is this fair share yet?

[Craig234]

The liberal mindset is that you have to pass the agreement to cut the income in order to find out what is IN the agreement to cut the income.

You know, like the Obamacare debacle.

Except you're lying, about both. I need to stop browsing while not logged in while my ignore list isn't in effect.

 

[xj0hnx]

Except you're lying, about both. I need to stop browsing while not logged in while my ignore list isn't in effect.

You could just get a life and stop browsing all together.

 

[BoberFett]

Except you're lying, about both. I need to stop browsing while not logged in while my ignore list isn't in effect.

How is he lying? You just said that you wouldn't discuss it until it was already agreed to, at which point discussion is moot.

You're such a lying, two-faced sack of shit. In other words, a perfect representative of the Democrats.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

You miss the point. No one 'likes' an income cut, but not everyone can get 'above average' income, now can they?

I would guess that about 49% of the people get above average income.

It is a shame that being successful in this country is so shameful. People make their own wealth and are responsible for it; government taxes it at a rate which they are not responsible for.

The 1% are paying the way.

 

[fskimospy]

How is he lying? You just said that you wouldn't discuss it until it was already agreed to, at which point discussion is moot.

You're such a lying, two-faced sack of shit. In other words, a perfect representative of the Democrats.

Pelosi never said that Congress needed to pass the ACA so that they could find out what was in it. She said they needed to pass the ACA so that the American people would find out the good things that are in it.

It's a pretty common misrepresentation.

 

[soulcougher73]

what's wrong with that?
what's stopping the other 99% from becoming the top 1%?
or should everyone get paid the same wages?

Step right up and get your math fail right here folks! How exactly can 99% fit into 1%?

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm not agreeing to anything until I hear the details. Why would I do that?

I think he is asking you if you agree they need to be cut. If you agree on that then you can hash out details. If you dont think they need a pay cut then their really is no point continuing the debate with Craig. Although if you can miss something as easy as that maybe its futile at all to discudss further.

I swear some of you fuckers look for excuses to miss the point someone is trying to make. Even though its in plain very easy to read english. No wonder nothing every gets accomplished.

 

[soulcougher73]

How is he lying? You just said that you wouldn't discuss it until it was already agreed to, at which point discussion is moot.

You're such a lying, two-faced sack of shit. In other words, a perfect representative of the Democrats.

Are you really this fucking clueless? If 2 people do not agree beforehand that a income cut needs to be made what is the point of discussing details? Now if both parties say yeah we need to figure out a way to cut the income..well then you can come up with details and discuss/debate how your intented goal should be accomplished.

Im an Athiest..but JESES FUCKING CHRIST PEOPLE. PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES FOR ONCE IN YOUR GOD DAMN LIFE.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Step right up and get your math fail right here folks! How exactly can 99% fit into 1%?

This country offers equal opportunity to everyone. I think his point was that there is nothing stopping someone in the 99% from making enough money to become part of the 1%.

 

[soulcougher73]

This country offers equal opportunity to everyone. I think his point was that there is nothing stopping someone in the 99% from making enough money to become part of the 1%.

That is true. And no matter how you divide up wealth their will always be a 1%. I think the real issue more people seem to overlook is this debate is about how much wealth that 1% actually need to the detriment of the rest of the people. I mean will some of you be happy when the 1% actually own 99% of the worlds wealth? It is inevitable if we continue down this path we are on currently.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

We need to restructure to force the rich to help the middle class grow with them in their success. Allowing the concentration of wealth to increasingly get funneled away from the middle class is not beneficial to anybody in the long run.

 

[fskimospy]

This country offers equal opportunity to everyone. I think his point was that there is nothing stopping someone in the 99% from making enough money to become part of the 1%.

That's absurd. Of course this country doesn't offer equal opportunity to everyone. I'm not aware of a single credible source that would say that.

 

[thraashman]

I do enjoy the highly selective language here. It specifically mentions income tax and appears to leave off capital gains taxes which are taxed at the much lower rate of 15% and is where most of the 1% get a majority of their income.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

That is true. And no matter how you divide up wealth their will always be a 1%. I think the real issue more people seem to overlook is this debate is about how much wealth that 1% actually need to the detriment of the rest of the people. I mean will some of you be happy when the 1% actually own 99% of the worlds wealth? It is inevitable if we continue down this path we are on currently.

I don't base my worth on what someone else makes. My success stands alone without the need to compare. My neighbor making a killing in the stock market doesn't make me worth less. I don't see where it is detrimental. Although, wealth aside, money should be separated from politics.

Full disclosure: I am in the 1% (gross of about $600k this year if you include the wife. AGI not yet determined.) What am I doing to help? Well, I'm putting my ass on the line to open another business and employ about 10 people. What is my return on this venture? Maybe $75K/year profit. Why? I'm doing it to diversify myself, but also to give people jobs.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

That's absurd. Of course this country doesn't offer equal opportunity to everyone. I'm not aware of a single credible source that would say that.

I'm not aware of a single credible source that would say it is untrue.

We even have equal legislation to make everyone equal. Laws, my friend.

There is nothing prohibiting someone from making millions. No laws; no obstacles other than personal ones. Maybe you feel people have a disadvantage (born the wrong color, religion, gender, sexual preference etc) but the same can be said for people that are born without intelligence, or business savvy, or the desire to take risks.

You show me one law that makes opportunity unequal for different segments of society. I'll go ahead and show you several that make opportunity equal for all.

 

[BoberFett]

Some of you have a problem with English.

If you agree to the plan to cut it we can discuss how. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

He did not say "If you agree to cut it, we can discuss how."

He did say "If you agree to the plan to cut it, we can discuss how."

Plan = How

Craig said that the how can be discussed, after the how has already been agreed to.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not aware of a single credible source that would say it is untrue.

We even have equal legislation to make everyone equal. Laws, my friend.

There is nothing prohibiting someone from making millions. No laws; no obstacles other than personal ones. Maybe you feel people have a disadvantage (born the wrong color, religion, gender, sexual preference etc) but the same can be said for people that are born without intelligence, or business savvy, or the desire to take risks.

You show me one law that makes opportunity unequal for different segments of society. I'll go ahead and show you several that make opportunity equal for all.

I was unaware that:
1.) equality under the law meant that all other sources of inequality somehow didn't count.
2.) the law was applied equally in the United States.

Where did you get these ideas?

EDIT: Oh, and I'm aware of dozens, if not hundreds of credible sources that would say that the idea that everyone in America has an equal opportunity is untrue.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I was unaware that:
1.) equality under the law meant that all other sources of inequality somehow didn't count.
2.) the law was applied equally in the United States.

Where did you get these ideas?

EDIT: Oh, and I'm aware of dozens, if not hundreds of credible sources that would say that the idea that everyone in America has an equal opportunity is untrue.

All other sources of inequality are illegal and don't count. There is only so much we can do. Maybe work on the biases. Prejudice generally exists for a reason.

Dozens and hundreds? Those are an order of magnitude apart. Which is it? Go ahead and cite some sources.

 

[soulcougher73]

Some of you have a problem with English.



He did not say "If you agree to cut it, we can discuss how."

He did say "If you agree to the plan to cut it, we can discuss how."

Plan = How

Craig said that the how can be discussed, after the how has already been agreed to.

I think youre reading way more into it than intended and being nitpicky on words just for the sake of being nitpicky. But if you want to go there we can. Why would someone say we can discuss "how" the plan should work if they already have a plan they dont intend to discuss? Common sense should dictate that he is looking to bounce some ideas around and looking to hear ideas.

Common reading comprehension would suggest Craig was attempting to discuss ideas on how to cut income assuming you are onboard with income pay cuts. But if you are against pay cuts than why should he discuss ideas with you on pay cuts? Makes no sense.

As i said a lot of you just look for stupid crap to avoid talking about anything meaningful. You should all be fucking politicians

 

[fskimospy]

All other sources of inequality are illegal and don't count. There is only so much we can do. Maybe work on the biases. Prejudice generally exists for a reason.

Dozens and hundreds? Those are an order of magnitude apart. Which is it? Go ahead and cite some sources.

Lol. All other sources of inequality are most certainly not illegal.

What you've asked is almost baffling in terms of how much literature there is to cite. I'm actually overwhelmed by the sheer number of sources. What type of inequality would you like to talk about?

Educational inequality?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=258182

Criminal justice inequality?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047235296000153

Gender based inequality?
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/3/835.short

All of these aspects directly impact the opportunities someone has in life.

I could do this all day. What's bizarre is that you aren't arguing that nothing can be done about inequality of opportunity or something to that effect, you're arguing that it doesn't exist at all, which is pretty shockingly dumb.

Oh, and if you're going to be pedantic, dozens and hundreds most certainly do not need to be an order of magnitude apart.

EDIT: Can you provide me with a single credible source that says everyone in America has the same opportunities available to them?

 

[JTsyo]

I don't know how the issue becomes so muddled. Issue isn't that the 1% makes too much money, it's that they influence policy so that they can make more money. The policy they push tends to help them and not the rest of the population. The policy that is in effect is causing the widening gap between the classes.

 

[monovillage]

Pelosi never said that Congress needed to pass the ACA so that they could find out what was in it. She said they needed to pass the ACA so that the American people would find out the good things that are in it.

It's a pretty common misrepresentation.

Even the partisan Politifact disagrees with your assertion that Pelosi is being misrepresented. They give a Texas lawmaker a "mostly true"

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

It looks like after the American people found out all the "good things " in it, they disagree also.

"The poll found unpopularity for last year's health care reform bill, one of Obama's major accomplishments. About half of the respondents oppose the health care law and support for it dipped to 29 percent from 36 percent in June. Just 15 percent said the federal government should have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance.

Even among Democrats, the health care law has tepid support. Fifty percent of Democrats supported the health care law, compared with 59 percent of Democrats last June. Only about a quarter of independents back the law."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/...fk-poll-more-than-half-say.html#ixzz1gjLtUjfJ

 

[fskimospy]

Even the partisan Politifact disagrees with your assertion that Pelosi is being misrepresented. They give a Texas lawmaker a "mostly true"

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

It looks like after the American people found out all the "good things " in it, they disagree also.

"The poll found unpopularity for last year's health care reform bill, one of Obama's major accomplishments. About half of the respondents oppose the health care law and support for it dipped to 29 percent from 36 percent in June. Just 15 percent said the federal government should have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance.

Even among Democrats, the health care law has tepid support. Fifty percent of Democrats supported the health care law, compared with 59 percent of Democrats last June. Only about a quarter of independents back the law."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/...fk-poll-more-than-half-say.html#ixzz1gjLtUjfJ

1.) Politifact is not partisan.
2.) Politifact agrees with exactly what I just said. The misrepresentation that was done on here was someone saying that lawmakers should pass the bill so THEY could find out what's in it. (at least that's what I got from the statement) As to what someone else said, who cares? I was correcting a problem on here.