The 11th Republican Presidential Debate 2016 by FOX News [March 3][6PM PST][9PM EST]

[speakhandsforme]

how is being against higher percentages on proceeding brackets rudimentary?

explain why i should be on board with it

Because we don't live in a meritocracy and a flat tax is a completely inefficient way of (A) funding necessary programs or (B) allowing for a society that is anything short of a feudalistic hellhole. A flat tax, assuming your'e not condoning for one that is exorbitantly high, would be disastrous and would ultimately lead to everyone being worse off.

And as far as the "rich people are not responsible for the poor," yes, in very many ways, they are. The current and historical avenues of creating capital have been invariably based in exploitation, violence, racism, and nepotism. Even now, in 2016, the rich refuse to realize that their subsistence in being the most comfortable people in the world is predicated on affording certain breadcrumbs towards the upkeep of the systems that they use to create profits and on tempering their exploitation of the lower classes so that they have a market from which they can draw.

 

[Gladiator24]

That blonde bimbo did shit all. She bottled it. Trump is D man, and has a big D too

 

[Tol]

Kasich squirming like Megyn Kelly does with her Trump vibrator that's 15".

Trump has to import his wives because he's too beta to get an American woman.

 

[VivaRevolution]

i vote for my own economic interests and not for the well being of the bottom 50. i paid nearly 60k between federal and provincial taxes - and yet used no federal benefits - so, excuse me that i feel that i should not have to pay exponentially more because other people are have-nots.

You vote for your short term economic interests.

Your house and paycheck are worth nothing when the system collapses, as so many learned in the 1930's.

 

[ncordless]

i vote for my own economic interests and not for the well being of the bottom 50. i paid nearly 60k between federal and provincial taxes - and yet used no federal benefits - so, excuse me that i feel that i should not have to pay exponentially more because other people are have-nots.

You might not have received benefits, but you benefitted.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

All polls had The Don winning in a landslide except for one that had Pubio at 100% and everyone else zero.

As predicted, The Don, is teflon.

He is going to massacre Shillary on the debate stage.

 

[ncordless]

do you acknowledge that you will always have people at every level manipulating the system. That banker encouraging a struggling family to take that 500'000 mortgage and that welfare queen who considers having children a payable profession.

Do you say oh well to welfare fraud?

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Omarosa of Apprentice fame attacks Kasich and says he cant run the State of Ohio while campaigning, and is from Ohio herself. She says he needs to resign. She is a Trump supporter, or employee more like it.

All the "supporters" of each candidate keep coming out and bashing the other candidates. It just makes the one they are supporting look childish, petty, unprofessional. Everyone can see and hear the candidates on the podium. There is no need to have your ole boys club reiterate and summarize the petty bantering.

 

[bad seed]

haha stay on Fox- Bernie Goldberg is freaking out on the Factor because Trump talked about his cock on national tv.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Because we don't live in a meritocracy and a flat tax is a completely inefficient way of (A) funding necessary programs or (B) allowing for a society that is anything short of a feudalistic hellhole. A flat tax, assuming your'e not condoning for one that is exorbitantly high, would be disastrous and would ultimately lead to everyone being worse off.

And as far as the "rich people are not responsible for the poor," yes, in very many ways, they are. The current and historical avenues of creating capital have been invariably based in exploitation, violence, racism, and nepotism. Even now, in 2016, the rich refuse to realize that their subsistence in being the most comfortable people in the world is predicated on affording certain breadcrumbs towards the upkeep of the systems that they use to create profits and on tempering their exploitation of the lower classes so that they have a market from which they can draw.

Again, a flat tax (and im not talking about 10%) still has the wealthy paying more. Liberals have a tendency to lump all rich together and yet hate when conservatives lump all poor together. The top bracket is set for people making over 400k - thats the majority of rich people - and thats working rich. Not a fantastical, pie-in-the-sky pipe dream, but a life that comes mostly from hard work. Under a flat tax system that person would pay 100k in federal taxes alone and yet, you claim thats not enough; that because this person reached success that the extra dollars of their labor should go to the system just because they have it and others dont?

My heart should bleed because other people couldn't make it for whatever reason?

 

[ILLogic]

i have the the same indifference for the bottom

I'm doing fine but touché, pussycat. I consider it a premium for their get out of jail cards.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Do you say oh well to welfare fraud?

Well if you crack down on it - liberals will cry that it affects the people who really need it. So yeah, theres poor who game a system and theres rich who also game a system.

I'm doing fine but touché, pussycat. I consider it a premium for their get out of jail cards.

the top bracket is targeted people making 400k - thats the majority of the rich and they are not ripping off the system.

 

[Cooz]

I'm late to the party, but thank you everyone for waiting (still listening to the post debate analysis. some old dude named bernie lost his $#it when Emperor Trump spoke of his wang).

My analysis...Kasich rocked it. He only spoke twice during the first 30 minutes (fox bias), but the man is the only one with substance. No wall gimmick, no post card gimmick, no team of writers.

I'd make him my VP (he just said he wouldn't go for VP, but I'd still try).

Vote Cooz

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You might not have received benefits, but you benefitted.

from what, the roads i used to get to work in order pay the taxes?

Tell me me how i benefited

 

[Culombo]

Trump has to import his wives because he's too beta to get an American woman.

marla maples .. and has probably banged a bunch of apprentice ladies and pageant girls .. yet another swing and a miss from a trump hater

 

[Arkain2K]

Kaisich always comes out of these looking good in my opinion- rational, to-the-point answers that seem to actually have specifics.

Loved the, "I'm not biting," line to Wallace too lol.

It's obvious that the crowd were completely drunk by half-time, but they somehow regained clarity and gave Kasich the biggest applauds of the night after he refused to bite the Putin bait!

7:53pm

Kasich takes a question about a commercial his campaign ran tying Trump to Putin. Do you think Trump is naive about Putin?

“I’m not biting,” Kasich says. “Let me just take you around the world,” he says. He’s cheered and applauded wildly.

Kasich then goes around the world:

Russia: attack on Eastern European NATO member states is attack on us.

China: stop hacking us and pipe down in South China sea.

Egypt: they are on last legs.

Jordan, Saudi, Gulf states: our allies who need support. Annnd...

“We need good human intelligence.” Ding ding ding.

“Let’s call it a semi-trip around the world,” Kasich says. He has run out of time.

 

[PRIDEWASBETTER]

haha stay on Fox- Bernie Goldberg is freaking out on the Factor because Trump talked about his cock on national tv.

That segment was embarrassing for everybody involved.

 

[Renard]

That blonde bimbo did shit all. She bottled it. Trump is D man, and has a big D too

Are you for real?

 

[Lead]

i didnt mean to insinuate you are poor, sorry if thats how it came off. - i just used two hypothetical situations, but one citizen is not responsible for the economical well being of another, especially when they are already paying 1/5th (at the hypothetical rate of 20%) of their income and they are not using as much of the system.

Even if that person has extra / discretionary income 500000x more than they ever need, its still there money and the government is fleecing them by mandating a higher percentage to be implemented on to them

again, the rich are not responsible for the poor.

At an individual level, that makes sense. At a macro one, it doesn't. Government looks at society as a whole and tries to establish something that can sustain prosperity. One way of doing that is the safety net that both parties agree with. If you let people fall into permanent poverty, you either have to accept they are to starve/become homeless or that you will have to keep them alive through welfare the rest of their lives. Allowing the safety net allows people to bounce back and once again produce for society and give a net gain to negate the net loss when they needed help. Obviously some will always be net gain and some will be net loss but it's the system as a whole that makes sense. We are looking at it from different perspectives, yours being individually, mine being from a marco/societal level.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You vote for your short term economic interests.

Your house and paycheck are worth nothing when the system collapses, as so many learned in the 1930's.

Banks are insured now

i cant prevent a drought

YOU advocate for less trade (this was a cause in the depression)

Stocks are more regulated than in the 1930

I didnt buy a house i couldnt afford.