So… let’s see
So… let’s see if I have this straight. Someday, you hope to earn $250k so you’re mad at my tax cut??
(Barack Obama & Joe The Plumber)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Dayvid Iannaci
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Wait – Obama is not an Arab? | WOMEN’S “HEALTH” Next »
» 592 comments
-
Recent Comments
I want to beat EWAda… on TRAIN ORIGAMI Rattus on WOOPS Danbala on Let’s imagine the look o… Ivan The Patron Sain… on TRAIN ORIGAMI Nucky, the Official … on TRAIN ORIGAMI The Steve on Let’s imagine the look o… The Steve on Let’s imagine the look o… mabsba on TRAIN ORIGAMI Nucky, the Official … on TRAIN ORIGAMI mabsba on WOOPS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
maybe with that money Joe can pay off his taxes he already owes and maybe get a license to be a plumber.
WIN!!!!!!!!
bravo!!!
well spoken
Thank you very much.
Ahhhhahaha so great,
You know whats funnier? Their has been more back round check and bashing on this one voter done by the media and people then back round check on barak!
That’s hilarious! and you call fox biased!!
Yeah, except for that Barack (spell it correctly please, no excuse not to know how to spell it by now) has been intensely vetted for the past 2 years, under a lot of media scrutiny. Just because you don’t like that most of us don’t find much objectionable in his past doesn’t mean he hasn’t been vetted.
Except that Obama doesn’t need the Secret Service- the press is protecting him well enough .
Right. The press can stop bullets. And acts of terrorism. May as well pull out of Iraq now, since the press corps has been protecting us from that too.
Yea, that’s why they tooootally ignored the Wright thing.
I haven’t heard anything about Wright in a long time. What’s he been up to ?
He’s being ignored by the media to save Barack. Like Ayers and Rezko and the other bad people Obama associates with.
Or any mention of the Lincoln Savings and Loan & his involvement in the Keating Five, especially as it relates to the current economic crisis
Oh, wait–
I love how people throw Keating 5 around like it’s a scandal against McCain. He was found innocent you dolt!
As was Ayers, you dolt.
The difference being that McCain isnt quoted as saying, ” Guilty as sin, free as a bird, what a great country or words to that effect.
Damn, just add in the closing quotation after country.
Ayers couldn’t be found innocent since he was never tried.
Case dismissed on constitutional grounds.
Ofcourse I mean “back then”
It was the center of attention, and drove me nuts.
Obama hasn’t been vetted by the media at all. They’ve done their best to conceal his connections with ACORN, his terrorist pal Bill Ayers, his crooked slumlord friend Tony Rezko …
/yawn, I’ve seen all those things passing by CNN lots of times, identity politics at it’s best. Face it EP: the media wants to make money, not protect Barack.
Yeah, Thats why Fox News is the only news network making money and not losing viewers? hmmm….
If by “intensely vetted” you mean “all negatives have been quietly swept under the rug” then yes, you’d be right.
Maybe Obama’s campaign finance manager can pay off his taxes too.
lol!!
why does he need a liscense when state law says he doesnt as long as practices residentially and not commericially.
he doesnt and is biden really such a dick as to say, ‘We’re not sure if he’s even a real plumber…’ and this wasn’t on some tin foil hat-wearing website that thinks buttons on strings are ufos but on THE TODAY SHOW on CBS
He’ll be making more than 250k off his country music deal (true, google it).
Because by “cut” you mean massive increase. 8P
Yeah, Obama didn’t cut taxes for everyone under $250k, and he raised them for those above
for now….
Rorsc hints at his psychic powers. “oooOOOooooOOOooo…. You will meet a handsome stranger, and, wait, yes, he will raise your taxes!”
LOL! Oh, Mark.
Very childish response.
Yes, Rorsc’s response was very childish.
In reality, McCain will prob raise taxes too for something or another-
he’s just not going to spring it on us until he’s well within the presidency.
At least Obama is being forthcoming about his plans.
Precisely. I hate how raising taxes automatically makes a candidate ‘the bad guy’. How else does anyone think we’re going to pay off our debt? How else does anyone think we’re going to be able to pull out of the middle east?
I have an idea! Let’s just not pay taxes at all! That way, we’ll have no money to pay for education, or roads, or health care, or the war, or anything! And when our children are stupid, homeless, terminally ill and too scared to drive anywhere lest the bride collapse beneath their car, we’ll all be happy, because at least we won’t be paying taxes.
Come on people, there’s a reason why we’re paying taxes. The debt isn’t going to disappear all on it’s own.
I’m done ranting now.
We could reduce spending on welfare state programs…stop allowing illegals to leach off the system.
Oh, and under the Bush tax cuts revenue increased.
We don’t pay off the debt-we create new social programs.
I am not seeing this revenue increase since we are in a DEFICIT!!!
So…what you’re saying is…vote for Obama? Cuz…isn’t this similar to what he’s proposed? By cutting programs that don’t work?
You will never *ever* tax your way out of economic hardships. Additionaly taxes *reduce* revenue as they cause employers to cut jobs, which raises unemployment and increases the general poverty level. There is a bare minimum tax amount required to keep the country functioning, and anything over that is a cancer on the economy. We are currently well above that minimum and have been for ages, and *any* tax increase is *bad*. Taxes need to be cut, along with unneccessary programs that tax money is being wasted on.
Taxes have generally gone in an upward direction for the longest time (with some exceptions of course, like the Bush tax cuts). With that spending has also gone up. To say that paying taxes will keep our children from being stupid denies the fact that as the years (and taxes) go by our children already are becoming dumb as rocks. It has nothing to do with taxes, it has to do with government spend that blows tax money so that unqualified teachers stay in the system and that students that don’t make the cut because they don’t care or whatever get ushered on through even if they can’t read. As to homelessness, when taxes are lower and jobs are more easily found, there tends to be less folks that are homeless. But you have programs like welfare that recieve massive funding to aid not only those people that truly deserve it, but also the leeches that are ‘homeless’ *on puirpose* and wouldn’t work if you begged them to take a job.
When’s the last time government spending cured a major terminal illness? Research may recieve funding from time to time by the gov’t, but it’s pirvate industry that actually finds cures to diseases, and they’d do it better if they paid less taxes and had more money to throw at the problem.
And sad to say, but wars are always an economic boon, as they provide guaranteed industry as people must supply the troops with newer, better gear, etc. While tax money is used to fund wars, Private industry has a *lot* to do with it too, and guess who gets hurt by higher taxes?
And raising taxes won’t lower the debt at all. Only cutting spending will.
Have you ever played a game like Civilization or SimCity or something (I forget offhand which games are like this) where you control an economy? There’s a little slider to raise taxes and if you slide them all the way up your revenue goes through the floor, along with happiness, etc. You slide them down and you make *more* money because your people are happier and buisnesses thrive. As long as there’s enough money to keep your budget positive, the lower you keep your taxes the more your area grows. It’s just like that in real life. Keep taxes at the bare minimum to function, cut all the stupid spending, and the debt *will* disappear all on it’s own.
Wow – that went way long – sorry.
SimCity yes, Civilization no.
In Civilization, higher taxes mean lower science and entertainment, but this is a linear relationship. The only way to actually increase the sum of revenue, science and entertainment is to increase amounts of the trade resource. This means building roads, rails, markets, banks etc.
“Research may recieve funding from time to time by the gov’t, but it’s pirvate industry that actually finds cures to diseases, and they’d do it better if they paid less taxes and had more money to throw at the problem.”
Those private companies get ideas from basic research that’s funded by…wait for it…the govt!
yeah pay attention retard he said that
And voted for increasing taxes on people making over $42K in the last budget.
You mean massive increase to your imaginary 250,000 a year salary?
Right.
Yes, JTP is angry at the prospect of higher-than-present tax rates on potential future earnings. He is also not so keen on “income tax rebates” to people who do not pay income taxes, among others of Obie’s wealth-redistribution plans.
No-one has fallen for this, the Joe the Plumber stunt was a desperate last ditch effort to overcome the problem that only 5% of Americans would pay more tax under Obama’s plans and 5% of the population is not enough to win an election – that’s assuming all those people disagree with the plan, any $250,000 per year plumbing tycoon with a brain would be happy that 95% of his customers had more money to spend on improving their property.
Apparently the sheep that repeat republican talking points have bought it. No one else though.
I made my boss mad the other night. He freely admits that the only reason he’s voting for Obama is because he is black and has no grasp of anything the man stands for. The anger came in when I told him that I was actually kind of looking forward to Obama getting into office because then he and I would me making closer to the same amount of money. He cursed at me and stomped off
froufrou – he sounds like a dolt.
Sounds like an Obama supporter- oh wait, you just said that.
Ad hominems: the last defense of those who can not reason.
I just wish that my boss would actually pay attention and make an informed decision instead of voting solely on race. But when I try to have a discussion with him about WHY exactly he’s voting for Obama, all he can come up with is that it’s time for a black man to be in the White House. I’d rather everybody vote for fricking Mickey Mouse and get him elected on the issues rather than have Obama elected because of what he looks like *sigh*
I agree that everybody should not buy a car because it’s red. You should know exactly what you paid for. Your boss should at least know a modicum of “why.” However, we’ll still take his vote
There are always some idiots on both sides.
On the other hand, I think it’s horrible that the right-wing talkers have just projected that sort of race stuff onto Colin Powell as though he can’t think for himself.
This is going to sound like a rat deserting a sinking ship, but I honestly have never thought much of Colin Powell. For some reason he’s seemed wishy washy to me…..not in terms of foreign affairs, and I think he was a great Secy of Defense (brain farting again……SoD, right?), but I’ve never really agreed with his slightly left of my right wingedness. I guess I’m saying that I’m not surprised that he is endorsing Obama. I’m surprised that it didn’t happen sooner.
But froufrou, I thought we had established you are a moderate!
At least you aren’t saying he made his decision on race. He has given a lot to this country. You don’t get made head of the joint chiefs of staff for being a sheep or a dolt.
I am a moderate who is fighting to the death that particular label
I refuse to be defined anymore by anything other than my ideals, so you can take your Repub/Dem label and shove it!! *directed at the world, not at Minerva, whom I adore!* 
It’s ok, I used moderate with a small “m”.
Bwahahahha… I mean welcome froofrou, we’ve been expecting you. *hugs*
I’m still more hard core conservative than will make most of you comfortable, but if there’s cookies then I’ll stay
Oh yes, cookies… MORE COOKIES THAN YOU CAN EVER GODDAMN DREAM OF!!!
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I mean yes, it takes all kind in the middle aisles. Your conservative views are just as valid as my odd views.
So, you are pissed that your boss isn’t making an “informed decision” on his vote, yet you don’t like Colin Powell because “he’s seemed wishy washy”? Neat.
I didn’t say I didn’t like Colin Powell, I said he always seemed a little wishy washy to me. You have to understand, about some things I’m completely millitant right wing, and anyone to the left of me on those views is too far left in my book. Colin Powell just happens to be more left than I am in a few areas, and it makes him slightly less than ideal for me. How is that not an informed decision?
In… politics.
Your boss will cancel out one vote from someone who voted against Obama just because he’s black. Fine by me.
Good point, use the ignorant against each other.
Wow, look around people. Most small business owners claim their business income on their personal tax returns, those revenues are often not actual salary to the business owner, but funds reinvested in the business. You take more of that away, your lower small business profits, which has the dual impact of small businesses either folding or reducing staff. Not to mention the fact that you actually discourage small businesses, which provide a lot of jobs (local restaurants, dry cleaners, doctors offices, hair salons, mechanics, etc.). It does wonders for big business, it knocks out their main street competitors, you know those little businesses run by your friends and neighbors.
Sorry meant:
You take more of that away, your lower small business profits fall….
But dj! We *want* massive corporations to overrun the small businesses!
When I buy my coffee, it better say Starbucks, and be sold by someone who makes billions yearly, not a blend sold by someone in my community!
Yup, let’s support the working class guys like me. That way we can reduce all small business owners to the working class, and the masses of Americans who are working class will have absolutely no chance at becoming more than they are.
Let’s give the middle class a break and screw over the upper echelon, so that way only the super wealthy have any stake in capitalism.
Let’s see, give me my tax break and watch small businesses slowly close up shop and fail? Or not give me my tax break and watch small businesses flourish and maintain a continued presence in the face of commercial super giants?
I’ll take the latter.
Change?
Nope. Keep the change.
People who make less than $32k/yr are not candidates for improving their property. You need to listen to the six minutes of what JTP had to say; he knows his subject. (Sorry, tried to find the link, haven’t yet, but heard it on the radio this morning.)
You are overgeneralizing. There are plenty of households BETWEEN $32k and 250k that this argument is relevant about.
JTP doesn’t even know what Progressive Tax scales are and that the US has been using it since before he was born. What people like JTP don’t understand is that Obama just wants to adjust the values and benchmarks on the Progressive Tax scale so that it favors the middle and lower class more, because right now it grossly favors the top 5% of earners in the nation.
That’s why our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling: The burden of paying the taxes that help keep our nation together have fallen on the lower and middle class while the upper class get a tax break. Us poor folk can’t pay for that bridge over the Mississippi so it collapses.
Sorry, but you’re completely wrong. This is one of the biggest lies of class warfare. In 2005, the last year which all figures are available, the top 10% of income earners
paid 54.7 % of ALL federal taxes. People earning $37,400 per year or less, only paid
12.1 percent of all federal taxes. Now you tell me who’s getting screwed. These figures
come from the Congressional Budget Office (the “accountant” of the government)
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
Scroll down to Summary Table 2:Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities, 2004 and 2005
Try and educate yourself BEFORE you drink the Obama Kool-Aid.
Sure, the top 10% pay 54.7% of taxes, I’ll stipulate this without research. However, they own upwards of 70% of the wealth in the nation, so no, I’m not impressed with that 54.7%. Put down your own kool aid.
Hmmm now we play math the game.
54.7% vs 70%…
I believe 70% wins the day. Thanks for playing.
The 70% makes the jobs. If they weren’t blowing 54.7% on taxes then the other 90% of people would be better off because they’d get paid more.
WIN!
Sure they would. You keep on believing that just as hard as you can.
By the way, Neverland is the second star to the right, and straight on
til morning.
Your failure to have a brain is not my responsibility. And I refuse to pay the tax to try and give you one.
If this trickle down stuff worked why aren’t jobs being created under the Bush tax cuts? In theory that should have happened quite a bit by now. So basically the actual evidence suggests that the 70% cares only about their own ass. Any jobs created have been primarily overseas, or wealth pushed directly and greedily into pure profit. When does the trickle-down happen? It doesn’t.
That is correct. When a corporation makes some extra 10% profit, they DON’T distribute it to employees! That would be SUICIDE!
You need to come work for my company. They actually do spread a certain percentage of their ‘wealth’ around. We have an employee share program that starts putting money in an account for every single employee from the day they start that is tied to how much profit they make every year. After a year, you can draw out a certain % of it. After 7 years, you can get it all. This is in addition to bonuses for salaried employees for profits at the end of the year.
That is brilliant. I’m going to look into that. Never hurts to have an extra incentive for your employees to keep them from job hopping. I assume there are no taxes to be paid over that amount?
As far as I know. The details escape me because I work second shift, it’s 10 o’clock in the morning, and I just woke up so I’m a little fuzzy, but the way I understand it the company takes pre tax profits and squirels them away, and I don’t think the employee is responsible for those taxes later. I’ll check into it to make sure and get back with you. My company is known for having the cleanest balance sheet in the business at this point (re: the squirelling the money away).
That procedure is definitely the exception to the rule. I’ve worked in several companies where they purposely lowball your performance appraisal so they don’t have to give you a raise, or at least not much of one. You hear the grumbling from a lot of people, and the only excuse you get from management is “well, everyone has room to improve.” It doesn’t matter if you do an exemplary job or not.
In general though, my point is that the trickle down has NOT been working under the Bush tax cuts because the wealthy peopl and companies tend to hang on to whatever they’ve got.
Here is the rub, trickle down economics is based on faith in the upper 10%. Ya know, the people known for scandals, getting away with murder, fraud, etc etc.
Oh yes, I totally want my economic faith put into them. Least I can pretend to control politicians.
Um, because they *have* been? Unemplyment went down, not up. And don’t give me the “70% only care about themselves” bit. 100% only care about themselves. It’s why people actually *strive* for things. It’s why people better themselves. The trickle-down happens all the time. It’s the trickle up poverty that Obama’s supporting that you should be worried about.
You are incorrect. The unemployment rate is the highest it has been in years. America has been bleeding jobs under Bush either to budget cuts or to overseas outsourcing. I personally had a job outsourced to Canada.
I love how some of you republicans view anyone that isn’t rich as “unwashed masses” who don’t want to do for themselves. You get a few (on any socio-economic level that will try to sponge off the system, but they are the exception, not the rule. It is insulting, frankly. People here have been explaining over and over again, in economic terms how the working class is losing the ability to provide properly for their families in terms of housing, healthcare, and just plain money for food. “Trickle up poverty” What a joke.
I find it disgustingly ironic that those who don’t care how much the middle and lower classes may be suffering claim Obama is out of touch and an elitist.
Disgusting yes… Ironic yes… Frustratingly stupid… Yes. Now I need to fill out my out of touch prick bingo card.
You may get a pass from that bingo game if you consider the unwashed masses to be actual people.
The prizes aren’t that great.
They never are.
The problem with the bush tax cuts is that he cut taxes but then DID NOT reduce spending. Jobs are going overseas because of the devaluation of the dollar.
Tax cuts+reduced spending=more money to produce more shit HERE in the U.S.
That 70% does care about their own ass, and that’s what makes the system work. They want more money, so they invest it in the market, or in their business, as to get a higher return. When they invest in the market, it boosts other businesses, whien they invest in their own businesses, it boosts theirs. Either way, that money is free to hire people and increase salaries.
Wealth redistribution takes money away from those people and gives it out to people who need it. Excellent, but it doesn’t make long-term solutions. The government is kind of crappy at that… social security anyone?
Moral of the story, when people spend money, other people get the money.
…’they want more money, so they invest it in the market.’
wait, what? no, not really, they don’t, nuh-uh nohow no way.
that’s the whole point of outsourcing.
re-investing in ‘the market’ is not a guaranteed way for the wealthiest of our nation to make money. outsourcing and all that that entails ARE a guaranteed way to make money. and so, with these tax-cuts for corporate citizens, there comes the ability to build plants and factories in far-off places where people work for little more than pocket change for a day’s work. thus, they can make more money for themselves, which is the point of capitalism.
with all that out in the open (about basic human greed and indecency and whatnot) now what’s so wrong with socialism, where everybody basically works for everybody else’s good?
That statement is just plain stupid. If they weren’t spending it on taxes, they would buy another yacht.
Which would pay Jack-the-boat-dealer, who pays Sue-the-salesstaff, who pays Frank-the-gardner (since she is busy now).
When I want to be rich, it’s because I want to buy time:
2 new cars, so I don’t have to crawl under mine @ 2AM on Sunday
Lawn service (right now I cut when I get the county notice. yech)
Handyman to redo the bathrooms and the flooring (that’s turning into a real pain)
Possesions are nice too, but if I had money, I’d buy them from someone if I didn’t care about the teaching (my son and I have been making picture frames out of laptops — certainly won’t pay for the time involved, as I use real wood and real moldings, but it helps show him what you get out of a project is equal to what you put into it).
Then again, if everything I buy comes from China, a lot of the trickle-down ran out of the house…
Parable of the Broken Window, look it up. Or, look up opportunity cost. Your money trickles down to those people you employ, but aren’t there better things they could be doing that would help our society more? If you weren’t rich and paying people to do stupid crap for you, those people could be doing more productive things.
–
You act as if all jobs are equally valuable to society, when
some jobs are only valuable to a certain segment of society. Sure, people are employed kissing rich ass, but wouldn’t they be better employed doing something useful?
Who decides what’s useful? You? It’s not for government to decide, that is not the purpose of government to decide what is useful in a free country. You are looking for communist China.
He’s just trying to make a point. The fact is, the yacht dealer may provide some jobs, ad their suppliers, etc, but realistically, the yacht dealer is trying to maximize proofits. So he’s paying as little salary and benefits as he can. Maybe that’s not charitable, but it’s a business. Most companies work that way. They treat the worforce as a commodity that fits into a budget. Not as people.
*profits
*workforce
The company I work for pays us profit sharing bonus every year plus yearly increases. Most businesses know that performance is tied to reward. You are bigotted towards business.
Also, keeping employees happy is pat of maximize profits, most smart business owners know that.
Phantom, you don’t get it. Please Google ‘broken window parable.’ People decide what is useful, not the government. Example, a rich guy hires a gardener. Who sees the benefit? Therich guy, the gardener, his family, the people they buy from. Okay, the rich gu spends the same amount of money to hire a volunteer teacher. Who sees the benefit? Everyone. We all benefit from having more educated people around us.
Tell that to my employer who purposefully low balls performance reviews. Just because one company MAY treat their employees ethically does not mean they all do. Also many big businesses want to suppress the formation of unions. Why do you suppose that is? And indeed, why are you assuming business owners are smart? You need to take off your gold plated rose glasses and take a real look around.
You can change employers, find an employer who treats you the way you want to be treated. If they really treat their employees unacceptably they won’t get any new employees and will fail. Seth: How can you hire a “volunteer” teacher? Just sayin. Anyway we already have public schools. There is a need for people to do gardening, the rich guy pays him, he spends his money on food, the grocer wins, then housing, the landlord wins… so on. Now, if lots of rich guys hire lots of gardeners, the whole community benefits. I wish I had time to google right now… maybe later.
There are surprisingly few employers to choose from. With the market so floded with un- or underemployed educated people like myself, it’s easy for the corporations to treat their employees thus. You see it everywhere. Villianizing unions and lowballing employees wages and benefits is pretty much the rule, rather than the exception in this economic climate. They can stay easily in business doing this to people, because the people can’t easily find another job if they leave.
Wrong. The other 90% would do for themselves rather than relying on Capitalist Daddy to give them a job. You guys go on and on about personal responsibility, but you are so full of it. You don’t like the ‘Nanny State’ because you want to be the daddy figure, and you think the free market is going to let you lord it over all the lesser people. You want to be the big fish, you fight for big-fish’s rights, but you forget, there are bigger, meaner fish than you out there, and they will eat you alive.
Stupidest. Comment. Ever.
.
70% of something is bigger than 54.7% of SOMETHING DIFFERENT!
.
So 70% of 100 is bigger than 54.7% of 10,000,000? Neither of you should be doing math.
.
The much more important question is not whether 10% of *people* pay 54.7% of *taxes*, but what their taxed RATE is. In other words, if I make $100k and Donald Trump makes $100M, I pay at a 30% tax rate and Trump pays at a 50% tax rate. (values are for illustrative purposes only, seeing as I don’t make $100k)
.
There are several inequities here, and they change depending upon your personal view of Right and Wrong. Is it Right for Trump to pay more taxes PER DOLLAR EARNED than I do?
.
Some say no, since that’s not “equal treatment under the law”. Some say no because they don’t think we need a tax code that is so damned complicated (one rate for all). Some say no because taxes are, basically, a sort of forced charity to the public and no one – regardless of income – should have to pay any more than absolutely necessary.
.
Some say that it’s perfectly fair because only in today’s world do some people make tens of thousands TIMES the money that some of their employees make, that D. Trump benefits from his citizenship more (his 50% kept is bigger than my 70% kept) so he should pay more, or that because he makes so much money, more of his money is disposable income, so he should be willing and able to part with it in the name of social justice.
.
To me, both of these completely opposing arguments hold water. My own personal opinion is that the federal tax rate should be the same, regardless of income, because I don’t see how earning more money justifies the gov’t taking more from you. However, I also think that people with great means should take it upon themselves to help those with no means (not lazy people, mind you, nor people like me who have means, just not lots of it). So a higher tax rate? Perhaps, but ONLY if the extra taxes can be shown to go DIRECTLY toward those social inequities that the whiners always complain about. Taxing Mr. Trump a higher rate only to stuff all that money into the military does nothing to fix the original problem.
.
And by the way, I voted for Obama, but not because I dislike McCain. And keep in mind that the Prez may help write legislation, may lobby for legislation, and can sometimes veto legislation, but ultimately, its CONGRESS that passes the laws, and that includes the tax code. So take everything you hear about ANY candidate’s taxx plan with a grain of salt.
Are you trying to tell us that Charles Keating’s son-in-law (JTP) isn’t an unbiased, undecided voter? Hogwash!
That one’s actually been debunked, as I understand it, it’s a different Keating. Plenty of hogwash still available from JTP, though. Plumber’s Union supports Obama.
Aw. Guess it was too good to be true.
Most unions support BHO- they’re told to.
by whom? Pray tell.
The spooky, evil Jewish-Muslim-secular-humanist conspiracy. They use mind control satellites to change who you vote for, and can only be blocked by tin foil hats. Join Rorsc! He knows the truth and can keep us free!
I thought I had blown up all those satellites in the last sequel I was in.
DWN vs HELMET HAIR!!!
SUCKER! !!! Read the PLAN! Der Der Der……..
Fabulous, educated response!
No, wait–
So Karl Rove planted Joe there knowing in advance Obama would roll through? Raising taxes on anyone never does anything except hurt the economy. Ever.
Borrowing money from other countries is the better method for financial independence, clearly.
Un. True. The most prosperous countries in the world are the ones with the highest tax rates.
Having a real person ask a real question of someone who wants to be the leader of the country is hardly a stunt. And it’s not like McCain put him up to it. And everyone who’s focusing on Joe the Plumber and how he flustered the porr widdle Messiah is missing the whole point – it doesn’t matter *who* asked the question, it doesn’t matter one freaking bit about if they *can* start their new job or if they’ve paid taxes or anything about that. You could take Joe out of the picture entirely and just pretend for a moment that some media member did their job for once and actually asked the question. The point, and the *only* thing that matters about the whole thing, is Obama finally came out and said he wants to redistribute wealth! That’s the *only* thing one needs to know about the whole situation, period.
Put him up or not, McCain didn’t vet him properly before he started using him as a campaign centerpiece. Same as usual.
Just following the Palin trend…
He is no where near $250,000. By the time he is, if ever, there will likely be much different systems in place so the only truly relevant tax code is the one we have now or will have for say, the next two years. That being the case. Joe would get a tax cut. I’ll have his share if he doesn’t want it.
Talk about sheep. You Kool-Aid drinkers WILL NOT look at what BHO has on record about his plans to raise taxes on virtually every business and individual in this country.
1. In your role as Chicken(hawk) Little, the onus is on you to prove that the sky is falling. Links or GTFO.
2. The tax “issue” is a red herring. We’ve got two wars on and the international economic system has gone down the toilet, and you’re b*tching about taxes? Talk about a piss-ant’s view of the world…!
Hey idiot, all Obama is talking about is taxes on every damn commercial. I know you retarded, commie liberals can’t understand this, but taxing business raises the price of everything for all of us. Get an original thought and stop believing the hype machine.
Ok, Matt, what do you do for original thoughts? Don’t see any…
Stopping tax breaks that go to businesses who ship jobs overseas is NOT raising taxes. It is KEEPING taxes in the US where they may do some good. I want to buy American. I want clothes made in America, with American materials, by American workers. I want to buy a Hybrid car that gets 60 miles to the gallon, made in America, with American materials by American workers. I would even like to buy a telephone or TV or a decent computer that met any of those criteria. I say KEEP the TAXES that are being given away to companies that give away our jobs.
Oddly enough, a torrent of verbal abuse does not constitute a valid argument. I suppose listening to nothing but Rush, Hannity, and O’Reilly might have confused you in that regard.
In any case, did it occur to you that maybe Obama is talking about taxes because that’s where the Republican attacks are concentrating? And that perhaps the Republican attacks are concentrating there because that “issue” (a red herring, as I pointed out before) is the only place they have left to go?
Matt, your facts are good. Calling names does nothing to advance your position. I’m just sayin’ . . .
Matt, how about you get an original thought and stop believing the Fox hype machine? Anytime I hear or see the words “commie liberal” or “retarded” (a great slur against people with disabilities, go you!) I stop listening or taking anything the speaker says seriously.
Allow me to express my joy that, in addition to the son of the founder of the National Review, Colin Powell has endorsed Obama! I defy anyone to call him a ‘commie libtard’.
woo hoo! I heard that this morning too. Even Powell has realized that the Republican party is not what it once was.
So great of a slur against people with disabilities that the open-minded left has been using it to describe George W. Bush.
No, they’re just calling him an out-and-out racist. I monitored the threads at Free Republic and Michelle Malkin’s site. You’ve never seen a more odious pile of unabashed racism. I was nearly moved to register and post, but that never accomplishes anything.
Sad, but hardly unexpected.
Woah there big fella’. Calling names doesn’t solve the problem.
That said, yeah, corporations, oil companies, and the like don’t pay taxes. Consumers do. I don’t know what’s so hard about that concept.
And I dunno about you, but I’ve never gotten a job from a poor person.
ok we continue to fight our ‘wars’ (they’ve become nothing more than a skirmish now…) and our businesses pay more taxes, and pay higher wages, and has to pay more for supplies from other business because they have to cover for the higher taxes, eventually the first one hits red and has to bankrupt, thus sending possibly thousands on their asses, they all collect welfare and ride the system and say this failed business made parts for some machine, without that part the machine factory goes bankrupt, now the supply factory has no buyers and goes belly up, and now more and more imports with less and less exports means our money goes to the east and we dance to our demise… now lets turn around and replace the factory with ak steel… we dance to our demise… oh wait ill stop taking a piss ant view of the world now…
Obama has on record he plans to raise taxes on virtually every individual in this country?
You can say Obama’s plans are lies but don’t go making up fantasy plans and claim they’re his.
Obama’s tax plan will lower taxes for everyone below 250 grand. So will McCain’s but Obama’s will lower it more. If you make over 250,000 (or especially if you make over 2.9 million) vote for McCain. He’ll cut your taxes. Or if you think trickle down economics will work better then it did with George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush then you should vote for McCain.
Support McCain with straight talk, not this bull.
But then he’ll take that money he saved you through taxes and throw it on your healthcare.
Except for when he repeals current tax cuts, therefore increasing taxes.
The tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 anyway, so chances are they would simply allow them to do so rather than actually repeal them. The Bush tax cut was actually designed this way, which is why Obama can say he won’t be raising taxes.
Which, if he becomes President, is the same as saying that he will raise them.
Have we EVER seen a presidential candidate who kept his word once elected ? How’s Obama gonna pay for the trillion dollar aid to Africa, socialized medicine and everything else he plans to do ? RAISE TAXES !!!!
ooooh, oooh, my arguments have been effectively refuted. ack. change tactics. Obama willl lower my taxes, but will he REALLY!?!?!?!11
My plans call for 800 billion in new programs while my tax increase will create 40 – 50 billion in revenue… Hmmm…
I remembered: At the time of Clinton administration, the pay for the US president was $200.000 a year. Funny, isn’t it? I want to be a plumber too!!!
My husband actually pointed that out to me the other day. Now, correct me if I’m wrong (and I know you will
), but isn’t the pay for the president $200-250,000 a year? Quite a ko-inky-dink that Obama wants to raise taxes on those making more than that…….
Of course, he’s making money from the sale of his books, but if he’s like any other intelligent rich person, he’s squirreling that money away offshore to keep it sheltered from the IRS.
True enough. I doubt he’ll do the offshore thing: too obvious.
Although it does warrent mentioning that there aren’t any deductions he could make of his Presidential salary, as those “business expenses” are already covered.
buy an underground vault like the ones in casinos?
You’re all fail.
redistribution of wealth = socialism.
Buying up bad mortgage loans via the U.S. Treasury = socialism.
No that is a ONE TIME thing for an emergency. Obama’s socialism plans are meant to be permanent. of course being a retarded brain washed liberal I don’t expect you to understand any of this
Matt wins at being an A**hole!
And at not understanding that the bailout was a bad idea regardless of the side of the aisle you’re on.
froufrou – agreed. But, but …that’s not socialism!!! Wahhhh!
NO, It is government supporting the privatization of profit and the socialization of debt. CEOs win when everything is smooth and we get screwed when it’s not. This is a play for play repeat of the S&L crisis and the bad actors who caused that mess were the same characters who caused the credit crisis and who wrote the bailout bill. It’s much worse than socialism. It’s Corporate Piracy as a Political System. VooDoo Econmics.
Might I remind everyone the need for the bailout came from the government sticking it’s face into economics (where it shouldn’t be in the first place!). Clinton started this by enforcing subprime loans. Companies were given incentives to approve loans that would NEVER be approved otherwise, just so poor joe schmoe can buy a house he can’t afford. Joe Schmoe defaults on the loan, company is stuck with the bill. That happens a couple thousand times and yeah, that company would lose a ton of money.
I’m not saying the CEOs didn’t screw up, and I’m not saying the bailout was a great idea…but these are the results of politicians sticking their noses where they shouldn’t. Get politics/government out of our economy and let it be a true free-market and good things will happen.
Most of the subprime loans–the vast majority, in fact–were issued by lenders that aren’t at all subject to the regulations you’re complaining about. They did it for no other reason than that they’d make a LOT of short-term money off those loans.
Banks run by smart folks that never got into this mess are, by and large, doing fine.
My bad. I’m not saying the company isn’t at fault here. They should be completely responsible for what they did. The bailout is ridiculous in my opinion.
And yes most banks are doing fine. But take a look at the housing market. Foreclosures are increasing more and more thanks to people who cannot pay for the house they wanted (but of course they were still approved!).
The foreclosures are not the problem. The problem is that mortgages were being repackaged and resold over and over again in a crazy pyramid scheme. Therefore, any slight increase in foreclosure rates, that once would have only affected the lending bank, now affects everyone far worse than it should, as the crazy pyramid comes toppling down.
Why did they create those crazy systems? Do I smell bad mortgage loans no one wanted to back??
Wrong.
This all started with Reagan-omics. Stopping goods and services as exports from this country and trading them in for moving money around and hyper-inflated economic products has finally come home to roost.
During the Clinton years (with higher taxes I might ad) this country was deficit free and had a tax surplus. The dollar was the cornerstone of the world economy. Now, the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar… that’s just shameful.
If you watch wall-street right now, this is not due to the collapse of the banking market… it’s a fire sale. All the rat bastards that have gotten fat off of these fake economic products are stuffing as much cash into their pockets as they can as the wind finally begins to change direction.
I am ashamed of my countrymen… ashamed of those of you who have fallen for this stupid trick… ashamed of the 75 IQ majority that makes up this country.
They are easy to spot… just look at the red states.
The bailout was the only solution to a problem caused by completely unregulated capitalism, flirting with socialism was the only way to avoid disaster. I guess that’s what you’d call “market correction”
Pure capitalism is just as much woolly headed naive idealism as true communism, completely unworkable.
It’s idealism in that the government would never let it happen. Until the government removes itself pure capitalism will not exist
People had pure capitalism when we were living in mud huts. Was no so great, acshully.
Ya pure dog eat dog was not so good for society on the whole.
when have we EVER had pure capitalism…WE haven’t. EVER. It is idealism in that it has never existed!
No we had it before we had government. Nothing but supply and demand with physical survival on the line.
We had pure socialism, that is exactly what tribalism is. Of course there was incredible interference in the lives of the individual and there were very strick moral codes and codes of behavior. Kind of like living in a small town now where everyone was in your business. Everyone took care of eveyone else as long as you followed the rules, and there was a price to pay for it.
You still are a couple years ahead of my example. It was a pure capitalism where if you couldn’t afford something with trade, you didn’t get it without stealing. Period. Bob the spear maker can’t afford to give away free spears, he needs something in return. So he didn’t put out without getting in return.
It is why prostitution is the oldest business. Supply and demand. Needs vs wants. Guy needs ass had shelter, woman needs shelter has ass, woman gives ass for shelter. Both get something.
I’m from a small town originally, and I’m pretty sure I’d remember if it had been like that. I am CERTAIN that small town high school wasn’t like that.
First, capitalism and the free market are two different things.
Capitalism is the theory of capital, encompassing the idea of lending capital for profit. One could have a free market without capitalism,
as they do in countries where religious law forbids usury. One could also theoretically have capitalism without a free market.
–
You are ignoring the fact that originally, everyone could make everything in the cultural kit. Everybody knew how to make every single item that anyone knew how to make, and it was like that for hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn’t pure capitalism, read some cultural anthropology books, like ‘The continuum Concept.’
–
‘Obama’ is right, the default state of humanity, as far as we can tell, was pure socialism.
Neither is living mud huts under communism or socialism
Pretty sure “trickle down” equates to Feudalism in the long haul. Except that the corporatists no longer feel any responsibility for their serfs and vassals.
Except that these serfs are completely allowed to start their own businesses, create their own fortunes anytime they want. They can go to college to get an education and work for their own fortunes which they can pass on to their own children (of course my increase in the death tax will pretty much put a stop to that!)
That’s the point really. College is becoming less and less accessible. With no credit available they won’t even get student loans, let alone other aid. Poor school districts also don’t have the same college preparatory capacity as better funded schools. Also, being “allowed to” start a business doesn’t give anyone startup capital. If you’ve never been poor, it’s hard to see it from the lower perspective. A lot of people fail to understand that it isn’t just as easy as that.
I’d like to “create my own fortune.” *POOF* Darn. Guess my last point still stands.
Didn’t work for me either. :/
I went to college, couldn’t afford the materials for projects and couldn’t get a job in the 9/11 economy. I also lost over 40 pounds that I didn’t have to lose and nearly developed anorexia involuntarily. Oh yea, and I still get to pay off the loans for the college I couldn’t complete because of the jobs I couldn’t get.
Glad that trickle down worked so well for me.
Hey, sounds a lot like me. I’m a little older so I got laid off in the 9/11 economy. My college education has done almost nothing for me in the job department since. The one job where I had hope of moving up outsourced me to Canada. But we’re just whiners to the supposedly not elitist Right.
Yep, so nice to be marginalized…
I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again.
They piss on my leg and call it “trickle down economics”.
I could piss down your leg and call it… Something else?
The countries with the greatest reported levels of happiness are all socialist. Most socialist countries have been hit far less by our out of control capitalism then have capitalist countries. Socialism is doing fine.
Ignorance is bliss.
Actually, Canada is a lot more socialized than America and we’re doin pretty good right now.
LOGIC WIN!
Aren’t you embarrassed to be associated with guys like him?
Just so ya know, Mr. Matt, I’m neither liberal nor conversative.
Whether or not any type of buy out is a one time shot or not is irrelevant because I’m sure you can grasp the notion that if a buy out is done this time, it will be done again if needed, and again if needed. Perhaps it is you who have been brainwashed. No? What is social security? What is a national healthcare plan? What is unemployment aid? Not 100% capitolism, that’s for sure.
It helps to know what you’re talking about before calling people names, although, you calling me three of them in a row gave me a nice little chuckle.
Have a lovely day!
Good. We need more socialism for the average guy and less for big business. I hope that Obama gives us more socialism.
Can someone explain to me what the heck is so wrong with socialism anyway?
PM, the main gripe (and worthy one) about socialism is that the government has more control of our lives. The fear is that more and more rights will be stripped away due to the abuses of power/greed/corruption…that whole lot. It will eventually (supposedly) lead to communism where the government has total control. On one side, there are people desperately trying to not go in this direction because we can be self sufficient. On the other side, there are people that would love to have the government take care of them. That’s my take on it. I could be wrong.
I would think having a proper democratic system in place should dispel fears of the government stripping away rights through abuses of power/greed/corruption. It almost seems like socialism has been given a bad wrap through fear mongering. In my view, it’s a more realistic danger for a government to control its citizens though fear than this improbability of becoming a policed state because of instituting socialist practices.
I submit that my rights have been in more imminent danger under this nominally “democratic” and “capitalist” system I currently live in than they ever would be under a nice, safe, Northern European regulated capitalist system.
In this context, it’s called “redistribution of wealth”, code for taking money you have earned and giving it to people who haven’t earned it for themselves, whether individuals, businesses, or government programs. In the one reliable study I have found, Obie’s “tax break” would amount to about 0.2% more in the average taxpayer’s pocket–but will be vastly offset by other tax increases.
In every transaction, both participants have a minimum and maximum they will pay. A small class of wealthy players control the economy and ensure that you pay the maximum you will accept. That is redistribution of wealth. That is class warfare. The rich have been doing it to us for all of history. We have found ONE THING capable of stopping them, and it’s not the free market, it’s democracy.
Then move to Russia and enjoy the socialism there and quit whining about wanting it here !
I love the country I live in. I’m a real patriot. I would never leave, especially not to live in a dictatorship like Russia, which was socialist for all of about two years right at the beginning. Fortunately, I live in a democracy and can vote for socialism every chance I get. We need democratic control of the means of production. Just because some rich ass made up the rules, and the rules say that rich asses get to own everything and profit from our hard work does not mean that is the way things should be.
Tell ya what, let’s put it to a vote next month and see who feels like moving after that.
If Obama wins, I suspect a lot more jobs are going to be shifted overseas by businesses that do not want to pay more taxes. Clinton tried passing laws to block them when he took over. I hope it doesn’t happen, but suspect it will.
Maybe these companies will.
And people wonder why I support the reintroduction of tariffs…
Agreed. Move your business overseas, pay a tariff on anything sold within the US.
I love America. Removing upward mobility and making “the American Dream” unavailable except to only a few goes against all that she stands for.
(Clearly you’ve never seen hardship.) As I’ve said before, Someone making $10 million per year, still has $5 MILLION left even if he was to pay 50% tax. Not so for the guy making $40K Or is % mil not enough for you? I could live in ease for the rest of my life on that.
It’s comments like these that make me think people really don’t understand what socialism is.
It’s not “redistribution of wealth”, it’s “The wealthy repaying, with interest, the welfare they effectively received by using a greater percentage of the commons to generate their wealth”. Seriously, get with the program.
Duh, they didn’t get money from poor people. They obvious were just born with it or mined for it themselves with their ancestral pickaxe.
Nothing to do with poor people at all. XD
Denial is more than just a river…
wow…you are the reason this country has the horrible reputation that we do.
grow up…oh and…it’s fairly easy to get into china these days-i feel that you’d prob do better there. good luck in life dude.
Maybe there should be a write in campaign for Matt 0_o
I’m sure he’d get a few votes from regulars on this site. (you know who…)
Yeah, and I’m not real wild about that, either. That said, I’m not sure it could be avoided since Obama, his economic advisor Raines, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Jamie Gorrelic, and a host of other Demo-gogues did their best to ensure those loans were made.
Me, childless, paying taxes so your kid can go to school is also a kind of socialism. So STFU. Enough with the socialism and Marxism and communism crap. If you don’t know what it means, then again, STFU and look it up.
(I realize we’re on the same side of this, but you give me an opening)
And I, childless, am glad to pay for your kids to go to school. In the future, the economy will be stronger for having a well educated workforce. I will have a better chance of getting rich, because more people around me will have money they can spend on any business I start, or even just to spend at the restaurant I manage. Plus, they’ll be paying into Social Security when I retire, and I sure hope they all have good jobs!
I absolutely agree. I own a profitable and successful small business. I take a salary and pay into SS and Medicare because that is the right thing to do. My in laws are both retired – worked 35 years. I am happy to be able to pay into a system so they can have money coming out. I also agree that educated children are worth every penny I pay into school taxes. It’s an investment.
Better socialist than broke
socialist = broke…
Right now = broke for a lot of people.
Explain…if you think that’s the result, then go on and give me a step by step process of a person living in a socialist society slowly going broke…
It’s easy, no more wealth being produced, wealthy people being taxed out of existance, no more investment in the economy, no more new businesses with jobs and goods and services. Just growing government, taking all your spare change, restricting all your freedoms. No jobs, no stuff to buy, food becoming scarce, food lines, government revenues begin to decrease, public programs begin to fail… Shall I go on?
Crap. Ur spewin it rite.
Right, that’s what it will be like, crap.
Dude, you lose. Your logic is FAIL. You do not pass go, you do not collect $200, and no, you may not use a lifeline.
Don’t be stupid.
.
Redistribution of wealth is economics. Socialism is when the gov’t owns all of the critical industries.
.
Buying stuff at the store redistributes your wealth to the store. Sending troops to Iraq redistributes your wealth (via taxes) to defense contractors. Building an interstate highway system redistributes your wealth (via taxes again) to construction workers.
.
Redistribution of wealth is a GOOD THING. That’s what makes the economy go. Remember how they say “consumer spending is down” and that’s Really, Really Bad?
.
The question is: Once some of your wealth is taken by the IRS, what did you get for it?
.
If you get good roads and good schools and clean power, you should be happy. Those things benefit you and create jobs.
.
If you get dead soldiers and record high gas prices and federal protection for companies that help your gov’t violate your privacy, well, maybe you should be upset, and you should think twice about supporting the next candidate brought by that political party.
.
Your wealth gets redistributed all the time. Just be glad this particular President (Elect) is willing to tell you flat-out what it is that’s happening to you, rather than couching it in niceties so you won’t get offended.
YOU GUYS DO KNOW THAT OBAMMA NEVER ACTUALLY WON THE ELECTION TO SENATE RIGHT? HE WAS ACTUALLY LOSING BY 90% UNTIL RYANS AFFAIR CAME TO LIGHT. SO HELL. EVEN THE PEOPLE DIDNT VOTE FOR HIM THEN. SO TELL ME WHY WE CARE NOW?
*takes chris’s keyboard, pries off the caps lock key, and smashes it with a hammer*
*pats herb on back, smiling…*
(while still nodding at Siava…)
You do realise that GWB never actually got elected, yet you Americans have let him single-handedly pull the world apart for the last 8 years?
Jackass.
He actually did get elected most certainly in 2004. He even (barely) got the popular vote as I recall.
Maybe not. Ohio was never really cleared up definitively.
And won’t be this year thanks to ACORN
Number of Democrats arrested for vote fraud so far this year: 0
Number of Republicans arrested for vote fraud so far this year: 1
Ha ha!
so far…Expect a lot of Dems arrested this year- this scandals only started
Nope, because there isn’t any scandal with ACORN. Only with you guys. Yet again.
Have you read the news lately ? The Acorn scandal is big !
McCain and the Republicans have supported ACORN, been to their fundraisers and given them money. Only now, as a last ditch effort, have they trotted out their ridiculous accusations. And they only do it so they can claim parity when we try to call them on their actual vote tampering. Seriously, if ACORN were such a big deal, why have no ACORN staffers been arrested while one of yours has?
That’s ridiculous…you can’t just say “so far” and assume that’s the case. You’re running purely on assumption. In any case, ACORN checks the forms to look for abnormalities, marks them as falsified, and they never get counted. So obviously, ACORN is doing it’s own part in preventing fraud…
Not surprisingly, the first two pages on the google search for “acorn fraud” STILL only yield right wing blogs. My personal favorite headline was “More ACORN Vote Fraud Attempts : Stop The ACLU”
Anyone interested in the actual AP news story can click my link. It basically says that this is all hyped up and gimmicky on the part of Republicans who are afraid to lose. Sorry, Donald Duck won’t be allowed a vote (fraudulent or otherwise) on election day.
Instead, search “ACORN voter registration fraud”. Here ya go:
Felony charges filed against 7 in state’s biggest case of voter-registration fraud
By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter
King and Pierce County prosecutors filed felony charges today against seven people who allegedly committed the biggest voter-registration fraud in state history.
h t t p://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003806904_webvotefraud26m.html
Nope, still mostly right wing blogs. Also, spamming registrations, whether fabricated by a handful of dishonest employees or by a bunch of wingnuts registering as mickey mouse, does not translate into extra votes on election day. They don’t just let anyone walk in and vote. Also, there are methods This whole thing is being blown ridiculously out of proportion as a gimmick by the right wing.
Republicans have a history of voter suppression through caging, registration purging, etc. Above is one link. I have others.
You tool. There’s no “there” there. No fraud, except that ACORN was victimized by signature gatherers who either intentionally tried to make them look bad, or just wanted to pad their paycheck. As a matter of fact, the lawyer firing scandal that cost Gonzalez his job is connected back to this: some of the republican prosecutors who were fired lost their jobs because they wouldn’t prosecute ACORN. So please, stop embarrassing yourself by bringing this up.
DERP
ESL?
I don’t know…tell me, why do you care…
My hubby works for a small business, which makes well over that amount because it employes about 10 people (think about how much it costs to give a living wage to that many). His boss says that with the Obama tax increase, he’ll lose 30 k a year. That means he will have to fire one of the employees. THAT is what the complaint is about. Not an individual making that much money, but an individual who owns a company…the company’s revenue counts when it is individually owned toward that one person’s taxes thereby lower the highering or buying power of the business. Yes, 95% of small businesses make less than that because all home based Mary Kay, Avon, ect count in that number as well, but they don’t higher workers.
But don’t the wages go AGAINST the tax payable? Do you know just pay tax on your PROFITS???
The tax rate isn’t going against the company’s gross profits, but the net. To make that $250K mark, one would have be bringing in closer to a half-million a year.
Isn’t it amazing that people don’t know the difference between gross and net?
It saddens my moderate heart…
In bed.
I think this was a made up story as it sounds suspiciously like JTP’s fake story to Obama. If it’s not, we’ve now explained net vs. gross. What I want to know is, what’s involved with “Highering” employees? Is it anything like hiring? If not, it’s way more interesting post than we originally thought. I could go for some “highering” but I didn’t bring any beer or anything.
I would rather erect.
fair enough, but that’s not what she was offering.
That’s called teasing. It makes me a sad panda.
Do your initials stand for “football club”?
Or “furious commentator”?
Or “follicly challenged?
hmmm……
eeek! I left out the last speech mark!
Knowledge of Econ 101 FAIL. It is a disincentive to expansion and investment, which is where jobs come from in the first place.
So clearly what you’re saying is that the only solution is to cut all taxes to zero! That will fix all our problems!
How many employees will he have to fire if the McCain Healthcare Benefit Taxes go through? McCain proposes raising taxes on EVERY PERSON who gets a health benefit at work. THAT’S ME! McCain is adjust it into the income taxes. In other words, if you work hard and are taking care of yourself and making sure you are insured through participation in a work related health benefit program, your taxes are going up. Those Mary Kay and Avon workers you are talking about…They buy into a work-related health benefit plan, THEIR taxes will go up, under McCain.
Treesalt, there is a huge difference between capital gains and income. Yes, the business where your husband works may gross more than 250k per year, but that money does not go to a single individual as “income”. If the company only employs ten people who get paid 30k per year when the boss has a personal income of 250k per year, then his employees have a right to be upset. There’s your real class warfare…
Your husband’s boss is trying to scare his employees into voting for the rich minority.
Actually, you only lose money if you’re netting 250,000 a year. Your increased tax liability won’t be anywhere near 30k, if you make close to 250k. If you’re making so much (net) that your increased liability is 30k, then shame on you for firing someone instead of taking the hit yourself.
But but… I got nothing.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society where labor is the main source of wealth. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage BETWEEN capitalism and communism.
{taken from wikipedia}
Do we work 40 hours a week or more in order to share with those who do not, or will not work? Don’t be fooled into believing this “new” idea of redistribution will not affect you in your personal life. It always begins with such a small percentage of tax payers having their hard work given to those who have not….but this is a trickle down effect…which once implemented, ends up incorporating ALL tax payers. Read up on the history of Socialism, see how it starts innocently for those who think they will be getting something for nothing, and ends up picking your pockets clean.
Hey look everybody! It’s the LAST STRAW! Look at em grabbin at it!
Dolt. It’s true. We live under socialism, thanks to the Democrats, and they want to expand it further, especially Obama.
anyway, Obama’s plan probably won’t come to fruition. The president DOES NOT HAVE the constitutional right to levy taxes. That is only on Congress. Obama’s plan can only happen if Congress wants it. Since Obama is a party guy who votes almost only with his party, then he will vote for whatever plan they come up with. That will likely be a reduction on all tax cuts that Bush signed.
I wish we lived under socialism. Socialism works better. We live in a plutocracy, government by and for the wealthy. Under socialism, we the people control the means of production. Under the free market, a small group of sociopaths controls the means of production. We built the means of production in the first place, why do they get to control them, just because the rules of the game they made up says they do?
–
I love socialism and wish we had real socialism here, but Obama is no socialist, he’s mainstream, completely middle of the road.
Again, there are airplanes leaving for Russia everyday from the US– catch one !
Russia is not and never has been socialism. I like democracy. Under a democracy, I get a vote. I vote for socialism for the little guy, instead of redistributing wealth to the rich.
You just said you liked socialism ! I put you in the same list with baldwin and his ex. Leave the country, please.
Nope, I’m staying. If I run out of TP, maybe I can borrow your list? It’s my country too, and socialism is pro American because it is pro democracy. The free market supports tyranny, and is anti-Amercan. I prefer one man one vote, not one dollar one vote. Maybe you should leave, it sounds like you hate America and Democracy and wished you lived in a dictatorship.
Hey, idiot, America is a REPUBLIC! NOT A DEMOCRACY! The founding fathers knew that DEMOCRACY IS A BAD IDEA! MOB RULE IS CHAOS! That is why we have a republic, to prevent mob rule. So go to hell. My stuff is not yours stuff. Stay off of my property, and the the hell out of my stuff. bunch of damn hippies want to share everything, but they are too damn lazy to work for it.
It’s a democratic republic, actually. But I’m glad we’ve got you on record as hating democracy. Perhaps Russia would suit you better?
No. You’re the socialist. Not me. I support FREEDOM. Democracy is not freedom. If 51% thinks the other 49% should die, then Democracy says that those 49% have to die. So, GTFO of America, you commie SOB.
Democracy is not freedom? Wow, quite a corner you’ve backed yourself into there. And the foaming-at-the-mouth rage is really quite entertaining. Please, continue!
I hope you have had your shots…
And what percentage of the country voted for George Dubbya?
No one is going to take your stuff. We aren’t talking about communism. Peple own private property under socialism. But your point it moot anyway, I was merely using the common shorthand we all use. We live in a democratic republic, yes, we all know that.
My income IS MY PROPERTY! And the government is using extortion tot take it from people. We do not need income taxes, and we need to get rid of 7% of government programs and departments since they would be best suited letting the states run things like the Constitution says they should or allowing private organizations to do so… again, like the Constitution says. But socialists don’t really care what the Constitution says. They’ll just give bread and circuses to the masses who will support them. Socialism is slavery, folks.
You do not have absolute rights to your property, as you have contracted with us to protect it, there are conditions on that protection. If you don’t like the conditions, you are free to leave and protect your property yourself. Good luck with that.
–
Socialism is freedom, as every person has an equal say in what gets produced. Capitalism is slavery, as those who do not own the means of production must slave at whatever wages the owning class deigns to grant them.
–
A ‘free market’ in labor is a joke, because everyone must eat, and so they aren’t free to just take or leave a job. Those with money have all the power, and that is tyranny. That is slavery. Not socialism.
Seth, you’re really not that naive, are you ?
“Socialism is freedom, as every person has an equal say in what gets produced. ” — That is total bullshit!! The government will tell you what gets produced, you won’t have any say once the government takes over. The government will become the “evil rich corporation” you rail against. You will just exchange one tyranny for another.
And thats why I’m an anarchist, no government can tell you what to do, majority and democracy rules.
Right now how it is the poor do work really hard, none of this “their giving my money to people who don’t earn it” bull. Its just that their jobs do not pay as much as yours.
Reply to the person calling themselves Obama:
That is why attempts at socialism fail, because people are corrupt. But such things are not socialism any more.
As it is, I find that any government owned things are more justly run that privately owned things. Public transport, education and utilities (electricity, gas, water) are all better run by government because they aren’t trying to run it at a profit, they are trying to provide a service.
Running things at a profit is superior because you have competition, you have to provide the best to make the most money and keep your customers which is the goal. Government would have no such incentive, it would provide the most mediocre service possible if it provided anything at all. Not to mention, government is just a business run by people, the same who run businesses and are capable of being corrupt especially now that any hint of religion has been driven out.
What do you mean, “especially now that any hint of religion has been driven out.” How does religion change things in this matter?
And you don’t have to provide the best to to make money, because you can just provide the cheapest instead. It is a matter of balancing product and price, and many companies will to sacrifice the product to get a better price.
Governments have a different balance, between product and people. They will sacrifice as much of the product as possible that doesn’t lose support of the people.
Lol at the concept of religion preventing corruption in the govt. That’s a fail on so many levels!
So you gladly drive on public roads, use the money that gains it’s value from our public institutions, use the protection of our fire departments, police departments, and military, send your kids to our schools, drink our water that is only clean when it’s governed by strong clean water legislation, ditto for your food and medicine, and then scream “get off my property!” when we suggest you should pay your fair share. Selfish, unpatriotic, self righteous…
I say we stick him out in the woods and stop using our infrastructure. I am tired of paying for his idiocy.
Applause…
Get offa his lawn! XD
You right wing ideologues all think you own patriotism. You love the flag, but hate the people who live under it.
Self righteous pig.
Now you see the violence inherant in the system !
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Socialism NEVER WORKS! It is inefficient, but of course idiotic people don’t realize that. They point to Canada and Europes, which are perfect examples of what I am talking about. They are inefficient and really don’t suit the needs of the people. Free markets work! Unfortunately, we’ve never had a truly free market system because some corporations get protection from the government or the government takes over an industry and regulates it to death. If you love socialism, GTFO of America, because I will fight to defend freedom from socialist tyrants. Socialism = tyranny.
Could you please refrain from calling people with other viewpoints names? Thank you. Also, free markets don’t work as perfectly as you obviously seem to think. Wanna know why? Because companies form cartels. Secretly and sneakily to keep prices higher than they could/should be.
I’ve experienced this first hand. I can tell you stories about when my company started to be a decent player on the market. Big companies are greedy. It’s a fact of life.
No, I’ll call them as I see them. People who support socialism are either idiots or they are tyrants, because the tyrants engineer it. Idiots support it. BTW, Cartels are not free market, so you fail in your logic.
Free markets support tyranny and destroy freedom, as there are no checks and balances to keep the rich from using their riches to unfairly accumulate more and more money. Democracy and socialism support freedom. Socialism means we all control our resources, rather than letting the most sociopathic control our resources. It’s obvious who’s side you are on.
–
Free markets demonstrably always create cartels. Look at history, look at the lassez faire system. It always happens. Marx may not have gotten much right, but he did see the fundamental weakness of capitalism.
Cartels were formed because government was involved in the process. It also means that people allowed those cartels to form. You are grossly ignorant of history and government functioning, sir. Yes, there are some things the government is needed for, but regulating industry is not one of them. Government is inefficient. It’s been proven time and time again. They also keep progress from happening. How many of you are still lamenting the loss of the black smith, the milk man, and the guy who brought ice to your homes? The market found something better and more efficient, but socialists would rather go back to inefficiency.
You’re contradicting yourself. You say ‘peaple allowed the cartels to form’, implying that the government should have made laws against that. Yet you say government shouldn’t regulate the industry. Make up your damn mind.
Also, cartel laws demonstrably don’t work.
OMG ‘peaple’ ??!?!?! *lays off the KoolAid*
Free markets *cause* cartels. They shouldn’t, according to the ideology behind the free market idea, but they do. Because big companies are greedy. So that would be a failure to read/understand my comment on your part. I was merely suggesting that you refrain from name-calling so people would take you more seriously. Oh well.
I’m curious, though, you said above that socialism doesn’t work in Europe. Care to explain/elaborate? Have you lived in Europe?
I’ve read a lot of reports and talked to a lot of people in Europe. Their socialism does not work. Health care workers are grossly underpaid and overworked. It takes too much time to get things done. Despite that workers are required to pay into the system, there are movements to keep people who live unhealthy lifestyles–smokers and obese people–from getting medical care despite the fact they are paying in. Plus there are even more people on welfare. Also, a college education is required for many jobs, even to the point of having a master’s degree, though that education will not give them anything more than the equivilent of $8/hr jobs.
Untrue, except for the bureaucracy.
I’ve lived in Europe for years and my company has branches in a couple of European countries. I have no idea who you might have talked to to get such a skewed image.
*sits back and waits for the inevitable ‘why don’t you go back there if you like it there so much’ and sighs*
We’ve had foreign exchange students live with us from European countries and they have all said our country is way better. Of course, they’re the ones that wanted to come over here, but some of their stories are interesting.
One of them from Belgium said taxes are so high that most people barter just to avoid sales taxes and property taxes. His dad is a mechanic and receives payment in everything except cash.
That is… interesting. I agree with your statement that those are the ones who wanted to come over here anyway, and add to that the fact that it’s pretty rude to go around exclaiming, ‘oh my gawd this sucks! we have it so much better back in *insert European country here*’.
However, doing business in those countries, I have to disagree with both the tax thing and the underlying motive for bartering. Especially Dutch and Belgian folks have the tendency to barter. They’re stingy. Stone me if you
want, but they are. Also, I’m assuming that you meant ‘money’ as opposed to ‘cash’, because there is a quite lively moonlighting scene in both countries (professionals who work for you and get paid under the table in cash). Again, the tax rates are reasonable (IMHO, and I do pay taxes there) but I have encountered more than one greedy person. Far be it from me to generalize, but the common image of America in especially young European eyes is of a country where everything is possible and anyone can get rich. That might be a factor as well. Other than that, I’m drawing blanks
But not in bed…
Definitely not in bed
*smooch*
” but the common image of America in especially young European eyes is of a country where everything is possible and anyone can get rich” — It is now, but I will change all that soon!!
Yay! *hugs*
@ Obama:
Tell Bidey I love him.
I will honey! He sends his love – you just send cash!
No, no. I shall pay him with my body. He knows that.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!! Don’t kill him now honey! I need him for a few more years…
Hee. I won’t. He’s a tiger in the sack
Ok, but remember he will need to keep some blood flow to the brain… Oh, well maybe not, have at it!!
Health care workers are underpaid? Well they can’t afford seven homes ut I promise you they get by okay.
Tell that to the RN, or better yet, Medical assistant, who is trying to raise 3 kids on a single income.
Insurance companies are overpaid, but ground level healthcare workers aren’t Even family practitioners make significantly less than specialists, yet have the heaviest case load. It is why we are now beginning to face a shortage of family doctors. Everybody want’s to specialize because they’ll make more money.
Ya, our girlfriend is a MA, she isn’t rolling in any kind of money but she gets sick a lot…
Medical assistant is pretty low on the health care totem pole. Just above nuring care assistant, which is barely an above-minimum-wage job. The amount of schooling necessary for MA is not really all that much, hence the pay is not exactly top notch, either.
Better than flipping burgers, though, eh?
Better than burger flipping, yes. Still doesn’t invalidate argument about healthcare workers being underpaid.
Sorta, it does. You’re picking a relatively low skilled position which requires very little schooling and saying that the pay is not good. Well, of course not…low skilled jobs that don’t require a lot of schooling are not going to pay well. Sorry
And yet still affects the overall quality of health care we get when we go to the doctor. I’m not saying MA’s should be paid the same as doctors. The whole discussion was that health care workers are underpaid. We also need to make sure family doctors have a worthwhile incentive to go into or stay in family practice/internal medicine. We are already beginning to face a shortage.
Part of what determines what a job is paid is the value of the service that the job provides, yes. However, when you have a job that is low skilled and has little education requirements, it means that more people are capable of doing it, so that is going to drive wages down. Simple economics.
Secondly, have you ever worked healthcare? The amount of regulation is stifling. The malpractice insurance that doctors have to buy eats up a huge proportion of the money they make. Nurses spend as much time or more filling out paperwork as they do seeing patients.
It’s not the pay, it’s the work environment, that causes shortages.
I have worked in healthcare, for a dentist. We weren’t talking about shortages. originally. The RN’s aren’t necessarily shorthanded everywhere necessarily, but that doesn’t mean they can feed their families. Also, pay isn’t necessarily commensurate with the things they have to do every day. Truck drivers don’t have a high education requirement, but still get paid higher than many healthcare workers. It’s not ALWAYS about economics. And yes, I know there are more factors going into what a truck driver gets paid.
Tell me how exactly Europe doesn’t really suit the needs of the people when they consistently rate much higher than the US in terms of education, health care, and happiness? Take your time. Try not to lie when you respond.
The facts have a well known liberal bias.
Read Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”, then get back to me on the beauties of a free market. A market without regulation is like a dog without a leash. Sooner or later he’s going to crap on your lawn, dig up your flowers, and kill your cat.
And rape your relatives.
You can’t sell a bandaid without enough regulation to fill 10 copies of The JUngle. The problem is NOT too little regulation.
It most demonstrably is. You can claim black is white all you like, but no one is buying it anymore. You guys have lost your authority, America does not trust your ideas any longer. Sorry, but you did it to yourselves by failing so badly.
Ok, so demonstrate it.
All this mess happened with quite a bit of government oversight already in place. All the regulation in the world is not going to solve anything if the regulations are retarded.
This started when the regulations were peeled away a bit at t a time.
And all the deregulation in the world won’t solve anything if cartels of rich players can use their wealth to subvert free market mechanisms. Which has been amply demonstrated, in my mind and the minds of most American, by this most recent economic crisis.
First of all, “most Americans” have no idea how the economy really works. Sad, but true.
Second, all this mortgage crisis was started by forcing banks to lend to people who had no business borrowing money. Over regulation caused the housing problems, not under regulation.
Nope, The federal govenment (under Bush) encouraged Fannie/freddie to make more loans, but it was the lack of oversight that they allowed to go with it that caused the problem.
Canada has the lowest debt of any G8 country, and we’re doing perfectly fine thank you very much. Hows the debt going? And that little stock market crash you had?
Canada has the lowest debt of any G8 country, and we’re doing perfectly fine thank you very much. Hows the debt going? And that little stock market crash you had?
You also have one of the worst health care systems. And you don’t have to provide for your own defense…a token military that gets to tag along when your big brother to the south goes to war is not all that expensive and lets you spend money on other stuff, or not at all, as you see fit.
The same goes for much of Europe…if Europe had been forced to pay for their own defense against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, I think things today would be quite a bit different, eh?
The US spends billions on our military, so Europe (and Canada, which is practically Europe) don’t have to. I’d love to see us slash our defense budget and make you guys shoulder the burden yourself.
That’s rubbish. The only country that 100% relied on the US for it defence is Iceland. All others in West Europe would have been just fine without you, as evidenced by neutral Switzerland.
.
I see lower defence budgets as a good thing, for all countries.
Damn, you’re an idiot. Who said 100%? I said that Canada has a token military. Europe, as well. But the Soviet Union was not dissuaded from invading Europe by the German, Belgian, Dutch, Austrian, Italian, French, Spanish, or Luxembourger Armies…it was the presence of the US military that did it. Even Switzerland benefited by being surrounded by NATO (which really means \US military).
Sure, lower defense budgets are nice…until you need your military. Then you just call America, right?
Bush was winning the War in Afghanistan and the first wave of Iraq with clinton’s streamlined military.
lol, seriously?
“streamlined”?
Yep, Bush was winning the War with the military he inherited. He has since decimated it.
We’re winning the war now.
The military we had, yes, was sufficient to overrun a third world country, but we could probably have beaten Iraqi army with a troop of boyscouts, so that doesn’t prove anything.
Also, at least people in Canada are prioritised for healthcare quality based on how much money they are willing to pay.
Yeah, and if they are willing to pay enough money to come down and get treated in an American hospital, maybe they can actually get care at all.
There are not that many complaints from actual Canadians about the health care there. You should get your information from more sources than right wing blogs.
CBC?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/index.html
Chinks starting to show in the armor of socialized medicine, OH NOES!!!
It’s the same everywhere there is socialized medicine. Hell, just look at Hawaii…their attempt at universal coverage for kids lasted all of 7 months…
How about CBC?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/index.html
Try CBC.
While most Canadians – 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada – are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.
So as long as you don’t actually, ya know, get sick, yeah, it’s great. Soon as you actually NEED the health care, though, you’re in serious trouble…
And we don’t already have these same problems with HMO’s??
WAIT – there is more than one Europe now? Sheesh, turn your back for a minute…
Yeah, I was wondering about the plural. But yet also puzzled about the seeming singularity of all the varied European countries.
yes!!!thank you Matrix!!!!!
If only you could get that message to the general population!!!
Oh, so this “socialism” doesn’t exist already in the US? Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, those are figments of our imagination? You fail egregiously. If Republicans really were against this sort of thing, you don’t think that this “socialism” would have been repealed in the intervening period between FDR and today?
Republicans have not had a large enough majority in Congress to overturn these things. Besides, just like narcotics, it takes people time to get off it.
OMG – did you just imply that Republicans would reverse Medicare and Social Security if they were the majority in Congress? I want to be sure that’s what your saying before I point and laugh at you.
It takes more than a majority to get things done. But not all Republicans are really conservative. Some of them are just as liberal as the Democrats.
A true fiscal conservative would most definitely try to atleast lessen medicare and welfare if given the majority in Congress. Cutting spending and reducing governmental economic influence are the values of a true fiscal conservative. However, republicans these days are hardly fiscally conservative and focus more on religion-powered talking points.
Why would anyone claim that those values are good values? Look at where they’ve gotten us! We’re in a hole so deep we can barely see the sunlight, and to espouse those values would be analogous to trying to dig our way out! By your definition, True Conservatism is a fool’s doctrine.
The hole was not created by conservative values. The hole was created by the government trying to enforce subprime loans for people who should never be approved. Handout. The hole was created by ridiculous federal spending. The values I stated would NEVER have put us in this hole in the first place! It may be digging us out, but atleast we’d get out. It would pay off in the end. With the rate we’re going, we seem to be perfectly happy to live in the freakin hole.
*sigh* You can’t dig your way out of a hole. It’s like that movie quote, though the movie it’s from escapes me: “Dig UP, stupid!”
Besides, government spending is necessary and helpful, when done properly. If the government had spent enough on the levies in New Orleans (and the money hadn’t been stolen by corrupt officials) then Katrina wouldn’t have been such a disaster. If FEMA were properly funded, the response to Katrina wouldn’t have been such a disaster.
It’s good to make sure that wasteful amounts of government spending don’t take place, but this Republican obsession with reducing it to zero is just wrong-headed.
It was an episode of the Simpsons, not a movie.
D’oh!
Chief Wiggum in the episode with the elder cat burglar. Good times.
You’ve gotta supply your own knobs.
So you do agree that those programs (all initiated by Dems) are socialist in nature.
You still haven’t made any case against this brand of “socialism.” Instead you just keep flinging that code-word around like some kind of Black Spot. Why don’t you tell us why you think it’s such a terrible thing to have some socialist elements in our domestic policy?
So are you also suggesting we should do away with those crazy socialist things like Public Safety police, rescue, first responders? Public education? Public ROADS?????!?!?!?!!11
*blush* I really should read further before commenting sometimes. Others covered this already.
You forgot about the SOCIALIST ROAD NETWORK! REAL Americans should be fighting for private roads where those who can afford them travel along carpeted tunnels with chandeliers hanging from the ceiling, the middle classes travel on dilapidated, pot-hole covered death traps and everyone else sits at home unable to get to work or school but happy to live in such a capitalist paradise rather than a COMMIESOCIALISTPINKOSTATE!
The best roads in my state are the ones that are privately maintained. Why is this such a foreign concept? Let frickin’ competition dictate that we get the best of everything for the lowest price already!
It doesn’t always work like that.
I like my little perfect world. Let me live in it
Are you talking about the toll booth state, New Jersy? Cuz I would prefer not to pay tolls and gas to drive.
Yeah, completely unbridled capitalism has worked just great! The market self-regulated and it was absolutely super, then when irresponsible greedy companies went under it was the rich CEOs that couldn’t pay their mortgage and not everyone else!
You are never, ever, ever going to get this idealistic cloud-cuckoo world you want because even on the very friges of the Republican party anyone who is capable enough of getting dressed in the morning knows that an all-private road network would be the most idiotic disaster ever seen in the US.
Same reason that Bush and McCain would never really do anything that would outlaw abortion. They just say the right words to idiots for votes, they know it’s unworkable/
We have never EVER had unbridled capitalism. The markets have been regulated for a LONG time.
But regulation is socialist!! The markets know best, don’t they??
Ya, I need kids to mine my coal and work my factories. I am going to eat sausage and read The Jungle now…
Regulation is not socialist. And the markets do know best, but they don’t get the opportunity to work on their OWN!!!
No, the markets don’t know best, because markets are reactive, not proactive. They can’t plan for, or even think coherently about the future. All they can do is gamble, guess, and reward short term thinking.
–
People know best. People can express their desires through the market, where it is one dollar one vote, or through democracy, where it is one man one vote. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that rich people use their dollars to vote themselves more dollars through the market.
And lower class people vote for the guy who promises to “give them stuff”.
What, like tax cuts? Because that seems to be the Repubs bread and butter, year in and year out. I can imagine how distressing it must feel to have the Dem candidate usurping that ground.
Look, unbridled ANYTHING won’t work. I like capitalism better because I will be giving less of MY hard earned money to the guy down the street who doesn’t give a crap whether he works or not. Call me a cynic, but if I work for it, I want to keep it.
When have Dems ever given ANYONE a tax cut ? Ever?
Taxes are lower on average under the Democrats for every income group except the highest income earners. And even then, taxes are lower for them in every year except an election year (on average).
Averages are taken since Truman here.
Yeah, TAX CUTS…as in, letting people keep more of their own money. Not like Democrat “tax cuts” which just gives more “refunds” to people who don’t pay income tax in the first place.
See the difference?
I pay taxes you dolt… I would like a tax cut for a change instead of some rich jerkoff getting one.
After you get your “refund” every year, how much of your money actually ends up in the treasury?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
How does competition work for roads, exactly? Do you have six or seven companies, all building roads to your house, and you can choose the roads with your desired cost/benefit ratio? No. This is what’s known as a natural monopoly. It is one of the three major failure modes of the free market. The others are imbalance of information, and externalities.
–
You can’t have a free market where the first player in the market automatically dominates it. Duh.
Because companies care about MONEY and not about PEOPLE. I’m all for a privatly maintained world, if only the people could handle it, wich they can’t. Simply because of greed, and maybe more importantly, the monkey sphere. Never heard of it? Click on my name for the, pretty funny, article. I wished there could be a privatised world, where we could do everything for ourselfs. If we ever want that, we should stop setting money on the 1st place.
Let’s not forget police and fire departments. Wouldn’t it be nice if the cops only sought to capture criminals whose victims could afford to pay for justice? Or if firemen only had to risk their lives putting out mansions and the like? Man, that’d be sweet–a utopian paradise without the evil stink of socialism clinging to it.
The point of having government is to protect life, liberty, and property… to punish those who violate the laws through the courts and to enforce contracts. That’s the libertarian principle. Virtually NO libertarian would advocate getting rid of the police or fire department as paid for by tax dollars or to get rid of the military.
And how far would that go? Especially “life”, pretty vague.
The question is, how far do we go to protect life, liberty and property? How much of our resources do we spend on protecting each? What good is an army if your people die of starvation? Shouldn’t we, in order to protect life, ensure that everyone has access to food, water, shelter, and medical care? How do we protect liberty? When a group of owning class people try to game the free market system and remove our economic liberties, what should we do to protect ourselves? Who’s property gets the lion’s share of protection, and who pays forit?
Protection of life. So we should guarantee health care since that is by definition, protecting life.
Well you please just stop tap dancing around in circles and contradicting yourself? I like tap dancing but you aren’t a lovely lady with great legs tap dancing. You’re more like a sad and deranged mutant hamster strung out on crack tap dancing and using your own forehead to make the clicky click noises.
Before you get offended, I am just calling it like I see it.
You expect right wing nut jobs to make sense? Nothing is connected in their heads. Facts exist in isolation from other facts. Nothing they believe can possibly contradict anything else they believe, because all beliefs are separate things. They don’t believe things because those things support and are supported by other things they believe. They believe things because those things are convenient to them.
I do prefer my nut jobs with a side of sense. Makes them all the more quaint.
Just remember, the Matrix wants to control your mind. Defy the Matrix.
Sounds like you know yourself well.
in bed.
“I know you are but what am I?” Really? That seems to be a popular argument amongst right wing nut jobs these days. Do you all go to the same kindergarten?
–
I know capacity for introspection when I see it. There are plenty of people on this board that I disagree with, but respect, because I can see from their reasoning process that they can think for themselves, and aren’t afraid to look at their own behavior. I may not agree with the conclusions they come to, but I respect the process they used to come to those conclusions.
–
Then there are the people who can only parrot back what they’ve heard others say. They can’t think for themselves, and when challenged, can offer up only base insults and stale talking points. Those are the kind of ‘right wing nut jobs’ I’m talking about.
Dickhead Matrix, that’s a flippin’ socialist system that we have RIGHT THERE. Why is this hard for you? And how do you pay for a government is you don’t collect taxes? You don’t brain much, do you?
Like making women pay for rape kits.
Do you mind me asking what you’re on about?
Hold on, we’ve completely forgot about America’s socialist military! Remember Sarah’s dig about her opponents claiming that paying tax was patriotic? You know, those pinko commie scumbags who pay for her son’s body armour?
Maybe it would be better to just have private armies selling their services to the highest bidder, although I’ve a funny feeling these guys extolling the virtues of the free market would throw their toys out the pram if the many small Obama donors and Hollywood’s spending power had a controlling stake in the US Army.
Welfare was done away with under the Clinton Administration. There is no such thing as a Welfare Check anymore. Were you asleep when that happened?
Hahaha, seriously?! Clinton REFORMED welfare, he claimed he would do away with it and (in true bill fashion) just named it something else. Heard of TANF? You get a check for 2 years and at max 5 years. Sounds a lot LIKE welfare to me! He did a good thing for once, but you cannot tell me that welfare does not exist.
Pardon me while I rofl at you.
*rofl*
Whether you like it or not, you know we have to provide for the kids born to the lazy.
There are people/times that are meant to be supported by society-
then there are people who steal it.
The babes are victimized by not being taught better…
Vicious cycle, blah blah blah.
Education is our only hope.
Education may be our only hope. But I, childless, get taxed so that other peoples children get an education. And use the Library. And have garbage pickup, and police, and firemen, etc. Guess what? 100% satisfied with that system.
There will always be crooks and liars.
And I wouldn’t mind paying taxes so you could get health care but we haven’t gotten that far yet.
Even as a fellow childless person, I see the value of investing in the education of other peoples’ kids. When I’m old, those kids are going to be the ones providing goods and services to me. I prefer not to buy goods made by idiots, nor services rendered by idiots, and I’d prefer to buy American, thus it is in my interest to do my part to see that these kids get educated.
Also helps so they won’t mug you later. Education means they will most likely just swindle you instead.
lol… with more and more federal oversight, schools are performing less and less, as well as a higher and higher drop-out rate. Yeah, we’re training a whole new generation of thugs/Democrats. They’ll steal to get by or take money from hard working citizens in the form of welfare. Hey, it’s fair right? Some idiot can sit back and pump babies out to get larger paychecks. Those babies will stay on welfare and produce welfare babies and so on while working individuals have fewer and fewer kids… Eventually it will end up that the working people have to pay 70% or more of their income to pay for the growing population of lazy welfare recipients. HOORAY FOR SOCIALISM!
What a ridiculous slippery slope you’ve constructed there. You assume people are fundamentally bad and lazy. They are not. They only act that way because they see the owning class doing so, and they do not want to be taken advantage of. People have natural motivations outside accumulating wealth. In fact, recent studies have found that most people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest. Which shows the lie that the free market is founded on, and that Friedman helped to proselytize. The ’selfish actor’ theory is dead. People do not need the stick of poverty or the carrot of wealth to be useful, productive citizens. Nearly everyone is born with an innate desire to be a productive citizen. Money actually gets in the way, destroying that intrinsic motivation and replacing it with an extrinsic one.
But you’re essentially saying the same thing by wanting pure socialism. You’re saying that the masses are not smart enough to do for themselves, so therefore the government has to do it for them.
Like I said before, unregulated anything is a bad thing. But gross overregulation to the point of crippling the free market, or gross overregulation to the point of taking people’s money away from them and giving it to others in the form of higher taxes on some and tax credits for others are just as bad.
Why dont’ we cut out the middle man (government), and you just send me the part of your check that is more than mine, and we can all be happy? I don’t trust the government to do the right thing with it anyway, no matter who is in office.
How is deciding collectively to work together for the benefit of all NOT ‘doing it for themselves?’ Democratically elected government is one way of ‘doing it for yourself.’ Why do you think people in socialist countries are generally happy to pay taxes? They get real value for their tax dollar.
–
Working together collectively is always more efficient than competing. If competition were more effective, you would see corporations organized as multiple redundant competing units. That was tried. It failed miserably, people were less motivated to work hard, and innovations were kept secret from other teams.
I agree with you. Working together is always better than competing because there will be a goal of the greater good.
However……
People are people, and people are greedy. The few who don’t want to work together will ruin it for those who do, and then your system collapses.
Both systems are great in a vaccuum, but we don’t live in a vaccuum. You need a mixture of both to make the country work, and a gentle hand on the rudder to steer it. I don’t see either candidate as having that gentle hand, but I see Obama having a more ham-handed oproach of ramming it down my throat than I see with McCain.
It’s my opinion.
Its ok, Matrix doesnt realize that the school system is given a curriculum
by the state. And the superintendent who is elected by the people is the one
who decides HOW that curriculum is taught. But in all honesty, dont get
me started on Education. Its a screwed system that needs some SERIOUS
reworking. And it needs to be fixed NOW, because education is the most
important thing you can every wield in your life.
And if you dont believe me, just look at the folks who make themselves
look like fools on these boards.
I wish we could privatize (I’m sorry, I can’t freaking spell tonight……..too much work
) the school system a little bit more, allow a little bit more competition in there so that they best curriculum could be taught, parents could have more of a choice as to where their kids go to school, and teachers could be paid what they are worth. If it was more privately funded and run like a business instead of being given money from a broke and corrupt system, we might not have the idiots out there who have nothing better to do than throw names around on an internet LOL site.
School reform is needed, or America will no longer compete on the world market, maybe in less than a generation. However,privatization puts money into the mix and then naturally excludes those of the lowest incomes from getting the same quality education as someone who can afford the best schools. It yet again becomes something that must “trickle down”, which we’ve seen doesn’t work. Those that are now disadvantaged will lose the one thing that might get them back in the game.
Thank you, you beat me to it and did one better.
You’re welcome, I try.
Im sorry, but making “competition” for education wont fix the issue.
There are teachers on down the line in my family on a 3 to 1 ratio
for generations. All of my teaching relatives say that what really needs
to be done is make the STUDENTS aware of things. Our education
system is failing because the kids dont want, or feel they dont have to
learn. This is a problem that is instilled in the home. It starts with parents
and it ends with teachers. And guess who gets the blame when it
doesnt work? Teachers. I think this country could do very well to
have a whole new outlook on responsibility. It should be:
Responsibility… have some!
And that goes for everywhere, work, school, eating, driving, having sex,
and ESPECIALLY in government. But then of course… people might
actually have to admit they’ve screwed up.. OH NOES!
If I was gay, you would need to watch your ass. I’ve been thinking that for years in a lot of things.
No,, but if you LEARN things you’ll be an elitist! We value being average!!
What a wonderful turn-of-phrase, DWN.
–
There’s a big push towards privatizing the school system. “Just look at the academic ratings of these private schools as compared to underfunded public schools.” Public schools are hamstrung into teaching to the test; otherwise they lose funding thanks to No Child Left Behind. Adept students are given scholarships and vouchers to attend private schools, while the chaff works on studying for the test. Schools that lose too much money close, and those students are wedged into other schools. Ever try to teach a class of thirty-five angry, angsty teenagers with authority issues? The average kindergarten class here is thirty(!) five-year-olds. Often times teachers can only watch as the school scores plummet and their funding dries up.
The first response most faculty hear when parents find out about their failing kids? “Why aren’t you doing your job?”
Here is a spoon, dig me a ditch. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CAN’T!!!!?
That was my shift key btw, not my caps lock. And thank you, I get creative when I get mad.
I don’t get it . _.
Stoopids! You all missed the point (but that’s liberalism for ya).
Now I’ll have to sic the media on you, investigate and smear you, accuse you of being a plant and then destroy you for daring to make me look bad !
Destroy the Infidel !
Ladies and gentleman! I bring you…ignorance at it’s finest! Cultivated and polished through hatred of those that believe differently, and brought to you in form of a killer rabbit! We will start the bidding tonight at $10!! Do I hear ten??
Depends. Does this rabbit actually kill things?
Just the fun you have in any future lol you read. Is that a bid, fair lady?
$15
And outbid by DWM!! $15! Do I hear a 20?? 15 going once…
Going Twice!! Come now people, we can’t let this rabbit go for just $15!!
*shrugs* SOLD!!! To DWN for $15! Tell me kind sir, what do you intend to do with your winnings??
Continuing on with a worn out joke fail.
lol, I can’t help it…I had to finish even if I irritated people in the process…
I plan to take up hunting people. The bunny will be my tracker. It will be glorious. XD
Make sure you don’t go anywhere near someone with a holy hand greande. Does a number on vorpal bunny.
I will keep that in mind, thanks love.
Those that believe different? He is in the minority here… Who is hating who?
I don’t hate him for his beleifs, I hate him for his blind attacks at any opening he gets.
Hate is kind of a strong emotion for someone that is just trying to have fun when they are completely in the minority here.
Joe, how dare you question der Feurher ! Take your ‘gubmit’ handout and shut-up!
All I did was ask him a simple question- without his teleprompter on. His Freudian slip showed us all what he really thinks and plans to do.
I am a newswriter for a small town newspaper (three newspapers, actually). I work seven days a week along with the occasional freelance photography job. I don’t make jack !@#$ for my trouble. It takes virtually everything I make just to pay my bills and keep my cat fed.
So if the free market is working right, how come I’m working 40-60 hours a week at a job that provides a vital function for my community and yet I can’t even afford health insurance?
Or a better question. When do I get to cross the wealth threshold to get to the point where I can get paid millions of dollars to do a terrible job and, if I do that job bad enough, the government will come and give me millions more?
That’s what we ALL would like to know !
And, you media, LEAVE ME ALONE!
Change jobs.
When you find out, call me.
All of your comments should be posted on failblog (this is excluding those who actually aren’t bashing the guy). It’s already annoying to see political candidates being consistently bashed; but now, a citizen who had the /audacity/ to ask Obama a /question/? No way! *deadpans*
I hope a large number of you appear on TV and speak your minds, only to later get bashed endlessly by bloggers, the media, and other citizens across the US.
Honestly. How pathetic and /low/ can you all get?
Oh, but wait. I’m probably one of those conservative, right-wing, crazy fundamentalists. You can completely make that assessment from my comment. Tsk. Yet, such the opposite may be true.
…but to summarize, please – you people need to get lives.
I haven’t visited this site in a while due to university/social life, and I regret even turning on my computer today. It’s all rather annoying and childish, your comments;
HEY! Heeeeeeeeeeey…
Why all the hate, man…
I’m here because I’m bored and genuinly interested in people’s opinions…
People how their true faces online thanks to the privacy on the net…
You’ve just shown your true colors as a hater, congrats…
GAH! Typo! Must…resist…
*show
º-º dammit -.-
Haha, darn those typos! It happens to the best of us, really.
How am I hater when what I say is true? If you’re genuinely interested in other people’s opinions and are thus somehow tolerant, why put down my comment? I’m afraid you have a double-standard, there.
I was pretty sure that I am posting from work…
One may have a job and still lack what would be considered a social life.
Or, at least, lacking in the proper “mental” (for lack of a better word) equipment required to understand what is considered a social faux pas – i.e., bashing someone who has somehow become a political icon even though he’s still just a person.
I guess it shouldn’t matter too much – it’s just, as someone who works to help people, I feel their pain. I was flipping through the television channels the other day and saw an interview with the guy. He said he was hurt and felt belittled by all these people – people who don’t even KNOW him – putting him down/terrorizing him for what he said. Perhaps it wasn’t my place to blow up, but I’ve come to absolutely despise all this hostility over politics.
I will say, I’m sorry for offending anyone. But it still is how I felt at the moment.
You’re not alone in that mindset. I normally try respond in a manner that invokes
thought. Whether it be milling over a joke, or trying to refute a point. But what
I think you will find far too often are folks seem to think that because someone
else thinks differently than them, they’re “stupid, retarded, mentally unstable.”
Which just isnt true. I know I myself have been guilty of these things, but I try
to restrain myself and only stoop to those levels when the poster has spewed nothing but hatred and rancor. Those types of comments have no place here,
but unfortunately, they find their way here, time and time again. But it is nice
to see someone who steps in and tries to remind us that we all took off diapers
YEARS ago. I appreciate the reality check, and bow to you Good Ma’dam.
I think you just completely made my day. :B No joke. (College exhaustion has settled in.)
I honestly sometimes feel that I’m alone in most of my beliefs, which – in a sense – makes it so much harder for me to stand up for those beliefs, convictions, ethics, etc. But even if I AM isolated in certain beliefs, it’s always really nice to see some civility.
But honestly, thanks for not attacking me or anything over my perhaps unnecessary outburst. (Also, anyone who likes The Beatles has to be completely awesome. ;D)
boo hoo, cry me a river.
K.
You’re welcome to leave again. Nothing of value will be lost.
*shrugs* I just thought I’d post my opinion regardless. I was a bit harsh, but no need for belittlement, now.
I fail to see how this is funny.
FAIL!
Obama’s tax plan (as seen on taxpolicycenter.org) will raise taxes on all businesses that earn 250k GROSS a year. 250k gross a year for a business is chump change. A plumber can earn 22 bucks an hour (a licensed one anyway) which is a good hunk of change. Add to that the equipment (trucks, pipes, tools, GAS, etc) that the company has to pay for and one plumber riding around in a truck for a year is probably over 125k just to break even. Then ON TOP of that Joe had said he wanted to add more trucks to his business which means doubling or tripling the cost to even run the business let alone profits.
The debate isnt about obama’s cut for the little guys like me who only make 30k/yr… its about how hes going to get it. Hes robbing from the people who are making all the jobs to pay the people who are working those jobs after taking a cut of that money for himself of course. He is a fascist who wants the government to control everything in the country and if the government doesnt control it hes going to tax it into oblivion so that they have to shut down or get bought out by the government thus ending up being part of the government. His idea is that if you take enough money from the rich and give it to the poor then there is no rich and no poor only government and private sector which will all be on welfare if he has his way. And if everyone is on welfare then they will vote for democrats because the democrats traditionally want BIGGER GOVERNMENT… hence why all the blacks and mexicans vote for them… these are two minority groups that largely live on public assistance and so they vote for the people who are going to increase their welfare checks the most. That is also why Im a federalist.
Did you *read* that article? Try again, with the link in my name which points towards the same website you refer to.
LOTS of people are going to lose their jobs!! Government thinks it can replace God and make things all nice and rosy for everyone. Recreating paradise!! It can’t happen! You can’t make eveyone equal! Some people will ALWAYS be poor. Look at what happens to people who win the lottery, most of them end up poor after 10 years. Poor is a state of mind.
McCain: Stop stealing my rethoric!…crazy kids…
So all men are not created equal?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
(from Animal Farm by George Orwell)
Great book.
Four legs bad, two legs better.
Yes, they are all created equal, but you can’t force them to live up to their potential, can you? Nor will throwing money at them help them either, they think they deserve poor, it’s much more complicated than that. Maybe if we spent money on finishing the poor parenting most people in this country get, to build confidence and instill pride in people who don’t get it at home as children… But that is an immense task.
You can’t replace something that doesn’t exist. ^^
Actually you can. You can fill the void with something real.
Something real, and imperfect and corruptible…
Ah, so you are voting for your real, imperfect, and corruptible republicans instead of the real, imperfect, and corruptible democrats then? How is that any different?
I will fall back to the saying the Republicans constantly say that government doesn’t work, then they get elected and prove it.
No, but maybe we don’t have to let the void between haves and have nots get even wider. Maybe we can decrease the number of people in poverty so that fewer suffer, or is that not ok with you? Nobody is trying to make everybody equal; repeating it ad nauseum doesn’t make it true. Making it so that the American Dream is at least a possibility for a few more people would be nice.
Isn’t that what we have been trying to do? Maybe we need to stop and figure out why what we have been doing is not working instead of throwing more money at the problem. You know giving money to the government to help out the poor never really helps them, because the government doesn’t really care about them, they just want the problem out of their hair… But, they will take more of your money anytime, most often lining pockets of beaurocrats who pretend like they are doing something good.
Yes, giving the government money to the government to help the poor does work. Let me illustrate with a story about my cousin. She is adopted, and she had a hard childhood. Her older brother inducted her into a gang when she was twelve. She was pregnant at 16. If it hadn’t been for the help she got from government programs, she’d be dead by now. Instead, she has three beautiful, well adjusted girls, a job, and is almost finished with college, to better herself and her family. Without government investment, she would have been a net liability to society, costing us far more than she gave back. As it is, she is a net asset, and becoming more so. In fact, the help she got inspired her to give back: she’s becoming a social worker so she can help young people in jeopardy like she was.
Great example Seth!
Now show how that is any different under the Republicans and then state how you are in touch with the common man with how you call them lazy all the time.
If anything, you are being way more elitist and out of touch than you could ever prove in Barrack. Hell, if I was lazy and poor, I wouldn’t be so frustrated. I could just be indignant about the system not giving stuff away. I am frustrated because I work forty hours a week to just end up at practically zero. I’m not even spending on wants either. I am just spending on needs and those are becoming more and more costly.
Trickle down economics is a joke. The bail out proves that. That money didn’t go to those who got the shaft, it went to the rich dipshits who didn’t deserve it. Ya, trickle down my ass and I have to wipe. I should get paid to get screwed this hard.
Yay DWM Good show! I’d like to see that argument myself. I have an education, work hard, don’t use credit cards, but wind up in the hole at the end of the month. My husband and I wish we could spend on a few wants for sanity’s sake. It’s no good not being able to go out and do something “fun”. I can have fun at home of course, but sometimes ya just wanna go out an see a movie! I’m waiting for the argument you initially asked for.
Today is Lynn’s birthday. I wanted to go shopping for her AND do what I did last night for her. Luckily I wowed her last night with wax, ice, flogging, rope, and other activities. Still I would like to get her something extra. She deserves it but we can’t afford it. The anniversity of our first date is on the 23rd and I wanted to take her out for dinner, give her a break but no…
-_- She deserves better.
Our anniversary and my hubby’s b-day is coming up the beginning of Nov. I fell for you. We are in the same boat. We can still celebrate the “old fashioned way” too but it would be nice to have dinner out or something. (We also need a new drum kit for Rock Band, lol)
We’d better stop the commiserating or we’ll prove we’re just whiners. Still haven’t seen anybody try the argument though.
sorry, *feel for you, not fell… LOL Funny how that changes the whole meaning.
Tis okay, I wasn’t going to make assumptions about the power of my charm. Lynn and I plan to do some level rushing tonight and cuddle down. Least her family isn’t so screwed so she got that drill she really wanted. Gotta love a girl with power tools.
As for what others think, hell with them. I’m venting. Whining is for those who have no real troubles…
LOL. Sok I was kidding anyway. MY family was able to help us out enough to get the car inspected and registered. It was beyond our means at the time it was due. So I hear you about the appreciation of gifts! I dont have any power tools but I have been known to play a lot of video games and geekily paint a few miniatures, etc. My husband seems to like it.
Vent Away!
Lynn and I stick to table top rpgs and video games. Haven’t had time or money for miniatures though she would love them. We have a big MtG collection but haven’t played that in a while. Too afraid of our boys wrecking them.
Haven’t had any new ones in quite some time. Need to find a better tabletop campaign. Toddlers do have a tendency to wreck stuff. My husband’s 8 year old still wrecks his pokemons (we can’t afford those either, his egg donor buys them for him)
Well if you are ever within proximity of Iowa, I wouldn’t mind seeing what we could arrange. If you wanted to contact me and this goes for anybody else, feel free to pm me on Gaia. Same username as here.
FAIL
NOBAMA 2008!! OBAMA IS LOSING GROUND IN THE POLLS!
Reality fail.
Just out of interest, here’s a question for people frothing about “wealth redistribution” as if it’s something that’s going to be brought in by Obama and not something which already happens, has always happened and will always happen (the only difference being who the wealth is distributed to)
What do you think about Palin raising taxes on oil companies operating in Alaska, then using that revenue to cut cheques to each resident in Alaska? The GOP campaign are touting that as one of her accomplishments and it seems very much like “wealth redistribution” from where I’m sitting.
But…But………….. That’s different. LOL
The way I understand what she did is that she worked out a deal with the oil companies to use some of their profits to basically pay the residents of Alaska for the priviledge of using their state. Am I misunderstanding the basics of the deal?
no, you understand the premise but it’s still “redistributing” the oil profits to the average citizens. If a democrat proposed this, it’s likely theyer would be a lot of bots screaming “redistribution of wealth!!1!!!1, SOCIALISM!!!!11″
How is working out a deal with a willing party for services rendered ‘redistribution of wealth’ vs. taking it from someone through force, i.e. taxing me when I don’t want to be taxed more?
Force? Are there armies involved? I don’t want to be taxed more either. But I do want to enjoy the comforts society offers me like infrastructure, public saftety, education, etc. So I’m willing to pay for it. The wealthy enjoy these things at least as much as I do, so they should pay more since they can afford more. It’s still not a redistribution of wealth. Rich people are still rich after they pay their fair share of taxes. Middle and lower classes aren’t any richer when the rich pay more taxes. Tax money isn’t redistributed to other individuals with less, it goes into the pool to fund the various things we need to keep a productive society running, such as the things I mentioned. I don’t get why this is so hard to understand for so many.
Uh yeah, it’s through force…don’t pay your taxes, people with guns and badges show up and put you in jail. Or shoot you. How is that not through force. If I walked up to you on the street and pulled a gun and took money from you, it’s called theft by force…why is it any different if I have a badge?
And how it is not a redistribution of wealth? You take wealth from one person and redistribute it to someone else…seriously, you can’t see that? Whatever you want to call it, it’s taking money from one person and giving it to another. At gunpoint, I might add.
And it absolutely is giving to people with less money…if you have a kid and make $30,000 or so a year, you get ALL your income taxes refunded PLUS more money that you never paid in the first place…again, how do you not see that for what it is?
A heavy progressive income tax, which is what we have, is one of the planks of the communist manifesto…it’s right there in black and white. So you are basically advocating communism. Well, not basically…in actual fact, you are advocating communism…which has never worked anywhere that it’s been tried…is that really what you want to do?
Dude, totally! And, like, if you owned an oil company in Alaska, they’d totally take your money and give it to other people, too! But that’s not wealth distribution, ’cause Sarah Palin said Obama’s a socialist.
Who said I supported taking money from oil companies? I don’t support 100% of what Republicans propose or do…but I’ll take the 80% that I do agree with over the 100% that I disagree with from Obama and Co.
Taking money from a private company and giving it to you is just as wrong as taking money from me and giving it to you.
Do you even know 100% of the Obama policies? How do you know you disagree with it all? Sounds pretty closed minded.
Yeah, I pay attention, actually. There has not been one thing that he’s said in the debates, both primary and general, on his website, in his stump speeches etc…based on the samples of what I’ve heard, I can safely say that I would disagree with the vast majority of his policies. Ok, but to be fair, I’ll say 95%…but my point still stands. In other words, your attempt at defelction fails.
Ok, here’s a workable solution for the capitalist/socialist model:
Have a profit cap on corporations and businesses. If you get above a certain profit margin, you then have to put that money into some sort of “redistribution fund” like the oil companies are doing in Alaska.
Discuss
What? That’s not free market, That would be a socialist program. And it would be wrongfully redistributing wealth.
Sorry, just thought I’d get a leg up on the zealots.
No no no, you’re allowing profits, you’re allowing the free market to dictate the best practices for the company, because they want to make a much money as possible, but you’re keeping them from making TOO much more than the common man. Make it a percentage of the wealth. And base it off the profit after the overhead.
Now you’re allowing the common man to make some money off the corporation, who is now paying the common man for the privilege of using up the natural resources and the land for the company. Give and take, give and take.
Discuss
Yeah I knew what you meant, I was just messing with you.
Dammit, you’re not giving me the joy of poking the bear here! I’m trying to stir crap up just to see how many times I will get flamed!
*poke* *poke*
hehe
Wow, and if the world operated in the fantasy way that liberals wanted it to, that might work, just like the minimum wage and taxing the rich.
Moron, if a company can only make a certain profit, they aren’t going to just willingly give the rest away…they are going to spend more money on a hundred other projects within the company so that the only money left over, the actual “profit” will be enough to cover hit their cap.
Also, why am I going to try to expand my business if I can’t make more than a certain amount of money, anyway? If I am hitting my quota with 10 employees, what is my incentive to hire another 10 employees to make more money?
She’s just putting forth as theory for debate. Nobody is suggesting we get right on it and try to implement it. No need for name calling.
Trickle-down doesn’t work, so there’s no point in discussing the taxing the rich thing; it’s been done ad nauseum. You’re attacking the minimum wage as a liberal conspiracy now? Have you ever done any real LABOR in your life? Damn.
I keep hearing that trickle down doesn’t work, but not one bit of proof. Itas if you hope its true just because you say it’s true.
Yes, I’ve done labor, and I’ve made minimum wage. Then I turned 17 and realized that I don’t want to do that the rest of my life, so I improved my life.
*poof* It doesn’t work like that. And yes, several people have posed, with references, evidence for why trickle down doesn’t work. I’m glad you’ve improved your life, you’re what, 19 now?
Yeah, people keep saying it’s been “proved”…so prove it. If you can’t provide proof, then you haven’t “proved” anything.
It’s just logical that it works…rich people buy things when they have the money available to do so. If the evil rich don’t buy stuff because the government takes more of their money, everybody hurts.
I haven’t made minimum wage in over 10 years, because I have aquired skilsets that employers pay for.
Rich people invest in pyramid schemes instead of investing in businesses. Instead of using their money to create more jobs, the rich use their money to game the system, screwing us all. This is why the economy always does better under Democrats. If you had invested in the stock market under Republican administrations only during the last 100 years, your average return would be .4%. If you had invested only during Democratic presidencies, your return would have been 8.4%. Figures don’t lie, Republican economic policies are bad for the country.
Sounds like you’re a little jealous.
I know rich people. They buy a lot of shit that I wish I could by. But at the same time that they are buying a bunch of unnecessary stuff, they are providing jobs for people that provide the goods and services they are buying. Yes, rich people do other stuff with their money…it’s their money, they can do what they want. But it’s not like they just sit up in a shack somewhere, counting dollar bills and laughing about how they just ate a poor person’s baby for dinner.
You are very wealth-envious, aren’t you?
You can skew stats all you want. I haven’t seen your particular numbers that you put up here, but I would imagine that the higher numbers during democrat administrations would be due to policies put in place by the previous republican presidents and the lower numbers are the market recovering after democrat policies are being fixed.
Sorry we had a republican president for 8 years and it went down hard after he had been there a while. It was already bad in 04. Can’t blame it all on the Republicans. Your boy McCain dove right into that bailout. Glad to know he is all about helping those who deserve it………. I would hate for those CEOs to have to shop at Walmart. That would be criminal.
9/11 happened right after he got in office and economy got hit hard. Then it recovered when he cut taxes. It is only bad now because of the liberal policies of supporting freddie/fanny and “encouraging” banks to make bad loans.
Cutting taxes worked. Unemployment was low, low (lower than under Clinton GASP) growth was pretty good.
Anyway, both parties screw things up, to be sure. No doubt. But Obama is going from run of the mill screwing up the country to express lane over the cliff screwing it up.
This is not an a la carte country. You choose to take the whole social contract or none of it. It’s like this: you go into a restaurant, you want veggies with your fish, they only serve fries. You have two choices, buy the fish and eat the damn fries or don’t buy anything. Taking the fish without paying for it is not an option, even though you didn’t want fries. And if you do decide to order the fish, you don’t get to whine that they forced you to.
Yeah, except I don’t get to walk in and order, do it? I have to pay for what YOU order. And not only that, but now I have to be happy about it?
Interesting…
This is missing the point of the example. We’re still back to The rich wanting to enjoy the benefits of a civilised society, like infrastructure, education, public safety, etc. but don’t want to pay for it. Should the middle class support you then, like a nobility class? We did away with that 230 years ago.
They DO pay for it…ALL of it. The evil rich ALREADY pay the vast majority of taxes. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but an exceedingly small number of tax payers pay an exceedingly large percentages of the taxes.
This idea that the “rich” don’t pay their “fair share” is just ridiculous..
The rich get more benefit from social infrastructure. Who needs theirproperty protected more, a rich guy with a ton of property, or a hobo living under a bridge? Who will the cops help first? Who will the fire department respond to? Who benefits more from the roads? Who hires publicly educated workers? Who’s business will the military protect? Who benefits from societal stability? get it? They should pay far more than they do, seeing as they get the lion’s share of the benefit.
lol, if a “publicly educated worker” is a “benefit” of being rich, then I feel even sorrier for them.
Anyway, the infrastructure is there for everyone, who benefits more or less is irrelevant. Yes, there are benefits to being rich. Duh. That’s why people want to be rich. If we take away those benefits, people are not going to want to bother with it. Business owners are not going to expand their businesses…why bother if they are not going to benefit proportionally?
No, who benefits most is the only important point. Why should we pay for services we don’t use as much? And what kind of fantasy
world do you live in where people don’t want to be rich because they won’t get extra benefits they didn’t pay for? Are you high?
–
You aren’t even coherent. First you say, who benefits most is irrelevant. Then you say the rich won’t want to be rich unless they benefit proportionally. The point is, they don’t benefit proportionally. They benefit more. It is socialism, buyt only for the rich. The rich don’t need any more incentives. We shoulod reduce their incentives until we actually see an impact. Our nominal tax rate used to be 90%, and that was during our biggest economic expansion. We need to bring back the 90% nominal tax rate. Obviously, it worked, as the 50s and 60s were a boom time.
You want to take 9 out of 10 dollars that someone earns?
There is no more point discussing this with you if you are that freaking stuipid.
Damn it, reply box is too small and cut of what I was typing…couldn’t see that I misspelled “stupid” until after I hit “add comment”, lol.
Anyway, 50’s was post war boom, baby boom. It was not because we were taking 9 out of 10 dollars that the evil rich were making. What happened when Reagan cut those rates in the 80’s? HUGE boom. Of course…the more money people have in their pockets, the better it is for everyone.
Dunkel, you don’t understand what a marginal tax rate is, do you? If you were wealthy, you would know how taxes work. You are obviously someone who isn’t wealthy, but want to be wealthy, and you are siding with the people who want to keep you from becoming wealthy. You only pay the increased tax rate on the portion of your income over the cutoff. The 90% rate only applied to income over a million, which back then was quite a bit of money.
No, not wealthy. Not yet. Working on it by bettering myself. I don’t want to get “wealthy” by taking money from someone else. And when I do get there, I want to be able to enjoy the fruits of my labor.
Yeah, I realize how it works…I was making an absurd response to an absurd statement…that somehow having the top tax rate at 90% actually contributed to our prosperity.
So you are opposed to getting a tax cut now while people way richer than you get a tax cut while they enjoy more of the infrastructure and services than you. This is because you think you are going to become rich and thus enjoy that tax cut but oppose the tax cut that would help you save more money because you have faith…. *glitch*
Ow… You broke my brain with your flawed logic. You oppose a tax cut now so you can possibly sorta maybe get a tax cut later. I take you gamble much then?
lol, I can’t actually get a tax “cut”, because I get more money back than I pay in. Thanks to my two little tax write offs
I hope people richer than me get a tax cut, so that they can afford to buy whatever it I want to sell them so I can get rich myself.
Ditto for me but I have kids. As for the rich needing a break, I think you are missing the part where they are rich? If they want your goods, they can get them anyway.
Actually I just had a minor epiphany. So you are opposed to the redistribution of wealth and paying other people’s bills right?
So why do you use write offs? Isn’t that asking the government for money for bills you should have been paying yourself? If they are medical, then you should be able to pay for that yourself too.
Stop writing off your crap and having me foot the bill! Which is exactly what you are doing since I don’t claim anything on my taxes until the end of the year. Even then I don’t write anything off. So stop taking my money, you little hypocrite.
I have two kids, which automatically gives me a “refund” that I never paid into in the first place. If they take it away, it’ll suck, but I can’t complain. I’m certainly not going to ask for more.
So yeah, I against taxation as a means of redistribution of wealth, but what am I going to do if they offer me “free” money? Same thing anyone else is going to do…take it.
Yeah, they are rich…but take away another 3% of their money, and that’s 3% of their money they are not spending on whatever I’m trying to sell them. So now I really have to depend on the government for help, don’t I?
You have to claim the kids on the form to get the credit so you are asking for it when you do your taxes. As for that 3%, I doubt you are selling anything that will make up 3% of their taxed wealth. Thus they can still afford to pay you.
Then again, you are out to help 10% of the population which doesn’t help you as much as you think it might. If you only cater to the rich, then you can always get another job which seems to be the answer I keep seeing when people are talking about how their jobs aren’t covering expenses.
So you are out for what you feel is your self interest. Guess what, it is in our self interest to be taxed less. I am afraid we are at an impasse.
I am already taxed less. Now I want everyone else to be taxed less, too.
And I meant that I am not going to ask for any more than what I already get. And I would not cry if it went away. But if there’s there, and I can help my family with it, I’d be stupid not to take advantage of it. When I get my “refund”, I usually try to go out and buy stuff from small businesses or hire the neighbor kid to mow the lawn or something along those lines, anyway, to really help get more money to where it needs to go. Now if only we didn’t require the government to step in and could all just do it more naturally.
Still wealth distribution beyond taxation.
Here’s the basics of the deal (From the Reuters article in my name link)
“Since her election as governor in 2006, she has also pushed through a tax increase on oil and gas producers, doubling Alaska’s energy revenues to more than $10 billion. BP and ConocoPhillips blasted the tax hike, citing it as a reason they postponed new projects.
…
And many Alaskans credit Palin with helping to distribute the state’s oil wealth more equitably to its people.”
Here’s a new one on what Palin’s doing with taxpayer money.
Ok, so if Palin is ALREADY doing what Obama WANTS to do, then why aren’t you guys voting for Palin? She’s already put into practice what the (apparently) mainstream Dems want!
This is what I was talking about before. People already have their minds made up and are using the same arguments to make different points.
Like I say, all parties do wealth distribution – it just depends who you distribute it to.
So why villify Palin if she’s doing what you guys (as in Dems with a socialist tinge) want to do in the first place? She can’t be all bad, huh? At least she’s not giving that money to the wealthy CEOs or the fat cats, right?
Did you read the article? It’s about her letting Alaskan taxpayers pay for shuttling her kids around to her gigs. Whether or not the kids were invited.
Also, McCain under his neo-con tool guise would never allow a more widespread form of that arrangement. Obama/Biden acknowledged her profit sharing program was good for Alaska. There are just too many other negatives about her to redeem with this one item.
*poke* *poke*
I did not read the article, I’ll admit. I’m just looped out on cough meds and feeling froggy
With her anti-union background it’s no surprise that the only people she seems to favour of distributing wealth taken from large companies to is her friends back in Alaska. McCain is a vocal supporter of the scientific concensus that global warming is caused by man as well, it doesn’t mean that liberal democrats are going to vote for him either. I doubt you disagree with every single one of Obama’s policies either, are you going to vote for him?
Oh no, as I told Minerva earlier, I’m just poking bears tonight to see how many flames I can get
I have my disagreements with McCain, I just have MORE of them with Obama, so therefore, by default, my vote has to go to McCain. *holding nose and pulling lever*
So…how do you give a tax “cut” to someone who doesn’t pay taxes?
Oh yeah, that’s right, in socialist-speak, a tax “cut” is when you get “refunded” money that you never paid in first place…
“So…how do you give a tax “cut” to someone who doesn’t pay taxes?”
Everyone pays taxes you dingbat, every time any buys something from a store they pay tax.
So we’re getting rid of sales tax too? Cool.
I think dunkel’s point is that everyone is talking about tax cuts, but the only taxes that are mentioned are income taxes. Even sales tax isn’t used as an example by either side.
But he’s saying that people who are getting these rebates don’t pay money into the tax system, which is rubbish.
First of all, taxes paid at the state level don’t need to be offset by the federal government…unless you’re socialist, which Obama is.
Second, if you were really concerned about all the embedded taxes people pay into the system, we’d be talking about getting the Fair Tax passed. However, I doubt you’re interested in talking about that, so I don’t want to hear about all the taxes these poor people pay into the system.
Bottom line, Obama is hoping we don’t realize that you can’t give an income tax cut to people who don’t pay income tax.
And you’re hoping that people will believe trickle down economics works even after it’s been clearly demonstrated as nonsense.
Ah, to live in the liberal fantasy world where things are true or untrue simply because you wish them to be so…
Yeah, it certainly is a much better idea to go after the productive members of society, the ones growing the economy, the ones buying the cars, going out to eat at nice restaurants, the ones shopping at malls, the ones directly and indirectly providing jobs, let’s take their money and give it to non-productive members of society. Trickle UP economics! Yes, it’s sure to work, even though it hasn’t worked anywhere else it’s tried.
Well, except in that liberal fantasy world…it works there…too bad that world and the real world rarely meet…
Yeah, excellent – I’m sure come election day the average hard working American will agree that the best way to sort the economy out is to cut Paris Hilton’s taxes and raise theirs.
The fantasy world is one where people think CEOs will take their taxbreak and add it to their employees wage packet instead of using it to open an operation in India and add another few million to director bonuses and shareholder dividends.
Idiot…who said anything about raising anyone’s taxes? You’re just making stuff up to make your argument appear stronger.
Yes, we should cut Paris Hilton’s taxes. She spends a truckload of money on a bunch of silly stuff…but the waiters, valets, car salesmen, housekeepers, jewelry dealers, boutique owners, etc sure appreciate her spending money on them, don’t they?
Or did you think rich people just filled silos with gold coins and swam around in it like Scrooge McDuck?
As for the rest of your drivel, businesses are in business to, duh, make money…if the regulatory and taxation environment in US is unfriendly, they will relocate. And why shouldn’t they focus on giving dividends to stockholders?
Try this perspective for the economy:
Poor people will spend close to 100% of their earnings, sometimes more.
Rich people will spend a smaller fraction of their earnings.
So?
How very humanitarian of you. Apparently you are an elitist who doesn’t believe in the American dream.
People can’t pursue loftier goals when they are struggling to cover their basic needs for food/clothing/shelter. You would like to see everyone remain grovelling in the dirt, so to speak, for the sake of your corporate overlords?
Nobody is saying give everyone universal equality, but we need to lessen the gap, and leave fewer in poverty.
I do believe in the American dream. I just don’t think it’s the job of the government to provide it to everyone.
No, it is the government’s job to keep people from stepping on other people’s ability to achieve the American dream, whether those poeple are foreigners trying to destroy America, or rich Americans looking to economically subjugate their fellow citizens. Not to provide the dream, to protect it.
Not to protect my dream by destroying someone else’s.
Do you honestly think the dreams of the rich are being destroyed? Give me some of what you’re drinking. *glugs*
“Help!!! The Rich are being oppressed!!! Save the rich!!! They might buy from me!!!!!!!”
Wow, that is good stuff.
It’s THEIR money…why am I entitled to ANY of it? Whether it means one less new car or whatever…it is THEIR money.
You aren’t and nor will you actually get any of it. What you are missing is that the taxes aren’t going to you directly. You are just keeping more of YOUR money through the taxes heading more to them instead of you.
What is so hard to understand about that? You aren’t getting their money. You aren’t entitled so even if they get a tax break, you still won’t be getting any of it unless they plan to.
So yes it is their money and you aren’t getting any of it. We are simply saying that we want to keep OUR money, which technically means your money but if you want to pay higher taxes and give them a tax break, you go right ahead and fill out your tax forms however you like. I am looking forward to getting more of my paycheck back each week.
I’m glad you are worried about their money while we are worried about YOUR money. So very generous of you.
This post is so filled with nonsense that I don’t even know where to start. Yes, I am getting THEIR money if I get a refund on taxes that I never paid in teh first place and they end up paying extra. As surely as if I walked up to them myself with a gun and robbed them.
And even under Obama’s tax plan, I am not just keeping more of my own money…as I said, I get money back every year that I never paid into it. You have this crazy idea that poor people have to be taxed in order for rich people to get a tax cut or something. It’s just nonsense.
I like how you didn’t comment on how trickle down economics is a proven failure, lol. Smoke and mirrors!
So prove it. I keep seeing that over and over, but no proof. What is your proof?
There is none, because it does work. Rich people have more disposable income, yes. So they dispose of it…at the local steakhouse, the mall, buying a new car, getting the oil changed on that new car, paying the lawn guy to come by once a week…take more of their money and all those people who have jobs because they spend their money on frivolous crap don’t have jobs anymore.
There is plenty of proof, but you obviously refuse to open your mind enough to see it. If it were true, we wouldn’t see the net loss of jobs in this country that we’ve seen under Bush’s tax cuts. They were supposed to have a great trickle down effect. Instead, we have middle class salaries stagnant, if not falling, higher unemployment, and the biggest financial crisis the world has seen.
I’m sure you have some far-fetched explanation for this though. You are starting to look a little glassy-eyed. it’s time for you to go drink some more kool-aid.
lol, under the Bush administration, we’ve had very good growth and low unemployment until just recently. And it was liberal policies that caused this economic crisis, forcing banks to lend to people who had no business borrowing money in the first place.
When Bush cut taxes, revenue to the treasury actually increased, as it did when Reagan and Kennedy cut taxes, as well. Fact.
What alternate history books are you reading? Bush and his Republican congress screwed the economy. No one ever ‘forced’ anyone to lend anything, where are you even getting that? The Community Reinvestment Act is a valuntary program, and banks that follow it have lower foreclosure rates, and are more likely to keep the debt themselves rather than sell it. When Bush cut tasxes, revenue dropped, as the economy has been nearly stagnant his entire presidency. You can’t just make things up! This is all a matter of public record.
actually you are using propaganda sources as real information. The lending crisis began as far back as 2001. The state of the union puts bush asking for more lending form freddie/fannie. He actually said later that first-time home buyers shouldn’t have to buy a “starter” home; they should be able to have a nice home like everybody else. Some of this information is right on the White House’s own website. What are your sources? Your facts are not facts. Jobs have steadily been downsized or shipped overseas. This is not new. You are buying lies dumped on you by proven liars like Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity.
*twitch twitch*
Dunkel… I hate to break this too you but… WE ARE IN A DAMN DEFICIT YOU IDIOT!!!
*cough* There, now that I got that out. We are currently in the Largest deficit in American history under… Again a shocker, the Bush administration. I am awaiting this prosperity you keep talking about.
We are in a deficit because Bush is not a conservative, even if he is a republican. They are not necessarily the same thing.
Yeah, asking for more lending from Freddie/Fannie…that is why we are in this mess. That is a liberal policy, even if it came from Bush.
Revenue did increase, but unfortunately, so did spending. If Bush was a conservative, he would have cut spending, as well.
Go to a window, look out the window, see the suckage that is our economy under the tax cuts for the rich, then explain how trickle down works when they just ship the jobs away ANYWAY.
Proof is all around you, maybe it is so big you can’t even see it now but it is huge and there.
Check out this link from a local station. Funny about McCain’s campaign being the same as The Penguin’s vs batman.
Jobs are shipped overseas to keep costs down because it is too expensive, due to over regulation, to hire American workers to make stuff.
If you pay an employee $10/hr, it’s actually costing you $20/hr. Why? Because of over regulation. So it’s a no-brainer to relocate operations to China or India, so that you can keep costs under control. And now you want to increase taxes on businesses? Expect more jobs to go overseas.
They are planning tax breaks on companies that create jobs in the US. Even more business tax breaks if they invest in green technology and green jobs. There may be penalties on those that send jobs overseas.
How stupid can we get? We set up an environment where companies are practically forced to move jobs overseas because of the huge cost and regulation associated with American workers. Then we punish them when they do just that. And reward them if they go against their own self interest and hir american workers?
How about just streamline labor laws, reform them, make it a better deal to actually hire Americans?
LOL. I love all this talk about Bill Ayers like its a serious deal. Lol when that guy was trying to blow crap up Obama was 8.
Guys… really… come on…
numbnuts, the guy is unrepentant and wishes he had done more…those two facts, apparently, did not dissuade Obama from associating with the guy. To me, and any sane human being, that demonstrates a lack of judgment.
1) The Pro-Life movement which McCain supports has killed more people than the Weathermen.
2) The “wish to have done more” business was in the context of doing more to stop the war in Vietnam and bring about a more social-conscious America.
These two facts clearly point out the owner of the numbnuts.
The pro-life movement never declared war on the United States or bombed the Pentagon. I don’t know how supportive McCain has been…has he actually associated with any of them? Had a personal relationship with them? Served on boards with them?
And anyway, the fact that he is pro-life and pro-life groups have bombed a few abortion clinics is really a stretch if you’re trying to compare Obama’s relationship with Ayers, don’t you think? I don’t think McCain’s ever sat down in Eric Rudolph’s living room, has he? Um…no.
McCain HAS had personal relationships with Charles Keating and G Gordon Liddy. Still, guilt by association is lame, so I’ll drop that part for now.
So bombing abortion clinics is ok as long as they’re not at the pentagon? Do you even hear yourself? People still get hurt, and it’s still monstrous.
Yeah, it’s different. If you are an American citizen who declares war on the United States, you are a traitor. Is that hard to figure out?
Has G. Gordon Liddy bombed anything? Remind me, I can’t seem to recall…
Yep, by your definition Palin’s husband, who belongs to a group who wants Alaska to secede from the US, is a traitor. Great associations there!
Even if this was true, no, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Wanting to secede from the Union is one thing…declaring war on the US is another. States freely joined the Union, they should be allowed to freely leave.
So, as I said, even if what you said was true, no, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Nothing like growing up with nothing, working your ass off in college, losing a job in Sept. 11th finally earning your way to get $270,000 a year to find out that on top of losing 52% of your earnings to taxes, Obama’s the percentage is gonna get a hell of a lot higher.
Obama’s making it look like the wealthy are selfish people, keeping all the money to themselves. In reality that’s not true. My parent’s have almost no retirement fund (because of the damn economy) and they have hardly anything put away for me to go to college. The taxes on the wealthy were already insanely high, why should their hard earned money be given away so that illegal immigrants get health care?
Go Joe the Plumber! What I find hilarious is that the Democrats are doing as intense background checks on Joe, as if he’s a suspected criminal. Too bad they only found he was unlicensed, there’s a hell of a lot of other unlicensed in his field and others but that’s the only leg the Democrats can stand on.
Raising taxes on those who pay most of the taxes already in order to give money to those who don’t is not a “tax cut.” Less money in tax collected overall, and less money spent, is a tax cut.
What tax cut? Taxes are going up now… I’m pretty sure that makes Obama a liar…