Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?
Washington Examiner ^ | Sunday, November 25, 2012

Posted on 11/25/2012 5:22:42 AM PST by upchuck

Riding a wave of confidence after his re-election victory, President Obama is eager to collect scalps from the class war he appears to have won. Americans, Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, "want to make sure that middle-class folks aren't bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: "Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share."

Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their "fair share," they never specify what percentage of the nation's tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.

But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.

In the next few weeks, Obama will keep repeating this "fair share" language as part of his call to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. He also wants to close additional loopholes and limit deductions to increase their tax burden further. But bear this in mind: On top of whatever new taxes go into effect in the deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, there will be additional new taxes due to Obama's national health care law. These include a 0.9 percent Medicare tax hike for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning more than $250,000 as well as a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income.

Moreover, even if Obama gets his way on all of his tax hikes on the wealthy, it still won't make a dent in the $16.3 trillion national debt. Later in his term, once he has blown all of the new revenue with spending increases and goes back to this well for still more revenues, will the media let Obama get away with claiming the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share" once again, without specifying what constitutes fairness?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 40; fairshare; success; tax; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
IMHO, we're close enough to the edge of the cliff that the time has come for nobama to precisely define what he means by "fair share."

The editorial states: "No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.

Apparently nobama does.

1 posted on 11/25/2012 5:22:45 AM PST by upchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: upchuck
"Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share."

Obama BS.
If the voters had meant for that message to be sent, the Democrats would be in control of the house.

Republicans should stand firm on tax rates, and Obama be damned.

2 posted on 11/25/2012 5:30:24 AM PST by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

i encourage ANYONE making more then $100k to ‘Go Galt’ either in whole or in parts

in whole, you would quit working and stop all purchases

in part, you would radically cut spending to hurt the beast as best you can

either way, firing or not-hiring any/all liberals is an imperative


3 posted on 11/25/2012 5:31:27 AM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Fair Share?

It means nothing - like "New and Improved." Just a poll tested phrase that appeals to the 80-90 IQ point crowd. You know, Obama voters.

4 posted on 11/25/2012 5:31:34 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (The trouble with the "masses" is that they never achieve the "m")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


5 posted on 11/25/2012 5:32:37 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The answer to this question is found under the covers, exposing the real agenda. “Progressives” have control of the ‘Rat party, and “progressive” = “communist”. They want a one-party state with total control, and with no upper class, no upper-middle class, no middle-middle class... in other words, what ever it takes, economy go to hell, for them to be in total iron-fisted control, as in: USSR, Cuba, NK, Venezuela, China, etc. Anything they say is just a waypoint to their utopia.


6 posted on 11/25/2012 5:33:02 AM PST by C210N (In favor of private rights and public happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
To a Cloward/Piven Marxist bent on destroying the US economy in particular and Capitalism itself in general a 100% tax rate for the anti-socialist free market entrepreneurs is not enough—they are to eventually pay by swinging from piano wires hanging from meat hooks with all their assets going to the new American politburo and Soro’s puppet Obama.
7 posted on 11/25/2012 5:35:17 AM PST by Happy Rain ( Four years in a row Carolina stomps Clemson-almost makes up for Obama to this Gamecock Fan-almost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Fantastic graph. Is there one for any years since 2009? 2011 would be great. More topical.


8 posted on 11/25/2012 5:37:42 AM PST by upchuck (America's at an awkward stage. Too late to work within the system, too early to shoot the bastards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

My favorite leftist is adamant about “make the rich pay their fair share”. He’s a smart guy whose job is detailed analysis of numbers. I’ve been pestering him for years about quantifying “fair”, to no avail. I’ve presented quantitative analysis to him, showing you can’t squeeze any more from them ... but he just clings to the misguided notion of “fair”, offering no more than vapid insults and platitudes, convinced the system isn’t “fair” but unwilling or unable to offer anything more specific.

So it goes with our political opponents. Devoted to the notion of “fair”, they can’t and won’t quantify and articulate what they mean - because the system is already fair, and they just don’t like it.


9 posted on 11/25/2012 5:43:21 AM PST by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
It will never be "enough". It isn't about generating revenues. It's about directing Hate.

If the GOP had ANY guts (or any interest in being a viable party in the future), they would start shouting this in every available venue.

10 posted on 11/25/2012 5:46:13 AM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The top 5% should pay no more than 5% of the taxes!!

Sock it to the poor who are the leaches on the treasury!


11 posted on 11/25/2012 5:49:44 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I would suggest this...if the rich ever wanted to “strike”, it’d be simple. Take thirty percent of their stock investments, and simply sell off a massive amount of regular stock in companies....driving prices downward. Then take the profits and money from the sales, and put it into a non-money making account. Sit on it for weeks and months. A recession develops, which the President really can’t do anything, unless he suddenly ‘wised-up’ over the rich and their investment in America.


12 posted on 11/25/2012 5:53:33 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

-——Sock it to the poor who are the leaches on the treasury!——

The takers will be taxed. A progressive spilled the beans.

A man on TV last week said that Cap and trade was applicable to carbon emittors who would raise prices on everyone would actually provide the money.

I favor tax fairness and am thinking this might be a way to get more people to pay taxes.

I now, I know no new taxes


13 posted on 11/25/2012 5:54:36 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Those numbers haven’t been released yet. This is the most current data available from the IRS. The next set of data that will become available from the IRS in 2013 will be for 2010.


14 posted on 11/25/2012 5:59:04 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The left actually believe assets should be taxed too. The theory goes like this, if the rich own 10 trillion in assets, half those assets should be seized by the government as a 50% tax, bringing in 5 trillion to the treasury and free goodies for all. Here’s what the simpletons don’t understand, you would collapse the financial markets. Who’s going to buy up all those assets so the tax can be collected, all their occupy Wall Street buddies?


15 posted on 11/25/2012 6:02:27 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Providing jobs is part of that fair share. Obama is a greedy communist. Obama and wifie have been making over $250,000 for years. What do the Obama’s do and/or what have they done with their money?? They sure haven’t created jobs or been charitable. They should be the example...they are NOT!!!


16 posted on 11/25/2012 6:13:21 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The left’s definition of “fair share” is somewhere between “more” and “all.”


17 posted on 11/25/2012 6:14:33 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
"Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share."

Pelosi is so damn stupid I'm surprised she can fog a mirror without help. In line of what the article says, the top 10% of wage earners foot over 70% of the tax bill. "The rich need to pay their fair share?" Whatta crock. If that's their mantra, the rich need a tax cut and the 51% who are free loading need to step up and pay their fair share. My solution: If you don't pay at least 5% of your income in federal income taxes, you have nothing in the game and you lose your right to vote in federal elections.

18 posted on 11/25/2012 6:16:38 AM PST by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert
A man on TV last week said that Cap and trade was applicable to carbon emittors who would raise prices on everyone would actually provide the money. I favor tax fairness and am thinking this might be a way to get more people to pay taxes. I now, I know no new taxes

Bullcrap. The "poor", who BTW already get energy subsidies, will qualify for a voucher to offset the C&T costs. The "poor" will be unaffected.

19 posted on 11/25/2012 6:29:41 AM PST by Go Gordon (It's barack hussein obama - because he doesn't believe in capitalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Bump


20 posted on 11/25/2012 6:30:41 AM PST by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Don’t even play that game. The problem is that the govt. is too big and spends too much. And they have mismanaged things like Social Security.


21 posted on 11/25/2012 6:35:35 AM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
We are just not clueing into the rules for life as the Democrats and liberals want it to be. Summarizing:

You are not allowed to distinguish yourself by your efforts, or have more than ‘the people’. If you have more, it is legitimate to confiscate it from you for redistribution, because after all - you didn't earn that. If you worked hard and put money away, that money isn't yours, and if you are allowed to keep some it should be taxed again when you save it, and then again if you try to give it to your children - even when you die. This is called ‘fair’.

There are, of course, a few allowable paths for distinguishing yourself as an ‘elite’. It is allowed to make oneself ‘better’ than others by being either a 1) successful politician, 2) entertainer, 3) sports star, 4) ‘news’ pundit (as long as you report the party line), and probably 5) attorneys (as long as they continue to vote democrat and give lots of money to the DNC). Occasionally exceptions will be made for some corporate people who tow the line.

The rest of us are supposed to accept our inferior status as an equal within the masses, and to idolize those in the select groups above - cheering and fawning over them, reading articles about them, etc. etc. We are also supposed to work hard for the ‘common good’ as defined by those in the elite groups, but to not have personal ambition.

Get it?

22 posted on 11/25/2012 6:36:23 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

To hear Nancy Pelosi the richest scumbag in the House say raise taxes on the rich is a damned insult.

Nancy the richest woman in the Congress gets a full retirement if she ever retires, perks we only dream about, does not have to belong to Obamacare, and writes her own loopholes into the bills.Nancy isn’t going to pay more. Nancy whose business dealings do not include the Union, but who gets the support of the Unions.

Listening to this crone light up about the rich paying more just pisses me off to no end.


23 posted on 11/25/2012 6:39:56 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The bottom 50% that pays only 2.3% of the tax burden could care less what some ‘rich’ guy pays. Whatever it is, it should be more, because they’re still not ‘getting paid’.

This class of so-called Americans are nothing more than naive socialists that have not yet been compelled to feed the socialist machine with anything other than their votes.

The peasants in Russia 1917 later found out what their ‘commitment’ was - forced labor, directed housing, jobs chosen for them, pay rates chosen for them, etc.

The dirty little secret is that the liberal elite machine knows full well they cannot sustain their eventual utopia with a constiuency existing only to sponge off society - they will have to be compelled to work and live and think as they’re told for the good of the collective.

Garbagemen, sh!t shovelers, muck rakers and the like won’t be extinct jobs and some of these idiots will be selected for those jobs. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of self-serving, selfish, mean, unpatriotic, mindscrewed group of individuals that have no right to call themselves American.


24 posted on 11/25/2012 6:51:19 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Spot on.


25 posted on 11/25/2012 6:52:23 AM PST by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

What’s their fair share? In his mind, about twice as much as they pay now. But he forgets that the rich are usually able to take their money and run. Many doctors are now retiring and are not being replaced. Physicians have prosperous, have saved and invested—so many of them—that they can now retire and enjoy. They can even choose the country of their choice, such as Costa Rica, Belize, and even places like New Zealand and Australia and Singapore. What is true of physicians is even more true of the truly Rich.


26 posted on 11/25/2012 6:56:07 AM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
they can’t and won’t quantify and articulate what they mean - because the system is already fair, and they just don’t like it.

How dare you! The system is most certainly NOT fair!! The reason your friend cannot reply is because he knows this, and he knows it is unfair in the direction that HE prefers. The fact that you call the system "already fair" means that he has already won, and he is at least smart enough to know to not say anything to mess that up.

27 posted on 11/25/2012 6:57:31 AM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman

tax the poor. let them pay their fair share.. overall flat tax. if you don’t pay income tax you can’t vote with provisions for retirees who may not have “income”.


28 posted on 11/25/2012 7:04:09 AM PST by bravo whiskey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Well, maybe not as bad as that, maybe only as bad as Fabian Britain. Though the Labourites have not always held power since 1945, they have successfully left the native peoples permanently poor. While the Germans were rebuilding their country during the first quarter century after the war, and by 1970, were beginning to enjoy general prosperity, The Brits have not. Thatcher economics boasted the country, but the people had lost the work habit, which is one reason why the “coloureds” began to come into the country to do the jobs the people avoided because they could live as well on the dole.


29 posted on 11/25/2012 7:10:38 AM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

To a degree, this is what has been happening.


30 posted on 11/25/2012 7:12:32 AM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sten

“either way, firing or not-hiring any/all liberals is an imperative”
*********
That may be a useful tactic but the deeper, more fundamental post-election problem we now face is the irreconcilable incompatibility between socialism, with its belief in government control, versus capitalism and personal freedoms. It appears that the voting alignments in this country no longer favor the latter. We need a solution that goes beyond “Going Galt”.


31 posted on 11/25/2012 7:18:57 AM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
We should have an entertainment tax and stick It to those Hollywood bastards who are so enamored with the Kenyan!! I'd say 50% so they could set the example!!
32 posted on 11/25/2012 7:23:48 AM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

It will never be “enough”.
******
That is an absolute truth. To liberals, there is no limit on the size of government or the amount of control it has. Bear in mind that many liberals do not even want a national debt ceiling. The government has never seen a program it didn’t like. Government expands; that’s what it does.


33 posted on 11/25/2012 7:27:04 AM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sten
in part, you would radically cut spending to hurt the beast as best you can

Right on. I won't say how much I make, although I made a damn' good living. For the past 4 years, we've pretty much only purchased food and clothing. When something breaks, we fix it - as cheaply as we can. If we can't fix it, we question whether or not we even need it before we replace it.

In the case of replacing something, it has to be something we require as part of our daily lives. In this instance, we've replaced TWO broken items in our home that I could not fix. Both of those items totalled less than $400.

My wife's vehicle, a Honda Odyssey minivan is a 2008 model purchased in August, 2007. My vehicle is a 2003 GMC Envoy Denali. Both are in good running shape (praying the GMC stays that way) and require nothing more than gas and oil changes at this point. One of them will need new tires in about a year, which I'll have to replace - as cheaply as possible.

In the last four years I've learned to repair TV's, Dishwashers, Washing Machines, Dryers, my Furnace, lawnmower, basic home repairs, and basic automobile maintenance. I don't know how much I've saved doing these things myself - probably well into the thousands. Previously I'd have replaced the dishwasher, dryer, washer, lawn mower, etc.. I'd also have previously called someone else to do the home repairs.

Not anymore. There's alot of satisfaction in becoming more and more self sufficient and keeping my own money while screwing "the man."

I forgot ... I purchased a few new weapons in the last year. Don't remember how much they cost but it was all for nothing as they were lost in a tragic fishing accident.

34 posted on 11/25/2012 7:33:52 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Thanks Vintage Freeper for posting this:

Debt Ceiling Debate in a Nutshell | Creators.com | 07/29/2011 | Chip Bok | Posted on 07/30/2011 12:12:11 PM PDT by Vintage Freeper

35 posted on 11/25/2012 7:34:00 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks upchuck. Have a great day, all!


36 posted on 11/25/2012 7:34:00 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

To a liberal, “fair” means assuaging their envy of people more successful than them which can never be satisfied.


37 posted on 11/25/2012 7:36:31 AM PST by garbanzo (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I wonder when the list of exemptions will begin to appear? I’m sure there are some who will not see another die of their money go to the public coffers. They are the connected ones.


38 posted on 11/25/2012 7:37:53 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

“The dirty little secret is that the liberal elite machine knows full well they cannot sustain their eventual utopia with a constiuency existing only to sponge off society”
*********
We have long since passed the point of being able to pay down the debt with taxes from the Makers. Can’t be done now. Spending HAS to be cut. And the Takers who are accusomed to sponging off society will be shocked when that reality bites them.


39 posted on 11/25/2012 7:40:00 AM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: C210N

“With no upper class”

There would be an upper class, namely, those running the government. There’s always an upper class.


40 posted on 11/25/2012 7:43:02 AM PST by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

The full list of new marginal rate hikes is below:

-The 10% bracket rises to a new and expanded 15%

-The 25% bracket rises to 28%

-The 28% bracket rises to 31%

-The 33% bracket rises to 36%

-The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

http://atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203#ixzz277YSfPmP

By allowing the 2003 Bush tax cuts to retire, taxes will be increasing the bottom rate from 10% to 15% and the 20% bracket to 25%.
Raising the 10% bracket to 15% represents what percentage of increase? (Hint: The correct answer is NOT 5%)

To those moving from the 10% bracket to 15%, their taxes will be increased by 50%!!

Raising the 20% bracket to 25% represents what percentage of increase? (Hint: The correct answer, again, is NOT 5%)it’s s a full-blown 25% increase in taxes

Finally, raising the 35% bracket to 39% represents what percentage of increase: (Hint: The correct answer is NOT 4%)that’s roughly an 11% increase in taxes.


41 posted on 11/25/2012 7:44:31 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

Normally, I’d agree with you on the income/outflow point, but the sad fact is that the government has been coveting the single largest source of available or assets that can be liquidated - private retirement funds (IRAs, ROTHs, 401Ks and the like).

Expect in the next four years to see an earnest attempt and convincing the public seizing this money is in the best interests of the country and is only ‘fair’ because low lifes don’t have the opportunity to do likewise. They are already holding hearings on this. Look for rules to tighten illegally on a very increasing basis. Look them to take it outright before 2016. Count on it. You’d better liquidate soon, IMHO.


42 posted on 11/25/2012 7:44:31 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
To those moving from the 10% bracket to 15%, their taxes will be increased by 50%!!

You'd think this would 'scare' these constituents. However, someone in a current 10% bracket likely qualifies for EITC and the like and their actual tax bite is ZERO (and still will be).

The only 'taxes' most of these people pay are what is termed "payroll taxes", those payments made to OASDI (Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance) and Medicare which are technically insurance payments under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, FICA.

43 posted on 11/25/2012 7:50:36 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
My favorite leftist is adamant about “make the rich pay their fair share”. He’s a smart guy whose job is detailed analysis of numbers. I’ve been pestering him for years about quantifying “fair”, to no avail.

That is because it has nothing to do with "fair." The motivation is all about envy, and the Democrats have harnesed the deadly sin of envy to their advantage.

44 posted on 11/25/2012 8:17:24 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

“Fair” is where I go to eat corndogs and play carnival games.


45 posted on 11/25/2012 8:51:18 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Their fair share is whatever it takes to keep the hordes at bay. They won't tell you that but that's what it means.

46 posted on 11/25/2012 9:08:57 AM PST by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

“but he just clings to the misguided notion of “fair”, offering no more than vapid insults and platitudes, convinced the system isn’t “fair” but unwilling or unable to offer anything more specific.”

With the Marxist LIberals, it’s really all about avarice. Most of them are not wealthy and either don’t want to do the work necessary to acquire wealth or are not smart enough to pull it off. So for them it’s “penis envy.” They are upset that someone has made it and they have not, and they therefore have decided that the best way to get it is through “wealth redistribution.” Bottom line, they are lazy!


47 posted on 11/25/2012 9:37:02 AM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bert

Tax carbon emitters? Every time you exhale you emit CO2.


48 posted on 11/25/2012 9:40:01 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

We both have the same concerns about seizure of private retirement funds. Obama is looking for a flimsy excuse to confiscate them in return for a so-called guaranteed rate of return (which will be paltry). The truth is the government justs wants these assets to cover for the monstrous debt so they can keep spending.

I have long since stopped making any IRA contributions. I still make 401k contributions however, mainly because of the employer match. It’s hard to forgo that free money.


49 posted on 11/25/2012 10:04:29 AM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
"To a Cloward/Piven Marxist bent on destroying the US economy in particular and Capitalism itself in general a 100% tax rate for the anti-socialist free market entrepreneurs is not enough—they are to eventually pay by swinging from piano wires hanging from meat hooks with all their assets going to the new American politburo and Soro’s puppet Obama."

Clearly stated. I believe you have it!

50 posted on 11/25/2012 10:44:49 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson