United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors
Source:
Lifezette
URL Source: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/ ... -stocks-staff-democrat-donors/
Published: Jun 13, 2017
Author: Brendan Kirby
Post Date: 2017-06-13 07:57:18 by HomerBohn
Keywords: None
Views: 4426
Comments: 45
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made. “Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.” He's not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump's 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist's attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity. Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. Rhee also has contributed to a trio of Democratic senators: Mark Udall of New Mexico, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. James Quarles, who worked on the Watergate investigation as a young prosecutor, has an even longer history of supporting Democratic politicians. He gave $1,300 to Obama in 2007 and $2,300 in 2008. He also gave $2,700 to Clinton last year. He has supported a number of other Democratic candidates, including Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), former Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), former Vice President Al Gore, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Colorado congressional candidate Gail Schwartz. In addition, Quarles gave money to former Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and three current Democratic senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He chipped in $300 to the DNC Services Corp. $300 in 2012. Quarles did donate to a couple of GOP politicians — $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2006 and $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in 2015. Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department lawyer who now is at Jenner & Block, contributed $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,000 to the DNC Services Corp. in 2006. Weissmann served as chief of the Justice Department's criminal fraud section and worked on the Enron fraud case. A fourth lawyer on Mueller's staff, Michael Dreeben, donated $1,000 to Clinton 2006 and $250 to Obama in both 2007 and 2008. He was deputy solicitor general and has appeared many times before the Supreme Court. Media pundits generally dismissed concerns over the Democratic Party ties of the staff Mueller is building. Several Trump critics noted that Gingrich previously had tweeted that Mueller was a "superb choice to be special counsel" and that his reputation was "impeccable for honesty and integrity." Journalist Paul Vale, who has written for the Huffington Post and The Times of London, tweeted, "Boiled cabbage Gingrich lays out the White House plan to discredit career lawman Mueller — all in the service of his babbling paymaster." CNN anchor John King on Monday asked the network's chief congressional correspondent, Manu Raju, if it should be a concern. "No, because Bob Mueller is the one who's in charge of this investigation and will ultimately decide how to proceed, and there is some oversight over him by [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, even though there is a special counsel," he said. . Poster Comment: Looks like a potential enemy or enemies will be delving into the phony Russian hacking away to give the election to Trump rather than the more deserving Hillary. This can't fly! Larding up the staff with Clintonians should be enough to cry foul and dissolve the investigators.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: HomerBohn (#0)
But, you see, it WILL fly. Democrats FIGHT. They are brave - wrong, but brave. They ALWAYS fight. They never, ever quit. Like rust, they don't sleep. They press on. If they win, they impose. If they lose, they obstruct. But they never, never, never quit. Republicans, by contrast, don't fight for anything except a very few things. Republicans will fight over anything that redistributes the wealth of the super rich. Not you and me, but the economic alphas. They will fight for them. Anything else? They treat it as politics and bargain and shift. They don't like Trump, because he's a populist, so they view the investigation of Trump as weakening him, so they can get their way. Democrats fight all the time. I suppose Republicans do too, in their way, but what they are fighting for is not what they SAY they are fighting for when they run for office. Republicans could stop the Special Prosecution instantly, by refusing to fund it. They won't do it. And therefore Democrats will run amok with it, because the Republicans refuse to do the one thing that will stop them.
These economic alphas are subject to a progressive tax system which forces them to pay a higher tax rate on their income. I don't see you complaining about that unfair system. Now if we had a flat tax on every dollar earned, then the economic alphas would benefit no more from a tax cut than the economic omegas. Would that finally please you?
Now if we had a flat tax on every dollar earned, then the economic alphas would benefit no more from a tax cut than the economic omegas. Would that finally please you? If you read what I have consistently said about taxes, you would see me complaining about our unfair system for years. I want to see a flat tax on every dollar of wealth. (Just taxing "dollars earned" is itself an unfair system unless you STOP taxing land and cars and boats and planes, and only tax their growth in value about the original purchase price). If we just tax NEW wealth, including capital gain, on an ongoing basis, that would be a fair system, but it would not produce adequate revenue to run the government. To some extent we have to tax existing wealth (which is what a property tax is: a tax on existing wealth). If you're going to tax SOME existing wealth, then to be fair you have to tax ALL forms of it, at the same rate. So, one flat tax on each new dollar however derived - that's fair. And if you're going to tax property at all, then to be fair you have to tax all wealth in whatever form at the same rate: stock portfolios, art collections, gold hoards and houses all need to be taxed at the same property tax rate. I have ALWAYS called for a fair and equal system. Now, I don't expect you to have carefully followed anything that I've ever said. Why would you. But since you haven't, you should be careful before making a swingeing general attack on my unfairness about something, when I actually have a decades-old published view of the matter - right here on this site and on Free Republic and elsewhere, that very consistently calls for uniform taxation of everything, because that's the only thing that is fair.
The problem, of course, is that we have an $18.5 trillion economy, but we have a total government spending in the United States of $7 trillion per year. Right now, tax revenues at the federal, state and local level take in only $5.7 trillion dollars. So right now we have to borrow $1.3 trillion per year as a nation to pay the cost of government. And right now we tax property. We tax houses and cars, planes and boats, and estates. If we went to a straight flat tax on earnings, with no wealth tax, we would need to collect all $7 trillion from the current active economy. The flat tax rate would be 37.8%. Currently, below-$100,000 income earners pay an average of 35% of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while those above pay an average of 30% (thanks to the payroll phaseout). So to go to a straight flat tax on earnings with no deductions means that everybody would pay a lot more in taxes than they currently do. The only way to avoid that would be to continue to borrow money, or to continue to tax wealth as we do (real estate in particular). 37.8% of current earnings is too high. And we cannot continue to pile up debt forever, as the interest on it further exacerbates our problem year upon year. My answer is completely fair. It recognizes that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and that a new dollar earned is just a dollar of wealth, no different from an old dollar. All taxation ultimately taxes wealth. Philosophically, some people see a difference between a new dollar and an old dollar. I myself do not see a genuine distinction: a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. In any case, as we have plainly seen above, we cannot fund the government at all levels in the USA through a flat tax just on earnings: a nearly 38% flat tax would be a massive tax increase on everybody and would crush the economy. That government is too large and spends too much is a given. We have ALREADY outstripped the revenue we raise through our taxation of the economy. Governments borrow every year. Currently, there is $23.4 trillion in total government debt (all levels), at an average interest rate of about 2.85%. We cannot raise enough revenue to pay our existing obligations without taxing wealth. Property taxes are the third greatest source of government revenue in America, after Income taxes and Social Security/Medicare taxes. State and local government are primarily funded through real estate taxes, but it is unfair to only tax THAT form of wealth (on its total gross value too, not its net value). If we're going to tax properly, ALL property should be taxed, at a flat rate. To be fair and consistent, each dollar of wealth, whether newly earned or already accumulated, should be taxed at the same flat rate each year. American's total net worth is $84.9 trillion. Total American assets are $225 trillion. So, if we add together the total wealth of the nation of $225 trillion, and the $18.5 trillion gain through economic activity each year, that gives us a total of $240.5 trillion. To pay for government would require a 2.9% gross wealth tax that hits everything - all assets, new or old. That would pay for the government without new borrowing. Over time, that would mean retirement of the $23.4 billion in debt, and reduction in the cost of operating government each year of .67 billion. So the flat tax rate could come down. Likewise, if we stop with the foreign adventures and get illegal immigration and crime down, our cost of government will decline. It's always going to be expensive, but it doesn't have to be as expensive as it is. That, then, is what we ought to be doing. And that's fair and equitable and even handed.
No it's not fair. You're penalizing those who invest rather than blowing their money on trips, booze, gambling and whoring. You're discouraging the type of behavior we want and need. "I have ALWAYS called for a fair and equal system." Fine. Then call for a flat tax on all income and the elimination of the property tax. Why should homeowners foot the entire bill for the community? You seek "fairness" by compounding the problem -- tax everything ... to be "fair". Taxing wealth is not fair. It's redistribution from the haves to have nots. Don't confuse your feelings of compassion with fairness.
You just said that below-$100,000 income earners pay an average of 35% of their taxable income in taxes. That's most of the taxpayers. Their rate would go from 35% to 37.8%. That's not a "lot more" in taxes.
Tax the dollar when it's earned, then butt out. You have no business looking over my shoulder to see how I spend the money I earned and paid taxes on. If I chose to blow it, that's my decision. Likewise, if I choose to invest it, that's also my decision. If my investment fails, that's my loss. If it succeeds, it's my gain ... and mine alone. If you're not going to share my risk, you have no claim to my gain.
Trump surrounds himself with with shitheads like this, then complains when they turn against him.
Because I want a fair tax policy, not a stupid one. The tax rates required to fund the government WITHOUT property and wealth taxation are so high they would destroy the economy. 38% flat taxes? Insane. We can't cut the government back far enough to be able to pay for it with a straight economic activity tax. Government does too much to just fund it with the active economy. You have to tax property. And once you realize that you have to tax houses, then there is no justification to NOT taxing corporate securities ownership.
If my investment fails, that's my loss. If it succeeds, it's my gain ... and mine alone. The dollars you earn on your investment are also income and have to be taxed. The problem remains: the active economy is only $18 trillion, and the cost of government is $7. If you don't tax accumulated wealth and only tax the active economy, you will be hitting every new dollar at nearly a 40% rate. People howl NOW over a much LOWER rate. It can't be done. Government is too expensive to fund it on active taxation alone. We have to tax property - we need the money. Obviously I'd prefer to shrink the government. But we cannot rapidly shrink it enough to be able to fund it through just taxing new dollars. It would still crush the economy. I suppose we could just go to zero taxation and outright print new money for the government to spend. The economy would be stimulated like nobody's business, and inflation would go through the roof. Many choices, none of them work all that well.
No. It's honest. The government is currently collecting 38%, just through different means. Once people see firsthand how much the government takes from them, they'll demand cuts to the budget. By the way, Ted Cruz proposed a 10% flat tax. Why do you need four times as much? "And once you realize that you you you have to tax houses, then there is no justification to NOT taxing corporate securities ownership." No. You don't have to tax houses. Spread that revenue collection among ALL the people of the state. They all benefit, so they should all pay. Isn't that "fair"?
Not if you want to encourage investment. "The problem remains: the active economy is only $18 trillion, and the cost of government is $7." Federal spending is $3.5 trillion, not $7 trillion. You can get by with less than a 20% tax. With some cuts to spending, maybe down to 15%.
FBI Director Nominee Mueller Helped FBI and DOJ Cover Up Evidence on Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC Bombing
Because Ted's number isn't mathematically realistic. The economy is $28 trillion. The cost of government is $7 trillion per year (all levels), and the federal government spends almost $4 trillion. A 10% flat tax on a $28 trillion economy will produce $2.8 trillion, which is $1.2 trillion short. So we plunge ever deeper into debt.
Sure. Trouble is, the bottom third have only a couple of percentage points of the national wealth and income. The flat taxes I have proposed tax them, but 2.9% of $15,000 a year is just not very much money.
And I'll bet they suck up a disproportionate share of federal benefits. The least they can do is pay the same percentage as the rest of us. If that's too much, then they can join our voices in demanding lower rates. As it is, that bottom third (more like the bottom 48%) have nothing to lose by demanding more. Doesn't cost them a dime if taxes go up to pay for their demands. Now, if you're willing to take away the voting rights of anyone receiving federal benefits (other than SS and Medicare), then I'm willing to listen to your proposal.
And will remain at $28 trillion. Forever. Even with this massive tax cut? People are not going to spend the additional money put in their pockets by this tax cut? Businesses won't expand to accommodate the increased demand? Are you saying federal spending can't be cut? Why is federal spending a sacred cow?
Take away voting rights? La la land stuff. Not worth wasting the time to type about.
Of course it can be cut. The biggest discretionary piece is the war and the arms race. End those and you have a big peace dividend.
They need to cut across the board. Then give people their money back. They especially need to cut the program Ms that you like. You know where they steal from me and give to losers you feel sorry for. It contradicts gods word about needing to work to eat. It sows laziness. It makes people like you feel better. I never understood why people reject gods teaching on the subject. They must like to feel good by someone taking from a worker and giving to a deadbeat. That way they don't have to give and they can claim they are generous. But they aren't they worship mammoth am Nd want the government to do their charity in place of their giving on their own.
I don't understand why professing Christians do that either.
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. In all honesty you ignore this verse. Very straight forward. Then someone like you spins and pretends it doesn't mean what it says.
I think you're a decent guy Vic. You do have some blinders on though.
Trump surrounds himself with with shitheads like this, then complains when they turn against him. Trump is not much of a conservative, never has been as far as I know. He is a shrewd schmoozer, that much I have seen. I'm not ready to give him credit for this, but if a Special Counsel staff is stocked with Dems and comes up empty, it's over. Nobody can say it was a party politics cover-up.
In all honesty, Paul is not God. God commanded an extensive system of mandatory poverty relief in the Torah, and Jesus walked about healing and feeding unworthy people and telling his disciples to do the same. Paul has no power to overrule or override Jesus and YHWH, and to read him to have that authority is to place a man before God. Moreover, Paul was dealing with the specific problem of freeloaders in a particular Church. They participated in the help, the agape meals, but they didn't lift a finger to help. Paul's "he who will not work, should not eat" is within that context. You read that to completely nullify God's direct words and works in both testaments, and you do it because Paul's message (which you misinterpret) is more congenial to you than Jesus' and YHWH's. But we've been over this ground time and again. I bear patiently with the false accusation that I ignore the Bible, and I restrain myself from calling you out on various theological points because I can see that you are utterly committed to this viewpoint, and believe that this one line from Paul justifies it all, and indeed that Paul can override Jesus and YHWH because...Bible! I know where it's coming from, I know why you're doing it, and I know that you are not going to change your mind though God himself stand before you and tell you that you're reading it all wrong. So I don't engage. I do ignore your argument every time because it's not Godly (I argue from the words of God himself, from his own mouth, pages and pages of both testaments). I hear your accusation that what I say is ungodly and I roll my eyes at your blindness. I know you can't help it because you're a Protestant, and you have come up in a tradition where if you can find some words in the Bible that support your viewpoint, that becomes the will of God, regardless of the context. The Bible, to you, is a "god-maker". Any word in the Bible is all from God. So, a sentence written in a letter of Paul can override fifty pages of YHWH and Jesus because it's in the Bible. It's in the Bible, and of course Paul - which is to say God in your tradition - is speaking most authoritatively, because what he says seems to agree with your personal viewpoint. It's impossible to argue with such nonsense. You are CONVINCED of it, indeed CONVICTED. And so it is. You're wrong. You're misreadging it. You are misapplying the authority in Scripture. And you're doing it because of your own political views and worries, the things that make sense to you. You're never going to change your mind until you're dead. Then you'll change your mind. So what are we to do now? You're going to continue to argue for an ungodly position and call it godly, and to call the position that is actually based on what GOD said ungodly. You're going to keep on elevating Paul above God incarnate because your tradition says that's kosher and you agree with Paul but don't agree with Jesus and YHWH. And you're going to periodically take a poke at me, and at God through me, because I am parsing Scripture correctly and applying God's extensive commandments regarding the poor. I know it, and I've stopped even being frustrated by it much, because the more godly view is winning this fight politically. There are folks on here who want to take away all welfare, and who want to strip the vote from the poor, and all sorts of other crazy uncle in the attic nonsense that is never, ever going to happen, because the general population is a whole lot more reasonable and righteous than the folks who are positively obsessed with worry over what those "below" them get. Welfare is a mere pittance in the budget. Most of our government money is spent on education, on the military, and on health care, in that order. Then there's social security and law enforcement. The actual money paid out in food stamps and aid to dependent children is a pittance. You're going to focus on cutting that pittance and running out on God in the process. And the rest of us are never going to let that happen. So you're going to snarl at us and say we're ungodly. Many of the liberals ARE ungodly - their motivations are different. But the Catholics who support social welfare are obeying the Jesus and YHWH of the Bible, and we're going to keep doing so. It amazes us that you cannot see this, that you strain out the gnat, with this misapplied sentence of Paul, and swallow the camel by ignoring pages of words of God himself, on Sinai and incarnate. Anyway, you have a nice day. Eventually you will come to see this rightly. It will be after you're dead I think.
Paul didn't override god. I guess you don't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of god. The bible claims to be the inerrant word of god. It says all scripture is inspired by god. It doesn't say pick and choose.
If I was at a real keyboard I would respond in more detail. You are right you will never convince me to ignore what the bible says and go with your gut feeling. Did the devil put that verse in the bible to confuse us, or was god to weak to keep "lies' out of gods holy book?
You Dont get to overrule the bible. No where in the bible does it say set up the American welfare system. Not even close. I used scripture. You couldn't refute with scripture. I'll go with the bible and not a group who left a commandment out of the ten and prays to a dead human woman. Who isn't a virgin anymore.
And so YOU pick and choose. One line of Paul erases fifty pages of YHWH and Jesus. The Bible does not claim to be the inerrant word of God. In fact, the Bible never refers to the Bible, because the last book of the Bible was written circa 96 AD, but the Bible was not first compiled until about 350 AD. The Bible is inpsired by God, of course, but Satan is quoted in the Bible. Just because it's in the Bible does not mean that the words are authoritative. The Scripture TELLS YOU what the authority is: "Every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God" - and the Scripture always identifies when God is speaking. So ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, Jesus and YHWH have MORE AUTHORITY when THEY speak, in the Bible, than Paul, because Jesus and YHWH ARE GOD, according to the Bible. Paul is just the very least of the Apostles, according to the Bible. So, if you're reading Paul to ERASE what Jesus and YHWH said, you are not applying what the BIBLE ITSELF says - you are not reading the words that the Bible TELLS YOU came forth directly out of the mouth of God, or you're subordinating fifty pages of those words to one sentence of a letter from Paul, that the Bible TELLS YOU is a sentence from Paul. Scripture is inspired by God - God inspired it to be written. What you are doing is the same thing as taking the words of the Serpent speaking to Eve and holding what Satan said to be of equal authority to what Scripture says God said, because both sets of words are in the Bible. Paul isn't Satan, of course, but he isn't God either. Paul does not have the authority to override Jesus and YHWH. But to you, the Bible is a God-maker - ANY words in it are equal to all words in it, so once sentence of Paul erases fifty pages of Jesus and YHWH. You are reading Paul to override God. It's nutty, but you're convicted. You'll find out once your dead that you were wrong about this. Certainly nobody's going to change your mind while you're living.
Never said that. You are mistaken. There are not fifty pages of contradictions in the Bible. You think the Bible is fallible. I KNOW it is true and reliable. So did the devil put those "fake verses in there" You still haven't offered any evidence. You just keep flapping your lips, Paul contradicted Jesus. No he didn't. You should quit blaspheming the Bible.
I once wrote you pages and pages and pages of Scriptural quotations about God law of poverty, and how Jesus's teachings meshed with it. I DID refute what you said, but you simply ignored the post and refused to admit you had been defeated. I know I will never get justice in your court, because you simply ignore what is said to you and bellow on with your view, as if nothing was said. Of course you cannot be refuted in your own mind: it is closed. If we hauled in a neutral third party and presented our respective cases to him from Scripture, he'd rule my argument valid on the point and yours not. But you would then reject HIS argument, because he didn't agree with you, and you are just absolutely CERTAIN that because you read the Bible a certain way, that that is what God meant - just exactly that - and that your mind has the proper understanding of what God means, and that if somebody disagrees with you, that person - or all billion plus other people - are listening to Satan. It's very self-affirming, I am sure. I wonder if your faith in yourself as supreme judge of rectitude in the universe, as the Supreme Judge of what God MEANT by the Bible, is ever shaken by anything? You should wonder why God has given such miracles to me, a man whom YOU say listens to the whispers of Satan. It should disturb you - make you think that maybe you're not right. But instead you'll just ascribe all of THAT to lies and Satan too. You're stubborn and certain, like a Democrat or a Communist or an atheist. There will be no convincing you in this life. Eventually, during your life review, you will encounter all of this again - and you will figure it out. Until then, there's no purpose at all served by going back and forth over the same ground. You claim God is on your side because of your read of your book. God is on my side, though, and therefore I read his book correctly.
God Said 2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV) 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Vic I will go with God and not you. You contradict scripture. You are saying that God got it wrong and you are more authoritative than the Bible. You just make stuff up. I quote scripture. You don't. I'm right. You're wrong again.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: God Said 2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV) 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Then there is this 2 Thessalonians 3:10 KJV"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." So Vic. First God says all scripture is inspired by him. Then I quote some scripture and it says don't work don't eat. Note it doesn't say Paul says that. It says "WE". You cannot quote any scripture that contradicts the scripture I quoted. You can't it is impossible. Unless the Bible is full of lies and contradictions as your position requires.
I don't care about your pages and pages of bullshit. It wasn't scripture. It was your man made opinion. If your words were so convincing link to them or cut and paste them. But please quit this bullshit of I said somewhere before so I'm not doing it again. Yes you did write something before. But it was your words not Gods.
I never said you whisper of satan. I said you said there are errors in the Bible. There aren't. If there were errors would it be Satan who put them there? Or would it meant the Bible is a fraud. Are you saying you believe the Bible even if it has contradictions? It doesn't but that sounds like your position.
lol. link please.
Yes I ignore your opinion when it conradicts II Thesolonians or any other Bible verses. It is you that is ignoring Second Thesolonians, not me. It is you that offers nothing scriptural. I don't think you are evil or bad. I think your heart is in the right place but your head got it wrong. No where in the Bible does it say the state takes 50 poercent of what you earn. No where.
I don't know that you have received any miracles. How should I know that? Should I just believe everyone who proclaims that? Maybe you did maybe you didn't. But you proclaiming that and saying I should know is a tad ridiculous.
No I don't. I just ascribe the Bible to God and it is holy and perfect. You are saying it has flaws. It doesn't. You're wrong again.
What a dumb statement. I've already showed you from scripture that all the Bible was inspired by God. Quit saying it has flaws that is offensive.
Comments (41 - 45) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThis can't fly! Larding up the staff with Clintonians should be enough to cry foul and dissolve the investigators.
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Republicans will fight over anything that redistributes the wealth of the super rich. Not you and me, but the economic alphas.
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
These economic alphas are subject to a progressive tax system which forces them to pay a higher tax rate on their income. I don't see you complaining about that unfair system.
#4. To: misterwhite (#2)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
uniform taxation of everything, because that's the only thing that is fair.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
So to go to a straight flat tax on earnings with no deductions means that everybody would pay a lot more in taxes than they currently do
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
"It recognizes that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and that a new dollar earned is just a dollar of wealth, no different from an old dollar."
#8. To: HomerBohn (#0)
Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors
#9. To: misterwhite (#5)
Fine. Then call for a flat tax on all income and the elimination of the property tax. Why should homeowners foot the entire bill for the community?
#10. To: misterwhite (#7)
Tax the dollar when it's earned, then butt out. You have no business looking over my shoulder to see how I spend the money I earned and paid taxes on. If I chose to blow it, that's my decision. Likewise, if I choose to invest it, that's also my decision.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
38% flat taxes? Insane.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
"The dollars you earn on your investment are also income and have to be taxed."
#13. To: HomerBohn (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#14. To: misterwhite (#11)
By the way, Ted Cruz proposed a 10% flat tax. Why do you need four times as much?
#15. To: misterwhite (#11)
Spread that revenue collection among ALL the people of the state. They all benefit, so they should all pay. Isn't that "fair"?
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
"Trouble is, the bottom third have only a couple of percentage points of the national wealth and income."
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
"The economy is $28 trillion."
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
#19. To: misterwhite (#17)
Are you saying federal spending can't be cut? Why is federal spending a sacred cow?
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
#21. To: A K A Stone (#20)
I never understood why people reject gods teaching on the subject.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
#24. To: rlk (#8)
>>Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors
#25. To: A K A Stone (#22)
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#26)
It doesn't say pick and choose.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
One line of Paul erases fifty pages of YHWH and Jesus.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
I used scripture. You couldn't refute with scripture. I
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
VIC Said "The Bible is inpsired by God, of course, but Satan is quoted in the Bible. Just because it's in the Bible does not mean that the words are authoritative."
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
God Said 2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
I once wrote you pages and pages and pages of Scriptural quotations about God law of poverty, and how Jesus's teachings meshed with it.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
You should wonder why God has given such miracles to me, a man whom YOU say listens to the whispers of Satan.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
I DID refute what you said, but you simply ignored the post and refused to admit you had been defeated.
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
I know I will never get justice in your court, because you simply ignore what is said
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
You should wonder why God has given such miracles to me, a man whom YOU say listens to the whispers of Satan.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
But instead you'll just ascribe all of THAT to lies and Satan too.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
Paul has no power to overrule or override Jesus and YHWH, and to read him to have that authority is to place a man before God.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]