Uggh, no. Most of his money has come from being an author who has sold millions of books. You might try one.
I read "Dreams From My Father." His ramblings and Walter Mitty daydreams terrify most rational people because they can see he teeters on the edge of lunacy.
Perhaps the dems are aware that their policies keep the poor, poor. Give them just enough bennies to keep them fat for today, with no way for them to get out of their trap in the future. Trap them and they become your slave. Make $1 more than x and you lose your bennies. Are you telling me that the poor can't get off the street and get in a shelter if they wanted to?
No, they pay a lower percentage of their incomes for every tax except the federal income tax, which is higher for high income wage earners, but lower for uber-wealthy people whose income derives from investments... Payroll taxes are capped after ~$105,000, the rich pay a lower percentage than the workers. Sales taxes disproportionately impact the poor and middle classes as the wealthy spend a lower percentage of their income, again, the rich pay a lower percentage of their income than workers. The ONLY tax where the wealthy pay a higher percentage is the income tax, which was made progressive specifically to correct for the regressive nature of other forms of taxation. Even so, the VERY wealthy, whose income derives mostly from investments, pay a lower rate on their income taxes as well as every other tax. The only way you can say they pay anywhere close to a "fair share" is if you look at pure dollar amounts and don't compare those amounts to income. I'm not "hating" at all. I'm just stating facts. The rich in this country have gotten their taxes cut repeatedly over the last 30 years, and those cuts have led to massive deficits, massive debt load, crumbling infrastructure, an education system that is slipping, and the wealthy have the audacity to ask for MORE tax cuts. That is greed, pure and simple. A minuscule number of people take "without contributing" for any significant amount of time. Most of those are disabled folks, are you advocating to end disability payments and kick those greedy handicapped people off the SS rolls?
You just have this all backwards. It is the GOP and libertarians who fight constantly forpolicies that effectively lower the aid of all types so that is just enough to trap them and not allow them to work their way out of poverty. It is the GOP who constantly try to keep the minimum wage low, defund shelters, grouse about subsidized child care, the Earned Income Tax Credit, government funded mental health care, etc i.e., the types of programs that would allow folks to work their way out of poverty.
Yeah. The Democrats commitment and policy for increased education and placing an emphasis on education is what keeps the poor, trapped in poverty.
More money for the teacher's union isn't a Democratic position. But looking at the Republican side of the equation... Less money for education doesn't equal more money for education. So again it isn't the Democrats that are keeping the poor down.
Of course. Why is percentage more important than raw dollars-- except to manipulate a statistic into a criticism? The "rich" contribute a lot more per person to get essentially the same services available to them-- many of which they will never use. Income taxes do not pay for infrastructure like highways, do they? Again you use percentage measurements to demean their contribution. Bottomline, they contribute more dollars to potentially benefit from the same services. Well yeah.... why don't we all pay a fluctuating price for every thing? Have you ever seen this: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/72291 They still do more, period. Where we differ is in the accounting of a "fair share." No I'm not and you know that. There are inter-generational dynasties dependent on welfare. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2109491?uid=3739776&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101069040353
Dem's answer for getting out of poverty. 1 higher minimum wage. 2 more welfare 3 more food stamp 4 more free housing 5 free child care 6 free this, free that... 7 Earned Income Tax Credit? Is that where instead of paying taxes, you get additional money back from the gov, to work? None of the above policies help anyone get out of poverty. In fact, they entice people in poverty. Min wage jobs are not meant for adults as a living wage. They are for training kids that are still in high school. Republican's answer for getting out of poverty. 1. Graduating from high school. 2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married. 3. Having a full-time job. If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class. What Rep's policies prevent the above? By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms — dropped out, got married before 21 and had children out of wedlock and didn’t have a full-time job — had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class. Have you heard the term, "don't feed the bear" as a way of saving the bear? Why is that?
You would think. Besides there are some kids in Bangladesh sitting on the ground without books who are doing well so we don't need to spend more. Get it? So what are the folks sending their kids to public schools complaining about. Now conservatives like to send their kids to schools with nice buildings, playing fields, gyms, concert halls etc. but it is their money. Why should they have the gubmint take their money and subsidize the moochers in public schools as Ayn Rand and Ryan and Romney might say?
So now it has come to light. If you disagree with glynch politically, you are either unaware, or you are just a bad person. Since this is the debate you have framed, there is little point in talking to you about it. Painting in such absolutes is generally a fruitless exercise.
It is more important because it is a real measure of how much you contribute to the system based on the income you receive. It seems an important measure for an "income tax" that is supposed to be progressive, meaning that the more you make, the more you pay. Of course, rich people lobbied (read: bribed Congress) to have those tax rates reduced and now the extremely wealthy (people like Romney) pay a lower percentage of their income than middle income earners. Did you not read anything I wrote about the services consumed by the rich that the poor and middle classes just don't use as much? I guess ignoring is the only way you can make your "points" make sense. Infrastructure improvements come from the general fund, where income taxes go. They derive a LOT more benefits and pay a lower percentage of their income. Given that we are talking about an income tax, comparing the tax paid (the percentage of income) is the only reasonable way to measure it. Yet another article that focuses on the income tax and ignores all of the other, more regressive taxes, that the rest of us pay at higher rates than the wealthy. Of course, those taxes regressive natures is the entire reason that the income tax was made progressive in the first place, but feel free to ignore what I wrote earlier yet again. Only if what you look at is pure dollars and ignore the context. Of course, you're a Republican and I guess ignoring the context just goes with being a member of that party. I told you about the minuscule number of people other than disabled folks and you come back with some statistical evidence that parents being on welfare reduces their offspring's hesitation to be on welfare. I'm not disputing that, but the welfare reform during Clinton's term reduced people's ability to stay on welfare without working for any significant amount of time, so you are arguing against a problem that was already solved.
You would be surprised at what qualifies as disabled for federal benefits. In representing bankruptcy debtors, I saw many people on disability for their sole source of income. I was shocked and amazed to see people whose only health issue was diabetes declared unable to work by the government. Diabetes is a controllable condition. If these people had diabetes related amputation or blindness, I could understand that. These were people with no other problem than a diabetes diagnosis. The government told then that they were disabled and could not work. I saw other people wi other conditions (cardiac, etc) who were no longer physically able to work any job they were qualified for woot significant risk of death. Disability benefits for them I completely understand.
The income that they "receive?" That is a loaded term. They are not the ones on the dole. Their income in "earned" from professions or high-paying jobs or maybe from investment acumen. You seem to want to deny their role in their own success. I read every word. In the first place, the discussion as i recall was about Income tax and you go and bring every other kind of tax into the discussion. In the second place, even those taxes do not build highways and such that you criticize "the rich" for enjoying and using more than the poor. You are just all over the map with your criticisms..... Talk about ignoring: you've not attempted to answer my question about the fickle "it's not a human life but we mourn nevertheless for our decision to abort" arguments you want to make. Some do. That is a broad term, though. Rather than just spending MORE, maybe we should just spend more wisely. Not sure that I agree. The idea of a progressive tax, I should think, would be to pay for some who can't pay for themselves rather than punitively paying more for the same benefit. Either is a moving target, though. Why not a sliding scale for groceries, movie tickets et al? I've ignored nothing. The Income Tax has changed dramatically over time. You act like it is something fixed in stone. Initial "progressive" rates were, as I recall, in the low single digits. Later they were very high... but with huge loopholes. Now they have moderated again. BTW, I think everyone pays the same "rate" on the first $105,000 of payroll tax, no? And your side just slanders. Next! Solved?! Link?
Vilifying the opposing political party (or social class) is similar to soldiers dehumanizing the enemy in war. "When personal identity fades behind an absolutist definition in terms of one’s group, and when this group is excluded from the human family, it is no longer morally unacceptable to harm and kill these individuals" i.e. cutting housing, food, medical, and other social welfare programs that may result in suffering and/or death of the people who depend on them. (it's 5:30am, I'm sleep deprived, and it's hard for me to tell if I'm being sarcastic right now, but there may actually be some truth to this.. and it may cut both ways)
I would be willing to reform SS disability to make sure that people whose afflictions don't prevent work don't get disability checks. Are you claiming that these people represent some large percentage of SS funds disbursed?
Semantics much? Care to talk about the point that the income tax is progressive by design, partly to correct for the regressive nature of other taxes? This response was made to try and answer my contention that the only reasonable way to measure income taxes paid is as a percentage of income, a point that you avoided with this deflection. When people focus ONLY on the income tax, they do so to avoid the fact that the income tax is progressive in part to correct for the regressive nature of all other forms of taxation. I know you want to avoid that part of the discussion, thus your deflections, but taxes other than the income tax are an integral part of the topic. No, you are all over the map with your deflections, my criticisms have been on point. Who is changing topics? The answer to this one is that the choice belongs to the woman in whose uterus the fetus is gestating. If she doesn't feel strongly enough that the fetus' rights are more important than her own, that is her choice and you don't get to make it for her. Now please leave abortion out of our discussion on taxes. You are welcome to start yet ANOTHER thread on abortion if you like. I agree that we should spend more wisely, but given the historically low interest rates and the need for higher employment, I would argue that we need to spend more right now in addition to spending more wisely. It isn't "punitive," it is the price we must pay to live in a civilized society. (Oliver Wendell Holmes) Part of the idea is to correct for the regressive nature of all other taxes. Part of the idea is that the wealthy enjoy more of the benefits of living in our society than the rest of us and, as such, should make sure that those benefits exist for future generations by paying a slightly higher tax rate than those who would be disproportionately affected if their income tax rate went up. Mostly because it would be a nightmare to implement and would cost WAY more to enforce than a standard sales tax rate. You continue to ignore all of the other taxes, I know it is the only way to reasonably try and make your point, but it is still ignoring everything but the income tax. Don't expect everyone to live with the blinders that you have chosen for yourself. Yes, and then the wealthy get to pay absolutely nothing after the first ~$105,000 of earnings. This is a perfect example of a regressive tax that affects the poor and middle class more than it does the wealthy. There wasn't any "slander" at all. I accused you of focusing on one thing (income tax) while ignoring the context (all the rest of the taxes), which is exactly what you did. I suppose if you define "slander" as "using accurate labels to describe a person's actions" then you are right, but that is a pretty drastic redefinition of that word. I will be happy to provide a link to the solution once you provide a link to the problem. You seem to be claiming that there is a statistically significant number of people who receive federal benefits for doing absolutely nothing. I don't believe such a problem exists, so will you please quantify it for me. Clinton's welfare reform put work requirements on those benefits checks and the only other people who might possibly meet the definition of receiving benefits while doing nothing are people on SS disability. You have provided anecdotes about both of these classes of people with absolutely no numbers that talk about the scope of what you proffer as a problem. Please quantify the problem so that we can talk about ways to mitigate it.
Well I'm sure you know a lot about bankruptcy law, which I don't. Apparently you don't know much about the medical and legal issues of social security disabiity law or diabetes. The medical facts and the law don't fit your ideology like you might think. 1) There are mild cases and severe cases of diabetes; only the more severe cases get on ss disabilty. There are other complications from diabetes aside from amputation and or blindness that can be disabling e.g. neuropathy in hands, legs or arms or perhaps brittle diabetes in which the blood sugars fluctuate wildly and the person has comas or near comas which can lead to permanent orgnic brain problems; diabetes can lead to kidney failure etc. 2) You and Paul Ryan etc. might disagree, but under the social security law a life long laborer over 55 with milder symtoms of diabetes which make him unable to stand up all day wins even though he could in theory be retrained (good luck in most cases!!) to be a telemarketer or some other sedentary job. 3) Even the mainstream media has relatively frequent stories on how hard it is to get social security disability.
