PDA

View Full Version : Americans Actually Voted For A Democratic House!



Qtec
11-08-2012, 05:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why Americans Actually Voted For A Democratic House

Although a small number of ballots remain to be counted, as of this writing, votes for a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives outweigh votes for Republican candidates. Based on ThinkProgress’ review of all ballots counted so far, 53,952,240 votes were cast for a Democratic candidate for the House and only 53,402,643 were cast for a Republican — meaning that Democratic votes exceed Republican votes by more than half a million.

Two caveats are necessary in considering these numbers. The first is that all ballots have not been counted, so these numbers will change somewhat as more returns trickle in. (Because the remaining ballots are more likely to be from Democratic-leaning west coast states, it is likely that the Democrats’ margin will increase somewhat over time.) The second caveat is that these numbers include several California districts where two members of the same party ran against each other, and they do not include districts where a single candidate ran unopposed. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the nation is very closely divided over which party should control the House, with Democrats appearing to enjoy a slight edge.

The actual partisan breakdown of the 113th Congress will be very different, however. Currently, Republicans enjoy a 233-192 advantage over Democrats, with 10 seats remaining undecided. That means that, in a year when Republicans earned less than half the popular vote, they will control a little under 54 percent of the House even if Democrats run the table on the undecided seats.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>There is a simple explanation for how this happened: Republicans won several key state legislatures and governors’ mansions in the election cycle before redistricting, and <u>they gerrymandered those states within an inch of their lives.</u> President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 5 points, but Democrats carried only 5 of the state’s 18 congressional seats:
Similar stories played out elsewhere. Obama won Virginia, and Democrats took 3 of 11 House seats. Obama appears very likely to win Florida, but Democrats will, at best, carry 10 of the state’s 27 districts. </span> </div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/)

Q


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7125/8164038143_d4746f7d1a.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe you can't tell, but this map, with Republican-held seats in red and Democratic seats in blue, shows the president's party with five of Pennsylvania's 13 House seats. Democrats have been packed into three uncompetitive seats around Philadelphia, an uncompetitive seat in the Lehigh Valley, and a safe seat in Pittsburgh. The state's suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas have been rigged to be just outside the range where Democrats might win them.

Here's Ohio, a state the president won by 2 points. </div></div>

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7111/8164038109_c25347906e.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Same deal. Democrats have been packed into four deep blue districts. Republicans have given themselves the other 14. They controlled the process in North Carolina and Michigan, and gave themselves similar maps. To be perfectly fair, Democrats played the same game in Illinois and Maryland, squeezing out suburban Republicans by packing just enough of Cook County and Montgomery County, respectively, into their districts. But in states that weren't very gerrymandered, like Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire, you ddin't see a huge divergence between the presidential vote and the House votes. Had some ruthless court gerrymander evenly divided Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and North Carolina, and had Democrats been able to distribute their votes differently, they could have won up to a dozen more seats, knocking on the door of the majority. I predicted this two months ago, but the ridigity of the gerrymander is more impressive when you see it hold off a minor wave. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
11-08-2012, 06:35 AM
Fewer Americans claim to be Republicans, than Democratic, and Independent!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification-adults

Gerrymandering is the reason why it is so difficult to take back the majority.

IMO, it is a practice that shouldn't be allowed. It's like rigging the whole system.

But whether they want to admit it or not, the Republican brand is shot. They have vaginally probed and vouchered themselves so far out in space, they're going to see some devastating elections coming their way, regardless of their recent re-districting efforts, IMO.

I heard someone say, that Alex Baldwin said or tweeted something to the affect that when you say 'The rape guy lost,' and people ask, 'Which one'? you know your party is in trouble.

Boehner and McConnell's offensive, and divisive statements suggesting they have a mandate, are total BS. McConnell was truly disgusting.

They have a another rude awakening coming mid terms.

G.

Qtec
11-08-2012, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard someone say, that Alex Baldwin said or tweeted something to the affect that when you say 'The rape guy lost,' and people ask, 'Which one'? you know your party is in trouble. </div></div>

LMAO


Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
11-09-2012, 06:34 AM
Bush won 286 Electoral votes in 2004!

This president is way over 300, now that Florida has been called for him.

And idiot McConnell, AND Boehner, are out there claiming that their policies, won the mandate!!! Boehner is still saying raising taxes is not on the table! Gross and incnredible gall and denial, given Republicans do not have the White HOuse, do not have the Senate, and every poll shows that over 60% of the people want taxes raised on the wealthy top!

Repiglicans show no signs of understanding the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate, and they are going to pay big time in the next election!


Typical skewed Repiglican denial, and irrational conclusions!

They still don't get it, there aren't enough radical racist, homophobic, misogynistic angry white men left in the country for them to avoid their brand becoming obsolete!

And they, AND their policies, LOST THIS ELECTION!

REad this!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/voters-medicare-cuts_n_2094357.html?ref=topbar

G.

Soflasnapper
11-09-2012, 10:42 AM
Barney Frank indicated that if the districts that existed before the 2010 election were in place, this vote would have put the Democrats into the House majority.

eg8r
11-09-2012, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boehner is still saying raising taxes is not on the table! Gross and incnredible gall and denial, given Republicans do not have the White HOuse, do not have the Senate, and every poll shows that over 60% of the people want taxes raised on the wealthy top!

Repiglicans show no signs of understanding the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate,</div></div>LOL, the vast majority of the people don't make as much money so they greedily vote for the guy that will hand it to them. LOL, only simpletons like yourself don't see this. Just because the vast majority of Americans want more freebies doesn't make it right.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-09-2012, 02:34 PM
You should take the same attitude towards the top brackets' grasping for undeserved and unneeded free stuff from the government as to keeping tax rate cuts we cannot afford.

Except more so.

eg8r
11-09-2012, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should take the same attitude towards the top brackets' grasping for undeserved and unneeded free stuff from the government as to keeping tax rate cuts we cannot afford.</div></div>If you would for once close your mouth, open your eyes and read you will see that I do have that attitude. This is precisely what the Fair Tax would do. I have also said many times on this board that I am perfectly fine with removing all the deductions and exemptions, any subsidies, etc. Set a rate and make all Americans pay the same, which is the only "fair" idea on record.

Also, you add the "we cannot afford" part to the end which alters what we are talking about. There is plenty that we are spending that we don't need so I am also for eliminating the government spending on those also. I have always stated that reducing deductions and exemptions AND cutting spending is the best route.

eg8r

Qtec
11-10-2012, 02:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This is precisely what the Fair Tax would do. <span style="color: #3333FF">Not a chance.</span> I have also said many times on this board that I am perfectly fine with removing all the deductions and exemptions, any subsidies, etc. </div></div>

Like that will ever happen. Romney's 2 tax returns shows that the rich make most of their money by dodging taxes. They will never give that up.

The Real Mittens.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations</span>

In 1997, Congress cracked down on a popular tax shelter that allowed rich people <u>to take advantage of the exempt status of charities without actually giving away much money.</u>

Individuals who had already set up these vehicles were allowed to keep them. <u>That included Mitt Romney, then the chief executive officer of Bain Capital, who had just established such an arrangement in June 1996.</u> </div></div>

Note. just before this tax dodge was made illegal!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Near Zero

“The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation,” Blattmachr said. Despite the name, giving a gift or getting a charitable deduction “is just a throwaway,” he said. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html)


Q

Gayle in MD
11-10-2012, 06:02 AM
Such a money mongering crook.

And these are the types that Repiglicans continue to pander to and protect.

Disgusting!


G.

Qtec
11-10-2012, 06:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, the vast majority of the people don't make as much money so they greedily vote for the guy that will hand it to them. LOL, only simpletons like yourself don't see this. Just because the vast majority of Americans want more freebies doesn't make it right.

eg8r </div></div>

Just read this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Raise your hand if you thought conservatives would respond to President Obama's convincing re-election victory by lashing out at voters and the country as a whole, denouncing the presidential pick as the act of a greedy, lazy nation. </div></div>

Got your hand up eg0r ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Defeated Once Again, Right-Wing Media Wage War...On Voters </span>

The gulf between the right-wing portrayal of Obama and how he's seen by most Americans has always been enormous. Election Day simply quantified that disconnect and forced his most partisan critics to venture outside their echo chamber and to choose whether they had been wrong about Obama, or if the voters had been.

Verdict: The voters had been wrong. So wrong, in fact, that they'd instantly turned America into "the shallowest country in the history of man."

Limbaugh substitute Mark Steyn complained this week on Fox & Friends that "there's nothing compassionate or humanitarian about saying, as they do in Greece, I got mine and I don't care if it bankrupts the state." He claimed that's what American voters did on Tuesday.

And Fox News' Eric Bolling bemoaned America's choice: "I have to sit back and go, Americans -- 50 percent of people who voted, voted for more of that?" Shorter Fox News: What is wrong with these people?

On and on the whining has gone, as conservatives turned their anger on everyday voters and citizens, mocking them as lazy hangers-on.

Writing at Vanity Fair, James Wolcott noted the GOP's jarring about-face:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Used to be, conservatives revered the Average American, that Norman Rockwell oil painting of diner food, humble faith, honest toil, and Capraesque virtue.

...

The Average American turns out to be a dumb patsy fattened up for the slaughter by too much government cheese and other freebies.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Obama's victory represents a clear rebuttal of the conservative media.</span> Outlets could have marked the occasion with some actual introspection. Instead, its leaders embraced two hallmarks of the movement: <u>personal attacks and a refusal to take responsibility for their actions. </u></div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/09/defeated-once-again-right-wing-media-wage-waron/191297)

Q

Gayle in MD
11-10-2012, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Average American turns out to be a dumb patsy fattened up for the slaughter by too much government cheese and other freebies.

</div></div>

Good description of the real "Takers" who are mostly in The South! In the Diabetes/Divorce Tea Party belt, and RED STATES!

They get most of the Federal aid money, do the most yapping about Federal Spending, trashing the government, while on the Government teat, like some others around here with his hand out for defense contracts from the Federal Government for his own income.

Funny, isn't it? The ones who yap the most about Federal Spending, are the same ones who depend upon it the most!

I, for one, cannot WAIT for the defense cuts! Biggest waste of money in this country, and the most cronyism and corruption!

G.

Qtec
11-10-2012, 06:53 AM
"Makers and takers"? Is that not class warfare?
Job creators and dependants?

The GOP want to divide and conquer. Walker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1S_Pxw2n-U)
It hasn't worked. The people have voted for a more inclusive society that encompasses everyone. White Conservative old farts are now faced with the proposition that they alone can't call the shots any more.

Faced with this reality, what do they do?

Once again they threaten to hold the country to ransom to preserve tax cuts for the rich the country can't afford and at the same time complain about the deficit!

Where is the shared sacrifice they were talking about when they went against ALL their principles in bailing out the banks?

The GOP has no credibility at all today. Their policies have been rejected but they just ignore that fact.
Once again, they are acting like THEY are in power and the POTUS must appease THEM!

Q

Gayle in MD
11-10-2012, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again, they are acting like THEY are in power and the POTUS must appease THEM!

Q </div></div>

That's what makes me furious.

McConnell and Boehner were disgusting.

Norquist was on Piers Morgan, and I felt like throwing something at the TV!

But, it's changing. Die hard conservatives, moderates, speaking out gainst Fox, Rove, Rush, and Norquist. They all know that the party has taken a real beating, lost relevance, and is becoming obsolete.

Additionally, we are seeing more from the business world, condemning the obvious failure of Trickle Down Economics, the main cause of income inequality which is at the heart of our slower than usual, economic recovery.

So the Republicans, like Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, in my opinion, will back down. They have no mandate, and they know it, regardless of what they "Say" they're blowing smoke! And we all know, both they, and their supporters, blow nothing BUT smoke. One only need to post on this forum, to know that much. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

See my new post: Conservatives Lament.


You'll love that clip! A commentary to the gross ignorance of the Republican Party, how they were conned by their own shock jocks, and how out of touch they are with this country, which is no longer center right!



G.

LWW
11-10-2012, 09:39 AM
The reality is that nobody knows who won the election.

Obama and the demokrooks brought numerous suits to block voter photo ID laws ... admitting they were in trouble if the laws stood.

Following that ... Obama lost every state with photo ID aws in place, anw nearly had a sweep in those without.

Soflasnapper
11-10-2012, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you would for once close your mouth, open your eyes and read you will see that I do have that attitude. This is precisely what the Fair Tax would do. I have also said many times on this board that I am perfectly fine with removing all the deductions and exemptions, any subsidies, etc. Set a rate and make all Americans pay the same, which is the only "fair" idea on record. </div></div>

Interesting theory, but of course, false.

Any FAIR Tax formula I've seen-- from the 19% level to the 23% level, and etc.-- all substantially reduce the tax levels that the top bracket pays, even now, with the Bush top rate cut in effect.

That was the intended effect of that Trojan Horse's seemingly benign construction (and also why they have to lie about what the number needed to be to work). You have bought that propaganda and internalized its claims, apparently.

Now, of course, the FAIR Tax is still worse an idea, because we can't use a rate that (even allegedly) yields revenue neutral results-- we need more revenue to be raised than under the current tax regime in place, which is throwing off barely 15% of gdp.

Soflasnapper
11-10-2012, 11:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that nobody knows who won the election.

Obama and the demokrooks brought numerous suits to block voter photo ID laws ... admitting they were in trouble if the laws stood.

Following that ... Obama lost every state with photo ID aws in place, anw nearly had a sweep in those without. </div></div>

That all should be stated in the reverse.

The reality is that everybody knows who won the election. (Who is saying we do not? Present company excepted. Crickets.)

Voter photo ID laws were put in place precisely to keep formerly lawful (D) voters from voting, and as the PA GOP House official stated openly, to win PA for Myth Robme.

Upon challenge TO THE COURTS, citing the various and sundry laws which these efforts violated, JUDGES over and over again overturned these laws, on the basis of the SCOTUS and state Constitutions, the Civil Rights Act, and etc.

eg8r
11-10-2012, 04:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got your hand up eg0r ?</div></div>You act as if I have never called these people lazy and greedy? Are you really playing that stupid? Do you honestly think my replies have changed at all since his re-election. I have always called them moochers, I have agreed with Romney's 47% remark, nothing has changed since this election or the previous 3 or 4.

eg8r

eg8r
11-10-2012, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The people have voted for a more inclusive society that encompasses everyone.</div></div>What makes you believe this BS. It is not more "inclusive" when the entire platform is based on taxing just one class.

eg8r

Qtec
11-11-2012, 01:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got your hand up eg0r ?</div></div>You act as if I have never called these people lazy and greedy? Are you really playing that stupid? Do you honestly think my replies have changed at all since his re-election. I have always called them moochers, I have agreed with Romney's 47% remark, nothing has changed since this election or the previous 3 or 4.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> During Fox News’ election analysis, Bill O’Reilly attributed much of the way the race is shaping up to the the country’s changing demographics. Noting that the “white establishment” is the minority, O’Reilly noted that people “want things.” And Obama will give them things.

“It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing,” O’Reilly said. “It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.”

Twenty years ago, O’Reilly said, Obama would have been “roundly defeated by an establishment candidate” like Romney.

“The white establishment is now the minority,” he added. “The voters,<u> many of them, feel this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.</u> You’re gonna see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. <u>People feel that they are entitled to things — and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”</u></div></div>

link (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-white-establishment-is-now-the-minority-people-support-obama-because-they-want-things/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are some not-so-poor outliers, like the 7,000 millionaires who paid no federal income taxes in 2011. But for the most part, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>when you hear "The 47%" you should think "old retired folks and poor working families."</span>

Where They Live

From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/nonpayers.banner.taxfound.jpg

The easiest thing to say about this map is that "non-payers" ironically seem more likely to vote Republican and "payers" seem more likely to vote Democratic. But we can't say that for two reasons.

The first reason is that low income earners are much more likely to vote Democratic, even within Republican states. In 2008, Obama lost Georgia by 5 percentage points but he won 70% of voters who earned less than $30,000 -- which is precisely the demo most likely to owe no federal income tax. Obama lost Mississippi by 14 percentage points, but picked up 66% of voters who earned less than $30,000. As a general rule, Republicans win among richer voters -- both in the red states and the blue. </div></div>

Still think Mittens was right?


Q

LWW
11-11-2012, 07:14 AM
It is impossible to discuss this with you until you decide to be informed.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2012, 07:57 AM
The oly thing we're going to see posted on here by the right, is the same BS that this country is completely against, the continued inequality of REpublican policies.

Republicans were clearly buried in their own denial, and Bull**** in this election, and not for the first time, either, it's been growing for a long time, against them, and their failed policies, they just refused to accept that their policies are losing approval.

The GOP won the majority of votes just one time, in the last Presidential elections, in 2004, (which was IMO a fixed election, anyway) and this makes six elections with less than half the vote.

Previously, going back to 1968, Repubs won the majority of votes, five times out of six, even if you include their defeats, and even if you include the three-way election of 1968, back then, they averaged 52 1/2 % of the vote, five out of six times, so they had one six year cycle with 52 1/2 % of the vote, followed by this recent six year cycle with never winning the majority.

They refuse to change. Hence, they will continue to lose, annd by greater and greater numbers, going forward.

They can't etch-a-sketch away all of their offensive, insulting, degrading remarks about women, Gays, Asians, Hispanics, and their own disgusting history of unprecedented racist attacks, and support of racist attacks, against the first President of color, in our history.

They're going down, big time! And now, they have taken a hard enough hit of reality, that they are just beginning to face the reality, so they had better stop sending out their offensive smoke blowing ultimatums at the president, and start demanding that their Tea Party crazies, cut the ****, and line up behind the leadership for compromise.

They're going to take huge losses in the mid-terms, either way.

G.

Soflasnapper
11-11-2012, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is impossible to discuss this with you until you decide to be informed. </div></div>

Apparently you claim, or question, whether the margins of victory where Obama won were the result of massive in-person voter impersonation/fraud.

Despite the near-impossibility of that, and no indication that is so.

It is impossible to discuss this with you unless you snap to reality a bit.

Stretch
11-11-2012, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is impossible to discuss this with you until you decide to be informed. </div></div>

Apparently you claim, or question, whether the margins of victory where Obama won were the result of massive in-person voter impersonation/fraud.

Despite the near-impossibility of that, and no indication that is so.

It is impossible to discuss this with you unless you snap to reality a bit. </div></div>


Good luck with that. Perhaps he will be more lucid after his Crow dinner. St.

Solomon Grundy
11-11-2012, 12:03 PM
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>No matter how much crow he eats there is no hope of his ever recovering. His breath is tainted by the smell of ultra right wing smegma. He claims to be a staunchly non-partisan libertarian even though he has never skipped an opportunity to defend and support every batshit Republican right wing position. He claims to support freedom, yet he denounces everyone who does not see things thru the same distorted lens as he does. He claims to love free speech, yet he would dearly love to stifle dissent. He claims to be a patriot, yet he calls for secession, promotes sedition and the overthrow of the US government. He claims to be pro-life, yet defends those who support the murder of doctors who offer abortion services. He claims to be bearing the light of truth yet offers nothing but lies. He claims to support the US constitution but reserves the right to pick and choose what parts of the constitution he supports. I could go on, and on, and on. He is a farce, a mental midget, a little whiny baby on a permanent tantrum... incapable of accepting reality, a would be fascist dictator who fancies himself to be some kind of internet revolutionary and deludes himself into thinking that his tainted mind droppings carry some weight with us. He is nothing, just a noxious fart that stinks up the air but quickly dissipates into nothingness.</span>

eg8r
11-11-2012, 03:03 PM
Mitt's 47% was absolutely dead on correct.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-11-2012, 04:56 PM
Hmmm. I think Myth won with the over 65 spongers, didn't he?

They're about 16 points in that 47% who pay no federal income tax, and boy, do they think they are entitled to that meager SS check. (Actually, they are, under the law.)

Why don't they go out and get jobs? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
11-11-2012, 08:51 PM
Why should they, they already paid their taxes through all their years of hard work. They would never be included in the 47%.

eg8r

LWW
11-12-2012, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmm. I think Myth won with the over 65 spongers, didn't he?

They're about 16 points in that 47% who pay no federal income tax, and boy, do they think they are entitled to that meager SS check. (Actually, they are, under the law.)

Why don't they go out and get jobs? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Actually the SCOTUS has ruled twice that you are not entitled to SS.

Qtec
11-12-2012, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually the SCOTUS has ruled twice that you are not entitled to SS. </div></div>

Actually, they didn't. They ruled the opposite. You are completely wrong, as usual.

Q

LWW
11-12-2012, 06:17 AM
Make your case then.

What's that ... you don't have one?

But ... I already knew that.

LWW
11-12-2012, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually the SCOTUS has ruled twice that you are not entitled to SS. </div></div>

Actually, they didn't. They ruled the opposite. You are completely wrong, as usual.

Q </div></div>

Might I suggest that you LEARN (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html)?

LWW
11-12-2012, 06:22 AM
I'm embarrassed ... It took me four minutes to shoot down snoopy's uninformed belief system, but I was eating breakfast at the same time.

Qtec
11-12-2012, 07:19 AM
Did YOU make YOUR case when you stated this?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually the SCOTUS has ruled twice that you are not entitled to SS. </div></div>

make your case, then I will comment on it.

If you have no case, then STFU.

Q

Qtec
11-12-2012, 07:20 AM
.....and?

Q..........LOL

Qtec
11-12-2012, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a <u>dedicated</u> payroll tax <span style='font-size: 23pt'>establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits.</span> </div></div>

Republicans:


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>'We need more money. Where can we find i....I know, lets get it ALL from the 98%!: " </span>

Q

Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a <u>dedicated</u> payroll tax <span style='font-size: 23pt'>establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits.</span> </div></div>

Republicans:


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>'We need more money. Where can we find it....I know, lets get it ALL from the 98%!: " </span>

Q </div></div>

The majority of Americans are on to this, hence, the election results.

Republican train derailed, going off the cliff, yet they are still denying!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif