RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in Calendar 2018 - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in Calendar 2018 Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,394
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 18 February 2019 - 06:00 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 18 February 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/998481413476265984/uR4Qbn5c_400x400.jpg

It's not, because FY20 did not yet begin. OBVIOUSLY, Dec 2017 was in FY18 and I simply mis-typed.


No one here can refute that revenues are down form what they ought to be, and I guess all that is left is pointless talking back about spelling and typos.


:yawn:

You are just like Occasional Cortex...the gift that keeps giving.

This post has been edited by RedSoloCup: 18 February 2019 - 06:02 AM

0

#22 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,628
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 18 February 2019 - 11:16 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 18 February 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

It's not, because FY20 did not yet begin. OBVIOUSLY, Dec 2017 was in FY18 and I simply mis-typed.

No one here can refute that revenues are down form what they ought to be, and I guess all that is left is pointless talking back about spelling and typos.

Your lack of courtesy to not respond to my post is noted.

You know, when I looked at your dates, I had no way of telling which years you had flipped. Why? Because you didnít explain anything. You just threw out numbers.

And you still havenít provided the correct numbers. And you still havenít explained what those numbers actually entail. And, you only provided Dec data, or so it looks.

If you want anyone to actually engage in discussion and polite debate, you need to do a MUCH better job when presenting your argument. You need to be more articulate and precise, and you need to provide adequate explanations of your assumptions and conclusions.

Of course, everyone knows you wonít do that, because you arenít here to discuss and debate. Youíre afraid of that, because youíve seen enough to know that most of the time we conservatives arenít wrong, especially in matters that deal with the economy.

So all you really intend to do is drive-by postings, as if they had any effect on the price of cheese in Caracas.

This post has been edited by zurg: 18 February 2019 - 11:16 AM

0

#23 User is offline   AntonToo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 15,241
  • Joined: 28-September 04

Posted 18 February 2019 - 11:20 AM

View Postoki, on 15 February 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

But but but but but but Orange man bad, cutting taxes bad, we will have charts and graphs telling us all about how if there weren't tax cuts more money would have been collected. Either way, Tax cuts didn't reduce collections one damn bit. Collections only need to grow enough to keep pace with inflation.


Oki


No oki, not ďeither wayĒ.

You can like Trump, you can not like Trump, but that doesnít change the objective FACT that since tax-cuts got passed revenues are way down from their normal growth and we are now runnning near Trillion dollar deficits (and growing) in the middle of a healthy economy.
0

#24 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,701
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 18 February 2019 - 06:03 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 18 February 2019 - 11:20 AM, said:

No oki, not ďeither wayĒ.

You can like Trump, you can not like Trump, but that doesnít change the objective FACT that since tax-cuts got passed revenues are way down from their normal growth and we are now runnning near Trillion dollar deficits (and growing) in the middle of a healthy economy.




You can't handle fact so you pick and choose tiny little tidbits of info that support your flawed and debunked theories (dreams).
All you can pick at know is revenue growth. Not only is this a best guess even in the best of times it doesn't always pan out.
I have asked you countless times when have tax cuts ever hurt revenue collections. The answer of coarse is it never has, not only have they increased they increased at an accelerated rate.
Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and know of coarse Trump.

You can't stand the fact that rich people or companies get to keep more of what they have earned. In your Communist Marxist world the rich are evil and everything should belong to the state. IF that actually worked your parents, or was it grand parents, would never have had to leave mother Russia.

By the way, chew on this. LIke I have told you before reading is fundamental.

https://tradingecono...rnment-revenues

Government Revenues in the United States increased to 312584 USD Million in December from 205961 USD Million in November of 2018. Government Revenues in the United States averaged 146533.65 USD Million from 1980 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 510447 USD Million in April of 2018

Hell, you should be on your knees thanking Trump because you an every other Leftist is getting their wish in the fact that those evil rich people are going to be paying more this year A LOT MORE.

IE an evil Millionaire who lives in California.

Before he paid %29 percent in Fed Taxes, %14 percent in State, and if he had an 'average' house anywhere near Southern California figure at least 10K in property taxes.

Know instead of his adjusted gross income being about 850 860 thousand and paying about %29 percent to Uncle Sam he will only be able to deduct 10K in total from California insane property and personal income tax rates. So his tax burden will be %27 of about 990K

Which number is bigger Anton? %27 percent of 990,000 or %29 of 850,000?

Oki
0

#25 User is offline   stick 

  • The 'Little Genius' giving thanks
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,351
  • Joined: 24-November 03

Posted 18 February 2019 - 06:12 PM

View Postzurg, on 18 February 2019 - 11:16 AM, said:

Your lack of courtesy to not respond to my post is noted.

You know, when I looked at your dates, I had no way of telling which years you had flipped. Why? Because you didnít explain anything. You just threw out numbers.

And you still havenít provided the correct numbers. And you still havenít explained what those numbers actually entail. And, you only provided Dec data, or so it looks.

If you want anyone to actually engage in discussion and polite debate, you need to do a MUCH better job when presenting your argument. You need to be more articulate and precise, and you need to provide adequate explanations of your assumptions and conclusions.

Of course, everyone knows you wonít do that, because you arenít here to discuss and debate. Youíre afraid of that, because youíve seen enough to know that most of the time we conservatives arenít wrong, especially in matters that deal with the economy.

So all you really intend to do is drive-by postings, as if they had any effect on the price of cheese in Caracas.


He had to yell at me for pointing out his error but we just wanted to know WTF he was saying. He must think we can read his bile infested brain, somehow (I am using "brain" in the most kind, least insulting way).
0

#26 User is offline   stick 

  • The 'Little Genius' giving thanks
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,351
  • Joined: 24-November 03

Posted 18 February 2019 - 06:16 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 18 February 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/998481413476265984/uR4Qbn5c_400x400.jpg

It's not, because FY20 did not yet begin. OBVIOUSLY, Dec 2017 was in FY18 and I simply mis-typed.


No one here can refute that revenues are down form what they ought to be, and I guess all that is left is pointless talking back about spelling and typos.


So how does one mistype "20" when they meant "18"? You are so wrong all of the time, no one knows WTF you mean at any point in time. This was not just a typo, it was two whole consecutive integers being completely wrong, so GFY and your righteous indignation about this and trying to make it about those trying to help you be a better idiot.
0

#27 User is offline   AntonToo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 15,241
  • Joined: 28-September 04

Posted 19 February 2019 - 03:23 PM

View Poststick, on 18 February 2019 - 06:16 PM, said:

So how does one mistype "20" when they meant "18"? You are so wrong all of the time, no one knows WTF you mean at any point in time. This was not just a typo, it was two whole consecutive integers being completely wrong, so GFY and your righteous indignation about this and trying to make it about those trying to help you be a better idiot.


stick stick stick - what part of comparing Dec 17 revenues to Dec 18 revenues do you not get?

This is not rocket science - according to most recent numbers from Treasury in this December we collected less revenues than last December.

I'm not wrong. I'm right, because that is a simple fact. But you CAN'T handle that, you can't just accept facts if I'm the one stating them and so your mind runs off into the sunset and you nipick bs and post all kinds of nonsence that has nothing to with the substance of the discussion.

You asked what FY20 has to do with it and I explained in very simple terms - NOTHING, it was a typo. Yet you are talking about how I supposedly don't reply to your questions. It's nuts.


Everything I say about revenues being down for tax-cut months is easily verified - just go ahead and load up the monthly revenues spreadsheet from Treasury (from Treasury page linked to in OP)

Tax-cuts first hit the paychecks in February 2018. Exclude April 2018, because in that month 2017 taxes were settled. From there just compare months to corresponding months in last year to get nominal difference and add 4% to prior months for minimal inflation and growth adjustment.

Totals so far:

2017(comparative) 2,543,960
2018(tax-cut months) 2,458,985

nominal difference -85 Billion
With 4% normal inflation+growth -187 Billion <<< This number is a conservative estimate of the cost of tax-cuts thus far.

This post has been edited by AntonToo: 19 February 2019 - 03:24 PM

0

#28 User is offline   stick 

  • The 'Little Genius' giving thanks
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,351
  • Joined: 24-November 03

Posted 19 February 2019 - 03:34 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 19 February 2019 - 03:23 PM, said:

stick stick stick - what part of comparing Dec 17 revenues to Dec 18 revenues do you not get?


Who said I don't "get" it?

Quote

This is not rocket science - according to most recent numbers from Treasury in this December we collected less revenues than last December.

I'm not wrong. I'm right, because that is a simple fact. But you CAN'T handle that, you can't just accept facts if I'm the one stating them and so your mind runs off into the sunset and you nipick bs and post all kinds of nonsence that has nothing to with the substance of the discussion.


Where do you get that I "can't handle" something? I made no point or position. I just pointed out how you don't proofread your posts. Carry on...

Quote

You asked what FY20 has to do with it and I explained in very simple terms - NOTHING, it was a typo. Yet you are talking about how I supposedly don't reply to your questions. It's nuts.


Oh, I see what's going on. I was trying to help you so you could amend your error, but you just want to use this situation as yet another opportunity to deflect and turn it around on ME for pointing out YOUR stupidity, or at least you poor proofreading skills.

Quote

Everything I say about revenues being down for tax-cut months is easily verified - just go ahead and load up the monthly revenues spreadsheet from Treasury (from Treasury page linked to in OP)


No thanks.

Quote

Tax-cuts first hit the paychecks in February 2018. Exclude April 2018, because in that month 2017 taxes were settled. From there just compare months to corresponding months in last year to get nominal difference and add 4% to prior months for minimal inflation and growth adjustment.


No.

Quote

Totals so far:

2017(comparative) 2,543,960
2018(tax-cut months) 2,458,985

nominal difference -85 Billion
With 4% normal inflation+growth -187 Billion <<< This number is a conservative estimate of the cost of tax-cuts thus far.


Good job. :thumbsup:
0

#29 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,701
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 19 February 2019 - 04:09 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 18 February 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/998481413476265984/uR4Qbn5c_400x400.jpg

It's not, because FY20 did not yet begin. OBVIOUSLY, Dec 2017 was in FY18 and I simply mis-typed.


No one here can refute that revenues are down form what they ought to be, and I guess all that is left is pointless talking back about spelling and typos.



Just for you Anton...

https://www.statista...scal-year-2000/

2016 3.27 Trillion
2017 3.32 Trillion
2018 3.34 Trillion

Say who was president again when the single largest drop in revenue collections in nearly 20 years happened again?

Let's play a game called..... at this time in their presidency as in how much did they grow revenue collections at this same point...

2008 revenues where at 2.52 Trillion
2011 revenues where at 2.3 Trillion

In fact they didn't reach or surpass the 2.5 mark again until 2012

2016 revenues(as I stated) where 3.27 Trillion
2018 revenues are 3.32 Trillion

Your hero didn't actually grow revenues until his 2nd freaken' term.
If projections hold up revenues will have not only increased under Trump but by a far greater margin then your hero ever accomplished.

Going from 3.27 Trillion in 2016 to 4.09 Trillion in 2024

Hell, no question revenues have actually grown more under Trump in the first 2 years then they did under Obama.
Not even close
Your hero saw the greatest contraction of Federal tax collections since at least 2000.

Oki
0

#30 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,628
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 19 February 2019 - 05:14 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 19 February 2019 - 03:23 PM, said:

Totals so far:

2017(comparative) 2,543,960
2018(tax-cut months) 2,458,985

nominal difference -85 Billion
With 4% normal inflation+growth -187 Billion <<< This number is a conservative estimate of the cost of tax-cuts thus far.

YOU ARE ONLY COUNTING WHAT THE US TREASURY LOST!

The total equation must include what people gained. The overall number is called GDP growth. It went up dramatically (doubled more or less) under Trump, so far.

You are calling a reduction in shared resources a cost, but youíre not counting the gain in private resources. Therefore, your focus is only on the socialist side. Why am I not surprised?

This post has been edited by zurg: 19 February 2019 - 05:14 PM

0

#31 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 55,243
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 19 February 2019 - 05:38 PM

I love reading this thread. NOT because I'm some kinda number-crunching financial expert. (Hell, if I was I wouldn't be so poor, LOL.)

No, it's because it's such a perfect illustration of old sayings like: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"...and..."Figures don't lie, but liars figure"...and so forth.

Anton, you and the others keep throwing numbers back and forth and I don't pretend they mean much to me. Numbers, percentages, decimal points, letters, GDP, PDQ, FYS, WTF, LOL. Here's what I know about numbers: Write the number 5319009 on a piece of paper. Now turn the paper upside-down. See? It says "boobies", LOL.

HERE'S how I know the economy is doing well: I leave my home and go places occasionally. You should try it sometime. Go outside. Find some fellow humans. Talk to them. Go to a store and buy stuff like other people buy. Go to a gas station. A bowling alley. A bar. See for yourself how much better people are doing.

It's really not difficult.

B)
0

#32 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,394
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 19 February 2019 - 06:04 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 19 February 2019 - 03:23 PM, said:

stick stick stick - what part of comparing Dec 17 revenues to Dec 18 revenues do you not get?

This is not rocket science - according to most recent numbers from Treasury in this December we collected less revenues than last December.

I'm not wrong. I'm right, because that is a simple fact. But you CAN'T handle that, you can't just accept facts if I'm the one stating them and so your mind runs off into the sunset and you nipick bs and post all kinds of nonsence that has nothing to with the substance of the discussion.

You asked what FY20 has to do with it and I explained in very simple terms - NOTHING, it was a typo. Yet you are talking about how I supposedly don't reply to your questions. It's nuts.


Everything I say about revenues being down for tax-cut months is easily verified - just go ahead and load up the monthly revenues spreadsheet from Treasury (from Treasury page linked to in OP)

Tax-cuts first hit the paychecks in February 2018. Exclude April 2018, because in that month 2017 taxes were settled. From there just compare months to corresponding months in last year to get nominal difference and add 4% to prior months for minimal inflation and growth adjustment.

Totals so far:

2017(comparative) 2,543,960
2018(tax-cut months) 2,458,985

nominal difference -85 Billion
With 4% normal inflation+growth -187 Billion <<< This number is a conservative estimate of the cost of tax-cuts thus far.


Hey some good news for you....Grandpa Bernie is entering the already full clown car of democrats for 2020....
0

#33 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,701
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 19 February 2019 - 06:39 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 19 February 2019 - 05:38 PM, said:

I love reading this thread. NOT because I'm some kinda number-crunching financial expert. (Hell, if I was I wouldn't be so poor, LOL.)

No, it's because it's such a perfect illustration of old sayings like: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"...and..."Figures don't lie, but liars figure"...and so forth.

Anton, you and the others keep throwing numbers back and forth and I don't pretend they mean much to me. Numbers, percentages, decimal points, letters, GDP, PDQ, FYS, WTF, LOL. Here's what I know about numbers: Write the number 5319009 on a piece of paper. Now turn the paper upside-down. See? It says "boobies", LOL.

HERE'S how I know the economy is doing well: I leave my home and go places occasionally. You should try it sometime. Go outside. Find some fellow humans. Talk to them. Go to a store and buy stuff like other people buy. Go to a gas station. A bowling alley. A bar. See for yourself how much better people are doing.

It's really not difficult.

B)



Funny thing really.
When revenues crashed in 2009 it was Bush's fault and Obama saved us all because it would have been worse if had not been for Lord Obama. BUT, never mind the fact that revenues didn't increase to 2008 levels until Obama's second term.
Know, not only have we not had any REAL decrease under Trump we have seen actual increases, but because those increases didn't meet a certain someones threshold they don't count as an increase but are instead a decrease. That increase of coarse is a simple projection otherwise known as an educated guess. Plus, the increase would really only need to keep pace with inflation anyhow(which it did). 2017 to 2018 saw revenues grow from 3.32 to 3.34 Trillion is about a 6 percent increase, well above the national inflation rate. PLUS with low unemployment numbers that means more G.D.P. growth, and more local and state taxes collected, off setting the need for Federal Dollars to states anyhow.

Doesn't take a degree or high math skills to understand all this, just a little experience in the real world and basic comprehension of 2nd and 3rd order effects. Our nation was founded on the idea of limited Government, that means lowering tax burdens which in turn increases commerce at all levels and in turn increases local and state collections due to the increase in commerce. This of coarse is something which completely flies in the face of Socialism as that is based on an all controlling and all knowing central Gov. And, do not forget you are dealing with a mentality that believes wealth is wrong, big companies are evil(etc), the irony of coarse is that these clueless idiots can't even realize they are voting for wealthy people who WILL NEVER pass a law which actually punishes the rich as they would be biting the hands that feed them(wealthy mega donors).

They are the definition of useful idiot.

Oki
0

#34 User is offline   AntonToo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 15,241
  • Joined: 28-September 04

Posted 19 February 2019 - 10:49 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 19 February 2019 - 05:38 PM, said:

I love reading this thread. NOT because I'm some kinda number-crunching financial expert. (Hell, if I was I wouldn't be so poor, LOL.)

No, it's because it's such a perfect illustration of old sayings like: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"...and..."Figures don't lie, but liars figure"...and so forth.

Anton, you and the others keep throwing numbers back and forth and I don't pretend they mean much to me. Numbers, percentages, decimal points, letters, GDP, PDQ, FYS, WTF, LOL. Here's what I know about numbers: Write the number 5319009 on a piece of paper. Now turn the paper upside-down. See? It says "boobies", LOL.

HERE'S how I know the economy is doing well: I leave my home and go places occasionally. You should try it sometime. Go outside. Find some fellow humans. Talk to them. Go to a store and buy stuff like other people buy. Go to a gas station. A bowling alley. A bar. See for yourself how much better people are doing.

It's really not difficult.

B)


Flase choice with a side of anecdote.

Nothing spending a bit of time on some basic math on revenue numbers prevents anyone from being outside or socializing over a beer. Hell, I just came back from having one while playing a couple of rounds with some friends at Top Golf (tuesdays are half-off).

You thinking that your personal experience is the definitive yardstick of the entirety of the American economy is just plain naive. Not only naive in not understanding just how small and narrow your experience is, but also naive in the way you think you can separate your political biases from what it is you think you see as economy going on around you. People have a tendency to see what they want to see.
0

#35 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 55,243
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 20 February 2019 - 12:15 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 19 February 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Flase choice with a side of anecdote.

Nothing spending a bit of time on some basic math on revenue numbers prevents anyone from being outside or socializing over a beer. Hell, I just came back from having one while playing a couple of rounds with some friends at Top Golf (tuesdays are half-off).

You thinking that your personal experience is the definitive yardstick of the entirety of the American economy is just plain naive. Not only naive in not understanding just how small and narrow your experience is, but also naive in the way you think you can separate your political biases from what it is you think you see as economy going on around you. People have a tendency to see what they want to see.


OK Anton. Whatever you wanna tell yourself.

I'm not talking about my own "small and narrow" experience. I know people all over the country. I have family all over the country (and even a few in other countries). I have friends all over the country. I am in contact with people all over the country. My observations are coming from first-hand experiences all over the country. And these are people of all political stripes, so it has no basis whatsoever in "my" political "biases".

You ARE, however, correct about one thing: People do tend to see what they want to see, which explains perfectly why you are so determined to see negative economic numbers.

As for your comments about "basic math on revenue numbers", as I said before, there are lies, damned lies and statistics...and...Figures don't lie but liars figure... And that also explains perfectly your determination to see negative economic numbers.

But knock yourself out. Your "economic figures" aren't going to fool anybody who actually leaves the basement occasionally.

B)
0

#36 User is offline   Censport 

  • Twitter: @CensportRacing
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,095
  • Joined: 13-August 03

Posted 20 February 2019 - 01:01 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 19 February 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Flase choice with a side of anecdote.

Nothing spending a bit of time on some basic math on revenue numbers prevents anyone from being outside or socializing over a beer. Hell, I just came back from having one while playing a couple of rounds with some friends at Top Golf (tuesdays are half-off).

You thinking that your personal experience is the definitive yardstick of the entirety of the American economy is just plain naive. Not only naive in not understanding just how small and narrow your experience is, but also naive in the way you think you can separate your political biases from what it is you think you see as economy going on around you. People have a tendency to see what they want to see.

As do you, Anton. And you've proven yourself to be such a dishonest zealot, that not only do you only see what you want, you lie to others about what they see.

The economy is doing better for more Americans than at any time since 9/11. And it's all because the economic policies you believe in have been abandoned. Which is why you don't want to see it.

0

#37 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,628
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 20 February 2019 - 08:54 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 19 February 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

People have a tendency to see what they want to see.

Is that why you only consider tax collections by the US Treasury when evaluating how the economy and the people are doing?

Is that why you ignore gains in the private sector when analyzing the efficacy of an economic policy?

(I know you wonít answer, but this isnít really for you but any non-socialist who isnít drinking your poison.)
0

#38 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,716
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 20 February 2019 - 09:06 AM

View Postzurg, on 20 February 2019 - 08:54 AM, said:

Is that why you only consider tax collections by the US Treasury when evaluating how the economy and the people are doing?

Is that why you ignore gains in the private sector when analyzing the efficacy of an economic policy?

(I know you wonít answer, but this isnít really for you but any non-socialist who isnít drinking your poison.)

It all makes sense if you believe that the purpose of the economy is to feed the Federal Government. When you believe that the money belongs to the government and not those that earn it, then "revenues" become the be all and end all of economic factors. That belief leads to moronic statements like "tax cuts don't pay for themselves."

The funny thing with leftists, though, is that this is one of their classic "double think" beliefs. They simultaneously believe that the Federal Government "deserves" the tax revenue AND that they (not everyone, and certainly not "the rich") should be protected as much as possible from paying those taxes.
0

#39 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,701
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 20 February 2019 - 10:27 AM

View PostCensport, on 20 February 2019 - 01:01 AM, said:

As do you, Anton. And you've proven yourself to be such a dishonest zealot, that not only do you only see what you want, you lie to others about what they see.

The economy is doing better for more Americans than at any time since 9/11. And it's all because the economic policies you believe in have been abandoned. Which is why you don't want to see it.



Goebells, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Hitler, would be proud. An entire group of people brainwashed to the point of hating who they are told to, blindly obedient to the idea of an all powerful state, even a willingness to forgo our Constitution in order to achieve a means to an ends. Plus, as an added bonus a willingness to follow an ideology that has failed everywhere it's been tried.

Oki
0

#40 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 20 February 2019 - 02:31 PM

Following the site foreve, I donít care what anyone makes. But Anton whatís your % you pay in taxes? Normally from experience the people with your views are 0% group. Without telling your income you can answer that and if your in my tax group do you use an accountant? Have you ever taken deductions or better yet paid more then required? If yes or no why? Why not practice what you preach?
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users