What I don't get about the redistribution of wealth....

[USA4ME]

KzooDem
 
What I don't get about the redistribution of wealth....
 
Gramps is on MSNBC speechifying at some SS/GOP rally. Blathering about this and that and the other thing to the howler monkeys in attendance.

So he spouted the ominous threat that the howler monkeys should hold onto their wallets because Obama wants to take away their wealth and redistribute it. Of course, this is in the form of higher taxes for people making greater than $250,000. And even then, at $250,000 a year, you aren't likely to feel it much. The howler monkeys went wild with snorts and howls of approval.

So my question is this: WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? Why is it that I, who makes quite a bit less than $250,000 a year, am more than willing to pay a little more in taxes if it means my fellow citizens who are having a rough time can have a little easier time? Why do I not mind paying more in taxes if it means I could care for patients who can afford to treat their chronic conditions instead of leaving them untreated until they are so sick that their health has been permanently destroyed. Have these people never heard the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats? And under Obama's plan I won't HAVE to pay more in taxes...but I WOULD if it would help fix some of the things that need fixing in this country.

Why do I not mind sharing a little more of what wealth I do have with my fellow citizens?

Because I'm a DEMOCRAT!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4255884

More accurately, you're a communist.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  That's redistribution of wealth.

These fools have no concept that it's not the gov'ts duty to be a nanny to it's citizens, it's up to individual citizens to help other individual citizens.

And remind me, after all the years of observing the DUmp, how many threads have there been where they talked about paying more money to the US Treasury than their 1040 required??

.

[Texacon]

I dunno .... could it be that they already pay more in taxes than you make in a year?  Hmmmmm  I wonder.

KC

[overlord]

I dunno .... could it be that they already pay more in taxes than you make in a year?  Hmmmmm  I wonder.

KC

I seriously doubt whether the ignorant jackass even pays taxes.  Of course he's willing to "pay a little more"

[jukin]

When we all stay in our parent's basement the economy grinds to a halt.  That hurts minorities, women, and children the most.


All DUmbasses might want to look at the Hawaii free healthcare that today got scraped.

[USA4ME]

napi21

11. I wish I would hear more TV show hosts actually point out that the actual increase in tax dollars for the wealthier people would actually be relatively small. Several of the radio hosts have done that. Randi used an example of someone who had $350,000 taxable income whould see their taxes increase $175.00. It's clean, clear statements like that that really make an impact.

The lies keep coming.

$175.00 is only 0.0005% of $350K.  Anyone here believe that Hussein would only raise taxes on people making $350K to a point where they only pay 0.0005% more than what they're paying now?

.

 

[NHSparky]

The lies keep coming.

$175.00 is only 0.0005% of $350K.  Anyone here believe that Hussein would only raise taxes on people making $350K to a point where they only pay 0.0005% more than what they're paying now?

.

 

And accoring to people in NYC, $175.00 is only 0.0005% of Randi Rhodes' average bar tab.

[LC EFA]

KzooDem
 
What I don't get about the redistribution of wealth....
 
Gramps is on MSNBC speechifying at some SS/GOP rally. Blathering about this and that and the other thing to the howler monkeys in attendance.

So he spouted the ominous threat that the howler monkeys should hold onto their wallets because Obama wants to take away their wealth and redistribute it. Of course, this is in the form of higher taxes for people making greater than $250,000. And even then, at $250,000 a year, you aren't likely to feel it muchThey are completely correct. The howler monkeys went wild with snorts and howls of approval.

So my question is this: WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? Why is it that I, who makes quite a bit less than $250,000 a year, am more than willing to pay a little more in taxes if it means my fellow citizens who are having a rough time can have a little easier time? Why do I not mind paying more in taxes if it means I could care for patients who can afford to treat their chronic conditions instead of leaving them untreated until they are so sick that their health has been permanently destroyed. Have these people never heard the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats? And under Obama's plan I won't HAVE to pay more in taxes...but I WOULD if it would help fix some of the things that need fixing in this country.

Why do I not mind sharing a little more of what wealth I do have with my fellow citizens?

Because I'm a DEMOCRAT!

http://www.democraticunde...l&address=389x4255884

You say wanna pay more taxes right ?  If this isn't a bald faced lie, cut the fed a check for the amount you feel like giving away, then sit down and shut the **** up.

Keep your thieving fingers away from money belonging to people that don't feel like pissing more money into the great socialist sewer.

[BEG]

More accurately, you're a communist.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  That's redistribution of wealth.

These fools have no concept that it's not the gov'ts duty to be a nanny to it's citizens, it's up to individual citizens to help other individual citizens.

And remind me, after all the years of observing the DUmp, how many threads have there been where they talked about paying more money to the US Treasury than their 1040 required??

.

BINGO

[Tantal]

KzooDem
 
What I don't get about the redistribution of wealth....
 

So my question is this: WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? Why is it that I, who makes quite a bit less than $250,000 a year, am more than willing to pay a little more in taxes if it means my fellow citizens who are having a rough time can have a little easier time? Why do I not mind paying more in taxes if it means I could care for patients who can afford to treat their chronic conditions instead of leaving them untreated until they are so sick that their health has been permanently destroyed. Have these people never heard the adage that a raging typhoon sinks all boats? And under Obama's plan I won't HAVE to pay more in taxes...but I WOULD if it would help fix some of the things that need fixing in this country.

FiXx0red for ya, assmonkey.

[jtyangel]

So if he's feeling so charitable why doesn't he give 10% of that income to someone else? Hell, 25K would probably pay for prescription medicine for a few people. Problem solved. Did he ever consider that the other guy making a quarter mil may be supporting or helping to support other, aged, younger, or disabled FAMILY MEMBERS already? Why should he have to contribute another 10 if he's already helping to keep his own blood from clogging up the system? Again, liberals showed how myopic they are about everything. Their situation must be everybody's situation. If everyone makes 250K,well hell, he must bank 150 of it every year and we can't have anyone saving for their own futures or that of their OWN families now can we. 

What I can't understand LIBERAL is why someone should have to labor in school or his own innovation, blood, sweat, tears, and resources...delayed gratification...why should that person have to support someone who didn't put forth the same effort? Why should he now have to bailout that person? Why should he essentially have to take his A grade and give 10 points of it to the person who got a D? Why, when arguably his A was not a matter of 'good fortune' but hard work? I'd love to know from a liberal why because someone is rewarded more for their profession of choice should they be punished for either choosing wisely or working harder? Why punish those who have been able to emass a bit of wealth? I've never ever understood this beyond common jealousies since every person is capable of being charitable if he or she wishes--why is that not enough?

[Carl]

So if he's feeling so charitable why doesn't he give 10% of that income to someone else? Hell, 25K would probably pay for prescription medicine for a few people. Problem solved. Did he ever consider that the other guy making a quarter mil may be supporting or helping to support other, aged, younger, or disabled FAMILY MEMBERS already? Why should he have to contribute another 10 if he's already helping to keep his own blood from clogging up the system? Again, liberals showed how myopic they are about everything. Their situation must be everybody's situation. If everyone makes 250K,well hell, he must bank 150 of it every year and we can't have anyone saving for their own futures or that of their OWN families now can we. 

What I can't understand LIBERAL is why someone should have to labor in school or his own innovation, blood, sweat, tears, and resources...delayed gratification...why should that person have to support someone who didn't put forth the same effort? Why should he now have to bailout that person? Why should he essentially have to take his A grade and give 10 points of it to the person who got a D? Why, when arguably his A was not a matter of 'good fortune' but hard work? I'd love to know from a liberal why because someone is rewarded more for their profession of choice should they be punished for either choosing wisely or working harder? Why punish those who have been able to emass a bit of wealth? I've never ever understood this beyond common jealousies since every person is capable of being charitable if he or she wishes--why is that not enough?

They just say these things because they think it sounds good and it makes them feel good and superior.
What they wish for is to be on the receiving end,no matter how hard they try they cannot ever talk very much without that being the obvious truth.

[Texacon]

So if he's feeling so charitable why doesn't he give 10% of that income to someone else? Hell, 25K would probably pay for prescription medicine for a few people. Problem solved. Did he ever consider that the other guy making a quarter mil may be supporting or helping to support other, aged, younger, or disabled FAMILY MEMBERS already? Why should he have to contribute another 10 if he's already helping to keep his own blood from clogging up the system? Again, liberals showed how myopic they are about everything. Their situation must be everybody's situation. If everyone makes 250K,well hell, he must bank 150 of it every year and we can't have anyone saving for their own futures or that of their OWN families now can we. 

What I can't understand LIBERAL is why someone should have to labor in school or his own innovation, blood, sweat, tears, and resources...delayed gratification...why should that person have to support someone who didn't put forth the same effort? Why should he now have to bailout that person? Why should he essentially have to take his A grade and give 10 points of it to the person who got a D? Why, when arguably his A was not a matter of 'good fortune' but hard work? I'd love to know from a liberal why because someone is rewarded more for their profession of choice should they be punished for either choosing wisely or working harder? Why punish those who have been able to emass a bit of wealth? I've never ever understood this beyond common jealousies since every person is capable of being charitable if he or she wishes--why is that not enough?

Because they feel that you will not be charitable they way THEY want you to be charitable.  It wouldn't be fair to let you donate/spend your money the way you want to.  Without gov't intervention you will not do the right thing because you are not a registered Democrat.  Big Brother knows how to spend your money better than you ever will and if you will give the Democrats a chance they will .... WILL prove it to you.

KC

[Traveshamockery]

The bottom line is the welfare section of government is a poorly run charity organization. Way too much overhead and I'm not talking about Nancy Pelosi's forehead.  For some reason conservatives are always accused of being stingy, greedy, and selfish. I happen to disagree with that.

I'm like Joe the plumber (except for that pesky penis part) in that if I earn money and I believe that I have money I would like to donate, I would rather decide who gets it and definitely don't want it being laundered through the government.  The end recipient is sure going to get a lot more. 

The only difference is that method of helping out someone who needs help takes away that little bit of control the government thinks they are entitled to. 

[Lord Undies]

"Redistribution of wealth" is a temporary guarantee of democrats gaining/remaining in power.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  The eventual disaster it will cause be damned!

[rich_t]

Why is it that I, who makes quite a bit less than $250,000 a year, am more than willing to pay a little more in taxes if it means my fellow citizens who are having a rough time can have a little easier time? Why do I not mind paying more in taxes if it means I could care for patients who can afford to treat their chronic conditions instead of leaving them untreated until they are so sick that their health has been permanently destroyed.

Why is it that these liberals who always claim that they don't mind paying more taxes so that others less fortunate than they are never seem to send checks to the IRS over and above their taxes.

I suspect the real deal is they don't mind taking money out of my pocket to pay for others less fortunate.