I just wanted to see what studies you were referring to when you said that atheists were discarding them.

You do know that not all liberals are atheists and that not all atheists are liberals, right?

Wow, not like that was an emotional rant. Welcome to our side.

:1orglaugh

So, no lions?

The problem is this self-imposed rule of 60.

Did they decide that?



Pelosi says she is confident she will be able to get the votes needed to pass sweeping health care legislation in the House, even if it threatens the political careers of some members of her party. So imho , she's telling everyone that she doesn't care if the people don't want it, they are getting it anyways.
I'm sorry, but if you approve of that action? The government is suppose to represent the people as a majority, left or right, I don't care
If Pelosi is the leader of the liberals, and the people that are in this thread praising the liberals, then you have given up on democracy

Yeah, like the majority of the people approving two Bush tax cuts, benefiting ONLY the wealthiest Americans, to the tune of close to a trillion dollars? (sarcasm)

Both forced upon the American people, against their better interests, by the Republican party in power, by RECONCILIATION!

Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

Coincidentally the Obama healthcare plan costs less than Bush's tax cuts, over 10 years, but I guess when the money is used to help the lower and middle classes it's scary socialism, and government is too big....

Yes he cut taxes, but i love how people say they cut it for the rich, the poor in this country don't pay taxes.

Oh, I didn't realize we were just making shit up, and saying whatever the hell we wanted, regardless of facts.

In that case - did I ever tell you guys that I invented the automobile last week?

Yeah, and I heat my house with mustard!

This is fun!

It's true that if it were done 100 yrs ago, the study would show the exact opposite. Thats why sometimes I just call them the "preservative" party. I honestly think it is more accurate than "conservative" by a long shot.

:helpme:helpme:helpme

Oh, and I tought that you ALWAYS backed up everything you say/write ... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

We're not too far from some homegrown Taliban in this country. Not far at all.

http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/l...oke_rap/42253/

I actually did: ) Way to prove to everybody that you're not only illiterate, but you don't bother to read threads either. Game over.

Especially when he had absolutely zero comprehension of what he read. Back to English class, lol. :1orglaugh

In 2005, a family of four was considered to be at the poverty level if they earned less than $19,350 . If you complete a 2005 1040 considering an income of $19,350 and four family members, you will find that the standard deduction for the couple is $10,000, and an additional $3200 deduction is given for each of the four family members for an additional $12,800. So, in all, the family earning $19,350 has $22,800 in income deductions which means they pay no federal tax. In fact, a family of four will not pay a single dollar in federal tax until the family earns at least $22,800. Since these people pay no taxes whatsoever, a tax cut will obviously not be of any direct benefit to them since they aren't paying taxes to start with. This doesn't make the tax cut a bad idea, but it stands to reason that it won't directly benefit anyone that isn't paying taxes any more than a price reduction in milk won't help anyone that isn't buying milk.


If the "rich" are paying 96.7% of the income taxes and the poor are only paying 3.3%, then it's simply common sense that most of any income tax cut will benefit those that are paying it. You can't reduce taxes on someone who isn't paying any.

More about taxes here http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/t...east/index.htm

owned...

Please define what YOU consider to be "rich" and then calculate all taxes, as opposed to simply reducing the math to Federal Income tax.

I know numerous freelancers who have gotten themselves in a boatload of IRS troubles, earning just between $12k and $24k p/year. In the end, they wind up owing close to 25% of that in taxes. By not paying close to 25% of their income in a quarterly manner, they wound up owing $4k to $8K at the end of those years, plus interest and penalties.

Are these the people who do not pay any taxes that you speak of?

I'm pretty certain every person on this board who gets a paycheck of any sort, will dispute your "only the rich pay taxes" assertion.

Gawd, please read what was written before commenting
It clearly states poverty level as what the government thinks it is

ANd I never stated only the rich pay taxes , I stated the poor don't
I know single moms that have a couple kids that pay no federal taxes during the year
then get a big tax return

And for those that think that the GOP is all about the rich, you might want to ask a poor family about earned income credit

The year was 1975, the president was Gerald Ford, and the Congress was Democratic. Public Law 94-12 (H.R. 2166), better known as the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, was signed into law on March 29, 1975. Its $22.8 billion in tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy. A seemingly innocent provision of this Tax Reduction Act was a refundable end-of-year tax credit for low-income taxpayers that provided them with up to $400. The idea was a Republican one from the beginning, for President Nixon had proposed a similar negative income tax scheme.

Please define your opinion of how much an individual in 2010, here in the US, needs to make to be considered poor, average, and rich.

For example - a person making less than $blank = poor

A person making between $blank and $blank would be considered average.

A person who makes more than $blank is rich.

Please fill in your interpretation of the blanks so we can better understand each other.

You can read I assume, I clearly stated what the government considered poor

In 2005, a family of four was considered to be at the poverty level if they earned less than $19,350

Not my opinion, governments opinion

Earlier in this thread you made this statement...

So I am asking you this...

Please define your opinion of how much an individual in 2010, here in the US, needs to make to be considered poor, average, and rich.

For example - a person making less than $blank = poor

A person making between $blank and $blank would be considered average.

A person who makes more than $blank is rich.

Please fill in your interpretation of the blanks so we can better understand each other.

Not going by what I think, going by what the government thinks

What i think is that they go by a national average, but 20k buys a lot more in South Carolina than is does in Santa Barbera

The liberals are going on about cutting taxes for the rich, BUT

Best tax break ever for the poor was given by a republican

Anyone that has a beef with the GOP and there taxes, talk to a poor family and ask how they love earned income credit and tell them to thank a REPUBLICAN president.

You must be right - the GOP is the party who cares the most about the poor.

I don't know what I was thinking.

Unrelated, this is a pretty good amount of cheese!...

http://richardwiseman.files.wordpres...ake-cheese.jpg

that cheese must be for your wihine?

and I know the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans has gone down about 60% since 1940, to a level insufficient to sustain this nation's infrastructure.

How about you don't talk a bunch of shit that even you don't believe? There is no podium here, there is no need to lie for votes like your politicians do. Conservatives represent #1 Big business #2 the top tax bracket. You know it. I know it. The whole board knows it. So why are you bothering to spout this bullshit?

And the Democrats represent the people? ROFL.

I must have missed where you provided me the studies.

Isn't it just easier to say you misspoke when adding "atheists" to your post?

Conservatives still gave the poor the biggest tax break they have called the Earned Income Credit. Thanx to Nixon and Ford

Big business employs people, it they can get a break and spend more on employment and less on taxes, they can employ more people, better for the country. Instead the Liberals would tax them out of the country. Small business's are crippled by the taxes and fees they have to deal with. Even the present administration is working tax breaks for small business to promote growth.

If you are going to call Bull Shit, back it up

Please stay out of a debate that you are clearly ignorant to

Just a quick question, I stated that the poor didn't pay taxes, why are you going on about the rich paying less of a %?

No I agree not all atheists are liberals, but I would think most liberals are atheists. I did generalize with that though.

You are arguing with people too stupid to bring facts into the thread.

Now here's Roy.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/hee_ha...rawberry1a.jpg

Who really controls America...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

God bless America...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=uuOBf-39t64

You have no rights...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

thats it, loose on facts and bring up comedy

You've been owned

Big businesses don't create jobs, they destroy jobs by consolidation, union busting, monopolies and political lobbying. A business has no interest in 'creating jobs', it only has interest in the bottom line and the value of it's shares. It is the GOVERNMENT'S business to create jobs by keeping big business in check and ensuring fair labor practices and a competitive environment in the marketplace thru regulation of those businesses. However, it's doubtful that you know any history whatsoever of the major corporations in this country, or you would know that already.

I RUN a small business, and I don't consider myself 'crippled' by taxes. In fact, I don't pay ENOUGH taxes considering how much money I make, and this is why the infrastructure of this country is collapsing. You want to talk about some pissant tax break enacted by some Republican, who gives a shit? That had NO effect on the lives of the lower and middle class compared to the damage done to them by the Republican's lowering the top tax rates over and over without comparable decreases in govt. spending, by their increasing corporate welfare via the expansion of the defense industry, and by their constant bought and paid for by lobbying attempts to deregulate big business in every way possible, INCLUDING allowing them to dump toxins on public lands, repeal of workplace safety laws, etc and so on. You want to talk about something that helped the middle class? Learn about the new deal, which actually used public lands to IMPROVE the infrastructure of the US, giving real jobs to laborers, which gave them enough money to have a little discretionary income, which helped EVERYONE in the long run, including business, since people finally had money to spend on their products.