0
rushmc

The CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers'

Recommended Posts

That's not what a liberal utopia would look like. It would look more like Iceland or Norway.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc



Lol, you consider SS and MC a "transfer"? You do also realize where the economy was in 2010?

From your source:

Quote

According to the CBO, households in the bottom quintile received an average of $22,700 in government transfers in 2010 (including $14,300 in payments from Medicare and Social Security



Figures lie and liars figure. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Figures lie and liars figure. Wink



If someone in getting Social Security 'benefits' because they paid into a broken system for 35 years, that is quite different than being a lazy deadbeat living of the government. Mathematically though, it isn't any different.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc


Well, somebody has to pay for America's blood lust around the world. The wealthy supply the money, the poor supply the cannon fodder.

How else would you suggest it is done? Good luck trying to get the rich to supply manpower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jclalor


Quote

According to the CBO, households in the bottom quintile received an average of $22,700 in government transfers in 2010 (including $14,300 in payments from Medicare and Social Security



Figures lie and liars figure. ;)


There's definition a problem when you publish statistics about income taxes and then (selectively?) include the unrelated MC and SS expenditures. Income tax has a very specific meaning. Adding in those two mean we're now talked about federal taxes more broadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

here's definition a problem when you publish statistics about income taxes and then (selectively?) include the unrelated MC and SS expenditures. Income tax has a very specific meaning. Adding in those two mean we're now talked about federal taxes more broadly.



I agree. Why single out those expenditures that aren't directly related to income tax? Why not include other expenditures like government employees, politicians, farm subsidies, etc.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iago


It's OK when the media includes MC and SS taxes to pump up the tax rate that Buffet's secretary paid on her total income, even those are capped and can't be used to objectively compare to a high income earner. Oh, plus we'll include the employer portion which the employee doesn't pay to pump that tax percentage disparity even higher.



If you want to have intelligent conversation, then 'two wrongs do not make a right.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Look what happened to McCain. He insisted on running a 'respectable campaign' against an opponent who did not.



I don't recall that at all. I do recall McCain running an honorable campaign, but what did Obama do that wasn't honorable?

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Look what happened to McCain. He insisted on running a 'respectable campaign' against an opponent who did not.



I don't recall that at all. I do recall McCain running an honorable campaign, but what did Obama do that wasn't honorable?



Lied


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***

Quote

Look what happened to McCain. He insisted on running a 'respectable campaign' against an opponent who did not.



I don't recall that at all. I do recall McCain running an honorable campaign, but what did Obama do that wasn't honorable?


Lied


alot!

Only if that is how you want to look at it.

The left can justify that what he campaigned on was 100% truthfull.

60% of the time he told the truth every time.:D:D
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Lied


alot!



That's not what he meant, and you know it.

And I assume by "lied" you mean that he made campaign promises that he failed to keep. If that's the standard, then McCain probably didn't run an honorable campaign either.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Look what happened to McCain. He insisted on running a 'respectable campaign' against an opponent who did not.



I don't recall that at all. I do recall McCain running an honorable campaign, but what did Obama do that wasn't honorable?



Let the old man win.

Iago - it's past time you MovedOn. Cut this nonsense about dishonorable campaign tactics (and really, anyone from a party that has Karl Rove needs to STFU about honor) and accept that Bush guaranteed that Jesus Christ himself couldn't win on the GOP ticket, and McCain doubled the problem by promising to maintain all Bush programs and then selected a fucking idiot to be his VP candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Lied


alot!



That's not what he meant, and you know it.

And I assume by "lied" you mean that he made campaign promises that he failed to keep. If that's the standard, then McCain probably didn't run an honorable campaign either.



I never made any claim for McCain

But McCain did not say he would have the most transparent admin in history
Or that there would be no lobbiest around him

How about posting all new proposed laws on line so many hours or days before congress would vote on it?

Of course there is close Gauntamamo (but then any smart person had a good idea this would not happen)

And I just picked some of what could control without congress
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The discussion at hand was about running an honorable campaign. You decided to jump into it. Now you want to talk about failed campaign promises. That's fine, but don't try to pretend that you were being responsive to my question about the honorable campaign topic.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

The discussion at hand was about running an honorable campaign. You decided to jump into it. Now you want to talk about failed campaign promises. That's fine, but don't try to pretend that you were being responsive to my question about the honorable campaign topic.



I dont see the claims I listed as campain promises
Campain promises usually require that the president get his agenda through congress

Not having any lobiests or having the most transparent admin ever are things he can directly control

He knew this
You call that being honorable?

Ah

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When someone refers to a politician running an honorable campaign, they are talking about avoiding negative ads, avoiding lying or muckraking about their opponent, and keping the tone civil and polite. They are not talking about making promises that you fail to keep. That's a different discussion.

Of course, you knew that, but you wanted to talk about something else. Again, that's fine, but it's not what we were talking about.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

When someone refers to a politician running an honorable campaign, they are talking about avoiding negative ads, avoiding lying or muckraking about their opponent, and keping the tone civil and polite. They are not talking about making promises that you fail to keep. That's a different discussion.

Of course, you knew that, but you wanted to talk about something else. Again, that's fine, but it's not what we were talking about.



So now you get to define honorable ??

NOT
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever. There's no point in this discussion.

Yes, Obama lied about some of his campaign promises. I'm not happy about that at all. On the other hand, he did run an honorable campaign with respect to how he treated his opponent.

I'm done with this thread, have fun.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Whatever. There's no point in this discussion.

Yes, Obama lied about some of his campaign promises. I'm not happy about that at all. On the other hand, he did run an honorable campaign with respect to how he treated his opponent.

I'm done with this thread, have fun.



Either you dont get it or you chose to ignore it

Saying you will not have lobiest on your staff or, you will have the most transparent admin in history are not campain promises

These are statments or how you will operate if elected
HE has total control over these statements

He lied!
He never intended to be open and transparent

If that is honorable in your mind so be it
But it is not in most peoples minds
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***When someone refers to a politician running an honorable campaign, they are talking about avoiding negative ads, avoiding lying or muckraking about their opponent, and keping the tone civil and polite. They are not talking about making promises that you fail to keep. That's a different discussion.

Of course, you knew that, but you wanted to talk about something else. Again, that's fine, but it's not what we were talking about.



So now you get to define honorable ??

NOT

You picked the wrong word. He was defining campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that saying how you're going to govern once elected is exactly what a campaign promise is, along with stuff that you're going to deliver.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0