The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Club for Growth Action to Trump: You Sue Us, We'll Sue You Back
Source:
National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne ... well-sue-you-back-jim-geraghty
Published: Sep 26, 2015
Author: Jim Geraghty
Post Date: 2015-09-26 08:54:45 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 18795
Comments: 92
Attorneys for Club for Growth Action, a political arm of the Club for Growth, sent a letter to the Trump Organization’s General Counsel Thursday threatening a counter-suit if Trump sues their organization. “If Mr. Trump brought suit on the baseless grounds stated in your letter, Club Action would not hesitate to seek sanctions for abusive litigation under Federal Rule 11 or equivalent rules and, depending upon the forum, under statutes that deter Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statutes),” the letter states. “Stripped of its purple adjectives, your letter makes two complaints against Club Action. Both complaints are untrue, and neither comes close to the type of knowing and malicious falsehood the First Amendment requires a public figure such as Mr. Trump to establish.” At the heart of the issue is the Club for Growth Action ad stating that Trump “supports higher taxes.” Trump’s lawyers say he no longer holds the position the ad refers to, and will soon be unveiling a plan to lower taxes. (Trump has said, however, he intends to target the “hedge fund guys” who he feels aren’t paying their fair share.) Perhaps the more interesting contention from the Club is this: You accuse the Club for Growth of trying to “extort” a million dollars from Mr. Trump in return for its political support. Nonsense. Club Action reports it was Mr. Trump who, last spring, asked to meet with the Club. During the meeting requestsed by Mr. Trump, as reflected in the attached letter to Mr. Trump, the Club’s Mr. [David] McIntosh made clear that the Club and Mr. Trump had important areas of policy disagreement. However, some areas of policy agreement also were identified. Mr. Trump asked how he could support the Club and, upon being informed that a donation would be appreciated, invited Mr. McIntosh to send a follow-up letter through Mr. Lewandowski, who also attended.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
No, they would have thanked him and highlighted areas where Trump agrees with them. I've never seen them adopt any donor's position. The donors adopt the Club's positions. And any pol that gets Club money has to toe the line, in particular on the annual roll call votes that they have held for the last decade or so. These are the ones where they try to defund pork for various congresscritters. It is a major reason why the Beltway GOP doesn't like them. Well, that and running candidates in primaries against their RINO incumbents (like Cochrane in Mississippi in 2014).
The club you worship is the enemy of Americans. They are part of the establishement that you are. You're establishement needs to be puked out of America.
You're naive if you don't understand that some of these "conservative" groups do sell endorsements. And you're naive if you don't understand that that is exactly what Trump was trying to do. He no doubt will buy a few of these endorsements. However, the Club has its reputation and loyal backers because they aren't for sale. The only other group that is notable for not being for sale is the National Taxpayers Union bunch (though they aren't as strong as they once were, the Club having taken some of their donors away from them).
They are for sale. They are already bought and paid for. They are whores. They are also damaged goods and those who associate with them are writing their own political funeral.
As I said. They would NOT have run the negative ads had Trump "contributed". A shakedown by any other name.
Actually, they are not for sale. But they assume that pols are so they do buy the pols. And they are quite good at making sure their pols stay bought. The Club intends to buy the pols (mostly in low-cost districts) to enact its pro-business/pro-jobs/anti-regulation agenda. And also to make the rest of them afraid of getting primaried by Club-backed opponents. In some respects, the Club was the model for the Tea Party groups. Like NRA, the Club will consider endorsing Dems as well as GOPs. Of course, Dems are allergic to the Club so they rarely have any applicants but it isn't because the Club isn't willing if a Dem will support their agenda.
Of course they were. And so were the houses of the middle class - which is the primary capital resource in which THEY hold their wealth. Cars are next, and those are taxed on sale and annual registration as well. So, the two primary places middle class wealth is spent, and the primary capital asset they have that grows, is also paid for by after-tax money, and taxed on sale, and taxed again every year. Of course YOU are always going to support a special tax regime for the super-rich, even though you are not one of them, and YOU have to pay tax on YOUR primary capital asset year after year after year. You're one of those duped rube upper middle class folks I've talked about, who vote for Republicans so they can favor the people far above you, and screw you. But you have a (small, compared to them) stock portfolio that you don't want to see taxed. The 1.4% is what people pay right now, on average, for their house and land every year in property tax. That's why securites should be taxed at that rate. As far as cutting spending, in THIS post? No. But if you've read my posts over the years, you see that I have spending cuts all over the place, starting with bringing the military home from imperial adventures, slashing everything but the strategic nuclear forces by 75% and stationing the remainder on the Mexican border to stop the flow. Also, you've seen me advocating ending non-emergency relief foreign aid. You'll have seen me advocate for the states and feds to drill for the oil and frack it on state and federal land, and put all of the profit from oil exploitation on public land directly into the treasury, reducing the need to tax people. Leave taxes where they are, augment it with direct extraction revenues, use the surging surplus to pay off the national debt, and then systematically ratchet down taxes overall so that we run no surplus and have no debt. There's plenty we can do to cut expenditures. Single payer health insurance will make per capita insurance costs to the government a lot lower than the current crazy-quilt, which is designed to inflate profits for the insurance company middlemen. Of course YOU are never going to hear any of this. Others might, though.
The Teachers Unions are not for sale either. They are hard-core partisan and could not be bought if you wanted to.
They are none of that. They are pro establishement crony capitalists amnesty loving pieces of shit. If they were pro business. They wouldn't be going against Trump. Trump is pro business they are not. The are not pro jobs. If they were they would be for eliminating trade deals that destroy American jobs and infrastructure. They aren't anit regulation. They like us being regulated under NAFTA, GATT and other bullshit "laws". They could all go suck Obama and get aids and die and we would be better off.
Well, I was trying to find something to like that had an "R" behind its name., but I can see myself from the partisan Republicans on this board that they'll never accept Trump. So I'm building Biden or Hillary into my models for the future now, because the only guy with a prayer of beating the Democrats is Trump, and it's obvious to me, just from this board and talking to other Republicans at work (in the NYC finance world) that Trump is not their guy. Some of them voted for Obama (the first time) because Palin was off the reservation of acceptable to them. They're not going to vote outside of their bandwidth. They are the "GOPe". I can vote with the GOP on a Trump, but they and you are all telling me that it won't be him, that you'll never accept him, and I'm beginning to be pretty sure that is true. It's like :Palin. I loved her. The degree of hatred others showed for her, and still do when I mention her, moves them into a certain cadre in my mind. The Republican right is dominated by that sort, and I think of them about the same that they think of Sarah and Trump. So I was hoping I'd have somebody to support, but you Republicans look destined to knock out Trump. I won't vote for him, but I'd rather see Hillary win than let you guys win. Whoever wins the next election puts two butts on the Supreme Court. I'd rather Hillary do that than Runio or Jeb or Fiorina. So now it's just watching a baseball game between two teams I don't care about, but one team I really hate. The Republicans vis-a-vis Trump are like that team that hired Tebow but refused to play him: jackasses that I want to see lose.
Why don't you do that? Why would anyone do that and give the profits they earned to the treasury. No one is that stupid. Sharing the profits would be better.
I don't hang out with the super elite like you do. Unless I'm doing a job for them. I can assure you that there are more regular folk then upper class snobs who vote for Obama. Almost everyone I talk to loves Trump and will vote for him. I'm just a regular dude. So I know what regular dudes think like. Also I know some regular gals who like him too. A couple who voted for the child murderer Obama.
Oil under federal and state land belongs to the people. It does not belong to private interests. A federal and state oil companies, to drill on federal and state land, need not have investors that want a huge return, and need not have highly-paid executives. Roughnecks cost what they cost, but federal and state executives are civil servants that get paid pennies compered to private oil company execs. So, you set up a federal oil company to explore and drill all of the oil on federal land. The cost of doing that is the same, but the profiits don't get handed over to the executives or the shareholders., they go right into the Treasury, where they reduce the need for taxes. Let private interests drill, and they only pay royalties for use of public land. Those royalties are but a tiny fraction of the profits. Most of the profits go to execs and shareholders. If civil servants are the execs, the profits stay in the company, and if the people are shareholders, through the Treasury, massive cash flows flow to the people directly from public assets under public lands exploited by the public, without any profit-skimming private middlemen. Cut out the middlemen, put public profit from public oil in the public treasury, and the need for tax revenues from the public will diminish proportionally, dollar for dollar, leaving more money in private hands for private activity.
Then you can have to post office and the office of management and budget go get the oil. The land is actually Gods not the governments.
Hey Mr Roosevelt butt kisser. Why not just have the government do everything like the USSR. Then we can all get our rationed "fair share". Where is the aurhorization in the constitution for the government to do this? Oh there isn't any but you're lawless so who cares right.
Yep. They even published a price list.
Well, to be clear, I think Trump is great, and I'll vote for him. I thought Sarah was great, and I voted for HER, not McCain - he was just at the top of the ticket. I vomited in my mouth when I voted for Romney, and that is the last time I'm going to pull the R lever unless I SUPPORT the person I'm voting for. The last three Republicans I actually SUPPORTED were: Palin, W on his RE-ELECTION (hated him in his first election), and Dole. I'll support Trump if your Republican buddies let him get the nomination, but they're not going to. I will not vote for any of the other Republican candidates EXCEPT for Carson, or Cruz, or Huckabee, but none of them will be the nominee. Trump's the only one who could be. And I see just how evil Republicans are - they'll stop at NOTHING in order to stop him. And when they do, I would rather have Hillary Clinton than Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. The difference between this time and other times is that ever since 1969 the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court, so no matter what they always had the final say. But the next President will put two Justices on that court: Ginsburg's replacement, and Kennedy's. If Trump isn't the nominee, Biden or Hillary will put the next two justices on the court, and that will mean that the Court moves rapidly, with its full power, to sweep aside the political resistance to the full Democrat agenda. The winner this time wins it all. Which means its Trump or bust. And then the question - if it's not Trump - is what the bust looks like. Is it a Republican bust, where everybody gets screwed but the super rich escape? Or is it a Democrat bust, where everybody gets screwed and the rich get gutted and strung up. If I'm going to go down, I want to be sure that the rich go down with me. So, in a bust scenario, in a Revolution, I'm definitely on the side of the Reds against the Whites. If it's Hitler v. Stalin, I'm with Stalin, because Stalin will always win - he has bigger armies - and in a Game of Thrones, I'm interested in living through the end of the game. The Right wing always loses popular revolutions. We don't have to have one at all, but we will if the Republicans keep winning with their economic agenda. It is France 1770 all over again. The pieces on the table are all the same, and they're being moved in the same tired, stupid old ways. A Trump can forestall that. A Lafayette - an aristocrat who GETS IT that the nobility can only rule the people if it doesn't IMPOVERISH the people. People will follow wealthy leaders, but they will kill them instead if the wealthy become SO greedy that they take away more and more of what the common people have. The wealthy have to keep on reasonably redistributing what they have amassed, as poverty relief and encouragement of the guilds, and as entertainment. If instead they compete with each other to try to run the table, the middle class and civil servants and workers become poor, the poor become destitute, and eventually they all march on Versailles and cut off the heads of the rich and take all of their shit. Then the rich are dead, or in America (or Chile or Russia). We have seen this game play out across three centuries. The American rich are just the current bone-headed aristocracy headed for the guillotine, UNLESS a Lafayette can garner the support of the people and clip the wings of the rich ENOUGH to keep it all going along well. You can concentrate 50% of the wealth in the top 10%, because that leaves enough for the rest to live decently, if frugally. But when you start concentrating 85%, as we have, going to 90%, in 5% of the hands, well, those FEMA camps and coffins are likely to end up housing and burying Rockefellers, not Smiths and Lopez', when all is said and done. The rich need a Trump to raise their taxes more than they imagine. But they don't imagine. So, I'm still hoping he wins, but I just don't think that the Republican crapweasels are going to let it happen.
Yes, and our houses are God's also, and not the government's. But if I don't pay my taxes, the government will act as though it's its, and take it. And currently the government claims the land and God isn't drilling wells, so as far as earthly powers go, federal land and the oil beneath it, all God's, are under the dominion of the temporal human owner, which is the federal government. We are the federal government. So, we should drill our oil, put the profit into the treasury, and reduce our taxes accordingly.
The Post Office will always operate at a loss because it has to deliver to private citizens in rural areas, and that can't be done profitably. It's like rural roads - necessary, costly, a permanent drain. But not such a crushing burden that we should stop doing it.
Like a commie you want to get rid of the rich. If there are no rich who can oppose the government?
Similarly, the rich pay property taxes on their homes. Along with taxes on their cars, boats and planes. They also pay a higher income tax rate, inheritance taxes, and capital gains taxes -- unlike most in the middle class. The top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the nation's income taxes, and are paying a larger share each year. The bottom 50% don't pay shit. They're freeloaders. Before we hit "the rich" to pay more, how about a little something from the lower 50% so they have some skin in the game?
In the USSR, the government took that which was private and operated it, after shooting the owners. Here, Federal land is already Federal, so there's no taking. It's using what is already ours. The Constitution? Necessary and proper. Appropriation of money. It's no different than the selling off of land in 1800s for farms.
WHAT??? The Democrats bought their vote long ago.
Then I predict we'll have the biggest write-in campaign in this nation's history.
We're talking a post-Obama (apocalyptic) period So this is the USA that the "winner" will win: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
I am not interested in "getting rid of the rich". There will always be rich and poor, because men have different talents. I am interested in rooting out every law that is favorable to the rich, every tax loophole, to make them pay the same rates, with only the same deductions, as everybody else. That the middle class wealth, in houses, is taxed every year, but upper class wealth, in securities, is not, is why the middle class cannot accumulated wealth, while the already-rich do quite easiily. The middle class have 30% of their gain in wealth taken in taxes. The rich have very little taken, only the liquid portion they take as wages. It's systematic robbery, with the rich having the benefit of government, but having corruptly shifted the burden of paying for the government, and bleeding for it, over to the middle class and poor. And the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands has become so rapid, and so brazen, that the ability to maintain the political fist to do it is diminishing. Trump gets it. He's a rich guy who understands the need to tax the rich more and to take away their loopholes. Middle class people do not get it, because they don't understand how rigged the system is (because they are not exposed to it). They merely feel the effects of being beggared, without understanding why it is happening. It's why only a Trump can actually lead such a reform. But the party of the rich - the Republicans - well and truly hate him, because he's going to break their rice bowl. He's certainly not going to take all they have, nor do I advocate that. He's going to take what needs to be taken to make the system fairer, to adjust it, to make it viable. The other alternative is the Democrats. They will nationalize a lot more wealth, and be more socialistic in their approach, though this will be masked by taking the wealth and markets of SOME rich and handing it over to OTHER rich, who are their cronies. The Democrat approach will harness up the grievances of the poor and whip it up, but instead of aiming for fairness and reason, like a Trump would, they will whip people into a fury on racial lines, and get a mob that will let them do more than is fair or prudent. You seem to be resisting doing what is fair and prudent. The endpojnt of what you think you advocate will be a revolution that will kill the rich. I don't like revolutions. They are destructive. People must be reasonable,. Part of being reasonable with food is to eat enough to be satisfied, then stop. And if that amount makes you fat, eat as much as you NEED, then stop. Being reasonable with money means accumulating enough to be well off, comfortable and control your enterprise. Then stop. If you're so greedy for more that you're putting your own countrymen out of work by the millions, and seeking to take away their retirement benefits and leave them without health care, you are fitting your own neck for a noose. That's stupid. Trump is the sort of guy who can walk the right path. He's talking about these things. The Democrats will be more brutal and less fair, but will avoid a revolution. Let the Republicans continue on their path, and things will end in fire and blood in our lifetimes. We don't need to repeat history, if we're smart. If we refuse to be smart, well, the Red side wins almost all of the Revolutions, in the end. Because demographics is destiny. The best answer is to reasonably redistribute wealth on an ongoing basis, so that it never comes to that.
No. The Democrats gave them what they want, and got their permanent support. That's not sending them checks. It's giving them the legislation they want. That's the whole POINT of a lobby: to get the legislation you want. Maybe we can just say that Democrats understand government better than Republicans do.
The top 2 percent pay what percent?
Or we could just say you understand democrats better because they relate to your values better.
You people always ignore the other taxes the bottom 50%: social security, medicare, sales - on every penny. They all pay. You always limit your analysis to the income tax. But your numbers are dwindling. The Republicans have decimated the middle class so badly, that there are fewer and fewer people willing to buy your sort of bullshit half truths anymore. Trump gets it. That's why HE is ready to hit the financial class with taxes that are fair. But folks like you - you'll never get it. AND you'll block Trump. And so this time you'll get Biden or Hillary, and a Democrat Supreme Court, and then instead of the reasonable and fair sort of tax distribution that people like I am talking about - BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE will not be honest about taxes, you're going to GET Democrats, who are not honest about taxes either - and THEY will rape you in a way that people who are fair, like me, and Trump, never ever would. You lie about taxes by telling half truths. Income taxes are only about a third of all revenues. The other two thirds of revenues come from taxes that hit everybody, and the bottom 75% pay most of those, because they hit the rich little. The age of special treatment of the rich, places to hide THEIR money from taxes, are going the way of the Dodo bird. The only question is whether they will be taxed EQUITABLY, which I advocate, or whether they will be taxed by socialist revolutionaries and raped, which is what your enemies advocate. You've gotten YOUR way since Reagan. It doesn't work, and the middle class and working class have been so hollowed out that the numbers no longer exist to sustain your power. You will have to give up some of your excessive gains, some of the things that grossly and unfairly favor the rich. The country is not going to tolerate the unfairness any more, and nobody is going to listen to the lies you guys tell any more either. The rich pay 70% of 40% of the taxes. Big dead. Everybody else pays the biggest portion of 60% of the taxes. Nobody cares if you "fact check" me and "prove" that it's "only 37%". You do not have the votes. You cannot keep power. You cannot sustain the lie. You are going to be defeated. The question is: how bad. You go along with Trump, and me, and you will simply be treated FAIRLY - you''ll pay more taxes, because you deserve to. You will lose the special exemptions, but you precious rich will still be top dogs. But if you are stupid - and believe me, you Republicans ARE very stupid - as stupid as the French nobility were, or the Russian, or the rich landlords of pre-Revolutionary Mexico - you will try to brazen out your lies, to sustain your position, even though you no longer have the votes. So you'll defeat the moderates like Trump and me, and you'll get your plutocrat- lovers. And then you will have Hillary and the Democrats, who really DO hate you (I don't, Trump doesn't), and THEY will be a lot worse than simply make you play fair. THEY lie like you guys do, but in the other direction. So instead of getting to "fair", which is all I want, they'll get to "raping you", which is what they want. I'm not interested in trying to go through a full exposition of the tax code to you Republicans anymore. You don't CARE, you never did. You're hellbent on preserving your lies. But your's done. You're finished. It's like the slavery party in 1865, with the South defeated, trying to argue with Lincoln for the protection of property (slavery) blah, blah. They were finished. They were not going to sustain that anymore. They lost. The only question was whether they would lose their LIVES. Here., the question is whether your precious rich will pay their fair share (the REAL fair share, not the Republican lies about fairness, which always manipulate the truth), or be raped of assets. If the Democrats win, your rich get raped. If Trump wins, they get to join the ranks of regular taxpayers, and pay over a third of their increase in wealth every year. There is no scenario by which they hold their advantages. The jig is up. All that I am saying is that there are not too many fair-minded people like Trump and me. And that at a certain point the abuse of the fairminded becomes too much. If you force us to choose between Hitler (you) and Stalin (the socialistic Dems), we will choose Stalin. In 1936 America had that choice: Hitler, Stalin..,or FDR. FDR was a very wise choice. That's the choice you have now. We can return to our American roots and have a reasonable solution that clips the wings of your precious rich but does not destroy them, or you can go for Hitler and get hanged by Stalin. Hitler never wins under any scenario. Never has. Never will. There are not enough rich to actually hold the line. You need more men, and there aren't any more. FDR is extending you an olive branch. He comes in the guise of Trump. Better take that Olive branch, because Stalin is standing in the wings, and he's not going to be kind.
Which will fail, because voting is by machine, and the local political parties control the machine counts. "It doesn't matter how many people vote, only who counts them." - Stalin
I think you missed the EITC. Some who do not pay get an "Earned Income Tax Credit" as a socialistic bonus.
You have quite a few posting here that despise the "rich". Filthy smelly Occupy Movement sympathizers. A drug loving hippie trait.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yes, some do. And I think you make have missed in my commentary that I referred to the band of people between the cutoff of the EITC and the Social Security cap. THOSE are the people who own cars and houses and who are exposed to the full ravage of the tax code, without having the sort of assets that get the special upper class exceptions. They're also the bulk of the American population. The upper class should LOSE al of their exceptions so that they are taxed exactly the SAME as these people, on all of their income and property - just like the bulk of Americans are. That's how you make it fair: stop pretending that "houses" - which are property bought with after-tax income - are different from securities. The difference is that houses are taxed at 1.4% of their full value, annually, and often have transfer taxes, but securities are only taxed on the capital gain at their sale, and don't pay transfer taxes. HUGE difference, which means that the very rich only pay taxes on most of their assets WHEN THEY CHOOSE, which is never. Because of the other tricks available to those with vast wealth, that the tax code has been designed to accomodate. Republicans, if they were honest, OUGHT to be really interested in knowing these things. BUT THEY'RE NOT. Instead, they grouse in ignorance about things they don't know, and support a tax code that has massively shifted the concentration of national wealth into fewer and fewer hands, in 40 short years. The incuriosity of Republicans about this, and the way that they go on and on about "deserving" it - that wealth concentration wasn't the result of hard work, it was the result of a grossly unfair tax code - is why I call Republicans liars. Because they are. But the jig really is up. Who have the Republicans got left? Well, there's about half of the super-rich. The other half side with Democrats, in part because they expect that when Democrats take plenary power, they'll use the government to put their rivals out of business and take their market share. And there's an ever-dwindling "striver class" that dreams of being super rich one day, but that has no practical means of getting there BECAUSE the game is rigged so severely against them. There USED TO BE national security types, but the Republicans sold them out and didn't treat them in the VA. Fewer and fewer veterans support the party of W Bush. There were the pro-life Christians, but the GOP sold them out with Harriet Miers, the Schiavo fiasco, Mitt Romney, John Roberts, and the current Planned Parenthood funding. The number of pro-life Christians who are gung-ho for the GOP has shrunk by millions now. There were the Border-bots, but the GOP is open-borders now. Only Trump is for building the wall, and he is vilified. Who's left, then? Not enough. The Republicans are now, at best, 28% of the electorate. They are aging and dwindling. The Congress, for now, is GOP, because people wanted Obamacare stopped. But the Republicans funded it and guaranteed its survival - and the Republican Supreme Court has twice saved it constitutionally, so it's here to say. WHY? Because the very rich make a lot of money on forced health insurance - THEY are the shareholders and CEOs of the iinsurance companies! It's a rigged casino, and the Republicans are visibly seen to have rigged it, and to be keeping it rigged. Their electoral base is collapsing. They are finished. They have to change. Trump is the voice of change, because he's rich, and has exploited all aspects of the system, but he thinks it's unfair and is looking to change it. The super-rich do not want that change. The question is whether the rank-and-file Republicans, and Trump crossovers, will be enough to get him the nomination, or whether the rich will succeed in shutting him out. With Trump, we'll have an FDR figure who can draw up a "new deal". Without him, the Republicans have nothing like the votes to win with any of their candidates, so it will the Democrat. And the Democrats' policies will look and feel a lot more like a "Five Year Plan".
I don't despise the rich. But I see the hole into which they've led us. We will either be reasonable and unfuck what they have fucked up, OR we will turn into a socialst country. I'm for unfucking it, but the inability of men like you to see the difference between fixing things and being a "filthy smelly Occupy Movement sympathizer" tells me to plan for President Hillary. You cannot win with such a narrow base and such foolish lack of perception.
Yep. The IRS paid out $16 billion in EITC payments in 2013. IN ERROR. The IRS spent $65 billion on the EITC in FY 2014, of which 27.2% or $18 billion were improper. The IRS spent $133 billion IN ERROR the last 10 years. Damn. Just can't seem to get it right.
Do you really want to understand how the tax code works, and favors them? Or are you simply going to favor them NO MATTER WHAT the truth is? If you can be swayed by what you learn, it is worth the exercise. Otherwise, my telling you how things really are, how the tax system actually works to so massively favor them, will not do anything but make you angrier at me than you already are, and what good will that serve? So, you tell me - do you really want to know the truth about the tax code?
The top 10% pays 70% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 50% pay nothing. Yeah, they're massively favored. Favor them any more and they'll have to file for bankruptcy.
I don't consider Deckard a drug loving hippie. Since he is one you were obviously referring to. Deckard in my view is a good guy. He just wants to be left alone to do whatever he wants. Deckard values freedom and we should respect that. I think that he just has a blind spot in what drugs do to society. He thinks the benefits of letting everyone do whatever they want in relation to drugs is more important then the havoc they wreak across society. He has taken a position of "do whatever you want" as long as it doesnt' harm others. Even though it does harm others indirectly. He has taken that position and is trying to be consistent with a belief system he has decided to adopt.
If you can be swayed by what you learn, it is worth the exercise. Otherwise, my telling you how things really are, how the tax system actually works to so massively favor them, will not do anything but make you angrier at me than you already are, and what good will that serve? So, you tell me - do you really want to know the truth about the tax code? First I'm not angry with you, or others. I just tend to go for the throat when you disagree with me. I'm usually right, so that would mean you are wrong if you disagree with me. I suspect you have a similar belief about yourself. So when I say some nasty stuff to you, that is just me letting off some steam so to speak. Nothing personal. I react to comments on threads and not so much the individual. So I may be harsh on one thread and complimentry on another. Hope that clears that up. Now back to the topic at hand. The rich have advantages in the tax code. Sure I agree with that. The poor also have advantages in the tax code. Like paying zero. Or paying zero and still getting money back. I think the rich should pay more. That they should pay a higher percentage. That is negotiable in my mind. But in principal they should pay the most and a higher percentage. Remember in the Bible when a poor lady put in a tiny bit of money and the rich put in a lot. Jesus I believe said that she put in more money then they did because they contributed out of their abundence and she out what she needed to live. So yes I think the rich should pay a higher share then the poor. I don't agree with so called loopholes that allow them to pay nothing. Lets expand this. I don't agree when cities make special tax rules to entice a business to move to thier town. I've hear it said that corporations don't pay any taxes, that they just pass it on in their costs. So maybe we should have no income tax and only tax corporations since they don't pay any taxes anyway.
Comments (57 - 92) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest So if Trump paid the bribe "donated" one million dollars, they still would have run those negative ads about him. Because they're "consistent in applying their standards".
#17. To: TooConservative (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
You're making stuff up.
#19. To: TooConservative (#18)
they aren't for sale.
#20. To: TooConservative (#16)
"No, they would have thanked him and highlighted areas where Trump agrees with them."
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
They are for sale. They are already bought and paid for. They are whores.
#22. To: misterwhite (#7)
Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income? ... Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income?
#23. To: TooConservative (#18)
The only other group that is notable for not being for sale is the National Taxpayers Union bunch (
#24. To: TooConservative (#21)
pro-business/pro-jobs/anti-regulation agenda.
#25. To: TooConservative (#10)
(Edited)
I know I'm crushing your sweet dreams of the Republican tycoon you can finally love with all your heart and soul but there it is. : )
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
You'll have seen me advocate for the states and feds to drill for the oil and frack it on state and federal land, and put all of the profit from oil exploitation on public land directly into the treasury, reducing the need to tax people.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
I can vote with the GOP on a Trump, but they and you are all telling me that it won't be him, that you'll never accept him, and I'm beginning to be pretty sure that is true.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#26)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
Oil under federal and state land belongs to the people. It does not belong to private interests.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
So, you set up a federal oil company to explore and drill all of the oil on federal land.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#19)
(Edited)
"They are for sale."
#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#29)
Then you can have to post office
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
Which means its Trump or bust. And then the question - if it's not Trump - is what the bust looks like. Is it a Republican bust, where everybody gets screwed but the super rich escape? Or is it a Democrat bust, where everybody gets screwed and the rich get gutted and strung up. If I'm going to go down, I want to be sure that the rich go down with me. So, in a bust scenario, in a Revolution, I'm definitely on the side of the Reds against the Whites.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
"So, the two primary places middle class wealth is spent"
#37. To: A K A Stone (#30)
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
"The Teachers Unions are not for sale either."
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
"And then the question - if it's not Trump"
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
The winner this time wins it all.
#41. To: Rufus T Firefly (#40)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#43. To: misterwhite (#38)
The Democrats bought their vote long ago.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
I am interested in rooting out every law that is favorable to the rich, every tax loophole, to make them pay the same rates, with only the same deductions, as everybody else.
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
Maybe we can just say that Democrats understand government better than Republicans do.
#46. To: misterwhite (#36)
#47. To: misterwhite (#39)
(Edited)
Then I predict we'll have the biggest write-in campaign in this nation's history.
#48. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#36)
The bottom 50% don't pay shit. They're freeloaders.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#50. To: nolu chan (#48)
#51. To: GrandIsland (#49)
#52. To: nolu chan (#48)
"Some who do not pay get an "Earned Income Tax Credit" as a socialistic bonus."
#53. To: A K A Stone (#44)
(Edited)
The top 2 percent pay what percent?
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
"how the tax system actually works to so massively favor them"
#55. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#49)
Filthy smelly Occupy Movement sympathizers. A drug loving hippie trait.
#56. To: Vicomte13, tooconservative, tomder55, sneakypete (#53)
Do you really want to understand how the tax code works, and favors them? Or are you simply going to favor them NO MATTER WHAT the truth is?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]