LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Nobody is making you borrow it.
Keep your ignorant and pompous garbage to yourself.
Nobody is making you borrow it.
what are you doing, deep?
In my opinion, the only April fools on this day are in Congress.
Census won't matter that much Dems are too stupid to get the govnorships and legislators to control the gerrymandering.
Nobody is making you borrow it.
wait aren't you in college?
wait aren't you in college?
Apparently there's an open letter from a former Trump aid that basically says what many of us expected; the plan was never for him to get this far but his ego has taken over. How much of an actual "insider" is now in question but her assessment, though it took her too long, is spot on.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I just had a little bit of a wild thought... about the 1992 election what with Bush/Clinton/Perot, and the similarity to today's potential Cruz/Clinton/Trump matchup, were the Donald to be jettisoned by the potential contested republican convention.
So, I was born in 1992. I merely know of Perot's existence, and some of the political positions he took (in some sense, he and Trump share similar economic populist positions). But, I can only assume the relationship between Bush and Perot was far more sour than the relationship between Perot and Clinton. Probably because Bush knew Perot was stopping any chance he had at reelection. Similar to what would happen were Trump to run independent.
Now, there's the early conceived notion that Trump was a Clinton plant. It just makes me think... if that were legitimately true, what about Perot? Was that just the learning example, or in some way could Ross Perot have been running knowing he would throw the race? And, does that mean we are likely to see Trump in 2020, if he so chooses to run independent? The question about Perot is mostly because I don't really have an understanding of the dynamic of that race, as a 92 baby.
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.
Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
The best way to learn about Perot is to watch Dana Carvey's impersonations of him on old SNLs.
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.
Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
I have the feeling he's not gonna do it...
Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
We do pay $24,000 a year for daycare, though. For three days a week of daycare, I should add... which equates to roughly two years of SUNY college tuition, and/or roughly the amount of added tax we would have to pay under Sanders plan.