I never mentioned them. congress is protecting billionaires at the expense of non millionaires, the poorer one is the more affected they will be by tax cuts for the super wealthy.Cannonpointer » 20 May 2025, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑ I never denied there were repuke billionaires, child. You're in a different argument.
I was just surprised when you informed the board that Soros and Gates and Buffet and Turner and Hoffman and Hastings and Sandberg et al are repukes.
I am always delighted to learn new things from people who think before they speak pout.
Cannonpointer » 20 May 2025, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑ I never denied there were repuke billionaires, child. You're in a different argument.
I was just surprised when you informed the board that Soros and Gates and Buffet and Turner and Hoffman and Hastings and Sandberg et al are repukes.
I am always delighted to learn new things from people who think before they speak pout.
Cannonpointer » 20 May 2025, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑ Has Oprah encountered any unfairness? Are you projecting racism onto congress?
Well no ****, and also gosh. That sounds downright bipartisan when ya talk about it in adult terms.jerrab » 20 May 2025, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ I never mentioned them. congress is protecting billionaires at the expense of non millionaires, the poorer one is the more affected they will be by tax cuts for the super wealthy.
Damn - and you were doing so well for half a minute there. You don't think Soros has any influence with repukes? Do you have any idea who Scott Bessent is?jerrab » 20 May 2025, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ non republicans getting tax cuts is not why congress is cutting taxes for the rich, it is for rich republicans who donate to republicans. billionaire democats might get tax breaks but that is not the objective.-----------------------------------///////////////////////////////////////
Gosh. That sounds like an oligarchy.Bet fellas THAT rich transcend party politics. They probably laugh at people who think democ rats are less susceptible to influence than repukes.jerrab » 20 May 2025, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ The richest 1 percent have more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of the world’s population put together, new Oxfam analysis of UBS data reveals today ahead of the annual UN High-Level General Debate.Billionaires are exerting new levels of control over economies, with a billionaire either running or the principal shareholder of more than a third of the world’s top 50 corporations. The combined market capitalization of these corporations is $13.3 trillion.-================//////
That wasn't on my to do list, son.jerrab » 20 May 2025, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ so 95 per cent of money will be taxed at lower rates, that would be billions of untaxed money that could have gone into the revenue. so when they cry the country is broke don't come running to me.
I axed if Oprah had been mistreated, based on some silliness you posted, and your response is "maybe"?jerrab » 20 May 2025, 5:08 pm » wrote: ↑ maybe are you a democrat? will be a question on next years tax form.
The answer is embedded in the question - English being a word-order language and all.
It's ok guys, he's one of us!
Was that in your latest daily media enema?jerrab » 20 May 2025, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ I never mentioned them. congress is protecting billionaires at the expense of non millionaires, the poorer one is the more affected they will be by tax cuts for the super wealthy.
non republicans getting tax cuts is not why congress is cutting taxes for the rich, it is for rich republicans who donate to republicans. billionaire democats might get tax breaks but that is not the objective.-----------------------------------///////////////////////////////////////
The richest 1 percent have more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of the world’s population put together, new Oxfam analysis of UBS data reveals today ahead of the annual UN High-Level General Debate.Billionaires are exerting new levels of control over economies, with a billionaire either running or the principal shareholder of more than a third of the world’s top 50 corporations. The combined market capitalization of these corporations is $13.3 trillion.-================//////
so 95 per cent of money will be taxed at lower rates, that would be billions of untaxed money that could have gone into the revenue. so when they cry the country is broke don't come running to me.
Oh my, mr queerly is at it again, failing upwards like always...Mrkelly » 20 May 2025, 4:23 pm » wrote: ↑you do realize that you just said about yourself
“But me queerly has always been a juvenile little bitch.”![]()
poor stretch … can’t help doing a confession now and then
Cannonpointer » 20 May 2025, 5:59 pm » wrote: ↑ I axed if Oprah had been mistreated, based on some silliness you posted, and your response is "maybe"?
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
why does congress want to protect billionaires?Cannonpointer » 20 May 2025, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑ The answer is embedded in the question - English being a word-order language and all.
Because they are - look at the question - billionaires, THEN democ rats. They might also be right handed and red headed. But they are not being protected for being right handed, red headed, or democ rats.
What does that leave us with?
A) a sequestration bill pertaining to federal highway funds
B) the square root of pi
C) billionaires
D) 31 flavors of ice cream
That makes as much sense as your last couple of posts where her name came up.jerrab » 20 May 2025, 6:13 pm » wrote: ↑ maybe next years tax form will have the question is your name oprah winfrey?
jerrab » 20 May 2025, 6:13 pm » wrote: ↑ maybe next years tax form will have the question is your name oprah winfrey?
I have to admit, I have no idea why billionaires have more influence than working class people. It's a question that puzzled me whenI was 11 years old, and it puzzles me to this day.
murdock » 20 May 2025, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh my, mr queerly is at it again, failing upwards like always...
Perhaps, and it's a big perhaps, you could pull the trump dick out of your *** and look up and learn (lol) what a "typo" is. Mr queerly, stop being such a demo *** just for one day!
Perhaps because they are leaders of industry, creating untold thousands of jobs and other opportunities for Americans everywhere? Ask yourself, "How many people does Microsoft employ?" Well as of 2024 the answer was (according to the internet) was 228,000. That's a lot of tax revenue, money pouring into the economy, buying needed things, homes, vehicles, children's needs, etc. etc. etc. etc. That's a hell of an incentive right there. Unless of course like most leftist stains, you want this country to fail, you should support them as well.
Good **** stain, good! When called out start spraying **** like everyone of you lying child molesting pieces of **** do!
it has been that way for a long time, never changes. the only that changes are the tax breaks for millionaires.Cannonpointer » 20 May 2025, 5:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Well no ****, and also gosh. That sounds downright bipartisan when ya talk about it in adult terms.
And yes, you DID mention them, each and every one of them - categorically. If you ponder the meaning of that word, you will see the truth of my observation.
Damn - and you were doing so well for half a minute there. You don't think Soros has any influence with repukes? Do you have any idea who Scott Bessent is?
Gosh. That sounds like an oligarchy.Bet fellas THAT rich transcend party politics. They probably laugh at people who think democ rats are less susceptible to influence than repukes.
Here's a query for ya to study on. How come that statistic you just shared wasn't altered when the dems were in charge? Take your time. Break it down. Help me to understand.
That wasn't on my to do list, son.