• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Based on the latest tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is an amazing article because it blows away so many of the left?s arguments on taxes and incomes.

1. The ?rich? did FAR better under Bill Clinton than under Bush. Despite all the talk about rising incomes and fat cat Republicans etc etc. During the 90?s the top 1% saw their share of income grow from 14% to 21% a 50% increase while under Bush they have barely seen a 1% increase.
2. Despite all the talk about tax cuts for the ?rich? it turns out that Bush?s tax cuts have helped the poor FAR more than the rich. The ?poor? half of the country now pays only 3% of all income taxes. Even more amazing is the fact that 1.3 million ?rich? Americans pay 10 times more in taxes than the 66 million below the median income point.
3. Cuts in tax rates DO cause increases in tax revenue. Since capital gains taxes were cut from 20% to 15% in 2003 the amount of capital gains declared has DOUBLED!!! So we are getting less money per dollar declared, but we are getting a whole lot more dollars to tax.
4. If Bush was Democrat President the left would be holding him up as an example of what a President should be like when it comes to taxes.
link
BTW the data used comes from the IRS and Treasury Department so save your 'right wing' conspiracy BS for another thread.
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

For the political left and most of the media, this means only that the rich are getting richer, so of course they're paying more taxes. And it is true that the top earners have increased their share of total income. Yet, as the nearby table shows, the rich showed more rapid gains in reported income shares in the 1990s than in the first half of this decade. The share of the richest 1% jumped to 20.8% of total income in 2000, from 14% in 1990, but increased only slightly to 21.2% in 2005. This makes it hard to pin their claim of "rising inequality" on the Bush tax cuts, though the income redistributionists are trying. By this measure, the Clinton years were far worse for "inequality."

Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

The IRS statistics also tell a more complicated economic story than the media claim. First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm.

Liberals decry this as proof of a new "gilded age." But we'd say these gains are a sign that more Americans are joining the ranks of the truly affluent. More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.

Keep in mind as well that the IRS only records the income that taxpayers report. Its data don't include income that the rich hide in tax shelters or otherwise defer. And there is evidence that lower tax rates since 1981 have caused the rich to declare more of what they earn. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.

The IRS figures are also misleading because they include income that can make many Americans rich for only a single year. In 2005, for example, taxpayers earned an estimated $600 billion in income from capital gains, which is reported on tax forms as part of adjustable gross income. But that might include the one-time gain from a middle-class senior couple that has lived modestly for decades but suddenly retires and sells the family business or home for $1 million or more. They may be "rich" in Hillary Clinton's definition of the term, but in fact they are benefiting in one tax year from a lifetime of hard work and thrift.

The amount of capital gains declared on tax forms has doubled since the tax rate was cut to 15% from 20% in 2003, which has also contributed to more Americans being "rich." Dividend income has also increased by at least 50% since that rate was cut to 15% from nearly 40% in 2003. So part of the income gains of the rich are simply a result of assets that have been converted into taxable income -- in part because of lower tax rates.

We hate to break up the media's egalitarian chorus with these details, but facts are facts. If Democrats really want to soak the rich, they'll keep tax rates where they are, or, better, lower them some more.
Another example of "liars figure and figures lie", puffjohn. Damn, you even missread your own article. Better do that before posting your "knee-jerk" topics.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW the data used comes from the IRS and Treasury Department so save your 'right wing' conspiracy BS for another thread.
Pentagon reports were released confirming of people killed by sectarian violence in Iraq but didn't include car bomb victims or those shot in the back of the head as opposed to the front. Any statistic can be manipulated and no agency or group is above it since they may not even be doing it intentionally and may have reasons for including or excluding variables. But don't play the "this is from a source that can't be criticized" card. Besides, who the hell trusts the IRS??
If you dont trust the IRS then how can you complain the rich are eating a bigger piece of the pie?? How do you think those numbers are derived?
The only issue I addressed in my post was the contention that stats are sacrosanct. I made no claims as to whether the rich are paying their fair share. I'll leave that to Warren Buffett :)
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Tax cuts have hurt the economy almost conclusively considering the deficit spending that has been seen in conjunction with it.
Well, duh. :roll:

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts have been phenomenal for our economy. Revenues to the Treasury have never been higher. The fact that Congress has been spending like drunken sailors is another issue altogether, and shouldn't be lumped in with the tax cuts. They have been a great thing for this economy.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The Bush Adminstration made everything Pro-Business at all costs.

This favors rich Republicans that use loopholes created by this policy to shelter their money.
Of course. :roll:

All businesses are owned by "rich Republicans that use loopholes created by this policy to shelter their money"...

You're a disgrace, Dave. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,386
1
0
I don't really care if the rich did better or worse under democratic rule vs under Bush. That is just one piece of the economic pie. What really matters to me is that the US economy as a whole has been doing much worse during Bush's rule. That effects my daily life far more than the current state of the rich.

Regardless, it was an interesting read. I enjoyed it.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
3. Cuts in tax rates DO cause increases in tax revenue. Since capital gains taxes were cut from 20% to 15% in 2003 the amount of capital gains declared has DOUBLED!!! So we are getting less money per dollar declared, but we are getting a whole lot more dollars to tax.

The amount of capital gains declared on tax forms has doubled since the tax rate was cut to 15% from 20% in 2003, which has also contributed to more Americans being "rich." Dividend income has also increased by at least 50% since that rate was cut to 15% from nearly 40% in 2003. So part of the income gains of the rich are simply a result of assets that have been converted into taxable income -- in part because of lower tax rates.
[/quote]

This argument is very misleading.

1. The amount of capital gains declared has only part to do with the tax rate but almost everything to do with the rate of appreciation of stock. Since stocks have appreciated dramatically there will naturally be more capital gains, it has nothing to do with the tax rate at all.

2. It doesn't take into account the fact that people have been using stocks to fund their lifestyle, further fueling the cash-in.

3. It doesn't take into account the amount of taxes eliminated by loss-credits given when stocks have been sold for a loss.

In summary, your measuring point, especially from 2000-2003 will make a *huge* difference in measurement since the economy stagnated and the markets were in decline, your tax cut won't directly spur growth, only the mortgage market did so.

Dividend income has nothing to do with the tax rate and everything to do with companies going through financial hardships, keeping cash, but then releasing it when times get better.

The arguments are stupid and include too many extraneous variables to be able to create a positive correlation. Once you remove all of those variables and get down to *one* variable, the tax cut itself, you probably end up with a very low correlation coefficient. It's a spurrious correlation.

People forget that correlation does not infer causation and only fools would think so without thoroughly proving the argument through regression analysis. Any analytical person who knows a lot about finance would immediately spot the holes in the conclusion as I have.

Nice job NonProfJohn, your argument is silly, specious, and ill-concieved, you have delivered very well on your status quo.

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Tax cuts have hurt the economy almost conclusively considering the deficit spending that has been seen in conjunction with it.
Well, duh. :roll:

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts have been phenomenal for our economy. Revenues to the Treasury have never been higher. The fact that Congress has been spending like drunken sailors is another issue altogether, and shouldn't be lumped in with the tax cuts. They have been a great thing for this economy.
The tax cuts did nothing. The economy owes everything to plethoric debt spending and mortgages, nothing more. To think that tax cuts have anything to do with economic output is to ignore over a hundred years of economic data and the studies that have shown that tax cuts, once all other variables are accounted for, have almost nothing to do with spurring growth.

Only fools who listen to sound bites believe otherwise. Anybody who has looked at the studies and hard data know better.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,530
0
0
from the article:

"Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher"

That little part about (and taxes paid) is kind of important.

The rich are paying more of the taxes because there are more of them now, period. Their tax rates are actually lower.

Also, any impact the tax cuts have had on the economy are hard to measure - at best. Try telling Joe middle-class American that the tax rates on dividends has been lowered, and see how excited he gets...but don't hold your breath. Capital Gains tax lower? Again, target class = ?

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The tax cuts did nothing.
Your opinion is definitely a minority one. The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success. How do you downplay the fact that the U.S. Treasury is receiving record tax revenues? Government has never taken in more $$$ than it is currently.

There is plenty of debate about who the cuts have helped, etc. but I don't think there is any real disagreement that they have been successful overall.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Pabster
The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success.
Of course they'll say that. The tax cuts were for them. ;)
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The tax cuts did nothing.
Your opinion is definitely a minority one. The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success. How do you downplay the fact that the U.S. Treasury is receiving record tax revenues? Government has never taken in more $$$ than it is currently.

There is plenty of debate about who the cuts have helped, etc. but I don't think there is any real disagreement that they have been successful overall.
Caught yah in that Voodoo Economics ""truthiness"" Pabs . . .

Individual Income Tax Receipts (millions of dollars)

2006 . . . . . . $1,043,908
2005 . . . . . . . .$927,222
2004 . . . . . . . .$808,959
2003 . . . . . . . . $793,699
2002 . . . . . . . . $858,345
2001 . . . . . . . . .$994,339

2000 . . . . . . . $1,004,462
1999 . . . . . . . . . $879,480
1998 . . . . . . . . . .$828,586
1997 . . . . . . . . . .$737,466
1996 . . . . . . . . . .$656,417
1995 . . . . . . . . . .$590,244


% Total Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - Presidential Term

3.93% - First Six Years of George Bush
70.18% - Last Six Years of Bill Clinton
The bolded portion of your statement is a lie. Now. If you would like - I'd be happy to dig up the GDP and Federal Debt figures for you to review.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The tax cuts did nothing.
Your opinion is definitely a minority one. The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success. How do you downplay the fact that the U.S. Treasury is receiving record tax revenues? Government has never taken in more $$$ than it is currently.

There is plenty of debate about who the cuts have helped, etc. but I don't think there is any real disagreement that they have been successful overall.
I don't care what most MS economists say. Almost every economic study I have read for my MBA and CFA charter has shown convincing data that tax cuts almost always do nothing. Why?

1. They are almost always poorly timed. They come too far after the problem or too much before it.

2. They stifle economic development during the downturn because the government crowds out cheaper bonds by issuing it's own debt, this causes debt costs to raise for non-government entities. This is when all tax cuts are financed through debt, which they are now.

3. Tax cuts financed through debt issuance result in further debt, not just for this year, but for every other year until the debt is paid off. What can tax cuts be attributed for? 200bn in additional GDP over the last 3 years? Great, that $100bn tax cut will cost federal taxpayers approximately 4bn for the next 30 years in just debt payments. Good job, you just went nowhere. Especially considering #2.


The increase in tax revenue can be attributed to a few major items.

1. Economic growth through debt issuance and using houses as ATMs has caused the economy to grow significantly and stock prices to appreciate dramatically. The CapGains taxed are a direct result from this "growth", the GDP excluding MEW (mean equity withdraw) would have been about 50% of current.

2. Because of #1's debt fueled consumption and growth the stock market increased. Driving capital gains. However, what it doesn't consider that measurement of years before, during similar economic booms, say 1999-2000, the tax "increase" doesn't look as impressive. Sure, you could say that taxes are much higher than 2000, but then you'd still be lying, because on an inflation adjusted basis, they are *LOWER*.

3. Keep in mind that cash-outs from houses also are taxed if you just sell an investment property, this also caused more tax revenues.

4. Tax losses from stocks are not considered in the equation, since these *decrease* revenues, but aren't going to be factored in to tax receipts until this year. Furthermore, housing declines cannot be removed from taxes, thus the positive effects of capital gains from houses are felt in tax receipt, but not losses that we are feeling now. Thus it's an asymetrical effect, one that you cannot deny.

All in, those numbers are bullshit. They exclude several biases, including time period selection, alternate independent variables which have tremendous influence on the dependent variable.

However, I don't doubt you're going to come back with the same bullshit reply as always..."But but but...THEY SAY YOU ARE WRONG! EXPLAIN!", which I will explain until I am blue in the face, but that won't change the *fact* that you are blissfully ignorant to statistical testing methodologies of multiple regression and how R2 determines effects on the dependent variable. Since you are unable to grasp this you are unable to grasp points 1-4 and how they have a much larger effect on the dependent variable (tax receipts). Instead, you attribute everything to one variable, tax cuts, which is a stupid argument for reasons listed above (1-3).

Have fun refuting what I typed with a lame-ass 2-3 sentence reply that has to include something about "experts" and everything else. You'll never come up with your own proof against 1a-3a, nor 1b-4b. That's because you listen to sound bites, propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you and you love to be controlled.
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
I think this may have had its effect on the country`s overall economic health:

Deficit chart.

There is another chart on either the Dept of Treasury or Federal Reserve website that has close to the same numbers; except when I last linked the official .gov site a few years ago, data for the Bush Jr. years was "not available".

:)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The Bush Adminstration made everything Pro-Business at all costs.

This favors rich Republicans that use loopholes created by this policy to shelter their money.
Of course. :roll:

All businesses are owned by "rich Republicans that use loopholes created by this policy to shelter their money"...

You're a disgrace, Dave. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
Coming from you that is quite a compliment. Thanks :thumbsup:
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: NeoV
from the article:

"Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher"

That little part about (and taxes paid) is kind of important.

The rich are paying more of the taxes because there are more of them now, period.

Their tax rates are actually lower.


Also, any impact the tax cuts have had on the economy are hard to measure - at best. Try telling Joe middle-class American that the tax rates on dividends has been lowered, and see how excited he gets...but don't hold your breath. Capital Gains tax lower? Again, target class = ?
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The tax cuts did nothing.
Your opinion is definitely a minority one. The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success. How do you downplay the fact that the U.S. Treasury is receiving record tax revenues? Government has never taken in more $$$ than it is currently.

There is plenty of debate about who the cuts have helped, etc. but I don't think there is any real disagreement that they have been successful overall.
Caught yah in that Voodoo Economics ""truthiness"" Pabs . . .

Individual Income Tax Receipts (millions of dollars)

2006 . . . . . . $1,043,908
2005 . . . . . . . .$927,222
2004 . . . . . . . .$808,959
2003 . . . . . . . . $793,699
2002 . . . . . . . . $858,345
2001 . . . . . . . . .$994,339

2000 . . . . . . . $1,004,462
1999 . . . . . . . . . $879,480
1998 . . . . . . . . . .$828,586
1997 . . . . . . . . . .$737,466
1996 . . . . . . . . . .$656,417
1995 . . . . . . . . . .$590,244


% Total Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - Presidential Term

3.93% - First Six Years of George Bush
70.18% - Last Six Years of Bill Clinton
The bolded portion of your statement is a lie. Now. If you would like - I'd be happy to dig up the GDP and Federal Debt figures for you to review.
Nice job guys.

The resident Republicans cherry picking skillz are pretty piss poor these days. :laugh:
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,304
5,238
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

This favors rich Republicans that use loopholes created by this policy to shelter their money.
what loopholes are those, dave?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

This favors rich Republicans that use loopholes created by this policy to shelter their money.
what loopholes are those, dave?
A loophole similar to the one he uses to support Hillary while bashing the war in Iraq.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: NeoV
from the article:

"Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher"

That little part about (and taxes paid) is kind of important.

The rich are paying more of the taxes because there are more of them now, period.

Their tax rates are actually lower.


Also, any impact the tax cuts have had on the economy are hard to measure - at best. Try telling Joe middle-class American that the tax rates on dividends has been lowered, and see how excited he gets...but don't hold your breath. Capital Gains tax lower? Again, target class = ?
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The tax cuts did nothing.
Your opinion is definitely a minority one. The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success. How do you downplay the fact that the U.S. Treasury is receiving record tax revenues? Government has never taken in more $$$ than it is currently.

There is plenty of debate about who the cuts have helped, etc. but I don't think there is any real disagreement that they have been successful overall.
Caught yah in that Voodoo Economics ""truthiness"" Pabs . . .

Individual Income Tax Receipts (millions of dollars)

2006 . . . . . . $1,043,908
2005 . . . . . . . .$927,222
2004 . . . . . . . .$808,959
2003 . . . . . . . . $793,699
2002 . . . . . . . . $858,345
2001 . . . . . . . . .$994,339

2000 . . . . . . . $1,004,462
1999 . . . . . . . . . $879,480
1998 . . . . . . . . . .$828,586
1997 . . . . . . . . . .$737,466
1996 . . . . . . . . . .$656,417
1995 . . . . . . . . . .$590,244


% Total Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - Presidential Term

3.93% - First Six Years of George Bush
70.18% - Last Six Years of Bill Clinton
The bolded portion of your statement is a lie. Now. If you would like - I'd be happy to dig up the GDP and Federal Debt figures for you to review.
Nice job guys.

The resident Republicans cherry picking skillz are pretty piss poor these days. :laugh:
Potentially misleading data.

Pabster talks about (total) government tax receipts. Your data above includes only individual taxes. They are not the same thing. Find a chart on total gov tax receipts.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
It's a lot of misinformation - propaganda to convince the public to vote against their own interests. They tried it with 'trickle down', the theory that if you give a larger share to the rich you will get rewarded, and now they're trying it with this sort of 'big lie', the republicans are really the party of the poor and bad for the rich!

You can fool some of the people...

Apart from the buried story you don't see reported that we're in a historic shift of wealth to the super-rich (top 0.1%) - reflected in the top 5% going from owning 50% of all wealth to over 75% since Reagan took office - here are a couple of specific rebuttals:

NY Times chart: "The Wealthy benefit more from the Recent Tax Cuts"

Pulitzer-Prize winning NY Times Tax reporter David Cay Johnston refuting the misrepresentations:

Link

A chart showing that workers are not getting any of the benefit of growth, and that the increases they have had have been under democratic administrations:

Link

Look who's making more the last 25 years:

link

As top tax rates fall, income inequality has increased.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,165
126
Lies. On the internet, there are no rich Democrats, and all Democratic politicians serve only the interests of the poor and downtrodden.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
So Republicans are completely useless whether you are rich or poor. Unless you are a GOP cronie, you are better off with the Democrats.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Potentially misleading data.

Pabster talks about (total) government tax receipts. Your data above includes only individual taxes. They are not the same thing. Find a chart on total gov tax receipts.
Not potentially, but purposefully, by a hack.

How convenient to single out just one category when I was clearly referring to total monies coming in to the U.S. Treasury, not merely individual income tax receipts.

As for those who pretend to know more here than a majority of economists, I think we can all make up our own minds on who to believe.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Lies. On the internet, there are no rich Democrats, and all Democratic politicians serve only the interests of the poor and downtrodden.
Certainly more so than Republicans.

Isn't that the "Socialist" stuff you so hate and complain about?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,165
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Lies. On the internet, there are no rich Democrats, and all Democratic politicians serve only the interests of the poor and downtrodden.
Certainly more so than Republicans.

Isn't that the "Socialist" stuff you so hate and complain about?
Socialism doesn't serve the poor and the downtrodden, it just exploits them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY