Costs tax payers $300 billion to raise minimum wage...thank you REPUBLICANS

toby2 said:
Why would R's lie about it? Some support it and some don't. No need to lie. Get a grip Desh.
Click to expand...
They will use it as grist for the spin mill, of course. They will use it in order to be able to claim to audiences: "See? The Democrats don't really support raising the minimum wage. They voted against it!" It's the same thing that was done to Kerry: lying by omission.
 
It can't imagine dems not throwing this in there face in the midterms.
Republican false concern over minimum wage. It should be a hit
 
Topspin said:
It can't imagine dems not throwing this in there face in the midterms.
Republican false concern over minimum wage. It should be a hit
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I think that the Brand R marketing guys popped a public boner on this one. Brand D should be able to exploit that.
 
Seems to me the news protrays it exactly the opposite of you libs suggest. They say the R's cant give the poor downtrodden a break without a huge tax cut for the rich and insentive. LOL For instance this very post. So who lies? R's??? LOL Why do you libs need to make fake distorted claims?
 
toby2 said:
Seems to me the news protrays it exactly the opposite of you libs suggest. They say the R's cant give the poor downtrodden a break without a huge tax cut for the rich and insentive. LOL For instance this very post. So who lies? R's??? LOL Why do you libs need to make fake distorted claims?
Click to expand...
Desh was talking about the R's intent, Toby. She didn't say that they'd succeed.

Whenever a politician does something like this, the intelligent person must ask him or her self why. What were they hoping to gain? Doesn't matter whether the pol in question has an (R) or a (D).

In this case, the R's hoped to gain one of two things. First, those who believe in cutting taxes had an outside chance of getting more tax cuts pushed through by (dishonestly) linking it to an unrelated, popular item. Unlikely, but worth a shot, from their point of view. Secondly, just as Desh suggested, they believed that if the D's declined to swallow the bill -- because of aforesaid poison pill -- they could then turn around and use that fact against the D's.

That was the thinking, I believe. Fortunately, I also believe that they screwed up this time. People aren't going to buy it.
 
The Paris Hiltons of the world will be deprived of a tax break and Tobes will cry for their suffering tonight.
 
But the argument that Care and Desh are trying to make is invalid. The bill is there, vote yes or no and say why you voted that way. That is what politics is all about. To say it is a lie or a trick or something like that is just silly.
 
But even if Paris was subject to the estate tax, I think she is a slut and a whore and a degenerate. but I don't think the govement should take her money away just because she has alot of it.
 
Care, that's misleading. The income tax is probably about 10 or 20 trillion over 10 years. I hate whenever people give out these "over 10 years" statistics to try to make people think somethings a bigger cost than it really is.
 
Why do Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchis, and the children of Bill Gates and George Soros need more estate tax cuts?
 
toby2 said:
But the argument that Care and Desh are trying to make is invalid. The bill is there, vote yes or no and say why you voted that way. That is what politics is all about. To say it is a lie or a trick or something like that is just silly.
Click to expand...
No it is not. One can lie while stating things that are factually accurate: surely you've figured that out by now. Karl Rove is a master of the art.

One does this by innuendo. You state something that is factually correct, but in a manner and context with implications that lead people to an incorrect conclusion. Yes, that is indeed lying. Look it up.

It's in this sense that we say that Bush lied about the intelligence (sic) supporting his invasion of Iraq, for example.
 
toby2 said:
But even if Paris was subject to the estate tax, I think she is a slut and a whore and a degenerate. but I don't think the govement should take her money away just because she has alot of it.
Click to expand...
Being a "slut" is her best quality. The money is what makes her despicible. :p

She didn't earn it and has no particular right to it, save that the wealthy want to protect their dynastic aspirations. As far as I'm concerned, the government should strip her of everything except, say, 5 or 6 million. She'd still be so well off that any complaint would be stupid whining.
 
The billionaries don't pay estate taxes anyway. They have trust accounts, massive lawyers on the payroll to avoid taxes. So stop the crap that they are getting a tax break.

Why should a family be taxed for someone dying? Because they have too much money?
 
Ornot read the orginal post. That was misleading and not done by a R was it? So who is lying here?
 
toby2 said:
The billionaries don't pay estate taxes anyway. They have trust accounts, massive lawyers on the payroll to avoid taxes. So stop the crap that they are getting a tax break.

Why should a family be taxed for someone dying? Because they have too much money?
Click to expand...
Because we, as a society, have a legitimate interest in preventing the growth of an hereditary aristocracy. That's what estate taxes are for. That, and lessening the tax burden on everyone else of course.

Estate taxes are a win-win proposition.
 
I disagree Ormot, she has a right to her money if her family left it to her. But she will not pay any estate taxes anyway, her trust fund is already set up.
 
toby2 said:
I disagree Ormot, she has a right to her money if her family left it to her. But she will not pay any estate taxes anyway, her trust fund is already set up.
Click to expand...
What "right"? Why does she have any such "right"?

The only thing that gives her such a right is the law. Period.

And we need to change the law to go after those trust funds. And sub-chapter S corporations. Oh yeah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top