It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Reflection
Whenever I read this stuff while at the same time hearing people, in particular right wing radio and faux news, blame our economic problems on the poor and "lazy takers" on welfare, I'm always reminded of this wonderful quote:
"They keep the lower and middle classes fighting with each other while they run off with all the money." -George Carlin
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: mOjOm
What part of "top 1% pays 45% of taxes while 48% of America pays negative net taxes" equates to the wealthy being the ones not paying their "fair share?"
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: mOjOm
What part of "top 1% pays 45% of taxes while 48% of America pays negative net taxes" equates to the wealthy being the ones not paying their "fair share?"
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: mOjOm
What part of "top 1% pays 45% of taxes while 48% of America pays negative net taxes" equates to the wealthy being the ones not paying their "fair share?"
I'm talking about the corporations paying negative tax rates. What are you talking about???
originally posted by: Reflection
Because they're not paying their fair share to their employees. How on earth is anyone supposed to meet their very basic needs and pay taxes if they're not making anywhere close to $15 per hour?
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Reflection
Because they're not paying their fair share to their employees. How on earth is anyone supposed to meet their very basic needs and pay taxes if they're not making anywhere close to $15 per hour?
...and this is why I say No Bernie. If it looks like a socialist and quacks like a socialist... it's probably a socialist.
originally posted by: Reflection
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: mOjOm
What part of "top 1% pays 45% of taxes while 48% of America pays negative net taxes" equates to the wealthy being the ones not paying their "fair share?"
Because they're not paying their fair share to their employees. How on earth is anyone supposed to meet their very basic needs and pay taxes if they're not making anywhere close to $15 per hour?
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: Reallyfolks
And what was right after that? Again you conviently leave out portions of what some one posts in order to jump to Sanders defense or to only address specific sentences. Are you amusing yourself???
So what??? I don't have to quote anything at all. I just do it for convenience, what difference does it make???
What do you do , push Sanders reform for what???? Public financing. Again are you amusing yourself?
Dude, you were talking about how he should work on campaign reform so I linked a couple things to his plan for it. Don't read them if you don't want to. I thought it pertained to the conversation but I guess you'd rather talk about your idea only. Didn't realize you were running for president.
No, I'm not finding much amusement at the moment.
Also not having a fit over any candidates running, certainly not one like trump or Sanders who have no chance of winning. Bush or Clinton, pick your poison.
They can win. I'm as cynical as anyone but to say they can't win is to admit defeat before you try anyway. With overwhelming support for a winner nobody could hide such and outcome.
originally posted by: Reflection
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: mOjOm
What part of "top 1% pays 45% of taxes while 48% of America pays negative net taxes" equates to the wealthy being the ones not paying their "fair share?"
Because they're not paying their fair share to their employees. How on earth is anyone supposed to meet their very basic needs and pay taxes if they're not making anywhere close to $15 per hour?
originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Reallyfolks
For the most part I agree, but I'm just not as absolute as you about it.
It's improbable but not impossible. If enough people would take a unified stand even the mighty status quo with all their money and influence will bend. But it would take a unified stance and a clear majority of people demanding an agreed upon outcome.
Right now we are all divided and mixed. Even if we see things the same way we wouldn't even know it because the media which people use for consensus could tell them different and they'd believe it. But let's say 90% of all votes were cast to one guy. That would be impossible to try and force it the other way. You couldn't just flip or skew some voting numbers without being noticed.