Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26164 comments on the politix.topix.com story from May 9, 2012, titled Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage. In it, politix.topix.com reports that:

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at politix.topix.com.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#22502 Oct 13, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair share is a flat tax.
For all.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#22503 Oct 13, 2012
People under the poverty line are barely existing; a flat-tax percentage could be the difference between living in a tenement or being homeless.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Meaning what exactly?
Meaning a flat income tax percentage across the board irregardless of income?
Meaning a flat singular set fee that is payable by any and all irregardless of income?
If you mean the former, then I agree.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22504 Oct 13, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
People under the poverty line are barely existing; a flat-tax percentage could be the difference between living in a tenement or being homeless.
<quoted text>
No problem
There already exists a poverty line that is a non-tax income level below that line.

It is the ONLY fair tax as all are taxed at the same rate, regardless of income. Not only is it the ONLY fair tax system, it also is easy to figure your taxes. Gross income x ?%= your tax amount. Simple.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22506 Oct 13, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>For all.
That's right.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#22507 Oct 13, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he was. He as an immature God figure.
he was a bit 'pouty' wasn't he?

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#22508 Oct 13, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair share is a flat tax.
not really. even a 'flat tax' would hurt the poor and lower middle classes, while the upper middle class and upper class wouldn't even feel a pinch. i believe that an incremented tax would work if it began at 0% for the lowest earners, and gradually went up. by the time it gets into the higher reaches of middle class and up into the upper class the percentages should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash, bringing them down into a real world level of income. a person with a 5 million dollar a year income wouldn't miss 4 million dollars of it at all.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#22509 Oct 14, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right.
Unbelievable, you really believe all should pay tax. Welcome to the Republican Party...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22510 Oct 14, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Unbelievable, you really believe all should pay tax. Welcome to the Republican Party...
Nonsense. The wealthy work hard to avoid paying taxes and shift the tax burden to the ever diminishing middle-class. Where did I say tax deductions should be eliminated? I believe in a flat-tax which includes capital gains. I also believe those living below the poverty level should not be taxed.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22511 Oct 14, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
not really. even a 'flat tax' would hurt the poor and lower middle classes, while the upper middle class and upper class wouldn't even feel a pinch. i believe that an incremented tax would work if it began at 0% for the lowest earners, and gradually went up. by the time it gets into the higher reaches of middle class and up into the upper class the percentages should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash, bringing them down into a real world level of income. a person with a 5 million dollar a year income wouldn't miss 4 million dollars of it at all.
Interesting idea. Thanks.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#22512 Oct 14, 2012
Obama facts.

Obama has the lowest spending record of all presidents since Eisenhower when adjusted for inflation.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/9069/has-ob...

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/0...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05...

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22513 Oct 15, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
not really. even a 'flat tax' would hurt the poor and lower middle classes, while the upper middle class and upper class wouldn't even feel a pinch. i believe that an incremented tax would work if it began at 0% for the lowest earners, and gradually went up. by the time it gets into the higher reaches of middle class and up into the upper class the percentages should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash, bringing them down into a real world level of income. a person with a 5 million dollar a year income wouldn't miss 4 million dollars of it at all.
It is impossible to elevate the poor by dragging down the rich.
Is not the whole idea and premise of the American dream to go from rags TO riches, and not go from riches to rags?
Do you not have the whole scenario completely upside down?

There is no moral justification whatsoever to villify one group of folks and uphold another. That is NOT equality. That is intentional inequality.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22514 Oct 15, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Unbelievable, you really believe all should pay tax. Welcome to the Republican Party...
Why should they not?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22515 Oct 15, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
not really. even a 'flat tax' would hurt the poor and lower middle classes, while the upper middle class and upper class wouldn't even feel a pinch. i believe that an incremented tax would work if it began at 0% for the lowest earners, and gradually went up. by the time it gets into the higher reaches of middle class and up into the upper class the percentages should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash, bringing them down into a real world level of income. a person with a 5 million dollar a year income wouldn't miss 4 million dollars of it at all.
"should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash, bringing them down into a real world level of income."

Exactly how much, in annual income terms, is a "real world level of income?
25K?
30K?
50K?
100K?
125K?

EXACTLY how much fits your world view of personal annual income?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22516 Oct 15, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
not really. even a 'flat tax' would hurt the poor and lower middle classes, while the upper middle class and upper class wouldn't even feel a pinch. i believe that an incremented tax would work if it began at 0% for the lowest earners, and gradually went up. by the time it gets into the higher reaches of middle class and up into the upper class the percentages should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash, bringing them down into a real world level of income. a person with a 5 million dollar a year income wouldn't miss 4 million dollars of it at all.
"should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash"

WHY?
WHY do you advocate bringing others down?

Would not we be better serving the needs of the poor if we spend our time and efforts making an environment where they can pull themselves up from their poverty rather than tear others down to hand them a handout?

Your way only gives them a fish for one meal, and they are still left to wait and beg for another meal - taken from someone else.
Why not teach them to fish for their own meal so they can feed themselves from then on?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#22517 Oct 15, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair share is a flat tax.
I wonder what would happen if we did away with income tax and raised taxes on consumption. Just curious...I'm no economist.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22518 Oct 15, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder what would happen if we did away with income tax and raised taxes on consumption. Just curious...I'm no economist.
Good question. Might kill consumer spending and stimulate a huge black market for goods.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#22519 Oct 15, 2012
Are you going to pretend that the rich do not benefit more from the government and from civil activities than the poor do? They have greater access and priority status. Why should they not pay proportionately for that?
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
It is impossible to elevate the poor by dragging down the rich.
Is not the whole idea and premise of the American dream to go from rags TO riches, and not go from riches to rags?
Do you not have the whole scenario completely upside down?
There is no moral justification whatsoever to villify one group of folks and uphold another. That is NOT equality. That is intentional inequality.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#22520 Oct 15, 2012
The "rags to riches" model has never been a common phenomenon, and it is even more unlikely in this economy. The jobs simply ar4 not there. There are over 300 million people in this country--do you really think that we even print enough money for everyone to be rich? No matter how hard someone works, they are just as likely to fail as to succeed.

The vast majority of wealth in this country is held by a very small percentage; it is economically impossible to "raise up" the poor.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash"
WHY?
WHY do you advocate bringing others down?
Would not we be better serving the needs of the poor if we spend our time and efforts making an environment where they can pull themselves up from their poverty rather than tear others down to hand them a handout?
Your way only gives them a fish for one meal, and they are still left to wait and beg for another meal - taken from someone else.
Why not teach them to fish for their own meal so they can feed themselves from then on?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22521 Oct 15, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"should be enough to cause a serious difference in their available cash"
WHY?
WHY do you advocate bringing others down?
Would not we be better serving the needs of the poor if we spend our time and efforts making an environment where they can pull themselves up from their poverty rather than tear others down to hand them a handout?
Your way only gives them a fish for one meal, and they are still left to wait and beg for another meal - taken from someone else.
Why not teach them to fish for their own meal so they can feed themselves from then on?
Bringing others down? Surely you jest!

Suppose wealthy people acted in their own enlightened self interest. They would realize that keeping jobs and companies alive and well rather than outsourcing, is in their best interest. The same with supporting broad based health care programs rather than the shoddy parasitic insurance/big business model. More people working means more people can pay taxes and spend money, which in turn makes rich people richer. If small business owners did not bear the burden of health care and workers comp, more people would get hired. I bought a part for my Ford Truck the other day. It was made in China. I did not benefit from the fact it was made in China because the price I paid was just as much as it would cost to make it at home. The parasites profited, not me. The parasites made money rather than American workers. Get the picture?

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#22522 Oct 17, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
It is impossible to elevate the poor by dragging down the rich.
Is not the whole idea and premise of the American dream to go from rags TO riches, and not go from riches to rags?
Do you not have the whole scenario completely upside down?
There is no moral justification whatsoever to villify one group of folks and uphold another. That is NOT equality. That is intentional inequality.
asking those who have benefited from the system to pay for it isn't 'vilifying' them. it's asking them to give back what they've gained in order to keep the system working. not only that, but one would think that they'd be happy; even excited to have the opportunity to do so.

like i said, a person with a 5 million dollar a year income will hardly miss 4 million of it. unless one's incredibly stupid, it's impossible to waste 5 million dollars in one year, anyway... or even 1 million. i mean, how much can one eat, anyway?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 10 min Rufus 10,673
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 11 min June VanDerMark 9,733
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 11 min Three Days 1,715
News North Carolina fight over transgender rights, b... 15 min Liberte 16
News Mississippi Governor Signs Law Allowing Busines... 22 min Imprtnrd 356
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 29 min Respect7l 34,203
News Governor wants to change, but not scrap, North ... 38 min Imprtnrd 146
News The Right Fights Wedding Cake War on Overly Nar... 46 min Frankie Rizzo 21
More from around the web