"In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers."

Excellent.

That's a good start.

I have no problem with taking the cap off of Social Security. I don't know why such a cap would exist to begin with.

As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name...

"in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined."

Not bad, when you consider the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%.

And when this author talks about taxes, all he's talking about is income taxes, not all taxes. Plus, the language is imprecise, so technically, he's wrong: he's pretending the FICA taxes aren't federal taxes. Oops.

"I don't know why such a cap would exist to begin with."

Historically, because there are payout caps. If those remained, but the pay-ins became uncapped, the wealthy will claim it's more of a welfare program, and rightfully so.

"As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name..."

I'm not sure what that's called, but I do know what the opposite is called:

The Bush Tax Cuts.

I hope BHO = FDR

Cry me a river rich folks.

Every election season, the politicians dangle all kinds of bait and the fish never see the hook. They never learn.

The Tax Policy Center, the GAO, millions of Obama voters, and tens of millions of middle-class Americans will be surprised to learn what Obama's real definition of "wealthy" is.

As for me, I guess I never quite understood why I become better off if the government would only raise taxes on . . . those guys over there. Of course, it never occurred to me that the government would do so, just so they can give the money to me. Which makes me unlike the posters above.

I like where this is headed and the cap for SS needs to be lifted. Here's an interesting Excel spreadsheet from the IRS with latest data to 2005.

Well the rich are going to have to stop laughing all the way to the bank sooner or later.

The rich are hurting these days. The rest of us are.

That's what Bush has done for you.

The rich are hurting these days. The rest of us are.

Dammit!

The rich aren't hurting these days. The rest of us are.

Every election season, the politicians dangle all kinds of bait and the fish never see the hook. They never learn.
POSTED BY RAY
-------

Agreed. Do people actually think Obama is really any different than all the other politicians who promised them things over the years?

Also, does anyone believe any of that $131 billion will relieve taxes on the middle class, or will it just be extra cash to fund more big government?

I don't have much of a problem with this... the top 1% in this country can more then handle a tax increase...

Where I worry is when you break out of that middle class, if he's going to jack up your taxes and put you right back where you started from... $100K+ a year sounds great, but when you throw in where you live, kids and such, etc, you're hardly vacationing in the Hamptons.

The best way to do taxes in this country would be to say everyone pays the same percentage, no write offs, no exemptions. Every American pays x% of what you made.

Hey that guy has a nicer car than me, mommy take it away from him.
Or
Mommy, that rich guy bought himself a bigger ice cream cone then he bought me, will you ruin his please?

Why do you peple hate people with money> Oh I know, You don't haver any you lazy fucks. Go get a job, get off of wefare and pay your own fair share.
It seems to me that you lazy fucks have not done what it takes to et good job abd earn decent money so you hate aone who has.

Sounds like socialism to me.

These people pay more taxes than the rest of us combined.

Danni, put down your bong and go get a fucking job.

Last year, Charles Rangle said he wanted to impose a 4% surcharge on incomes above $150,000 for single people, and above $200,000 for married couples. If those figures are correct, then that's one hell of a marriage penalty!

go to college, work your ass off, save money, make all the right moves and investments just to get f*cked by the democrats again.

make no mistake about it Obama will hit the middle class too, just like Bill did with the largest tax increase in history. if you don't believe this you are all fools

Mommy, she is prettier than me won't you bash her face in please?

Mommy, he is a faster typer, cut of two of his fingers.

Mommy, jimmy won't give me his bike, take it from him please.

Mommy, i shit in my pants, give me his.

As much as i would love to sit here and chat with you socialists, I am off to the links.

When you work hard ( not that many of you know what that is)you get to retire and have fun. Don't forget to check your mails boxe for your welfare check danni, and the rest of you slugs too.

just like Bill did with the largest tax increase in history. if you don't believe this you are all fools

Posted by Maverick at

Let's not forget the biggest tax cut for the rich in the history of the country that Bush gave these folks.

Fools like Maverick always forget the facts.

This won't be raising taxes for the rich as much as it is getting them back to paying the share that they easily paid prior to the gift Bush gave them in a time of War!

just like Bill did with the largest tax increase in history. if you don't believe this you are all fools

Wrong.

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

forgot to mention the new internet tax, global warming tax, windfall profit tax and what ever else the dems dream up. all of these will hurt the middle class more than any other

middle class: a vote for obsama, and if he wins, is a vote for $2000-$4000 more per year in taxes to you, get your billfold out!

Tiger's federal and California taxes

Tiger should stay out of California and play in places with no or low income tax rates. California is one of the worst states for individual income tax, but wait...isn't California one of the wealthiest states?

Furthermore....

In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 0.8% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 0.5%.

Uh oh, someone needs to revisit his talking points.

"These people pay more taxes than the rest of us combined."

Yes this is true but compared to our parent's generation they pay very little. The Boomer generation has reduced taxes on itself even in spite of the educations that many of us received inexpensively or even freely due to our parents willingness to pay taxes. We inherited a virtually debt free nation and have turned it into a debtor nation and now it is so bad that the dollar is losing its value. The wealthy have two choices, one keep the tax cuts and watch their money lose its value or two take away the tax cuts, pay more taxes but the money left will still be worth something.
The rest of us need for our dollars to be worth something.

****** As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name...
Posted by 101Chairborne ******

............yes.........Christ
ianity............

Taxman,

Well if you believe the rights stupid talking points, Tiger would only play in Florida, Nevada, Texas or other states without income taxes in order to minimize the amounts paid in taxes.

Of course for the rightwingtards success is measured only by money.

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime"

Yet some guys here, who are most likely not part of that one percent, and never will be, choose to defend the robber barons.

It's not jealousy, it's sanity. Some people, even ones who "got a good education and work hard," are having a very hard time maintaining even a moderate lifestyle. I will not weep when some guy might not be able to afford a new pool for his second or third home. Call me socialist if you like, but these one percenters are also not the ones spilling their blood in the fucking sand.

Maverick,

You don't have your facts straight.

Why don't you go educate yourself as to not look like such a fool in front of everyone.

Internet Tax huh?

The Internet sales tax is back.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) has introduced a bill to require Internet-based businesses to charge state sales taxes on out-of-state purchases.

Come on man. You look like a fucking idiot. Maybe you can't help it but do try.

Thomas Jefferson, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Hanover,
They didn't have tax shelters and high paid accountants to hide your money in the 1700's.

"Yet some guys here, who are most likely not part of that one percent, and never will be, choose to defend the robber barons."

Probably the most poignant post on this thread.

I'm looking forward to all the pretty little things Obama will be a' bringin'.

I'm looking forward to gas prices plunging when he starts to build windmills. I'm looking forward to health care costs plunging when he puts doctors on government payrolls. I'm looking forward to prosperity breaking out all over when the government takes more taxes out of the pockets of the rest of us. I'm looking forward to educational achievement shooting through the roof after we zip another few hundred billion the teachers unions' way. I'm looking forward to collapsing food prices as Obama redoubles our efforts to grow food-for-fuel, and we send a few billion bushels of corn up our tailpipes. And I'm looking forward to peace breaking out all over when we surrender to the jihadists in Iraq, and pull our troops home.

Gonna be fun!

Tiger lives in Florida...

Again - this is a typical liberal that thinks simplistically (because they can't handle complex? or because it "feels good")

Do you think the top 1% will just sit back and take it? or do you think the 1% will go somewhere else. (its not like that they can't afford to go).

And when they go somewhere else - remember these are the people that put capital into the stock market and are the ones that fund the new speculative ventures that turn out to be Microsoft and Google that employ thousands - what happens to our access to venture capital, what happens to the stock market and all your sorry ass 401K plans?

As the venture capital dries up - what happens to the US economy long term. The salary's that these people bring by the companies that they manage. Or ..how about your university who has a new football stadium, or engineering building or hospital because of wealthy 1%...but they are now gone....so no wealth to redistribute.

And for all the private held companies that are paying corporation taxes that the 1% own - since the boss has left town..you don't think that they will take the corp. headquarters with them?

Stupid - just frigging stupid. Just like Clinton and the "tax the rich" attack on the boating industry...that COST tax revenue AND Thousands of jobs.

And SKIZZ - its not Christianity...Christ gave the story of talents where the 3 servants were given different amounts...not the same ..different..he did not say "rich guy give your talent to the poor servant" he said " for those that have much - much is asked" and chastised the poor servant for in investing.

As to Social Security - it was SUPPOSED to be an insurance policy BUT the Government during the 60 and 70's added non -contributing people...now it is a welfare system and a way to redistribute wealth...that was unearned and undeserved.

What was the thread a few weeks ago regarding thousands of rich folks that paid ZERO taxes?

RiR,
Seriously, what do ya think is gonna happen, especially regarding oil?
Gas prices ain't goin down, at least not permanently. It will continue to go up. Always has.
What happens to the guy workin his ass off makin $12-15/hour with a family, has a 20 mile one way commute to work, drivin a 98 F-150 because that's all he can afford, maybe he needs it to carry his tools. How's he supposed to get by as gas skyrockets?
What about the school buses? Schools don't have unlimited budgets.
How much can the airlines afford to pay for fuel, before flying is affordable by only the wealthy?

"Gonna be fun!"

Thing is though, if we look to the not too distant past when our parents did pay higher tax rates all those things did happen and our generation received the good public school educations, low college tuition (free in some states), there were good paying jobs, it was a great country...until the cheapskate generation came along.....received more gifts from America and gave the least back. It's time to put the taxes back to where we can actually educate our children, rebuild our infrastructure and make Americans more financially secure whether the whining wealthy like it or not. I really just don't give a crap.

Fosh,
Jesus wasn't talking about only money in that parable, he was talking about the spiritual gifts people are given.
Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesars, regarding taxes.

"...until the cheapskate generation came along....."

Another good post. The seniors and super wealthy seem to forget that others were paying their taxes as they were making their climb to where they are now. Suddenly, neither group wants to pay any taxes.

***** And SKIZZ - its not Christianity...Christ gave the story of talents where the 3 servants were given different amounts...not the same ..different..he did not say "rich guy give your talent to the poor servant" he said " for those that have much - much is asked" and chastised the poor servant for in investing.
Posted by foshaffer ******

.......so Christ was a capitalist ??.........

The recently passed and signed Veterans bill was the first step in restoring America after its recent bout with Supply Side Economics. Our recovery will continue though the same voices who told us how wonderful Voo Doo would be will continue to try and frighten us into going back to Reaganomics. Hopefully America will never again listen to those voices who claim "deficits don't matter."

Capitalism=survival of the fittest=as far from the teachings of Christ as you can get.

***** Do you think the top 1% will just sit back and take it? or do you think the 1% will go somewhere else. (its not like that they can't afford to go).******

......money EARNED in the US is taxed as income in the US........

......so people can relocate if they want, but they still pay the taxes here on money earned here.......

......and if they really feel so unpatriotic as to not want to pay taxes in the country that gave them the opportunity to MAKE their millions ....then piss on them.....Mexico or Sweden can have them......

Hey foks, argue all that you want but the proof is in the pudding.

Here is the question:

"Has the Bush Tax cuts helped or hurt this economy?"

Sorry, but the evidence is in.

Raise their Fucking Taxes!

Cutting them has put this country in this horrible financial situation and the Facts are the Facts.

You may stop your internal dialogue now.

"But the rich will not"

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

"Having the rich pay their share will cause prices to go up."

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

"Have the poor pay more will increase.."

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

We have had massive tax cuts for the rich. How's that going for this country as a whole?

"Well we would be in a lot worse.."

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

The pudding is on the table folks. Worst economic situation in HOW long for the average Joe?

Thank God for Change huh? Enjoy the pudding!

"go to college, work your ass off, save money, make all the right moves and investments just to get f*cked by the democrats again.

Posted by Maverick at 2008-07-02 11:51 AM"

Get born with a silver spoon in your mouth, barely work in school, sniff coke and drink your ass off until you're 40 while fucking up several business ventures thereby losing other people millions of dollars, just to get rewarded by your own tax cuts. Gomerica!

(Maverick, you are batting 0 for 3 now. Is that why you slunk away, retard?)

"These people pay more taxes than the rest of us combined."

That's because they make more than the rest of us combined.

"In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined."

That's because they make more than that 128 million.

Now, if the tax took into consideration the cost of living in each particular area, I think that would be fair. 100K in NYC is barely middle class (unless you have rent control) compared to what 100K does for you in Arkansas or somewhere.

"...he did not say "rich guy give your talent to the poor servant"

Posted by foshaffer

Well, not in that parable, which wasn't really even about money, but He was pretty specific here...

"Sell everything you have and give to the poor," said Jesus to a rich man (Luke 18:22).

yes.........Christ
ianity............

Posted by skizziks at 2008-07-02 12:00 PM | Reply

Since you are such an expet on the faith tht you disdain, please show us where Jesus says that the government should take money from hard-working, successful people and give it to lard-asses like Danni?

Jesus advocated INDIVIDUAL charity, which is why most day care, food programs, etc., are run by churches. It's also the reason that Americans are the most generous people in the world.

You can see the difference by comparing the tax returns of Kerry or Clinton (ZERO charity) to that of Bush (10%)

"And when they go somewhere else - remember these are the people that put capital into the stock market and are the ones that fund the new speculative ventures......"

I don't think everyone else worships these people the way you do. I think alot people figure that if they leave the country, the sun will still rise in the morning and we will move along without them as if they were never here.

Sorry Skizz...but a Talent was a standard coin of the Roman empire - and worth about a months wages of the average person.

And yes Christ was a capitalist...he was a successful carpenter - which was the highest skilled trade at that time.

and to the point of the Earned...if I am headquartered in Bermunda then I am exempt from paying US taxes on any portion of the income earned outside the US or IN THE US as part of international commerce.

Look it up.

Which is why you have so many Bermunda Corporations.

And "Piss on them" does not counter the argument - and the reality - that the money he is counting on will diminish to the detriment of all of us.

"A man shall be known by the sweat of his brow" - Christ did not expect a GOVERNMENT to take care of people..he made it YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Ironic that Wall Street folks making big bucks are supporting Obama isn't it. You'd think they would fear the higher taxes he has said he will inflict upon them but they don't...why???
Maybe because they can see that inflation is eating up more than what they will lose in taxation and that those taxes will help to bring inflation back under control. Uncertainty is worse for most investors than income tax or capital gains taxes because losing your investment is worse than giving up part of your profit on that investment.

Shhhh. Psychopaths is having another argument with the voices in his head.

How's your pudding Right?

"hard-working, successful people and give it to lard-asses like Danni?"

First I am no lard ass, I run 3 miles every other day and have very little body fat but if it helps you to counter my arguments by pretending I am fat, be my guest.
Secondly, I am hard working, and have been my entire life, even working two jobs at some points to support myself and my kids with no child support or public assistance of any kind but again, if it helps you make your point feel free to make shit up....you do anyway.

How much money do you take from the Government Danni?

"You can see the difference by comparing the tax returns of Kerry or Clinton (ZERO charity) to that of Bush (10%)

Posted by vernon"

That pesky calculator problem rears its ugly head again.

According to Kerry's 2002 tax return, he gave 12.9% of his taxable income to charity.

LOL at the idea that higher tax rates quell inflation. If that's true, why not raise taxes on all of us? After all, if I could send the government another thousand to save me two at the grocery store, I'll sign up for that all day long.

But, somehow, I don't think you're talking about taxes on yourself.

You can see the difference by comparing the tax returns of Kerry or Clinton (ZERO charity) to that of Bush (10%)

Posted by vernon

The bible also says that if you're going to be charitable, do it secretly, without expecting credit.

Posting it on your taxes, for the deduction I might add, hardly seems like doing it charitably, or secretly.

Are you saying that Vernon doesn't have a clue to what he is talking about? Again?

(GASP)

What a shock!

$0.00 Manypaths. None of my kids get a dime either. Nor anyone in my entire extended family and none of us are old enough for SS yet. But we have all paid income taxes our entire lives. We have all worked our entire lives. Even my older Republican brothers are beginning to think Bush and Voo Doo Economics has cost them more than it has saved them.

"LOL at the idea that higher tax rates quell inflation."

Balancing the budget will help quell inflation because we won't be printing more dollars and borrowing more money. Pretending otherwise seems silly considering the situation we find ourselves in presently.

But, somehow, I don't think you're talking about taxes on yourself.

Posted by rightisright

No, we aren't.

Way to catch up to the rest of the class.

Try to keep up now.

How much money do you take from the Government Danni?

Posted by Manypaths

$0.00 Manypaths. None of my kids get a dime either. Posted by danni

Me either Danni. I just wanted to point out that most of the Right's argument on this topic is MOOT at best and a blatent lie at the very worst.

Matthew Chapter 6 vs 1 through 4

Matthew Chapter 6 vs 1 through 4

Posted by LarryMohr

Whatever argument you were in, you just lost.

"Every American pays x% of what you made."

We already do.

The other 16,840 pages of the tax code define "made".

"And yes Christ was a capitalist...he was a successful carpenter - which was the highest skilled trade at that time."

Unless you can show the verse, I believe you made up everything except that he was a carpenter...period.

Ah..Manypath...typical liberal...You say Facts Are Facts...so where are they? Where are your "Facts"? No ..you can't handle a challenge (like all the liberals) so it is 1) tell everyone to shut up because it does not meet with your screwed up version of reality - can't challenge liberal dogma 2) do a personal attack.

ManyPaths that was in reference to HC's comment.

Larry

ManyPaths that was in reference to HC's comment.
Posted by LarryMohr

That's what I thought... was just going to check on that.

MP's comment was still funny though. Your post did seem to be in response to...?

"Also ...on supply side economics...its now taught in most business schools as valid..."

That WAS true but isn't any more. It is now considered Voo Doo economics as Bush I aptly named it.

Good point HC

Supply Side Economics:

Taxes & Economic Growth

By Michael Gethings

Business Economics

Professor Jim Stodder

MGMT 6300

Spring 2003

"At the outset of this paper I had sought to validate that supply side economics was responsible for the economic growth of the 1980's and should be pursued by George W. Bush to stimulate growth in the economy. My research has not led me to the unquestioned conclusion that supply siders are right on the fundamental economic arguments when they are put into practice in the real economy. The most vocal critic that I came across was certainly Paul Krugman. His basic economic arguments appear fundamentally sound but his consistent outrage towards all things conservative and his reflexive left wing bias caused me to question his credibility. The article that seemed most credible in debunking the supply side argument was by Richard Kogan from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In "Does Cutting Tax Rates Increase Economic Growth?" Kogan cites empirical data on productivity, private savings, hours worked, and population over a number of business cycles to measure the impact of tax cuts. The data indicates that productivity has declined from the 70's and remained relatively constant through out the 80's (His study does not include productivity statistics from the 90's which have certainly improved due to information technology). Private savings declined, and hours worked as well as the working population remained relatively constant. This led Kogan to the conclusion that the dramatic tax cuts of the 1980's did not have a material impact on economic growth. The study did not include the 90's but it is worth noting that both Clinton and Bush 41 raised taxes and therefore improvements in the areas studied by Kogan could not be the result of tax cuts."

What the down-and-outers seem not to understand is that when you take money away from the rich, the rich hire less people, stop building pools and new houses and stop spending as much.

In other words, when you pull from a rich man's wallet, they make up for it in other ways. All you idiots are right about one thing- the rich guy is not going to hurt much from this. The people that are going to hurt are the construction workers, the hotel employees, the luxury car manufacturers, the limo industry, the catering industry and many other service-based outfits that are employed by the rich.

The bottom feeders are not suddenly going to become better off if the rich are penalized. Isn't it obvious? How many people here have ever been employed by a poor person?

Let's say I sell sweet corn for $1 per dozen and I make $1 million dollars a year and employ 20 people. Let's say I'm taxed currently at $250,000 a year. Now let's say I'm taxed an extra $100,000 per year thanks to Barry's new tax plans.

Am I:

a) going to pay it and be angry.
b) going to start charging $1.25 per dozen to make up for it.
c) get rid of a few employees and downsize the company.
d) b and c

But, even though history has shown that redistribution of wealth only hurts everyone, maybe if we try it one more time, this time it might work!

Where are your "Facts"?

Stocks tank on GM, oil

Vulture real estate investors swoop in

Change of plans for July 4 - gas too pricey

Starbucks to close 600 stores

Gas: 3rd straight record

Auto sales plunge 18% in June

UnitedHealth cuts profit view

Paulson: U.S. facing a tough second quarter

Jobs report likely to show more losses

Cities, states begin to feel economic downturn

New-home sales, prices tumble further

Small businesses fighting to survive

Home-equity-loan Delinquencies Hit Record High In ABA Data

"(GM) bankruptcy is 'not impossible' if the U.S. auto market continues to slump, Merrill Lynch said."

Facts are that the ecoonmy was much better off prior to giving the richest Americans a tax cut.

Who's denying that?

Why are you righties avoiding the pudding?

MP,

"Where are your "Facts"?
Stocks tank on GM, oil
Vulture real estate investors swoop in
Change of plans for July 4 - gas too pricey
Starbucks to close 600 stores
Gas: 3rd straight record
Auto sales plunge 18% in June
UnitedHealth cuts profit view
Paulson: U.S. facing a tough second quarter
Jobs report likely to show more losses
Cities, states begin to feel economic downturn
New-home sales, prices tumble further
Small businesses fighting to survive
Home-equity-loan Delinquencies Hit Record High In ABA Data"

Yeah but besides that, life's great!

"What the down-and-outers seem not to understand is that when you take money away from the rich, the rich hire less people, stop building pools and new houses and stop spending as much."

They already fooled the country with that line of bull a couple of times. Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way as our present economic situation demonstrates. It makes it hard for righties when our economy is so obviously in the tank and one party had so long to make Voo Doo work but couldn't.

""(GM) bankruptcy is 'not impossible'"

I remember a slogan...."As goes General Motors so goes the nation."

Facts are that the ecoonmy was
much better off prior to giving
the richest Americans a tax cut.

Who's denying that?

Heh. Okay, the facts are that the economy was much better off prior to Seinfeld going off the air too! Damnit, Jerry.

That is a typical rightie, pretending that Seinfeld and taxation are equally relevant to the economy. Which Economics school teaches that anyway?

>They already fooled the country
>with that line of bull a couple
>of times. Unfortunately it doesn't
>work out that way as our present
>economic situation demonstrates.

I really don't believe that our current situation is as bad as the media is making it, and the current situation is not necessarily because of Bush tax cuts. In fact, I submit that the problem would be worse if the tax cuts weren't in place. But I'm sure the Reagan tax cuts and the Reagan years were just an anomaly.

BTW, don't worry, it's almost over. On Jan 21, 2009, when Osama is in office, all of a sudden the media will be reporting the return of economic prosperity and things will instantly improve and there will be no more woes when the Messiah is president.

>That is a typical rightie,
>pretending that Seinfeld and
>taxation are equally relevant
>to the economy. Which Economics
>school teaches that anyway?

Oh, crap. Sorry, Danni, I forgot the caliber of person I'm dealing with. You see, this is called "making a point of absurdity." I guess I should have explained this. I assume you went to the public schools. Sorry.

In other words, just to explain a little further, I was making the exact opposite point that you were gleaning from my though. What was was trying to say is that Seinfeld had nothing to do with it. Just like the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

In the future, I'll try to use less confusing comparisons.

And all of that you just listed has happened since the Democrats have taken hold of Congress.

Foshaffer,
So, given your post:

"but when it comes down to it...the higher the taxes the less incentive I have to work - or invest."

If you're making 25k/50k/100k/year, whatever, and are getting taxed at 50%, you wouldn't try harder to make 150k/year?
You do understand that unless taxes are at 100%, the more you make the more you KEEP?!?!

From reading the majority above the left has been successful promoting their class warfare agenda. It's now a horrible thing to be successful. Well, I can only assume those of you who are so gleeful about this are the losers who either failed or never had the drive to try to succeed. Congratulations - you have been brainwashed.

"And all of that you just listed has happened since the Democrats have taken hold of Congress."

If we were to look back, would you have been one of those who, 2 years into the 1st Bush (mis)Administration when the economy was bad and jobs were disappearing faster than Rush's pill supply, said it was a residual effect from the Clinton years?????

There is a point where you're on the verge of entering the next tax bracket where getting there means keeping less, but that's not the case for the majority of people.

If we were to look back, would
you have been one of those who,
2 years into the 1st Bush (mis)
Administration when the economy
was bad and jobs were disappearing
faster than Rush's pill supply,
said it was a residual effect
from the Clinton years?????

Wow, that biting wit. Rush's pill supply. Ah hah hah!

No, but if you'll recall when GW was just in office, there were already signs of a recession. Oh, and then there was that pesky pair of planes going into those buildings.

But- regardless, I don't think that you can blame any of this- now or then- entirely on any administration or congress. You CAN, however, blame it on too much spending by congress, welfare programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, and many other goverment programs that have sucked the private sector dry. If our goverment would stop spending and taxed everyone less, we would not be in the situation we're currently in!

"From reading the majority above the left has been successful promoting their class warfare agenda."

As if the left started the "Class War."
Look to Ronnie Raygun for that one.

Look to Ronnie Raygun for that one.

Posted by danni

I think you have to go a little bit farther back than that, danni.

Nixon? He was the first to decide us po folks should get our medical care through HMOs. He caused all that inflation in the 70's.

Danni can't. She's most likely not old enough.

Nixon? He was the first to
decide us po folks should get
our medical care through HMOs.
He caused all that inflation
in the 70's.

Oh yeah, COULDN'T have been Carter. That loser.

Which makes me unlike the posters above.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-07-01 11:44 PM

they are honest and have credibility. You are corrupt and truly evil.

"Oh yeah, COULDN'T have been Carter. That loser."

That must be why I still remember Gerald Ford introducing the WIN Button. You know what WIN stood for, right HUMANEAR?????

"Danni can't. She's most likely not old enough."

hahahahahahahaha!

That must be why I still
remember Gerald Ford
introducing the WIN Button.

Yes, and Gerald Ford WAS a boob.

I'll concede the point that inflation was a problem prior to Jimmy, but Jimmy certainly exacerbated the problem. I know that we were facing economic crises that compare to today's problems. And what was Carter's solution to high energy prices? Wear a fucking sweater and turn your thermostat down.

Apparently you ARE old enough and in fact are older than I. Just shows you that ignorance does not discriminate against the elderly. :-)

Nixon?
Posted by danni

I was talking farther than that... back to the guys who said that only landowners had the right to vote and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person... but, for god's sake, only for representational purposes.

Facts are that the ecoonmy was much better off prior to giving the richest Americans a tax cut.

Who's denying that?

Why are you righties avoiding the pudding?

Posted by Manypaths
* * * * *

If you believe that, then it's also true that the economy was much better off prior to giving the middle class enormous tax cuts too. And increases in the child tax credits. And increases in the Earned Income Credits. And cuts in the dividend tax rates.

Maybe we should just go back to Clinton-era tax rates for everyone, eh?

Ah, what was I thinking. You guys want to keep your Bush tax cuts, you just want everyone in the tax brackets just above yours to pay for the extra cuts you think you should be getting. But to moral compasses like Rastaninija, pointing such a thing out makes me evil.

Party on. Good luck in going after other people's stuff.

Balancing the budget will help quell inflation because we won't be printing more dollars and borrowing more money. Pretending otherwise seems silly considering the situation we find ourselves in presently.

Posted by danni
* * * *

So why did the inflation rate plunge by 3/4ths during the Reagan years, while deficit spending soared?

Hmmm. Maybe there's not such a correlation after all. But if you feel that strongly about it, maybe we should return to the Treasury all the Bush tax cuts the middle and lower class has gotten. In addition to the upper class, of course. You know--just so we can do our part to keep inflation down.

"I'll concede the point that inflation was a problem prior to Jimmy, but Jimmy certainly exacerbated the problem. I know that we were facing economic crises that compare to today's problems. And what was Carter's solution to high energy prices? Wear a fucking sweater and turn your thermostat down."

You demonstrate how little you know about Jimmy Carter. He put together an Energy Plan that had Ronnie Raygun not cancelled it we would not now be importing oil from the ME. Pretending that it would have been easy to stop inflation once it had gotten going is ridiculous, I remember those days and inflation SUCKED!!! Finally Carter brought Paul Volker into the Fed and he applied very high interest rates to bring inflation and just about everything else too to a halt but that is what was required. Imagine if you will that the Fed suddenly raised rates to 10-12%, that is what it took. Actually rates will probably be rising soon because inflation is on the rise now so get ready for a struggling economy to struggle harder. Thanks Bush, Supply Side, War, More War, Bush Tax Cuts.

This declaration, though far from becoming law, is a good sign.

He put together an Energy Plan that had Ronnie Raygun not cancelled it we would not now be importing oil from the ME.
* * *

Uh huh. Please tell me how, if Saudi Arabia can profitably pump at $15 a barrel, and Oklahoma at $45 a barrel, that the Middle East won't sell every drop of oil they pump? Would Jimmah's energy plan have repealed the laws of economics, as well as supply and demand? Did tearing off Jimmah's solar panels from the White House mean that Texas and Pennsylvania wells started to cap out and run dry?

And by the way, if Carter was such a big fan of his silly solar power, how come there are no solar panels at his library?

Just curious. I know it's considered bad form to come on a lefty 'blog and beat up on a president booted from office nearly 30 years ago. But not even he believed in his own energy plan.

"Would Jimmah's energy plan have repealed the laws of economics, as well as supply and demand?"

RisR we could have raised the CAFE standards a long time ago and made it economically too expensive for most folks to drive gas guzzlers. The high prices are now doing exactly what we could have done with standards or taxation. Where do you get that Jimmy didn't believe his own plan?

You said that if we'd followed Carter's energy plan, we wouldn't be importing oil from the Middle East anymore. But that's false. As long as they're the lowest-cost producers, they will always sell all their product. What would have happened is exactly what DID happen--oil prices fell, dramatically, in the 1980's, and domestic oil production went off a cliff.

Oil prices are set by the last marginal producer of crude. Always have been, always will be. But you can't say no to nuclear, no to coal, no to new natural gas drilling, no to new domestic crude, and wonder why prices are soaring in the face of higher demand. So here we are, and Obama promises only more of the same. Which is what we'll deserve, apparently.

Oh, yeah, Danni, you're right. The Carter years were such great times. Remember those good old times of high unemployment, super high interest rates, long gas lines, record high gas prices? Yeah, remember everyone being so well off during the Carter years?

Those high interest rates were directly responsible for a huge recession. It also caused investment funds to plummet, causing many older people and people planning retirement to suffer greatly. He took a problem, tried to solve it and fucked it up worse than it was. Gee, Obama, you have something to look forward to in your coming presidency- you can do it. You can beat Carter's record.

You demonstrate you don't know shit and you're defending the indefensible. But you won't admit you're wrong, will you.

And by the way, Carter's foreign policy was just abysmal and most historians will agree on that. His foreign policy was to kiss terrorist dictator ass and to malign the Jews whenever possible. Again, his policy was the exact opposite of what it should have been. And don't forget his Iranian Hostage fiasco.

Oh, and incidentally inflation and economy woes began in the early to mid 60s. Gee... who was president then, Danni boy?

But again, I submit that it's many many other things besides who's in office, but I'm sure that's something you'll never concede. It's all the Republicans' fault, huh.

"As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name..."

It's called Marxism.

RisR neither one of us can really know what would have happened had Carter's energy plan been followed but I don't think anyone can intelligently argue that it would have been a bad idea to get Americans out of gas guzzlers and into small, high mileage vehicles and there were methods available to have accomplished that. I won't blame it all on Reagan because other presidents and Congress are also to blame but Jimmy Carter was the only leader that seems to have understood the proportions of the energy problems we face and how important they were for our economy.
HUMANEAR you're just making wild accusations about Carter because you really don't know anything. Not really interested in continuing a discussion with you. At least RisR has knowledge to back up his attacks though I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.

"As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name..."

Is that what Robin Hood called it???

Well, an hour ago you were saying that had we only followed Carter's energy plan, we wouldn't be importing oil from the Middle East anymore. Now you acknowledge that none of us can really know.

But I do know. The Middle East would still be pumping away, making money off of crude provided it held over $15 a barrel. And if the US drillers couldn't get their price below that, there was no way--none, zero, zip, nada--that we wouldn't be importing a whole lot of crude from the ME. We don't import Saudi crude because we don't pump enough from here; we pump from here because the Saudis can't give us more. That's the way a commoditized market works.

If Carter were really looking for energy efficiency, he would've certified dozens of nuclear power plants. But he didn't. Carter was a Luddite, terrified of nuclear power because of what he saw in a movie. So here we are. Thanks to Carter and people like him, we're burning 20 million more tons of coal a year. If you believe in global warming, he's on the top ten list of reasons why.

Carter was, if I am not mistaken, an atomic engineer on submarines. He was not "terrified" of nuclear power because of a movie.

You Cons better look to the disastrous mess you made of this economy and stop trying to witch-hunt, or blame the media for reporting statistics.

Because we're not buying anymore.

"So here we are. Thanks to Carter and people like him, we're burning 20 million more tons of coal a year."

Carter was only in office for four years, since then we've had three Republicans and one Democrat in the WH so it is a little ridiculous to blame Carter for much of anything.

Carter also dealt with Three Mile Island and had previously in his life helped the clean up of the Chalk River Laboratories reactor meltdown in Canada so to say he was a Luddite who got his knowledge about nuclear power from a movie is ridiculous. He was also trained to command a nuclear submarine but left the service before he took command of one.

I remember when the Three Mile Island incident occurred and Saturday Night Live did a skit with the real Jimmy Carter in it....they made him look 100 ft. tall looking in through tiny windows as if the radioactivity had made him grow to giant proportions.

Tax the rich, they move their wealth to internationally where it can't be touched. It's more true with corporations. Tax em and they are not going to stick around. Why don't we stop taxing corporations, which WILL bring more businesses to relocate to the United States. I would create more jobs, let alone way more money in our economy. If we did that our cost of labor issues wouldn't be an issue at all.

Evil,

There becomes the trade off that I would not work any more.

I have sales guys in Europe that I want to hand bonuses to because they do a better job than others - but I can't ...I have to give them trips because if I hand them money the tax rate is so high they see virtually nothing of it.

The result is that the good guys slowly do not produce much more than the poor ones..there is no incentive for them to do so.

Also - there is the invest issue...why take any capital risk if your return is 50% less due to tax. Therefore venture capital will dry up.

It may make you all feel good short term to Screw the Rich...but what goes around comes around...and also remember that it is not only Income taxes that they are talking about raising...its all other taxes. So 44 Million Americans (not rich..lower middle class) get around income taxes but they get hit with a tax on virtually everything else.

"Also - there is the invest issue...why take any capital risk if your return is 50% less due to tax. Therefore venture capital will dry up."

I think a review of the Clinton years would show that increased taxation does not necessarily prevent economic growth, venture capital investment, etc. But keep trying maybe you will turn B.S. into something useful.

I have 3 big issues with this:

1.) Taxable income should not be used to define 'wealthy' which should be a measure of networth and raising taxed on earned income while keeping taxes lower on dividend and capital gains is shifting the tax burden to 'working people' vs. investors. I think this is completely unfair and just one more obstacle for those trying to get wealthy by working for a living vs. inherited wealth.

2.) Taxes should be progressive and based on 'disposable income' vs. absolute income amount. $100K in Cali is middle class but wealthy in the midwest, etc. To tax the money the same violated the progressive nature of our income tax code and I would prefer a flat tax under that scenario.

3.) Raising the SS cap is an awful idea. I would rather have means testing and pay in on my first $92K in income and collect nothing on the back end than pay SS on 100% of my taxable income and have my payout capped such that this is a welfare program. SS should move back to being a safety net vs. a retirement plan.

Danni,

Obviously you did not look at the GDP growth chart in the early post...it did impact the investment and growth of the country. Capital investment declined 30% over the Clinton years but bumped in 2001 and has been on a steady increase until late last year.

Capital investment declined 30% over the Clinton years but bumped in 2001 and has been on a steady increase until late last year.

Posted by foshaffer

Rape and pillage is always popular if you know that nobody is minding the store.

Celine - you think Venture capital is rape and pillage? I cannot believe people get college and high school diplomas and do not understand the basics of the economic system that they live in.

Well ..given the state of education in this country...yes I can.

It is obvious that most of you do not understand fundimental economic laws given your statements on the oil markets, and now taxes.

Geeze...I now know why Stalin and the other socialist called you guys "useful idiots"

Basically - 1) Socialism does not work and has not anywhere it has been tried. Yet this is exactly the economic policy that Obama and all of you are supporting. 2) Capitalism is not a bad thing...in fact every capitalistic country has a better enviromental record than ANY socialistic country. 3) Capital investment employs people and provides them a better life 4) Without capital populations revert to pre-historic living conditions (compare Africa now to Africa in the early 1900s - look at Zimbabwe before Mugaby and the running off of the white farmers and now) 5) Investing capital is a trade off of risk and reward - lower the reward (taxes) and you lower the level of risk that people are willing to take.

Quit living in a dream world where there are evil corporations out there trying to steal your soul and it is only the Government that is keeping them from it...and realise that the Government is stealing your soul and making you a slave to it via taxes while the corporations are actually competing for your skills and your money.

Celine - you think Venture capital is rape and pillage? I cannot believe people get college and high school diplomas and do not understand the basics of the economic system that they live in.

Well ..given the state of education in this country...yes I can.

It is obvious that most of you do not understand fundimental economic laws given your statements on the oil markets, and now taxes.

Geeze...I now know why Stalin and the other socialist called you guys "useful idiots"

Basically - 1) Socialism does not work and has not anywhere it has been tried. Yet this is exactly the economic policy that Obama and all of you are supporting. 2) Capitalism is not a bad thing...in fact every capitalistic country has a better enviromental record than ANY socialistic country. 3) Capital investment employs people and provides them a better life 4) Without capital populations revert to pre-historic living conditions (compare Africa now to Africa in the early 1900s - look at Zimbabwe before Mugaby and the running off of the white farmers and now) 5) Investing capital is a trade off of risk and reward - lower the reward (taxes) and you lower the level of risk that people are willing to take.

Quit living in a dream world where there are evil corporations out there trying to steal your soul and it is only the Government that is keeping them from it...and realise that the Government is stealing your soul and making you a slave to it via taxes while the corporations are actually competing for your skills and your money.

""Obviously you did not look at the GDP growth chart in the early post...it did impact the investment and growth of the country. Capital investment declined 30% over the Clinton years but bumped in 2001 and has been on a steady increase until late last year."

I don't know what planet you live on but it isn't Earth. Clinton's presidency was undisputably a time of huge economic growth which has certainly not been matched under Bush.

"Basically - 1) Socialism does not work and has not anywhere it has been tried."

Do not look behind the curtain at Europe or Japan or CAnada. Just take their word for it and realize how lucky we are to have privatized health care for some and none for many. Yay America!

I hate to support a tax increase, but we can't keep borrowing, so we have to do something. My dollar needs to quit declining, because I live mostly month to month, and can't just "get out" of the dollar, if you know what I mean.

We would be better served by wrapping it up (as cleanly as possible) in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who knows how long that will take. I highly doubt that will happen before Obama's first term.

Plus, if I am understanding this correctly, most people are getting tax cuts, am I right? I'm game (I'm not rich).

I feel so bad for them!

Is McSame for or against the Bush Tax cuts this week?

Find Out!

Let's return, once again, to McCain's flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell's debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won't back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he's both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

danni talking economics, worthless!!!!!

F the top one percent, obama is going to strangle the top 30%, to help the chronically umemployed and the illegal aliens. After all it's for the children

Supply-side economics has been described as "horse and sparrow" economics, since if you feed all the oats to the horse, there's bound to be some left "behind" for the sparrow.

Hodge: Obama's Tax Plan Hammers Top 1 Percent

Fantastic!
Use the money to pay off some of the debt, rebuild infrastructure and provide healthcare.
Investing in America always yields good returns for the American people.

"Buh buh but the rich will spend less on yachts and jets and diamonds!"

So what? That sucks if you're in the luxury yacht business but what puts more money in the economy: giving a rich guy $500k or giving 100 people $50k?

"Buh buh but the rich will spend hire less people, ruining the economy!"

You work for a rich guy? He pays you out of his personal account? Then you must be a butler or a gardener or a pool boy. If a rich guy owns a company then number of employees and what they get are a reflection of the success of that company, not the owners personal tax bill.

"Buh buh but more taxes mean less incentive to succeed!"

Bullshit. People are not just driven by money. After your needs are taken care of and you are financially secure you keep working for the challenge. Pre Reagan the tax on the rich was a lot higher than it is today. Did that ruin the economy?

"Bu Bu but SOCIALISM, STALIN, COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM (blah blah blah)"

STFU you stupid uninformed dittohead. Why don't you go dig yourself a bomb shelter in your back yard and let the grown-ups fix the mess you stupid fuckers made.

$500k or giving 100 people $50k?

Must have been using Vernons calculator...
Make it: 100 people $5k.

F the top one percent, obama is going to strangle the top 30%...

Posted by DavetheWave

But only if they're white. And then he'll use the money to tear down churches and open madrassas! What's left he'll give to the "chronically unemployed" (read: blacks) in the form of cash payments for impregnating white, mid-western teenage girls.

Hint: F the Poor.

That's true, but Socializing entire industries doesn't.

I believe that's called a straw man argument. Who here is arguing for the socialization of entire industries?

Rich people create wealth and by investing in their businesses and creating new opportunities (i.e. jobs).

If you tax the shit out of entities that actually fucking produce something, they quit producing wealth.

I'm sure if you keep repeating it it will become true. And yes, before Reagan, when the tax rate on the rich was ~70% this country had a failing economy.
BTW the rich don't "produce" anything. Successful ventures will always find investors, even without the largesse of the "rich". The investment capital that comes from people's 401k and pension funds is insignificant, I'm sure.

And all the grandiose happy puppy butterfly Collectivist schemes you can dream up mean exactly shit if the wealth those schemes depend upon to seize and redistribute isn't there.

Very simple concepts, dipshit.

Your homework is to internalize them.

Must have hit a nerve, you even used your own handle!
Look around you, the economy is going to shit the number of poor is GrOwing, the debt is out of control. The Supply-side economic experiment is a Failure. If yoU believe that that model is still viable then you're the one in dreamland.

But of Course, facts are meaningless to an internet tough-guy liKe you. Why don't you get on your horse and go fight YOURSELF some injuns. Then go "fishin'" with you're best bud on that secret spot by the river.

If you think a tax increase will satisfy the government need for revenue you are sadly mistaken. The more you feed the pig the fatter it will get. No politician can resist spending money on programs that will please the people who don't pay taxes which gets them re-elected on someone else's dime. Most liberals feel that high taxes are good as long as someone else is paying for it. I have no problem having a sliding scale for wage earners but there needs to be a limit on how much the government can take. I laugh when Hillary gave a speech and said "together we can rebuild this country and make it work for everyone". I don't know what she means by "together"? because the dems are going to do it on the back of successful people while the other 80% reap the rewards.

I know quite a few people who are not doing very well because they are either lazy, stupid or feel work is beneath them. This will only give them an incentive to continue down that path. If you are in that category the Democrats will reward you. If you're successful you will be punished. Maybe we can all quit our jobs and sit home and wait for our government subsidies

Socialism is slowly taking hold in this country. France is trying to crawl out of that hole but too many of the people who benefit from it threaten to sabotage the economy.

During an election cycle politicians will offer their mothers at bargain rates... but it is congress that crafts bills, and barring a pretty nice miracle the GOP will have the filibuster.

Needless to say, if McSame is elected only the rich will prosper.

Politicians have divided America into two blocs of voters labeled "more deserving of others' paychecks," and "less deserving of their own paycheck." Between 1986 and 1996, government transfer payments per capita rose at a rate six times faster than pretax compensation per private worker, according to economist Erich Heinemann. The income of the elderly rose nine times faster than the income for average Americans from 1971 to the late 1990s, largely because Social Security benefits have increased far faster than average wages.

Democracy has also been undermined by the continual growth in the number of government employees. There are more than 20 million government employees in the United States more than the total number of Americans employed in manufacturing. Not only has the number of government employees multiplied in recent decades, but the rise of government unions further stacks the political odds against private citizens.

Compensation expert Wendell Cox, publisher of the Public Purpose, a newsletter on government unions, estimated that pay for local and state government employees rose more than five times faster than private-sector pay from 1980 to 1998. Cox also found that federal employees receive roughly 50 percent more total compensation than do private employees performing similar jobs.

The sheer number of government employees and welfare recipients effectively transforms the purpose of government from maintaining order to confiscating as much as possible from vulnerable taxpayers. Elections nowadays, instead of a vote on what government should do, are largely referenda on how much it should take. The more government dependents, the more likely that democracy will become a conspiracy against self-reliance. Not all government workers, or all retirees, or all handout recipients will vote for candidates championing big government. However, politicians' ability to frighten and mobilize much of this huge voter base is often sufficient to turn elections into routs.

*Yawn*

As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name...

Christianity?

Taking from the poor to to give to the rich also has a name.

Feudalism.

Be Well.

"Taking from the poor to to give to the rich also has a name.

Feudalism."

Modern corporate capitalism.

and none of the increase in taxes will hurt barrywayne.....BECAUSE

word just out

obama gets sweetheart mortgage deal....

more news later about this great messiah who can do no wrong.....

Modern corporate capitalism

Equals Neo-feudalism.

"Peon" is an active verb.

Be Well.

and while all of you "SERFS" are screaming your approval, remember this when the taxes on that top percent filters down to you in the way of higher fees and charges and less salary and less jobs.but dont worry about any of that.your great messiah will GIVE YOU GIVE YOU GIVE YOU GIVE YOU anything you need.

Do not look behind the curtain at Europe or Japan or CAnada. Just take their word for it and realize how lucky we are to have privatized health care for some and none for many. Yay America!

Posted by danni at 2008

yeah sure and throw austrailia in there too.

and was it one of your examples here are another place that you want us to decline into where the man waited so long to have dental work that he just took out the tooth himslef....I believe the paper said that he waited four years for that "FREE WORK"

I don't think a tax increase on the top 1% equates to "socialism" but I will always question why so many lefties are so excited at the idea of this.

what do you guys think this will accomplish?

and why is it that if you spend anytime around the houston medical center as I have that you meet people from all corners of the world?
they dont spend thier life savings to rush to canada for what they need. they come here.

so why is it that you leftistas want to dumb down the health care system like you have the public school? and make no mistake about it.its liberal policies that have done JUST THAT in americas public schools.

Equals Neo-feudalism.

WOW SPUDFACE......I have some bad news for you. while you were typing neo feudalism I was typing you serfs.......that must mean that we are thinking on the same wave length.
I will now look through the yellow pages for a therapists.

In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.

How?

word just out

obama gets sweetheart mortgage deal....

Man yer desperate now.

The story on the two side by side properties Obama bought along with Rezko's wife has been fodder fer the right wing blogs fer a while now.

Now it turns out Northern Trust gave Obama a decent deal on his loan that saved him approximately 110,000 over thirty years.

The fact that Obama had over the amount of the loan invested at NT at the time of the loan explains the excellent terms he got.

Next.

Or does BLT really want Spud to explain why rich folks traditionally get better deals than regular joes?

WaPo and ABC are jsut playing their "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here at Rick's American" card to an audience mostly too dumbed down to figure it.

Those who wish to tax the rich simply have a problem with paycheck envy. It's a shame these stupid fucks can't see that such a scheme will not make their own way of life easier. It won't bring the price of food or fuel down, and it won't increase the stupid fuck's own paycheck.

Too many stupid fucks in America.

Save America, Shoot a Liberal!

Considering the growth in the gap between the have nots,, have somes, haves and the have mores, I'm definitely good with this.

Republicans piss on you and call it "trickle down." It doesn't work, never has worked, and Bush 43 proved it again. If it worked, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in and over 80% of the population wouldn't think we're heading in the wrong direction.

Considering the growth in the gap between the have nots,, have somes, haves and the have mores, I'm definitely good with this.

I am concerned with that gap also yav, but can you explain to me how this solves that problem?

I am concerned with that gap also yav, but can you explain to me how this solves that problem?

Hi Eberly.

We need help. We need growth industries that will be useful for the future. We don't need SS privatized. We need regulation on the lending and energy industries. We have to invest in the appropriate targeted industries and infrastructure which we have been neglecting. The majority of America will benefit from such investment, as well as bringing the revenues in line with expenditures. We need help with health care (not just for those that have a job) and we need tuition/education investment.

Now I'd like to know how McCain's tax breaks are going to help the majority of the United States Citizens. We've been living under that plan for years now. Our debt has skyrocketed, our dollar is pathetically weak, real wages have stagnated or declined for 80% of Americans. McCain's happy to spend 12B a month in Iraq until there's no more violence against the U.S. Troops.

He appears to be offering the same hope that tax receipts will grow, as they were supposed to under Bush 43. He believes he'll get "pork" under control - but pork, as bad as it is, is just a dent in the problem.

That is all offered IMHO, of course.

Now I'd like to know how McCain's tax breaks are going to help the majority of the United States Citizens.

Fair question and the only answer I have is that people will keep that money for themselves....that is a benefit.....agreed?

but nothing you posted is an answer to my question......the point of this is to point out that supportin this increase means you are choosing to place faith and trust in the same loonies who have recklessly placed us in this situation in the first place after entrusting too much money to them already.

I don't care which way you look at this..you can't get around that fact...you have to place faith and trust in the same loonies who can't manage the TRILLIONS we have already given them.

IMHO, these strategies are nothing but a way to gather support from liberals who are focused mainly on the source of the revenue rather than what it will meaningfully accomplish for the middle class.

off to bed

sorry,

first line in my last post is yav's.

Fair question and the only answer I have is that people will keep that money for themselves....that is a benefit.....agreed?

I don't see that changing significantly for the vast majority of Americans - hence the "hammers the top 1%" headline. Some changes will happen, dividends that aren't in IRA/IRRA accounts for instance - but overall I'm not seeing a big hit on my personal situation from Obama's plan.

So the choice you've posited is one of either trust the government or trust 'free enterprise' to develop jobs, infrastructure, education, etc.

That doesn't even require thought for me. I trust Government. That's why we elect them. That's why we are supposed to hold them accountable. That's why we share the risk on new technologies.

That's why we'll all benefit from wealth redistribution.

I fully believe there are some things that Government does exceptionally well, and some things that free enterprise does exceptionally well.

Now it turns out Northern Trust gave Obama a decent deal on his loan that saved him approximately 110,000 over thirty years.

and its a laon that none of us here could have possibly had done anf its also yet another hitch in teh side of the great messiah.
the man who is looking for the future because the future is tomororw and we cant look at the past because the past was so......yesterday.

and its a laon that none of us here could have possibly had done anf its also yet another hitch in teh side of the great messiah

Do you know wot rate Obama got was?

Do you know how much he put down?

Do you know how much he had invested in NT at the time.

Do you know wot the average rate is?

Obama get "better than average" rate?

Are you fucking kidding with that?

This is yet another non-story.

This is the WaPo at it's hit-piece worst.

Shoddy journalism at best.

McCain and his trophy wife own seven or eight homes that they paid cash for (Actually she paid fer 'em out of her families money. If that girl kicks it McNasty is pooched cos of her well written pre-nup)

Face it, BLT, John McCain is the Republican John
Kerry.

Vietnam Vet, questionable ethics, married money, out of touch elitist.

Good luck with that in November.

Obama is a well spoken, well educated man and a self made millionaire who married a girl from the south side of Chicago.

McCain is an incoherent silver spooner who cynically married fer money rather than love.

But you want folks to believe that Obama is the elitist and McCain is just plain folks.

Again with the good luck.

Spud sed it twice cos yer gonna need it to avoid a double digit blowout against yer braindead, soul-dead, illegal policy luffin' elitist candidate.

G08ama.

Be Well.

And the subject of this thread is what? Oh, I get it, all things McCain, All the time...

Spud

Do you know wot rate Obama got was?
"He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.
Do you know how much he put down?

About $300,000...

Do you know how much he had invested in NT at the time.

Zero at the time of the deal...but...
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," he said in a statement.

Do you know wot the average rate is?

The Obamas had no prior relationship with Northern Trust when they applied for the loan. They received an oral commitment on Feb. 4, 2005, and locked in the rate of 5.625 percent, the campaign said. On that date, HSH data show, the average rate in Chicago for a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo loan with no points was about 5.94 percent.

Obama get "better than average" rate?

Yes, see above....
Jumbo loans are for amounts up to $650,000, but the Obamas' $1.32 million loan was so large that few comparables are available. Mortgage specialists say that many high-end buyers pay cash.

Jumbo loans are for amounts up to $650,000

Dreamy,

Houses in Spud's neighbourhood go fer over a million bucks.

The 1.32 Million dollar loan Obama took out wouldn't even buy a McMansion in Vancouver.

Trying to make out that this loan was untoward or somehow insidious rather than a typical rich persons loan is pure hype.

5.65 versus 5.94?

You really think this story has legs except among the freeper set?

Really?

Spud don't.

Be Well.

You fucking democrats are pathetic. Pathetic. Your argument is very basic here.

What exactly your argument is, is that you CANNOT make a living on your own, and you need the help of rich people to survive.

What fucking business is it of yours to take my money because you feel your "entitled" to it.

you openly admit you can't make a living without the help of the government!

That makes you worthless pieces of shit. Or what we like to call "victicrats" Democrats that are victims their whole lives.

What the fuck are you STUPID democrats going to do when all the rich people like me, and others get fed up with your bullshit, and just incorporate off shore and pay 0 taxes?

Fuck you is about all I can say to Obama. My money is there BECAUSE I EARNED IT. I didn't work hard and achieve alot so I could give it to some pathetic democrat that can't live without my help. If I want to give, I give to charity. The day the government starts taking too much, big corporations start leaving in droves.

Just ask your pal Buffet. He avoids 10's of millions in taxes, yet the democrats brag about him. You raise taxes, you don't do shit to make him pay 1 dime more.

Thats how stupid you democrats are.

Kuma

Ray

That was an awesome read.

when all the rich people like me, and others get fed up with your bullshit, and just incorporate off shore and pay 0 taxes?

Obama would have ran to the store

KUMA

OK, so you made a lot of money selling crack.

9th grade your 'senior year'?

Maybe you'll be able to find a nice offshore GED class.

"You really think this story has legs except among the freeper set?"

Ooooooooo

.3% on a mega loan. Oh, no no no! No bank (with local competition) would EVER do that for a customer taking out a million dollar loan.

You're funny!

I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it will be a nonstory just like the other stuff.
lets see....his 20year advisor is an american hating racists pig and his other buddy set off a bomb in the pentagon, a priest went beserk all in his honor, and he has had dealing with a CROOk named rezko who will be in jail soon, and now he is getting favored treatment from mortgage people who will NEED HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND SENATE......hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm

NNNNOOOOOOOO there's no story here. it is more apparent all the time that he is going to have to have young boys or flat out stealing in his closet before anyone from the left will even entertain a thought about more scruinity(SP) of this half white/half black messiah of yours named hussein obama.

"messiah of yours"

The string continues, unbroken.

"The string continues, unbroken.

Posted by Danforth"

You know they'll keep over-using any absurd talking point until instructed to do otherwise, Danforth.

Messiah,
Savior,
The Greatest Orator of His Generation,
Obamessiah,

...always originate with righties. The desperation is almost palpable. Laura Ingraham referred to an Obama presidency with the phrase "gumdrops falling from the sky".

Ya gotta laugh.

earlier in this thread...I THINK.....was a discussion about socialism and so let me throw out a couple of questions about that.

why is is that its only the left who concerns themselves so much with class warfare.
reminds me of times in teaching that....oh say...the ag teacher would ask me how much I got in budget and then he would go on and on about how much athletics got and all that.....he was worried more about what someone else got rather than how to justify more money for his own program.
I know the answer. its because they are socialists. the rich have stuff and they thing that stuff should be spread around so that everyone can have a LITTLE rather than a few having a lot.
and if any of you think that I am rich then you havent seen my back account or my budget for even the simple things. but I dont think that the rich should be soaked just because I made a choice to teach rather than MAKE GOOD MONEY. I am not jealous of thier money or lifestyle or what they drive or what they wear......
so again I ask...why is it that the left is always the ones who go after the rich....and by the way.....when the left goes after the socalled RICH...a lot of people who are anything BUT RICH get in the way......

HHMMMMm maybe the fact that there are so many unwashed, jobless, and wacked out....PROGRESSIVES out there demonstrating at each convention and at every speech of mccain's out there that the left has no choice but to go after the rich......to not do so would mean that many of the left would have to get a real job......

and one more thing before I go......NO NO>....stop begging me to stay...I have to go....

capital gains tax increase for instance.
people here think, at least it seems, that these rich people with their capital gains are all sitting in thier 'swankiendas' and at the polo match and all that....that they are sitting around smoking cigars looking at the tape of the stock market stuff......when in fact many people of much more modest means will be affected by increase in capital gains tax and that doesnt even begin to cover increase in SS stuff.......

its not us on t he rioght who are 'poo pooing ' every single item about mccain as insignificant like obamamaniacs have done.
he has some real issues that he has to do something about and one is does he REALLY want to win since he doesnt seem interested in fighting the democrat attack machine which has been working overtime to discredit his entire military career.
and not long ago I posted a line about him being

"halfwhite/half black named hussein obama" and promptly got blasted about it........so let me ask you two august and sterling people.......what is not true about that statement.....EVERY SINGLE WORD IS THE TRUTH....

BL2

If you vote republican and you aren't rich--you are stupid.
The only people who should vote republican are people who make more than 200k a year.
Republicansd aren't for America and Americans--republicans are for money, and fuck everything and everyone else.

YOu keep bringing up socialism like it is a bad thing. Inorder for a country to be strong, its people must be strong. Writhing in poverty doesn't make a strong nation. The government should see to it that its PEOPLE are stong--not just the top 1%.

The top 1% doesn't WORK for their money--they get it by investments from forebears, or sports or entertainment. Few produce anything. Bill Gates doesn't work very hard I assure you. If you can GIVE a hundred million away, higher taxes won't be much of an effect.

Facts are wealth will be redistributed one way or another. The French revolution--the Russian Revolution, and the American revolution have proven that simple fact in tha past.

People like you need it proven again and again.

I I would rather support the Guy who thought He was the Savior than some low class God damned asshole who sold His soul and kissed the ass of the one who trashed His Family by declaring He had an illegitament Black child. Dats de facts Jack.

Larry Mohr

"...when in fact many people of much more modest means will be affected by increase in capital gains tax "

Explain how that happens.

Be sure to include the fact the top 1% control more wealth than the bottom 90%.

It is unbelievable that nowhere that I saw in this thread did anyone mention cutting the size of the government. That is absolutely pathetic. Neither party's members ever want to discuss that which explains exactly why we are in the middle of a class war.

End all corporate welfare.
End no-bid contracts.
Reduce the size of government to 1980's levels (or much earlier/smaller).
Shut down our military bases abroad and bring our troops home.
Shut down the federal reserve and return to congress their financial responsibilities outlined in the constitution.

Those things alone would allow us to get rid of the federal personal income tax for everyone and pay down our debt.

Yes, very rich people have too much political influence and power, but they only have it because of the leaders that you fucking elect. End corporatism in America and the playing field would be much more level..

If you vote republican and you aren't rich--you are stupid.
The only people who should vote republican are people who make more than 200k a year.
Republicansd aren't for America and Americans--republicans are for money, and fuck everything and everyone else.

YOu keep bringing up socialism like it is a bad thing. In

bob......you have said some outlandish things but this may take the cake......( and notice how I said outlandish and take the cake because this is where a liberal would have said...you are stupid and dumb because...ya da ya da)

socialism is not a bad thing......I know now that I have heard it all.....

thanks for that

perfect spot for this one.

more details out now..

it seems that the interest rate is locked in at 5.625% on barrywaynes loan to refurbish his swankienda in chi town.....
he paid no origination fees
he paid no discount points like you and me and anyone else would do......(is this your socialist at work.....BOB)
and compared to rates at the time, obama SAVES THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH MORE THAN YOU OR I WOULD..........

AH YES THE RICH GET RICHER......and you guys dont GIVE A FUCK as long as there is a D after his name.

WOW.........all right.....hey bob....more socialism at work here????????????
"the obamas have since had as much as 3 million invested throught northern trust" he said in a statement from bob labolt a barrywayne spokesman.

so nice look at the american liberal's idea of socialism is not a bad idea.........

The top 1% doesn't WORK for their money--they get it by investments from forebears, or sports or entertainment. Few produce anything. Bill Gates doesn't work very hard I assure you. If you can GIVE a hundred million away, higher taxes won't be much of an effect.

Facts are wealth will be redistributed one way or another. The French revolution--the Russian Revolution, and the American revolution have proven that simple fact in tha past.

People like you need it proven again and again.

well I stand corrected. this is just as bad as the first part of the post......you HAVE TO BE BULLSHITTING HERE.....wheres the camera.....am I on candid blogg or what......

ANDREA....sorry to repeat most of your fine post.
but the leftists here need to read it twice anyway since it wont have much more of a life.

It seems Pinch Mao thinks he has the smarts to save GM. Better go talk to them.

Schools and Roads are Socialism you dipshit. Do you want those things or do you think we should have tollgates and $40,000/year privatized schools only?

The notion that private is always better and cheaper is total bullshit. Look no further than the privatization and deregulation of energy markets and banking to see the carnage the private sector has heaped on this country. And that damage is tame compared to what has happened in Iraq, where Blackwater, KBB and others are setting records charging more while accomplishing absolutely nothing. $45 per can of Coke is just one example. BushCo has wasted more time and money than WWII cost. We used to get things done, in a hurry. Now its all talk and no action. More "profit" in bullshit than doing the dirty work.

and UH OH.SPAGHETTI OH>............

wire reports show that SEVEN THOUSAND OBAMA SUPPORTERS have organized on a social networking site on obama's own campaign web site.
and they are all PISSED because he said he would NOW SUPPORT the wiretapping bill....

this is the kind of shit you get when you flip flop
flip flop
flip flop.........

so just how will he vote....does anyone know?
NO we dont.......

AND for all of you christian hating, atheist attack dogs of faith....you are REALLY GOING TO HATE THIS ONE>......

from the mccaltchy tribune.

OBAMA VOWS WIDER FAITH PROGRAM>.

WHAT.........OOOOOHHHHHH NOOOOO

thats right.....a faith based initiatives that would "help set our national agenda"......quote from barrywayne himself......
AAAARRGGGGG...he then went on to say that it would INJECT MORALITY INTO POLICY DEBATES about everything from aids to genocide.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO>......this cant be.....

solving problems using christians and other religions......I thought this was an affront to every man and woman in america.. and so when did the country get into the religion business? arent these things we heard when bush did THE SAME FUCKIN THING.......
he also drew 'dissapointment' from barry lynn and the aclu said through michael macleod....."we want to make sure that one religion is not favored over any other religion or over no religion.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS>.......so Now the FUCKIN ACLU is saying that THIS IS OKAY........thats not what they said before........

and can there be any more proof that the great messiah named barrywayne can GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING.........

so how do some of you atheist and religion haters feel about this ...my prediction on your answer.I am sure you will make some shit up to justify it.

$45 per can of Coke is just one example

noone can argue that this is out of line but hasnt this been the norm for some time. remember the famous toilet seat that went for a thousand bucks. that wasnt bush.....this is stuff that happens all the time under any president and THAT doesnt mean that I dont think its bullshit. I do...but blame someone else for SOMETHING every now and then

BLT... I was the lone person railing against this on the Black Bush thread two days ago.

I nearly had a stroke listening to Obama backers support it. I still have the eye twitch.

I said it would be alot more consistent with his previous statements and with the constitution if he just used Americorp rather than the churches.

I don't have a problem with religion per se... its usually with the self proclaimed "religious."

BL2

I would bet good money that you think your posts made sense. You are mistaken.

I am dead against any faith based anything, and Obama is fucking up big time by giving tax dollars to any religious group. Only zombies like yourself go lockstep with whatever your God Bush wants. I didn't hear you protesting his faith based programs--why do it now just because it is Obama? You prove your brainwashing was effective. Vote for McCain--he's brainwashed too.

Only zombies like yourself go lockstep with whatever your God Bush wants.

And only zombies like you go lockstep with whatever your sheepleherd democratic party wants. Is your form of blind faith any better than someone else's, bOoB?

"I said it would be alot more consistent with his previous statements and with the constitution if he just used Americorp rather than the churches."

HC - the churches have so much more extensive reach at the grassroots level than any other organizations. It would take years, decades probably for Americorp or anyone else to replicate it, although they should certainly be part of the equation.

If you read his entire plan, he proposes strict regulation of how any funding can be used and also requires comprehensive adherence to EEOC and other fair hiring practices.

Certainly whether or not he can accomplish this and make the rules stick is open to discussion. Beyond that, I don't have a problem with the concept.

"It would take years, decades probably for Americorp or anyone else to replicate it..."
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I don't think that's a good enough reason to abandon the spirit, if not the letter of the law with respect to the constitution.

"Certainly whether or not he can accomplish this and make the rules stick is open to discussion."
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I know you remember that was one of my chief complaints... that there was no way he was going to be able to accomplish that... and that we'd spend more of our tax dollars litigating to prove that the EEOC laws were broken. Just a bad idea.

bob...comeon bud....must be time for that 2nd cup of coffee
my post wasnt going after obama for that. read it again and know that I was being, you know, like sarcastic.
I do support faith based programs just like bush has in place and I support what obama is talking about here.
but it sure seems sort of weird that now obama is doing essentially the same thing and I Bet with some exceptions, NONONE WILL SAY A WORD......some exceptions, as we have already read here.....

and remember....to be clear, his plan says that churches cant discrimminate against non religious groups.....but its the same thing.......so now lets sit back and listen to the outrage.............yeah sure...someone wake me up.....

Beyond that, I don't have a problem with the concept.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-07-03 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I cant prove it now but I have a hard time believing that you didnt go after this when it was proposed by bush with or without any restrictions.

one comment from inside the bush administration was that these hiring practices will frustrate many organizations including african american and evangelicals.........

so what you are saying maybe is that a faith based thing is okay as long as they give shit to anyone and its someone else's idea beside bush?
thats the point that I am getting from you.

BL2 - The problem with some of Bush's concepts like the faith-based initiative, and No Child Left Behind is, good idea, poor execution.

Obama might not be able to pull it off either, who knows. To me it would be the height of hypocrisy to dismiss a potentially good idea because of where it came from.

"...one comment from inside the bush administration was that these hiring practices will frustrate many organizations including african american and evangelicals........."

Then no one will force them to participate.

That was one of the main failings of the Bush program - it allowed for too much emphasis on the brand of religion and proselytizing and not enough on just helping people.

so its not okay to say....oh pray with the people that you are helping? I mean okay with the obama plan?

and SA......excuse me....REALLY when I say this....BUT Now you are REALLY STRETCHING my faith in your credibility when you say..

To me it would be the height of hypocrisy to dismiss a potentially good idea because of where it came from.

you would agree that this would be a RARE statement on this site, then....when it comes FROM the bush administration.

maybe jomama or celisary will weigh in on this later and then we will see the explosive comment on this....

The problem with some of Bush's concepts like the faith-based initiative, and No Child Left Behind

You gotta love it whenever people bring up NCLB. Too bad it wasn't successful -- it would've been another feather in St. Kennedy's halo

Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor...

"BUT Now you are REALLY STRETCHING my faith in your credibility when you say.."

Well you know what, BL2? I don't really care. I have never criticized Bush's original concept of faith-based initiatives - only how he implemented them, and what he allowed them to become.

If it makes you sleep better to pretend that only right wingers can be fair minded about something, then have at it bud.

I make $1,000,000.
I pay tax of $300,000.
Leaves me $700,000.
Of which most is invested in the market.

I make $1,000,000.
I pay tax of $600,000.
Leaves me $400,000.
Of which most is invested in the market.

Is the economy affected if there is $300,000 less invested in it?

$300,000 x 1.13 million =339 million dollars in the hands of the gov't instead of the market.

Are we ever going to pay off the National Debt?

It's great to hear about these great tax increases on the wealthy and tax breaks to the poor. How about saving the country - pay off the National Debt.

I expect the millions will be wasted - pork barrel spending.

General Welfare is abused. Let's cut the abusive spending instead of the raising taxes.

I don't agree with Obama on faith-based initiative, but I guess he understands how much power the church has in the community from his days as an organizer. I do agree with him on this tax system. Reaganomics don't work, they further the wealth gap. This is the most important issue for me, and Obama's got it right.
The revenue from this tax system better not go to welfare. Give it to education. We need to gut the welfare program, or reform it to get the carrot dangling in front of the poor instead of just giving them the carrot. Otherwise they'll never learn nothin' on how to live, lotsa poverty here in Chicago.

Give it to education? That hasn't worked, either.

Add it to earned income credit, but name it the earned education credit.

This money must be spent on education. Use it anywhere, for any school of your choice, and obtain a better education from a good school.

Don't bother with the 'separation of church and state' argument. Earned income credit can be spent anywhere - even tithed.

Is the economy affected if there is $300,000 less invested in it?

Posted by Petrous

That's a fallacious argument... the 300,000 goes directly into the economy, its just not you who's putting it there, its the poor, and its not expected to return a dividend either.

The poor don't use their money as investment income. They use it to live.

Oh, and back to the faith-based initiative thing once again, did anybody hear how Obama said he was going to pay for it?

With the money saved from pulling out of iraq! How f'ing ridiculous is THAT?!!!!

We're not paying for Iraq.... we're BORROWING to fight in Iraq!

Actually HC, according to his written proposal, most of the funding would come from "better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process."

Not what I heard him say on television yesterday. but I'll give it to you.

The LOONS, NULLandVOID and BuffaloBobShit(tm) are out and spewing shit again. Then there is poor confused Danni.........

That's a fallacious argument... the 300,000 goes directly into the economy (Now that's a fallacy), its just not you who's putting it there, its the poor, and its not expected to return a dividend either.

The poor don't use their money as investment income. They use it to live.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

BS - the gov't took the $300,000. It was a tax increase. Where did the $300,000 go? Not into the economy- unless its pork barrel and there's way too much of that. If they don't spend wastefully, they don't need to tax more - they can tax less.

The gov't doesn't invest $300,000 better than the market.

The poor rarely pays any income tax. The middle class chooses to either invest, save, or spend. That's a choice the general public isn't required to insure.

$300,000 is expected to create a dividend. That's why a wealthy person invests.

I think it is a fair statement to say the gov't wastes money compared to the marketplace.

I don't have much of a problem with this... the top 1% in this country can more then handle a tax increase...

It's nice to find myself agreeing with rob.

On the middle class as well. They could use a break.

Yav, I realize this is a bit late, but, my compliments on your post-11PM posts of yesterday. Definitely reflective of thought and analysis.

"I think it is a fair statement to say the gov't wastes money compared to the marketplace."

IMO, the marketplace puts money where it will generate the best return. The govt. spreads the money all over the place. Both help the economy in their way. The marketplace though, IMO, does less because it will give to that which is already doing well. I.E., the downside of capitalism, that this will invariably lead to concentration of companies and oligarchies.

PETROUS, if it were as simple as you lay out, then our economy would never be in any trouble. It would be so simple to manage. But, don't let the complications of reality get in the way of your assertions.

Federal money does go into the economy. Would the market invest in fixing bridges or levees? Didn't think so.

The entire analysis of the Tax Foundation is about how things would change from where they are now under Bush, whose policies have been rather more friendly to his wealthy buddies than in years past.

I think those 1% will mobilize. Defeating Obama will simply be another investment for them. How will they mobilize? "Don't let Hussein Obama take your guns or Jesus. The terrorists are emboldened. Be scared! Be really scared!" ("and oh by the way, keep our taxes low so that you all can pay more to keep our gov't running.)"

Obama gets discount on home loan:

A guy walks into a bank and says, "I'd like to take out a $1.3 million dollar mortgage" (most people in that category pay cash anyway).

Bank manager asks, "What rates have you been quoted so far.

Guy answers, "5.65%"

Bank manager seeing this as an opportunity to land a huge deals says, "What if I knocked off 3/10ths of a point on your loan and made it 5.35%?"

Guy says, "Well, that's a better deal than the bank down the street offered. I'll take it"

It's called "Competition" in a level of mortgages most banks never get to land.

Uh huh. And they do that for everyone, don't they. Are you really that dense? Wait, you're saying banks favor the rich? Oh my god. The banks should be penalized and the rich should have to pay more taxes! Oh, but that's only if they're Republicans, right? Riggghhhhttttt,

Oh, and all banks knock off points and waive their fees. Happens all the time, right?

General Welfare is abused. Let's cut the abusive spending instead of the raising taxes.

Posted by Petrous at 2008-07-03 12:20 PM

I completely agree--Vote McCain!

"I think those 1% will mobilize. Defeating Obama will simply be another investment for them. "

No, the one percent is smarter than that. They realize that they have pushed middle America about as far as they dare and now will let Obama win, he'll increase taxes a llittle and fix the economy a little. Then in a few years they will pull the same scam again. This is just, as I predicted, the S&L Scandal on steroids. Elect REpublicans, expect some fleecing of the sheep. Hey, the sheep are cooler without all that pesky wool, they're happier
.

I am trying to remember the last time I got a job from a poor person?? Hhmmmmm.

No, nope--never have gotten a job from a poor person.

All this hammering is going to set the economy into a tail spin.

The gov't is one giant bohemuth inefficient corporation that can't run anything right. They shouldn't get any money except to run the military and protect the borders.

But they expanded General welfare beyond comprehension and I don't see how we get the toothpaste back into the tube...

"All this hammering is going to set the economy into a tail spin."

Yeah, just like it did during the Clinton administration. Funny thing, Bush got his tax cuts but the jobs are disappearing faster than water on hot pavement in July. Those Clinton years, with TAX INCREASES also saw far more jobs created than any year of the Bush administration, wages rose during those years which they have not done during the Bush years, the deficit shrank during those years.....so much for your idiotic celebration of rich folks.

Well you know what, BL2? I don't really care. I have never criticized Bush's original concept of faith-based initiatives - only how he implemented them, and what he allowed them to become.

If it makes you sleep better to pretend that only right wingers can be fair minded about something, then have at it bud.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue a

shit son....no need to get shitty about it.....
it stretches the imagination here because of all the liberal bullshit we read day after day.

well add one more to that list.

clear channel announced today that rush has been signed to a 400 million dollar deal to be on the air through 2016............ha ha

much more and he will be getting into al gore....we are killing the world money.....

"shit son....no need to get shitty about it...."

Not nearly as shitty as twice accusing me of being dishonest about the subject, even though you had no actual basis, when I gave you my response.

What's the matter, skin getting a little thin in your dotage?