The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[tzor]

But SOROS!!!!

Is not a cartoon villan. I know people who know people (yea that does sound odd but it's true) who know Soros; knew what he did because he was there at the time.

[Woodruff]

But SOROS!!!!

Is not a cartoon villan. I know people who know people (yea that does sound odd but it's true) who know Soros; knew what he did because he was there at the time.

If he did it (whatever "it" is), I would hope he was there at the time...

[Phatscotty]

Is it possible that if you don't earn above a certain threshold gross income, you only pay state tax and not federal tax in America?

Wait,....didn't you just say you wanted a more equal tax rate FOR ALL?

Surely you aren't that stupid.

Everyone pays the same rate? What a noble idea!!!

True Equality, or no equality.

I thought we were done with "separate but equal", but Progressives do believe in it when it comes to tax rates

[PLAYER57832]

Is it possible that if you don't earn above a certain threshold gross income, you only pay state tax and not federal tax in America?

Wait,....didn't you just say you wanted a more equal tax rate FOR ALL?

Surely you aren't that stupid.

Everyone pays the same rate? What a noble idea!!!

True Equality, or no equality.

I thought we were done with "separate but equal", but Progressives do believe in it when it comes to tax rates

Yeah, that will work when being born to the "right" people won't automatically mean you get to dictate the wages and salaries of everyone you employ, when you pay directly for every service, including the incidental services.. like being able to have an educated employee, healthy employee, reasonable trasnportation, phones, electric service, fuel sources, etc, etc, etc...

When all of that AND every last bit of research that goes into your products are paid for by you, THEN you get to say that taxing everyone equally is "nobel".

[thegreekdog]

Unless 100% of the people in those southern states vote and 100% of them vote Republican, there is no correlation between what those people make and how they vote.

I never said that there was and was very careful to say that Conservative politicians rule there. I did not say that poor Southerners vote for them. Odds favor that they won't.

Picture Two:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

That's not the point. The point is that even safety net of minimum wage is a front, and is a reason why people who don't make much shouldn't have to pay income tax. Being poor doesn't make a person a freeloader.

The government's definition of poverty is based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[5] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.[6]

Relative poverty describes how income relates to the median income, and does not imply that the person is lacking anything. In general the United States has some of the highest relative poverty rates among industrialized countries.[8] According to a 2008 report released by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, on average, rates of poverty are persistently higher in rural and inner city parts of the country as compared to suburban areas.[9][10] The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is increasing to record levels with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.[11]

EDIT:

The states with the highest proportions of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas (all between 8 and 10 percent). The states with the lowest percentage of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Oregon, California, Washington, and Alaska (all under 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the Federal minimum wage. (See table 2 and table 3.)

I don't think people who don't pay federal income taxes are freeloaders. I just see these two pictures a lot and they anger me because they mean virtually nothing.

[Juan_Bottom]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

[Juan_Bottom]

Is it possible that if you don't earn above a certain threshold gross income, you only pay state tax and not federal tax in America?

Wait,....didn't you just say you wanted a more equal tax rate FOR ALL?

Surely you aren't that stupid.

Everyone pays the same rate? What a noble idea!!!

True Equality, or no equality.

I thought we were done with "separate but equal", but Progressives do believe in it when it comes to tax rates

Meh. Income isn't generated the same way for everyone, so there's no such thing as tax equality.
Besides that, you're the one who believes that states have the right to deny marriage for homosexuals and replace it with civil unions. Separate but equal indeed, and quite hypocritical of you as well.

[thegreekdog]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

It's because all the free-loading liberals go down there to get all that loot. That's what the facts support.

[Phatscotty]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

It's because all the free-loading liberals go down there to get all that loot. That's what the facts support.

SOURCE!

[Juan_Bottom]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

It's because all the free-loading liberals go down there to get all that loot. That's what the facts support.

Ohhhh

[Night Strike]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

Because the federal government sets arbitrary lines of what is poverty, among other things. A person in nearly all of the conservative/red states can get by on less than $30,000 per year, while that money probably can't even pay rent in a micro-apartment in many liberal areas. Yet both people would be labeled as being just above poverty in both areas because of the federal government's one-size-fits-all policies.

[patches70]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

"if you torture statistics long enough they will eventually confess."

[Woodruff]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

Because the federal government sets arbitrary lines of what is poverty, among other things. A person in nearly all of the conservative/red states can get by on less than $30,000 per year, while that money probably can't even pay rent in a micro-apartment in many liberal areas.

Oh, bullshit. I lived in freaking Mississippi for five years, one of the most poverty-stricken areas in the United States. The poverty there is real, Night Strike...very real.

[PLAYER57832]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

It's because all the free-loading liberals go down there to get all that loot. That's what the facts support.

Sounds like someone who has never spent much time in the south.

[PLAYER57832]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

Because the federal government sets arbitrary lines of what is poverty, among other things. A person in nearly all of the conservative/red states can get by on less than $30,000 per year, while that money probably can't even pay rent in a micro-apartment in many liberal areas. Yet both people would be labeled as being just above poverty in both areas because of the federal government's one-size-fits-all policies.

It would be really nice if you actually did a bit of investigating before throwing out such claims.

According to you any big city is "liberal" and rural areas are not, but the truth is very, very different. And... as Woodruff says, poverty is very real. Its also quite real where I live now, all over northwestern PA. AND.... it was real out in CA, and in several other states where I have lived. About the only place where you could honestly say only deadbeats went hungry was in Alaska.. and that was not in Anchorage or Fairbanks, either. Out in the small towns, you could still fish, collect berries, etc, etc, etc. Here, even living right on the woods, even being a skilled hunter (NOT me, of course ), its not all that easy... the fish are full of toxins, geese and ducks require special stamps and gear. Berries are getting bulldozed by gas drillers....
About 80% of our elementary school kids are eligible for reduced or free school lunches, but most of those have at least one parent who works at least part-time.