgages were those brokered by ACORN Mortgage? Did you KNOW it was one of the LARGEST SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE BROKERS IN AMERICA? Did you KNOW that ACORN Mortgage was, in fact, one of the main players in the ARM mortgage business? Did you KNOW that they worked in conjunction with Citimortgage and Countrywide to SET UP SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR LIAR LOANS?

And, by the way, I'm NOT rich, I'm NOT a Conservative, I'm NOT a republican and I am NOT willing to listed to crap repeated over and over by people who don't have a friggin idea what in the hell they're talking about.

You talk about getting a good laugh - well, I did - when I read your post.

Wow. You've got your own reality going there! Nobody FORCED any mortgage people to give them ARMs. What kind of stupid idiot "poor person" enters into a $350K mortgage?

What kind of stupid bank gives a mortgage to someone who can't afford it?

You don't think CRA had anything to do with it? Tell it to someone who hasn't BEEN IN THE BUSINESS for 16 years. And before you slam ME, I have NEVER given anyone an ARM, or an Option ARM. I don't DO "liar loans" and I NEVER closed a loan that defaulted. EVER.

Lady you could run a restaurant for all we know. It's the Internet.

You don't know what in the hell you're talking about, obviously. Do you know ALL OF THE "incarnations" of the CRA?

I know the CRA doesn't force banks to give loans to people with no income. Apparently you didn't know this. Feel free to point out the section which says that's legitimate.

Do you KNOW that a great deal of the problem with the sub-prime mortgages were those brokered by ACORN Mortgage? Did you KNOW it was one of the LARGEST SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE BROKERS IN AMERICA? Did you KNOW that ACORN Mortgage was, in fact, one of the main players in the ARM mortgage business? Did you KNOW that they worked in conjunction with Citimortgage and Countrywide to SET UP SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR LIAR LOANS?

Um no. This is when I can tell you're just pulling stuff from the Internet probably some conservative rag in order to prove something you really don't know too much about yourself. That outfit didn't start until 2008. There's some previous efforts in 2007. But we were screwed way before 2007. Try 2005 - 2006. Second they can only broker loans BoA and Citibank were willing to provide. Also Countrywide was the biggest. Not Acorn.

And, by the way, I'm NOT rich, I'm NOT a Conservative, I'm NOT a republican and I am NOT willing to listed to crap repeated over and over by people who don't have a friggin idea what in the hell they're talking about.

Yet here you are listening to it and responding. Really if you're not rich how can I believe that you know what you're doing?

You talk about getting a good laugh - well, I did - when I read your post.

I get a laugh every time I see your anti middle class posts that praise being callous as a virtue. I guess that makes us even.

That is some fierce debate you have going on there. Interesting points...

"The poor caused the mortgage crisis with their subprime loans." (It couldn't have been anything to do with the fact that every buyer in the nation was paying more than the home was worth because easy credit had pushed home prices through the roof and flooded the market with money. It was more like a mortgage correction.)

There are too many interesting contradictions to list and answer....plus that has been done.

So one question if I may?

If the poor are doing so well with all of their tax free action and benefits, and the wealthy are so put upon by having to pay for the bulk of our society's needs then how come more and more of the wealth our nation is borrowing is collecting into the hands of the wealthy and not "trickling down," at all?

What kind of stupid bank gives a mortgage to someone who can't afford it?

http://www.productivity501.com/math-impaired/414/

My sister used to work for IndyMac bank as a frauds invesitgator, to investigate fraud against the bank. When the feds took control of the bank they discovered that the bank had committing fraud. My sister was flown to New York to testify against her former bosses, who were subsequently convicted and sentenced.

She told me the bank was in collusion with some borrowers receiving bogus loans. She went to some of the addresses where the homes were registered, but found empty lots. IndyMac as with other banks, frequently loaned money to deadbeats. She also said the root of the collapse in the housing market was started by politicians who strong armed the banks to give toxic loans to citizens in their districts. It was an obvious ploy to secure votes. She also told me that not all borrowers were guilty, just enough schemers who collectively brought down the system. The current problem, as with the S&L scandal in the 80's, originated in the U.S. by greedy bankers, and politicians on both sides of the aisle.

KC 77 I'm starting to like sparing with you you are a smart (man woman?) I think you are passionate about what you "believe".I fear though you may be a kool aid drinker. I don't think you are regurgitating what others have said. but have a true POV. That said let me go back I never said people making below $50G do not pay takes. It is simple math i got from the census and IRS web sites. If you take the total number of returns filed regardless of single, married, ten kids , no kids just filing a return and divide it into the number of returns that had no federal income tax due you get the percentage I quoted. There were a few TFB's in the over $500K range. By far the largest majority fell in the lower ranks of gross earnings. I said that most were below $30K gross income again to be clear without regard to deductions or dependents. The first gross income where it started were BELOW $50G they might have 10 kids for all i know i made no distinction about those kinds of deductions . sorry about the bold hit the wrong key and too tired to go back. The same place it researched showed that about half of the number now not paying were paying 15% prior to the Bush tax cut. This is a 15% reduction in their tax rate the Bigs got a 4.5% reduction. Social commentary aside this is the truth. I make no social point about the figures but please don't deny their reality. When you take into account dependents the per capita adjusted gross of non payers is about $9 G.

Wasn't it the conservatives who were telling people they should just move?!? Well take your own advice pack up the kids and get ta movin... somewhere like Alabama or Mississippi. Those are right to work states. The salaries should be absolutely fabulous there. /s

Well guess what. When my income tanked I moved from Chicago to a rural area in a right to work state. It costs me about 1/3 of what it cost in Chicago. I have a garden ( Just like Michelle) and grow most of my veggies as do my neighbors who have lived here forever. People here are very refreshing they don't depend on the G for hardly anything. They help each other out even though nobody has anything. Also they do no crying about their lot. They suck it up and try to teach their kids to prepare themselves with a trade or degree so they will do better than them.

Maybe because you're too quick to create a fantastical world where the middle class are living on easy street.

easy street used to be where you wanted to live and aspired to make yourself worth more so you could get there. Now it is a place where people think they should live because they are "entitled" because they were born.They think those living on it owe them some bucks so they won't have to earn their way in. too bad .they are missing the fun of struggling their way up. Make it or not the struggle is the rewarding part. I got there and then lost it. the joy was in the battle. Being there was overrated.

Ah no. Anyone who has seen a ledger before will tell you expenditures and revenue matter. What conservatives are trying to say is we should only worry about expenditures (in the middle of a recession no less). If that was a business you would be done for because you won't survive unless you figure out how to increase revenue

Ah you must have been a failed CEO. Not only have I looked at a balance sheet I have generated many of them. Revenues come and go with the tide. Good managers know how to deal with low revenues. Here is how. Manage your business so as to not have huge fixed expenses that go on regardless of production levels. You will go bust quickly in lean times Be able to turn operating expenses down or off as needed until situations change and then gear up again when the future looks bright again. If you do not believe me ask GM what legacy costs did to them when sales tanked.

I like your progressive capital gains idea. I would vote for 15% above $500G going to 25% over a mil. I lived that rate for a long time and it seemed OK . Ordinary income for those in the business like hedge fund mgr's or stock traders. I would also go for the tax being based progressively on holding time also lower for say 30 years higher for one year Do that and you got a deal.. see ya on your next rant. you do keep it interesting.

Kc - just a couple of points to prove you don't know what in the hell you are talking about:

1) Countrywide was a LENDER, not a mortgage broker.

2) ACORN mortgage started in 1987

"ACORN is a non-profit organization that was created to help low-income families become homeowners. Since their establishment in 1987, the group has helped over 50,000 families get into homes. Not only do they specialize in home buying counseling and education, but they actually contract with lenders nationwide to create designated loan programs for ACORN-approved borrowers."

http://www.homeloanbasics.com/articles/purchasingahome/tryacornprogramsmortgageassistance

3) The CRA REQUIRES lending institutions to lend in their communities (complete with a list of distressed and underserved communities) to keep their rating:

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires the federal financial institution supervisory agencies, in connection with their examinations of certain depository institutions, to assess the institutions' CRA performance. A financial institution's performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its community is evaluated in the context of information about the institution (capacity, constraints and business strategies), its community (demographic and economic data, lending, investment, and service opportunities), and its competitors and peers. Upon completion of a CRA examination, an overall CRA Rating is assigned using a four-tiered rating system. These ratings are: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance.

In the case of an interstate bank, the federal bank supervisory agencies are required by law to evaluate an institution's CRA performance in each state and metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in which it has a branch in addition to providing an overall rating for the bank's performance. The assessment of the bank's performance in these individual areas are appropriately weighted and considered in determining the overall rating.

http://www.ffiec.gov/craratings/ratings_faq.htm#5

Other than that - your rant was meant to do nothing more than insult me and my actual KNOWLEDGE - which I didn't find "on the internet" as YOU obviously did.

If it was the fault of the BANKS that people were too stupid to KNOW that they couldn't afford a $5000 mortgage payment when their income was $6000 can you REALLY blame it on the banks?

ACORN had a program with Citi (yes, it was set up for CRA purposes to meet guidelines) where "income" was determined not only by the person who would live in the house, but could include "gifts" from others monthly, "rent" from someone not related living with you, "disability and welfare payments" for children living in the house - basically to allow people who have NO VERIFIABLE INCOME to buy a home. Was it right? HELL NO. But hey, Bonnie wants to buy a house but doesn't work. She lives with Joe and his four friends, who all work under the table if they work at all, so she can use their "income" - which they don't have to prove, they just have to say how much. She's got three kids whose fathers are supposed to pay child support and THAT can be used as income - whether or not she actually COLLECTS it every month. Her teenaged son is a drug dealer - that income will be used, too.

Don't believe me? Why not look it up on the internet? But hey, who am I to know what really went on? I have just been in the business for 16 years while YOU know what you've heard liberals tell you.

KJM

now now don't confuse the issue with facts you are just going to cause headaches and a trip to the emergency room. Get get back to good old hatred it is much easier.

1) Countrywide was a LENDER, not a mortgage broker.

LOL do you know how large Countrywide is? Countrywide is MASSIVE and offers mortgage brokering services via many many mortgage brokering subsidiaries it owns. They do far more than just lending. Whether you are in the business or not you should know that.

2)ACORN mortgage started in 1987

Acorn started in 1987. Their Mortgage brokering business started later than that. I'm guessing you looked up Acorn Mortgage, LLC (because that's the name you originally gave) and realized it started around the time I said it did. So you just decided to use their generic business statement instead. ACORN has been helping low income people do all sorts of things, however there's a difference between helping people and being certified to do it as a mortgage broker....hence the subsidiaries.

3) The CRA REQUIRES lending institutions to lend in their communities (complete with a list of distressed and underserved communities) to keep their rating:

Where does it say you have to loan to someone with no income. NO FREAKING WHERE. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!

Other than that - your rant was meant to do nothing more than insult me and my actual KNOWLEDGE - which I didn't find "on the internet" as YOU obviously did.

Well according to you Countrywide is just a lender so I don't have a lot of faith in that.

If it was the fault of the BANKS that people were too stupid to KNOW that they couldn't afford a $5000 mortgage payment when their income was $6000 can you REALLY blame it on the banks?

Ah yeah... They are the ones who tell you who quality. NOT YOURSELF!!

ACORN had a program with Citi (yes, it was set up for CRA purposes to meet guidelines) where "income" was determined not only by the person who would live in the house, but could include "gifts" from others monthly, "rent" from someone not related living with you, "disability and welfare payments" for children living in the house - basically to allow people who have NO VERIFIABLE INCOME to buy a home. Was it right? HELL NO. But hey, Bonnie wants to buy a house but doesn't work. She lives with Joe and his four friends, who all work under the table if they work at all, so she can use their "income" - which they don't have to prove, they just have to say how much. She's got three kids whose fathers are supposed to pay child support and THAT can be used as income - whether or not she actually COLLECTS it every month. Her teenaged son is a drug dealer - that income will be used, too.

Could you waste any more text here? At the end of the day it is always the dual responsibility of the bank and the mortgage broker to determine eligibility. We could add the responsibility of the one requesting the loan as well. However, trying to put all of the blame on the poor really just shows what kind of character you have and nothing more. It's definitely not an intelligent stance to take because people can't give themselves loans now can they?

Don't believe me? Why not look it up on the internet? But hey, who am I to know what really went on? I have just been in the business for 16 years while YOU know what you've heard liberals tell you.

Like I said. It's the internet. You could be a line cook, or veterinarian for all we know. You telling me that you have a small business.....well it ain't saying much. No Liberal tells me anything. I'm not a drone. But let you guess you think Sarah Palin is smart as hell.

**Correction

Acorn started in 1970.

That said let me go back I never said people making below $50G do not pay takes.

Ah yeah you did. You said....

The $50K is just a line above and below there are people not paying .

The later sentences give your nuanced POV however, before that you definitely were implying it.

When my income tanked I moved from Chicago to a rural area in a right to work state. It costs me about 1/3 of what it cost in Chicago.

You do realize this proves my point. I'll let you go over that statement a while. ** Hint: If the standard of living is lower then......

easy street used to be where you wanted to live and aspired to make yourself worth more so you could get there. Now it is a place where people think they should live because they are "entitled" because they were born.They think those living on it owe them some bucks so they won't have to earn their way in. too bad .they are missing the fun of struggling their way up. Make it or not the struggle is the rewarding part. I got there and then lost it. the joy was in the battle. Being there was overrated.

You actually believe that people who are poor or middle class don't work hard?!? Wow talk about coping mechanism.

Revenues come and go with the tide.

LOL say what?!?! No wonder you believe that we have a spending problem. You don't believe you have any control over revenue...LMAO. Wow

Manage your business so as to not have huge fixed expenses that go on regardless of production levels.

You're going to do that regardless. How about what you are going to do to GROW the business? Or are you just going to surf the wave with your boogie board.

You do not believe me ask GM what legacy costs did to them when sales tanked.

This is why revenue matters. What? GM didn't just surf the wave well enough? Please. They were having REVENUE problems because they were building Hummers that got 10mpg during a time when gas prices were going up. Their legacy costs are no different that many auto manufacturers over seas. Guess how many are unionized?

I like your progressive capital gains idea. I would vote for 15% above $500G going to 25% over a mil. I lived that rate for a long time and it seemed OK . Ordinary income for those in the business like hedge fund mgr's or stock traders. I would also go for the tax being based progressively on holding time also lower for say 30 years higher for one year Do that and you got a deal.. see ya on your next rant. you do keep it interesting.

That's pretty much what it was before the cuts.If they went back to the rates they were before Bush cut them (and Obama extended them) they should return to back to something that looks at least sort of fair.

you clearly have not owned or operated a business. I had five stores ( franchise) in Chicago If I controlled revenues then I would still be there. fixed costs ( rent) went on when the store was empty or full ,kept going .

Since you obviously can control revenues you are the magic man. Are you available for consulting? what is your rate? whatever it is it's too low. When is your next seminar I want a ticket. you have solved the nations business problems. When will your turnaround start or are you keeping your revenue skills a secret. If so why are you hiding them do you want the economy to tank so you can pick up failed companies for a penny on the dollar. I will sleep better now that you have the solutions. Business Revenue so that's the deal. OK.

you clearly have not owned or operated a business.

LOL actually I have. We were profitable. I stopped doing it because of the stress. I took cash out and let the other two run the business. It's just not my cup of tea for long periods of time. I was good at it though and we never lost money at the end of fiscal years.

I had five stores ( franchise) in Chicago If I controlled revenues then I would still be there. fixed costs ( rent) went on when the store was empty or full ,kept going .

Did I say expenditures didn't matter? Nope. Basically you're trying to argue the inverse here when I'm not arguing that point. In order to run a business you need to grow revenue AND control expenditures. By you telling me that you are attempting to run a business by only looking at expenditures is more than absurd. It's a ticket to failure.

Since you obviously can control revenues you are the magic man.

There's nothing magic about it. It's calling performing due diligence before spending money / investing instead of opening up stores in a location that wasn't good fit for the product you were selling. Controlling (I'd rather look at as managing revenue) revenue happens when you make sound investments, and when you set the price to charge for the service. You charge less when you are new, you charge more when you have an established client base and you are now offering services that the competition doesn't provide. Hence running a business by controlling/managing revenue AND controlling/managing expenditures. Conservatives always have a problem with seeing things in black or white, on or off and never in shades of gray or solutions that are half of one and half of another.

Are you available for consulting? what is your rate? whatever it is it's too low. When is your next seminar I want a ticket. you have solved the nations business problems. When will your turnaround start or are you keeping your revenue skills a secret. If so why are you hiding them do you want the economy to tank so you can pick up failed companies for a penny on the dollar. I will sleep better now that you have the solutions. Business Revenue so that's the deal. OK.

LOL I actually was consultant and hired permanently about 2 years ago. Without giving my title my job is to leverage technology while increasing revenue by making sound investments in software and hardware. :)

Try reading again I said FIXED costs had to be limited . operating costs can be turned on and off at as needed.

you have revealed yourself as as a money grubbing, robber, thief, old people hating business owner. Chasing profits like that was all there was in life. Now that we know you are a rich elite masquerading as a poor person.Investing and all. another stock manipulating and owning thief. What tax rate are you WILLING to charge yourself. Or are you taking deductions for long lunches, travel to good hotels, driving a fancy car so you can write it off and keep it low? Just kidding. You sound like a swell do gooder who gives most of his income to the G have to or not since they can manage your money better that you can. I agree no titles this is not a contest but a debate.

Try reading again I said FIXED costs had to be limited . operating costs can be turned on and off at as needed.

You still have to focus on revenue. I'm sure you know that but I doubt you'll admit it. Even though it's basic math. :)

you have revealed yourself as as a money grubbing, robber, thief, old people hating business owner. Chasing profits like that was all there was in life.

I do?

Now that we know you are a rich elite masquerading as a poor person.Investing and all. another stock manipulating and owning thief. What tax rate are you WILLING to charge yourself. Or are you taking deductions for long lunches, travel to good hotels, driving a fancy car so you can write it off and keep it low?

I'm for raising taxes for the tax bracket I'm in. There are people on MedicAid, Welfare, Food Stamps or whatever you call them. I'll probably never be on them. However, I don't mind paying more to help someone else. There will always be people who abuse services. Hell I've seen more cut throat crap in the private sector amongst some pretty well off people so it's not like a tax bracket is cultivating something outside of the human condition. There's people who steal who are rich and there's people who steal if your poor. Either way I would still like to have a safety net in place just in case someone whose down on their luck needs it.

I actually spent a lot of time in college when I was younger helping people who had way less than I did. Spent sometime helping people with AIDS (when people didn't really know what it was), Meals on Wheels, and local church functions and I just don't mind giving an extra 2 % or whatever they are arguing about in order to close deficits and fund programs. I just don't like wasting money.

You sound like a swell do gooder who gives most of his income to the G have to or not since they can manage your money better that you can. I agree no titles this is not a contest but a debate.

Hmm I'll answer that by saying I pay in taxes what they want me to pay. How's that?

????? can't get it to have normal font will do heads up final a little later don't know what is wrong. back atcha.

np

Kc - you obviously dont' know the difference between a lender and a broker. a BROKER does NOT LEND MONEY. Even if you own a retail operation which sells loans, (as Countrywide did) you are still a friggin LENDER and NOT a broker! A broker DOESN'T CLOSE A LOAN WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. A Lender does.

Affordable Housing Centers of America is still in business (founded in 1986 as ACORN Housing Corp).

You know what, I'm not even gonna bother. Posting facts makes absolutely no difference to you. AND you're UNBELIEVABLE RUDE, IGNORANT AND DISCOURTEOUS. Had you spent a few SECONDS on your tone I might engage in further discourse.

Kc - you obviously dont' know the difference between a lender and a broker. a BROKER does NOT LEND MONEY. Even if you own a retail operation which sells loans, (as Countrywide did) you are still a friggin LENDER and NOT a broker! A broker DOESN'T CLOSE A LOAN WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. A Lender does.

No I know the difference you just don't know how big Countrywide is and ALL of the services it provides. Just like GM doesn't just sell cars, they offer loans through GM financial. Here is a press release from Countrywide itself:

Countrywide, the UK's largest mortgage broker and property services group, has bought network and mortgage club Mortgage Intelligence.

Established in 1996, Mortgage Intelligence, which merged with Mortgage Next in 2009, has become one of the UK's largest mortgage distribution channels, providing premium broker services to over 6,500 mortgage intermediaries under the brands Mortgage Intelligence and Mortgage Next.

Whoops. So you see kjmfail, when I said they were one of the largest mortgage brokers I was not wrong. Countrywide is a damn near a full fledged banking institution offering mortgage backed securities, lending AND mortgage brokering services.

So with all of the hollering you've been doing you still know very little more about the industry you professed to know since beginning this debate with me. When I debate someone I do my homework I don't just spout off the mouth like it seems you are doing here.

You know what, I'm not even gonna bother. Posting facts makes absolutely no difference to you. AND you're UNBELIEVABLE RUDE, IGNORANT AND DISCOURTEOUS.

Thanks for the name calling, but all this is your last ditch effort to feel better about a topic you yourself know very little about.

You know what, I'm not even gonna bother. Posting facts makes absolutely no difference to you.

No I care about facts. I just don't give a damn about lies. There's a difference.

Had you spent a few SECONDS on your tone I might engage in further discourse.

LOL my tone? Anyone who has debated you before knows that your temper time and time again gets the best of you. Just like it did here. :) Have a nice day!

Oh BTW the next time you feel like beating up on the middle class expect to have a debate with me again. :)

LOL my tone? Anyone who has debated you before knows that your temper time and time again gets the best of you. Just like it did here. :) Have a nice day!

Yep!

Never mind......I deleted myself.

How would you know which part of that post I was agreeing with? Are you a mind reader?

Nope, yours posted about a millisecond before mine. So I deleted it so you wouldn't think it was a reply to you.

doh, I guess I was too fast for you then. LOL, no problem. :)

I'll just hang tight... I feel a deflection coming.

KC77 - reported as malicious user. You can get SUSPENDED FOR INSULTING A PERSON'S VINE NAME. AND I HOPE YOU DO! AND I assure you we WON'T be debating again because I'm putting you on ignore. You're not worth my time.

AND what YOU think you know about mortgage brokers in the UK is WAY different from the USA

By the way, to that person who THINKS they know all about "Countrywide" here's a little background on those UK operations you THINK are owned by Countrywide Financial and/or Countrywide Home loans:

"Countrywide was born out of the merger of Bairstow Eves and Mann & Co, the first two UK Stock Exchange listed estate agency groups, following their acquisition by Hambros plc. The new company, known as Hambro Countrywide plc, went on to establish Hambro Assured in 1988, making it the UK's biggest life company start-up and the first life assurance business to be wholly owned by an estate agency group"

http://www.countrywide.co.uk/about/history.aspx

It doesn't have a @!$%#ing thing to do with Countrywide Here in America

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm?hpt=T1

WHO pays no income tax? This tells you EXACTLY who. 68% of filers making under $50K. 12.5% making between $50-$100K

Temporary tax policies, such as the Bush-era tax cuts and the tax breaks passed under President Obama, have also increased the ranks of the non-payers.

If most tax breaks were removed, the Tax Policy Center estimates, the percentage of households with no federal income tax liability would drop to 27% from 45%.

Damn, for a second there I thought you cited it correctly this time, but alas...No. You make it look like 68% of those earning under 50 K paid no income tax, when it is really 68% of those who don't owe...earn less than 50K.

I'll admit their chart is a bit confusing. But they are breaking the 45% who don't owe into 5 income groups. So to say that 68% of households earning less than 50K don't pay income tax is incorrect.

KC77 - reported as malicious user. You can get SUSPENDED FOR INSULTING A PERSON'S VINE NAME. AND I HOPE YOU DO! AND I assure you we WON'T be debating again because I'm putting you on ignore. You're not worth my time.

Nope still here. Your going to have a problem making a case for me when you are currently looking like you have anger management issues.

AND what YOU think you know about mortgage brokers in the UK is WAY different from the USA

I'll answer you in the next section.

It doesn't have a @!$%#ing thing to do with Countrywide Here in America

Actually Countrywide in the UK offers services in the US as well as the UK and Countrywide Financial offers services in the UK in addition to the US. Hence the confusion.

Countrywide Financial also offers mortgage brokering services, mortgage backed securities, and lending services. Kjm you still can't get away from them having mortgage brokers. Pretending like they don't is just silly. Could I not call them and ask for a mortgage and would they not grab loans from themselves, BoA and any other loan from a subsidiary or from their parent company? Of course I could. Are you going to try and tell me they wouldn't?

Second they are the largest SUBPRIME lender, which is even worse. They are largely not even obligated to follow the CRA since they aren't a bank. So now what? You are going to tell me ACORN assumed the role of Countrywide Financial, created mortgages and then sold them to unqualified buyers?

Took me a while to go through a crap ton of court documents and many many subsidiaries but Countrywide Financial did assume the role as Mortgage Broker on multiple of occasions with joint ventures labeled Countrywide Mortgage Ventures, LLC along with KB Homes. They actually did this in many states. Here is just one , but they all read the same.

KB Home and Countrywide date the inception of the CKB joint venture as21 September, 2005. The joint venture deemed the CKB “series” of CMV to be the “lender” and22 Countrywide to be its agent and the agent of borrower.4 Insofar as the CKB joint venture was not2324252627282HUD Announces $3.2 Million Settlement Against KB Home Mortgage Company, availableonline at: http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr05-093.cfm.3A “series” L.L.C. is an entity form unique to Delaware that provides for independent sub-entities. The form is not recognized by California law.4See CKB Application Disclosure Handbook, p. 1. Under California law, this arrangement rendered Countrywide the mortgage broker whereby it assumed a fiduciary duty to the borrower.Defendants acknowledged this in an appendix to the CKB Application Disclosure Handbook Id.,at 39 (“Countrywide is acting as your agent in providing these brokerage services to you.

I told you before that Countrywide was too big not to have mortgage brokers and I was correct. Considering they were the largest lender of subprime and with all of the trouble they got into how could they not?

So now what do you have to say?

how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?

how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?

Wouldn't matter if it was 10 or 20. If you are going speak in absolutes then you should be absolutely correct.

It's not about "class warfare" - I'm not rich myself. It's about having some skin in the game. You don't pay a penny of income tax - you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to demand that someone ELSE pays MORE than they do now!

Couldn't agree more...

Watch out, kjm...troll alert on aisle 13.

You don't pay a penny of income tax - you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to demand that someone ELSE pays MORE than they do now!

So those of us who pay taxes have no say? Bull@!$%#! Every single tax payer has a right to demand changes to the tax code.

So those of us who pay taxes have no say? Bull@!$%#! Every single tax payer has a right to demand changes to the tax code.

Not according to them. Apparently you should be a slave to rich people.

vol - troll alert? It's wholesale trolling but hey, some people need something to do.

fieryone - I think you read that wrong. Let me say it again - if you are one of the 45% who doesn't pay any income tax you have NO RIGHT to demand that those who DO get screwed with even higher taxes.

vol - troll alert? It's wholesale trolling but hey, some people need something to do.

Um if you're here responding post after post yourself you can't really call someone else a troll. Especially if they are bringing facts to the table. You might not like them. You might even disagree, but they are facts nonetheless.

Let me say it again - if you are one of the 45% who doesn't pay any income tax you have NO RIGHT to demand that those who DO get screwed with even higher taxes.

Well we pay taxes I'm sure. So we would like the rich to pay more.