% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

AT&T, Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • emil_chesibilski emil_chesibilski Nov 13, 2012 8:31 AM Flag

    Election explained

    "Republicans lost the election because they have one constituency: old people, particularly old white people.
    Who worked their entire life and want to keep what's theirs. The democrats have young people and 5th generation minorities who think they are entitled to the old white people's money.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • ricky18201 Nov 13, 2012 12:48 PM Flag

      Republicans lost the election because they promised something the Dems didn't want, JOBS!

    • Who were privileged their entire lives and have become a bunch of blinder-wearing narcisissists. 30 years of debt, unsustainable old age entitlements, unfunded pension funds-- you built that. Not your kids. But you expect your kids to pay for them, don't you?

      You are right though. Democrats have people with a future, not a past.

      • 2 Replies to ricky18201
      • Sorry but the only old people responsible for the unsustainable entitlements, for the old and the young are the old farts in Congress. Those of us that worked our entire adult lives, paid all of our taxes, paid our and our kids tuition aren't responsible.

        We didn't underfund the pensions either, particularly not the government employee pensions.

        We also helped create the most powerful economy on the planet, fought to protect it only to watch the fools in Congress and the White House waste it day after day.

        The only privileges I ever got, I earned.

        Now we have to watch as people like you and the liberals in Congress diddle while our country burns.

      • "that would change them from tax payer to tax neutral."

        If you're rich and don't pay taxes, you're tax neutral. If you're middle class or poor and don't pay taxes you're a parasite.

        Is that really what you're trying to say here, emil?

        Even assuming that these wealthy "tax neutral" people don't get some form of subsidy, you don't think they get anything of value from government that would make them "tax takers"? Perhaps you'd like to be the one to advise our soldiers in the field that wealthy people don't get anything of value from their service and thus shouldn't have to contribute. . .
        Sometimes you people really amaze me.

    • "Who worked their entire life and want to keep what's theirs. "

      Can you name one name of one of them, who makes over 250k adjusted gross income, which is what it is on, not gross income? I am one of those people above in your quote, and I voted for Obama, because he is on our side. Name one.

      You have been brain washed. Do you know about Grover Norquist?

      Sentiment: Buy

      • 1 Reply to peppeek
      • Example, if you make, after all deductions, expenses, payroll, etc, $300,000 net income, you would pay an extra 2,000-2,500 in tax. Is that so much for someone making that kind of income, after deductions, to pay out of the 300,000? They still get the 250k lower tax rate.

        Don't be fooled by Grover, we have the right man in there for us middle class people, and he is elected, THANK GOD. Romney was nothing more than a Grover puppet to be. READ about Grover and what he is up to with his pledges. It is subverting democracy to intimidate and threaten our elected representatives, but that is exactly what Grover has done.

        Sentiment: Buy

33.14-0.26(-0.78%)Oct 9 4:00 PMEDT