Every Democrat voted against the Investing in Opportunity Act

MAGA MAN

MAGA MAN

Let's go Brandon!
It was included in the just passed Tax Reform Act. More proof that liberals are committed to do NOTHING for low income Americans.

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to authorize the designation of opportunity zones in low-income communities and to provide tax incentives for investments in the zones, including deferring the recognition of capital gains that are reinvested in the zones.
Click to expand...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/293
 
Right said:
Zero.
Click to expand...

I thought they had no problem paying more to the federal government as long as it went to (fill in the blank program) they supported. How many times has one said something to the effect that they'd have no problem if the government raised their taxes if it meant, as just one example, people could get healthcare coverage? If they care so much, first why do they need to be told to pay more, and secondly, why don't they voluntarily pay the premiums of those they claim so much to care for?
 
CFM said:
I thought they had no problem paying more to the federal government as long as it went to (fill in the blank program) they supported. How many times has one said something to the effect that they'd have no problem if the government raised their taxes if it meant, as just one example, people could get healthcare coverage? If they care so much, first why do they need to be told to pay more, and secondly, why don't they voluntarily pay the premiums of those they claim so much to care for?
Click to expand...

'Rats always say they care about the poor but their most beloved FedCo programs screw the poor. Take Social Security for example. Some poor bloke pays 7.5% of his income and his employer is forced to match it, so in actuality he's paying 15% of every paycheck directly to FedCo. After doing that for 45 years FedCo gives him about $1000/ month in return: starvation pay. If he had paid into a private fund the same amount, including lifetime income insurance premiums, he'd retire at twice his income level.
 
Right said:
'Rats always say they care about the poor but their most beloved FedCo programs screw the poor. Take Social Security for example. Some poor bloke pays 7.5% of his income and his employer is forced to match it, so in actuality he's paying 15% of every paycheck directly to FedCo. After doing that for 45 years FedCo gives him about $1000/ month in return: starvation pay. If he had paid into a private fund the same amount, including lifetime income insurance premiums, he'd retire at twice his income level.
Click to expand...

It's about control. How many people that don't have the wherewithal or discipline to save/invest privately rely totally on SS for retirement? When that's all that some have, the federal government has them by the balls and keeps squeezing to maintain that control.
 
CFM said:
It's about control. How many people that don't have the wherewithal or discipline to save/invest privately rely totally on SS for retirement? When that's all that some have, the federal government has them by the balls and keeps squeezing to maintain that control.
Click to expand...

That misses my point. Poor folk barely get by because they have to pay 15% income tax to FedCo. Because of that, they can't afford to invest privately. Someone like me, who makes more that he needs, can easily dump all kinds of cash into a private portfolio. Notwithstanding the fact that my portfolio would be more than twice the size had I not have to pay 15% to FedCo for a program that will barely supplement my real retirement income.

If elected 'Rats really cared for the poor, they would eliminate the Social Security program over time and replace it with a forced private investment system. The poor would still have to pay their 15%, but a small amount would go to lifetime income insurance, and the remainder go to the taxpayer's private retirement portfolio.
 
Right said:
That misses my point. Poor folk barely get by because they have to pay 15% income tax to FedCo. Because of that, they can't afford to invest privately. Someone like me, who makes more that he needs, can easily dump all kinds of cash into a private portfolio. Notwithstanding the fact that my portfolio would be more than twice the size had I not have to pay 15% to FedCo for a program that will barely supplement my real retirement income.

If elected 'Rats really cared for the poor, they would eliminate the Social Security program over time and replace it with a forced private investment system. The poor would still have to pay their 15%, but a small amount would go to lifetime income insurance, and the remainder go to the taxpayer's private retirement portfolio.
Click to expand...

By forcing them to "invest" through the SS program, they control those that can't afford to do it privately. The feds know they can't afford to privately and by forcing them to "invest" in the government "portfolio", they control those that can't do it privately because it's all they have.
 
Jarod said:
Very important and quick lesson about politics, take the name of every bill passed flip it around consider it opposite day and that's what it really does.
Click to expand...

Very important and quick lesson about politics. Your side lost and the sooner you get over it, the better off you'll be.
 
What a bunch of oblivious dipshits. Did your parents practice the worm, or something when they had you? :guninmouth:
 
Right said:
'Rats always say they care about the poor but their most beloved FedCo programs screw the poor. Take Social Security for example. Some poor bloke pays 7.5% of his income and his employer is forced to match it, so in actuality he's paying 15% of every paycheck directly to FedCo. After doing that for 45 years FedCo gives him about $1000/ month in return: starvation pay. If he had paid into a private fund the same amount, including lifetime income insurance premiums, he'd retire at twice his income level.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did the money come from that allows the economy to fund seniors at current levels with no consequences? It's not mathematically possible.
 
Last edited:
11-6-12ss.jpg
 
Jarod said:
Very important and quick lesson about politics, take the name of every bill passed flip it around consider it opposite day and that's what it really does.
Click to expand...

Affordable care act?
DACA?
Stimulus?
Net neutrality?

Thanks GayRod. I will save this quote
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top