Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 | Posted by: Top Mod2 | Full story: politix.topix.com

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

Comments
21,661 - 21,680 of 26,178 Comments Last updated Oct 27, 2013

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22497
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your source, 36.75% while the top 50% pay 97.75%.
Thanks for the info. Suppose we deduct 36 from 97 and get 61. Your source shows they are not paying their fair share.
So what you are saying is the top 50% pay 61% while the top 1% pay 36.75%. That doesn't seem fair to me.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22498
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your source, 36.75% while the top 50% pay 97.75%.
Thanks for the info. Suppose we deduct 36 from 97 and get 61. Your source shows they are not paying their fair share.
I keep hearing this "fair share" crap, but NO ONE that uses that mantra can tell me what their "fair share" actually is.
They also can not tell me what my "fair share" is.
How about you?
Will >you< be the first one to answer that question?

What is my fair share? Is it a certain percentage of my income, or is it a flat fee of some kind that would satisfy you that I have paid my "fair share"?
What is my "fair share"?
What is YOUR "fair share"?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22499
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is the top 50% pay 61% while the top 1% pay 36.75%. That doesn't seem fair to me.
What would be "fair" in those two cases?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22500
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep hearing this "fair share" crap, but NO ONE that uses that mantra can tell me what their "fair share" actually is.
They also can not tell me what my "fair share" is.
How about you?
Will >you< be the first one to answer that question?
What is my fair share? Is it a certain percentage of my income, or is it a flat fee of some kind that would satisfy you that I have paid my "fair share"?
What is my "fair share"?
What is YOUR "fair share"?
Fair share is a flat tax.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22501
Oct 13, 2012
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair share is a flat tax.
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.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22507
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22508
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22509
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22510
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22511
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22512
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22513
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22515
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22516
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22517
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••