On Jan 26, 8:43*am, dave wrote:
Rick Saunders wrote:

So the growing majorities in every major poll who
are fed up to the teeth with Obama's radical
leftist agenda are now "extremist fruitcakes",
troll-boy? LOL!

I see nothing resembling radical leftism.

Of course you don't, but this isn't about you;
it's about the people who, in every major poll,
distrust Obama more and more. But, hey,
you far-leftists just go on telling us in tune
you are with America by calling them
"extremist fruitcakes." The midterms are
closing in on you.

*That just shows how far right
the media has become.

Yeah, that teabagger Olbermann
is just so "far right."

On Jan 26, 8:46*am, dave wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay
taxes.... most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do.
Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles

According to the IRS:

86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.

97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners.

50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.

*From the Wall Street Journal:

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share
paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words,
despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of
taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.

How much of the wealth do these people control? *What percentage of
their cash flow do they pay in taxes? *

Those are, of course, two separate things. You've already been
told the percentage of their income that they pay in taxes, so
why do you care that despite paying most of the taxes in this
country, they manage to keep SOME of it? Is it envy?

On Jan 26, 9:14*am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:55:48 -0800 (PST), wy wrote:
So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

You're short on history with that too, huh? *Ultimately if he had
exercised his veto over it, it still would've been overriden by the
Republican-dominated Congress, so he knew there was no point in not
signing it. *

Exactly

In other words, he tossed his principles overboard
to preserve his political viability.

Besides, he extracted from republicans many of the reforms and things
he wanted.

It's called "compromise" -- something The One needs to learn.

On Jan 26, 9:45*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 1/26/10 08:15 , wrote:

You mean the tax rate on the wealthy that not one ever went broke
paying?

* *So that's your goal?

* *Why am I not surprised.

Well, sure! "Tax the rich, feed the poor,
'til there are no rich no more..."

On 1/26/10 18:11 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:30:10 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 13:59 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:00:25 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Because "we" say so

Some logic, there, Bubba.

Glad you think so---it's worked very well for a couple of centuries



Not the way you do it, no.

Your premises are gratuitously based in the fundament that 'there
are no enemies on the Left, and that there is no honor on the Right.'

Gratuitously denied.

That's also worked for a couple of centuries.

The notion that you can simply plunder private wealth under the
brand of 'fair share of expenses for running the society' flatly
denies that the private wealth is already taxed at a dramatically,
confiscatorily, higher rate

So-how many millionaires went broke because of taxation?

The same number of poor people that got rich because of taxation.

That they don't go broke is not the issue. They're paying for all
the services used by people who do not pay taxes. So it's not about
funding the society, it's about confiscation so those who don't want
to earn for themselves don't have to.




If you're going to tax income, and claim 'fair share' then tax
all income.

Seems that conservatives and loonytarians keep ****ing it up.


Yes, because, as we all know, only Conservatives can do wrong.

On 1/26/10 18:13 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:20:31 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

To paraphrase Clinton, it all depends on what your definition of 'income
earner' is.

Yes, speaking of LIES.

Name any lie clinton told---and what relevancy it had to do with
either a civil suit or government



* On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton: "The only people who will pay more
income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in
households making over $200,000 a year."

In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as
little as $36,000 would see a tax increase under the Clinton plan,
Bill Clinton said, Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American
people that the President (Bush) of the United States would make a
claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so
shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."

Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There
are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"

While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly,
he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was
intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)



* Bill Clinton said that the new gasoline tax (4 cent per gallon)
would go to a deficit reduction trust fund. No such fund has been
established to date...



* Feb. 10, 1993, "The deficit of this country is about $50 billion
a year bigger than I was told it was going to be before the
election." --Bill Clinton, after "discovering" that the deficit was
$110 Billion LESS than he had claimed in July.



* Bill Clinton, explaining his policies for balancing the budget
..."And I give you my word to do it without the blame game of the
last twelve years of Reagan and Bush."

Oops...within 24 hours he was on television saying "I can't do it."
Went on for the next 20 minutes explaining why it was Bush's fault
that he couldn't succeed in balancing the budget.

24 hours. Usually, he undid himself within the same sentence.
Something of a record.




There are more. But you have the same resources I do. Do your own
work, if you're really interested in the truth.

On 1/26/10 18:14 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:35:04 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

they pay a pittance on the wealth in percentage of what they "earn"
where the bottom earners pay nearly all of their income after living
expenses.



Go back a few posts. The IRS numbers are there.

They pay less of their wealth than the poor do.

Period.




They pay their taxes. And the poor's too. And most of the middle
classes, as well. All for services that they, themselves do not use.
And have no access to.



Your position isn't about fairness.

What's Really Going On In Haiti?
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

How come those people in the Dominican Republic didn't feel that (or
didn't at least feel some of that 7.0 Earthquake) 7.0 Earthquake too?
cuhulin

Hawaii Veteran's letter to Born in Kenya! ILLEGAL INELIGBLE POS
DUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMB
ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
stirs internet.
http://www.kitv.com/politics/22338101/detail.html

Doggy doesn't get any letters.Doggy, you wants ah big oatmeal cookie?
///WOO WOO WOOF!///
cuhulin

On Jan 26, 7:47*pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:


They pay less of their wealth than the poor do.

Period.

* *They pay their taxes. And the poor's too. And most of the middle
classes, as well. All for services that they, themselves do not use.
And have no access to.

* *Your position isn't about fairness.

You thought the world was fair? Or that the very rich need it to be?

How quaint!