TakeYouToTasker

As I said, the top 1% already pay roughly 50% of all taxes collected. The top 20% pay about 85% of taxes. 45% get a free ride. It isn't in any way equitable.

Right? But yeah, it seems like a lot, but I host for about 20-30 people. That sounds absolutely tremendous.

Under the current tax structure the top 1% of earners pay almost 50% of all federal taxes, the top 20% of earners pay roughly 85% of all federal taxes, and the bottom 45% of all earners pay less than 0% (they receive money from the federal government in excess of taxes paid on wage earnings as a "refund" of their returns. That isn't equitable, and the insistence that those shouldering nearly the entire federal burden aren't deserving of a tax cut, while at the same time insisting that social spending be sustained at current levels indicates that you actually aren't willing to pay your fair share for the expenditures you desire.

Big spread as always. 20 lb. bird Roast leg of lamb Lasagna Eggplant parm Sausage and meatballs Stuffing Mashed potatoes Sweet potato au gratin Caramelized butternut squash Green bean casserole Broccoli and cheese Macaroni and cheese Mashed potato pizza skins with bacon Chicken wings Stuffed mushrooms French onion soup Fresh baked bread Salad Ice cream cake Pumpkin pie Apple pie Blueberry cobbler Cranberry chutney 9 layer dip Various crackers, cheeses, meats, chips and dip

You don't want to pay your fair share?

ESPN is a media outlet. ESPN is in the mainstream. Which of these statements do you take issue with?

I thought closing tax loopholes was a good thing? Or was that just other people's loopholes?

It's a strange point to make given the common understanding of the phrase isn't literal, but sure. I'm sure that there are people out there who trust certain media outlets despite their willingness to engage in blatant fabrications.

Yeah, as I said I offered it as a generalization. I thought that was obvious. Do we not do common language usage here anymore?

All their problems could go away if they would simply identify as individuals who have not been sexually inappropriate, or better yet, if they would identify as children which would immediately turn the tables and grant them victimhood as sexual prey of adult female aggressors.

Tay-Tay's ta-tas

Yeah, it was offered as a generalization. I figured you'd be able to tell because I didn't get granular, or bust out charts and graphs. Did you take any other issue with my statement in which I claimed a major media outlet falsifying a report is an example of why people don't trust the media?

She's so well known as a cultural icon that not knowing who she is, is essentially an admission that you're likely not very well informed about anything at all unless you're some sort of savant. She's won an Emmy, ten Grammys, 19 American Music Awards, 21 Billboard Music Awards, and dozens awards exclusive to country music. She's hosted Saturday Night Live, has had acting roles on network television, had a very public dust up with Kanye West (who you've also probably never heard of) which was covered by ever single news organization on the planet. She's a spokesmodel for Covergirl, and a very generous philanthropist. In short, she's all over every single medium we use to communicate, and knowledge of her is virtually unavoidable if you participate in the world in any meaningful way. Your story isn't believable.

You beat me to it!

Tax cut do lead to long term growth, but not necessarily immediate growth, as it takes time for spending habits to change, and for savings to grow and become future spending, where as short term public sector job loss is an immediate impact.

Because not knowing who she is, with some degree of passing knowledge, never mind never hearing her name, isn't a believable claim.

There are miles and miles of daylight between the expectation of carefully vetting your news for spin, and cutting through editorializing masquerading as news to focus on raw facts and data; and the realization that you're being deceived by outright fabrication. When you find a publication who is willing to tell outright lies to drive an agenda, on what grounds would you say granting them the benefit of the doubt is wise?

Still dubious.

This is a perfect example of why no one trusts the media anymore.

There was an article I read recently, I can't remember where, that basically said that liberals should take the opportunity to savage Bill Clinton's behavior now that it was politically convenient to do so, and use him as a lightening rod to pull the strikes away from folks like Bob Menendez whom they should protect because him being hurt by allegations was not politically convenient, but that once he was out of the political picture he should be savaged as well. It's nothing more than moral posturing for political reasons, and it's even more dangerous than usual because Democrats are appealing to mob rule.

dubious

I agree with this, and for my money the best midfield play in the world can be found in the Serie A.

It doesn't happen often, but when I do I stop what I'm doing, and take the rest of the day off.

What's the political equivalent of firing one into the hospitality tent?

The Alt-Right isn't a race.