What Obama is talking about is nothing short of theft. That's not helping your neighbor out, that's taking money away from someone who worked hard and giving it to someone that doesn't even pay taxes. That should be a crime. All this sort of thing does is keep people down, it doesn't teach them to work hard and earn their way. That's what Democrats want, people feeling like they need big daddy government to take care of them. All it will do is keep them poor and punish others who work hard. And people wonder why so many companies are sending their work overseas.

 

I suppose the Republican view of allowing the rich to get richer and hope that it will trickle down to the middle class by creating jobs isn't theft? It's certianly done wonders for this country.

"He's already done more interviews than Sarah Palin." -John Stewart

I suppose the Republican view of allowing the rich to get richer and hope that it will trickle down to the middle class by creating jobs isn't theft? It's certianly done wonders for this country.

The only way anyone can draw the jaded conclusion you forward here is if they choose to ignore over 200 years of socioeconomic history in the growth of what has been the most powerful economy in the world for more than a century.

 

Considering that the average voter on the street cannot name the current Speaker of the House, or articulate even the minimal objectives of either presidential candidate's economic agendas, I'd say that ignoring facts is a pretty good strategy... go for it. :thumb:

When did we start talking about Bush? Pretty sure the person I was commenting on hadn't said a thing about Bush, nor does anything I say refer to him, or his administration, nor do I think they really have anything to do with(in regards to my previous post) where the differences lie between the two parties idea's on the current "issues" at hand.

 

So what's your point?

 

Wait my bad, you're helping out in the Obama vs Bush campaign????:confused:

:lol: A bit touchy?

 

Hatz is right. I agreed with everything you are saying in the earlier post (and have been in the situation where I thought my best friend would punch me in the face :lol:), but the Republican party hasn't acted in a manner of just giving us what we need to get by. Bush is part of that party (as well as the Republican-led Congress we had) and some of his actions have been against what you would like for your government to do

When did we start talking about Bush? Pretty sure the person I was commenting on hadn't said a thing about Bush, nor does anything I say refer to him, or his administration, nor do I think they really have anything to do with(in regards to my previous post) where the differences lie between the two parties idea's on the current "issues" at hand.

 

So what's your point?

 

Wait my bad, you're helping out in the Obama vs Bush campaign????:confused:

 

 

Did you or did you not say the following?

 

Most republicans want limited government,

 

Like it or not the standard bearer for the GOP is Bush by virtue of his presidency and his tie to the Republican Party.

 

My point was that you used a wide brush to say "most republicans," when the leadership in Congress and the White House have shown themselves to spend and create as much more government as the Dems often do.

 

So instead of responding to the truth of the matter, you choose to reciprocate with hyperbole.

 

I stand by my statement. The GOP we knew in the 80's and 90's has been slipping away from the core precepts you said the majority of Republicans had. All I'm doing is pointing out it's time to get back to those or stop spouting the myth.

The only way anyone can draw the jaded conclusion you forward here is if they choose to ignore over 200 years of socioeconomic history in the growth of what has been the most powerful economy in the world for more than a century.

 

Considering that the average voter on the street cannot name the current Speaker of the House, or articulate even the minimal objectives of either presidential candidate's economic agendas, I'd say that ignoring facts is a pretty good strategy... go for it. :thumb:

 

I choose to look at the national debt and the state of the economy over the past four presidencies under Republican policies vs democratic policies. For that matter, look at the great depression, but I'm sure you aready knew that..

I choose to look at the national debt and the state of the economy over the past four presidencies under Republican policies vs democratic policies. For that matter, look at the great depression, but I'm sure you aready knew that..

First of all, you can't separate Republican policies from Democrat policies because neither exists in a vacuum. They pollute one another.

 

We've been spreading wealth to the tune of 1.6 Trillion Dollars since LBJ's great society War on Poverty began in the 60's and we have just as many poor, uneducated, pitiful souls as we ever had in this country... except more of them have cell phones and cable television than ever before.

 

DO NOT misinterpret my words. My heart genuinely goes out to those incapable of doing better for themselves. I have no problem whatsoever assisting them to at least a basic quality of life. My contention is that throwing more money at a system that has proven to be ineffective in accomplishing its stated mission is insane.

 

This is simple.

 

Honestly tell me one job with decent pay, any kind of benefits at all, with a future longer than a few weeks that's been provided for you by a poor person and I'll admit you have a point. Show me anywhere in this country where the poor are providing multiple jobs, benefits and futures for hard working Americans... (...not the need for the work, but the actual jobs and revenue itself...) and I'll concede entirely.

 

Increasing taxes on the people who actually pay the taxes and provide the jobs, just to send bigger checks to people who pay no taxes is a recipe for disaster that will make the Great Depression look like a hiccup.

 

Any decent dog knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

 

Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes.

 

Link

Excepte that you are ignoring social security and medicare taxes.

Why? Do you not want people to have something in retirement?

 

A funny thing about that. For most of the middle class, the largest mechanism for stock ownership is through an IRA or a 401k. Capital gains in these types of accounts are taxed as ordinary income. They don't receive the lower capital gains tax rate.

Excepte that you are ignoring social security and medicare taxes.

Receiving a government check from a pool of money into which you have not paid anything (FICA) is not a refund or a rebate, but a handout (welfare.) Social Security and Medicare are entirely separate issues.

First of all, you can't separate Republican policies from Democrat policies because neither exists in a vacuum. They pollute one another.

 

We've been spreading wealth to the tune of 1.6 Trillion Dollars since LBJ's great society War on Poverty began in the 60's and we have just as many poor, uneducated, pitiful souls as we ever had in this country... except more of them have cell phones and cable television than ever before.

 

DO NOT misinterpret my words. My heart genuinely goes out to those incapable of doing better for themselves. I have no problem whatsoever assisting them to at least a basic quality of life. My contention is that throwing more money at a system that has proven to be ineffective in accomplishing its stated mission is insane.

 

This is simple.

 

Honestly tell me one job with decent pay, any kind of benefits at all, with a future longer than a few weeks that's been provided for you by a poor person and I'll admit you have a point. Show me anywhere in this country where the poor are providing multiple jobs, benefits and futures for hard working Americans... (...not the need for the work, but the actual jobs and revenue itself...) and I'll concede entirely.

 

Increasing taxes on the people who actually pay the taxes and provide the jobs, just to send bigger checks to people who pay no taxes is a recipe for disaster that will make the Great Depression look like a hiccup.

 

Any decent dog knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.

 

 

Raising taxes on the middle class while giving the rich tax breaks has never worked, look at the history. I assume you're saying that if the rich are in a higher tax bracket they can't afford to hire workers. Spare me. At the same time, if the workers that the rich do hire are in a higher tax bracket, how is it helping the economy that they are barely scraping by, while Millionaire Joe is shoving his pockets full.

A funny thing about that. For most of the middle class, the largest mechanism for stock ownership is through an IRA or a 401k. Capital gains in these types of accounts are taxed as ordinary income. They don't receive the lower capital gains tax rate.

 

For most, when they begin to take the distributions they are in one of the lower tax brackets though.

Raising taxes on the middle class while giving the rich tax breaks has never worked, look at the history. I assume you're saying that if the rich are in a higher tax bracket they can't afford to hire workers. Spare me. At the same time, if the workers that the rich do hire are in a higher tax bracket, how is it helping the economy that they are barely scraping by, while Millionaire Joe is shoving his pockets full.

 

What history?

Raising taxes on the middle class while giving the rich tax breaks has never worked, look at the history. I assume you're saying that if the rich are in a higher tax bracket they can't afford to hire workers. Spare me. At the same time, if the workers that the rich do hire are in a higher tax bracket, how is it helping the economy that they are barely scraping by, while Millionaire Joe is shoving his pockets full.

This is ridiculous.

 

When a "rich" guy buys a new car, dozens of "not so rich guys" are paid well to design, build, maintain and fuel that car. When a rich guy buys a jet airplane, dozens of not-so-rich guys are paid well to design, build, maintain, operate, fuel, control, etc., etc. that plane. Hundreds and even thousands are employed to design, build, operate and maintain the airports those rich guys use to get around while creating more work for more people. When a rich guy builds a new house, stays in a fancy hotel, eats in a restaurant, yada, yada, yada, many people benefit from his spending.

 

Reducing the number of rich people is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do. Our country and economy will benefit the most not by pulling down the rich to attempt to elevate the poor, but by attempting to lift more middle class folks into wealthy folks, poor folks into middle class folks.

 

Class strife, envy, jealousy and warfare is debilitating and insane.

 

Who has raised taxes on the middle-class by the way?

If you think of the economy as a pie, we don't need make some pieces smaller in order to make other pieces larger, we need to make a bigger pie so those with a smaller piece can get a larger piece.

 

I am using the vast majority of my piece of the pie to buy flour, eggs and filling.

 

In other words, lets grow the economy and make opportunites for others. Wealth redistribution will have the opposite effect.