New Taxes Will Be Imposed on the Wealthy - by Democrats

ChronWatch ^ | May 10, 2006 | Dick McDonald

[FairOpinion]

Karl Marx isn’t dead. He is alive and well and living in the Democrat Party.

As Pravda masquerading as your Washington Post intones in its lead article of May 7th, “The quest for ways to reduce inequality begins with taxation.” Ah! The Democrat (read Socialist) Post is at it again and you won’t believe their rationale. They assert that new taxes must be imposed on the rich because America is doing so well the wealthy are making more than ever and paying a larger share of taxes on income(20% of taxpayers pay 84% of the income taxes and the top 2% pay over 40%).

That’s right, since they make more and pay more they need to share more of it with those sneaky, deceiving irresponsible thieves in the United States Congress so they can allocate money to their voting base (“victims”) who are also making more than ever just not proportionally as well as the wealthy.

So vote for the Democrats if you believe the contributors to America’s success should give more to the unproductive. And watch government’s tax revenues fall, they always do when rates are raised.

Equality? Nonsense! Democrats are NOT interested in equality. They are not interested in improving the lot of their voting base. They use that as an excuse to buy the patronage from the victims of their poverty-inducing policies. They are only interested in advancing socialism and the power that system gives them. They are anti-capitalists. Basically, they are communists who are radically trying to communize America. Why radically? Because at every turn they are forcing America to lose its way by introducing anti-principled moral relativism, diversity, multi-culturalism, atheism as well as actively pursuing immediate withdrawal and surrender of the Middle East to our announced enemy.

[Darkwolf377]

Again, it's NOT "half the FREEPERS" registered voters, it's half of the FREEPERS registered voters, WHO VOTED See how easy that is?

You mean creating a lie?

That poll is of FReepers who chose to vote; you characterized it as "FReepers".

It wasn't.

No real conservative could possibly want to encourage the Pubbies to give us more of the same.

Yes, putting the Democrats in power won't encourage them to give us their even more liberal immigration policies.

That's some logic you've got going there: Push the R's out because of their immigration policy so the D's get in with THEIR immigration policy.

How many of them even gave a thought to illegal immigration BEFORE President Bush got elected???? That's an interesting question, but it's absolutely irrelevant to the situation.

About as irrelevent as your non-stop Republican bashing on a thread entitled New Taxes Will Be Imposed on the Wealthy - by Democrats

[Lurker]

to the Dems this fall will have no negative impact on all the range of conservative issues

Well giving it to the Republicans hasn't seemed to have much positive effect on the range of conservative issues now has it.

Oh, now it's "HE's released" them?

OK I'll correct that. His Administration is releasing them. There, all better?

L

[Lurker]

The Republicans have enough votes to end unconstitutional judicial filibusters. All that takes is 51 votes. They have more than 51 Republican Senators.

"Republicans" like Snow, Specter, Collins, Chafee, etc. as part of that majority.

Ahhh so the Republicans have a significant liberal wing as well. Nice of you to admit that. So, if we have liberal Republicans running against liberal Democrats we should....do what exactly. Vote for the liberal?

Wow. I stand in awe of your perspicacity.

L

[Darkwolf377]

Well giving it to the Republicans hasn't seemed to have much positive effect on the range of conservative issues now has it.

You mean taxes, judges, the military, the increase in money to border patrols (despite what you would like us all to believe)...?

I guess we just think of different things when we think of conservative issues. Yours would be...?

His Administration is releasing them. There, all better? L

You clearly have no idea what the border patrol does and hwo it works.

You're right--the border agents were tossing them all out before The Bush Administration fired all those border agents, shut their stations, turned their vehicles over to the Mexicans and tore down the gates. In fact, we had no illegal problem at all in this country until Bush showed up.

Which explains, I guess, why all you people never mentioned a word of this until the MSM recently got you all hyped up about it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

tazation, is that something done with a tazer?

[Darkwolf377]

The Republicans have enough votes to end unconstitutional judicial filibusters. All that takes is 51 votes. They have more than 51 Republican Senators. "Republicans" like Snow, Specter, Collins, Chafee, etc. as part of that majority. Ahhh so the Republicans have a significant liberal wing as well. Nice of you to admit that.

Whenever did I deny it? Are you saying FR doesn't have a constant crescendo of criticism against these "moderates" liek McCain?

I didn't think that needed to be spelled out.

So, if we have liberal Republicans running against liberal Democrats we should....do what exactly. Vote for the liberal?

Uh, so you were advocating voting out the Republicans from power just because of the handful of liberal ones?

Wow. I stand in awe of your perspicacity.L

I stand in awe of your over simplification of a complex world.

Whoever denied there were liberal Republican senators? Not me.

But that kind of makes my point. I don't see you saying "vote against the handful of Liberal Senators", I see you saying in so many words that the Republicans deserve to lose because of a handful of Liberal Senators.

If you were unaware that, yes, there is a handful of liberal congresspeople who are Republicans, maybe you need to read up on the facts before making such broad, ill-informed statements as you've made?

[Lurker]

Are you saying FR doesn't have a constant crescendo of criticism against these "moderates" liek McCain?

So what do you do with a Party and a President who cheerfully voted for and signed terrible legislation sponsored by this 'moderate', hummm?

Let me pose you a practical real world problem I'll have come November.

I'm a resident of the great State of Illinois. We have two 'serious' candidates. One is Republican and one is Democrat.

Both candidates are pro abortion. Both candidates are anti-2nd amendment and have called for increased restrictions on gun rights. Both candidates are pro-gay 'rights'. Both candidates are in favor of higher taxes. Both candidates favor amnesty for illegals. In short, there ain't a dimes worth of difference between them.

So which one do you pick?

Any help would be appreciated.

L

[WhiteGuy]

But.................I keep reading about how third party voters represent only a fraction of one percent of all voters......................

How could their votes really matter if this is true?

[Darkwolf377]

Are you saying FR doesn't have a constant crescendo of criticism against these "moderates" liek McCain? So what do you do with a Party and a President who cheerfully voted for and signed terrible legislation sponsored by this 'moderate', hummm?

I'd look at the alternative and vote Republican. Wouldn't like it, but will clarify below.

Let me pose you a practical real world problem I'll have come November. I'm a resident of the great State of Illinois. We have two 'serious' candidates. One is Republican and one is Democrat. Both candidates are pro abortion. Both candidates are anti-2nd amendment and have called for increased restrictions on gun rights. Both candidates are pro-gay 'rights'. Both candidates are in favor of higher taxes. Both candidates favor amnesty for illegals. In short, there ain't a dimes worth of difference between them. So which one do you pick? Any help would be appreciated. L

I would vote for the Republican to prevent a Democrat majority and their control of the agenda, which amount to keeping ANY legislation we like from being voted on. The Republicans will be in a position only to prevent that, unless, of course, the Democrats--which don't seem to have that 50+1 problem I described before--change the rules and thus can ramrod all the legislation through that they like. Bush will veto it; they will have committees looking into everything he's ever done as president, and impeach him.

In a perfect world I would "send a message" but the alternative is a Democrat monster which will consume the President's last two years, and end ANY possibility for reform.

The only way to change things in the current climate is by putting pressure on the state party machinery.

Some don't want to hear this because they strike me as peopel who want to vote and bitch, but you have to get off your ass and work at the local and state level to get conservatives to run for the seats held by RINOs; if only RINO's are running, you vote for RINO's.

If you vote for the Democrat in your election, what possible good can come out of it? Realistically, I mean, because believing the Republicans will sit around and say "Hmmm, we lost, that means we must become more conservative" and then they breeze back to power in 2008 is not realistic.

[nothingnew]

Karl Marx isn’t dead. He is alive and well and living in the Democrat Demopublican Party.

There. I fixed it.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Lurker]

but you have to get off your ass and work at the local and state level to get conservatives to run for the seats held by RINOs;

Did that. Walked precints, got petitions signed all the feet in the trenches stuff. I made sure 6 of my gun owning buddies got to the polls on primary day. Four of those folks had never voted in a primary before. Not bad for one guy, eh?

I would vote for the Republican to prevent a Democrat majority

This is Illinois my friend. The Dems have a solid majority in both houses of the legislature.

If you vote for the Democrat in your election, what possible good can come out of it?

None. I haven't voted for a Dem since I pulled the lever for the pro-gun, anti-abortion Dem who ran against Lyin George Ryan (R). (R) in this case stands for 'Recently Convicted on multiple counts of Official Corruption While In Office.'

Now I'm not trying to be difficult here, but are you really telling me I should vote for a liberal to prevent liberals from enacting a liberal agenda because if I don't the liberals will be even more liberal? Is that about right?

L

[N. Theknow]

Raise taxes on the wealthy?

Let me see something here.

Millionaire Democrats in the Senate and wealthy Democrats in the House are going to raise taxes on themselves and their millionaire donors and backers.

Can't wait to see the loopholes on this new round of taxes for the well-heeled and connected.

As for the rest of us "wealthy" individuals, we just don't have any idea how rich we are.

There is a very BIG difference between "wealth" and "income."

[carlr]

Making a useless statement that leads to the party that hates the military come to power:How is that respectful of those who died so you could vote?

Worthy of a repost and a bump.

[Uncle Vlad]

No kidding--at what point did our vote become an entitlement program?

[bray]

The Compost should self impose a $1/paper tax on itself to give to the proletariet if they think taxes are such a great idea.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Miss Marple]

Here, let me help you out. If this is a senate or congressional race, you vote for the liberal Republican, so as to avoid a Speaker Pelosi, a Majority Leader Reid, and people like Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, and Ted Kennedy in charge of committees.

This is why I will vote for Lugar, even though I don't like him. His vote in the Senate keeps Harry Reid from taking charge.

NOW do you understand?

[Lurker]

From where I'm sitting it looks like Harry Reid is in charge.

L

[LibLieSlayer]

The dims, MSM, and those Conservatives who risk Americas future with their "temper tantrums", are as big a threat to our Nation as the evil islamo-fascists we fight in the WOT!

LLS

[pigdog]

Even more reason to support the FairTax which obtains a lot in tax revenue from the illegal economy unlike at present.

[Tarpon]

Wait until they find out who the dims consider wealthy.

It's actually all the dims do, tax, tax, tax some more. Spend, spend spend some ... oh wait Republicans do that part as well, my bad.