Baloney, examples were given, you glossed them over.

 

I challenged them. You refused to reason.

 

As 75center said, it's so obvious to us that if you don't see it, we can't help you.

 

That is as poor of an excuse as I have ever read on here.

 

As far as the thread goes, I will abstain from chasing my tail until one the members of the "it's obvious" crowd manages to present an argument for debate.

I challenged them. You refused to reason.

 

 

 

That is as poor of an excuse as I have ever read on here.

 

As far as the thread goes, I will abstain from chasing my tail until one the members of the "it's obvious" crowd manages to present an argument for debate.

:lol:

 

Who exactly died and made Habib correct over all that is? It should be obvious to you, but you choose not to see. You make no argument proving otherwise whatsoever, talk about chasing your tail. :lol:

RTS, it's not obvious in any way to me, either. All that is being demonstrated is hyperbole by Obama on what is obviously a huge earning gap, that between CEO and the average American worker. Is he trying to pit lower class against middle class? If so, where? Is he pitting upper mids vs. lower mids? If so, where?

RTS, it's not obvious in any way to me, either. All that is being demonstrated is hyperbole by Obama on what is obviously a huge earning gap, that between CEO and the average American worker. Is he trying to pit lower class against middle class? If so, where? Is he pitting upper mids vs. lower mids? If so, where?

It's the typical status war that the Dems have been guilty of since forever. It's a political ploy to make themselves seem like they're the champion of the "little guy". It's nothing new Obama is doing, it's just not helpful to anyone except the "little guy" that wants to buy into this crap and the Dems that get elected because of it. I have a sister-in-law that fell hook, line and sinker for this crap during the election, now she's starting to see her mistake.

It's the typical status war that the Dems have been guilty of since forever. It's a political ploy to make themselves seem like they're the champion of the "little guy". It's nothing new Obama is doing, it's just not helpful to anyone except the "little guy" that wants to buy into this crap and the Dems that get elected because of it. I have a sister-in-law that fell hook, line and sinker for this crap during the election, now she's starting to see her mistake.

 

 

Is it because of current events she sees? Or have you been launching a similar barrage of Anti-Obama discussion with your family? :lol:

Is it because of current events she sees? Or have you been launching a similar barrage of Anti-Obama discussion with your family? :lol:

Always. :lol: :banana:

It's the typical status war that the Dems have been guilty of since forever. It's a political ploy to make themselves seem like they're the champion of the "little guy". It's nothing new Obama is doing, it's just not helpful to anyone except the "little guy" that wants to buy into this crap and the Dems that get elected because of it. I have a sister-in-law that fell hook, line and sinker for this crap during the election, now she's starting to see her mistake.

 

Are republicans then the real championof the "little guy"? Or is "he" all alone?

Are republicans then the real championof the "little guy"? Or is "he" all alone?

 

 

I don't think that Republicans even attempt to bill themselves as the champion of the little guy. I think PART of what RTS says is right. The Democratic party has always done so. They've been very involved in labor unions, etc. But often, they don't walk the talk. I don't see Obama as perpetuating any myth though. I feel he's sincere in his efforts to bring some level of equity to the middle. The poorest have safety nets, and the last few years or so, there have been breaks for the richest. But the middle has borne their burden without consideration of their difficulties, many which began LONG before the new administration took over.

Always. :lol: :banana:

 

 

So...browbeating works on some, huh? :lol:

I don't think that Republicans even attempt to bill themselves as the champion of the little guy. I think PART of what RTS says is right. The Democratic party has always done so. They've been very involved in labor unions, etc. But often, they don't walk the talk. I don't see Obama as perpetuating any myth though. I feel he's sincere in his efforts to bring some level of equity to the middle. The poorest have safety nets, and the last few years or so, there have been breaks for the richest. But the middle has borne their burden without consideration of their difficulties, many which began LONG before the new administration took over.

 

Very true, I don't understand what the problem with having those who make over 250,000 pay a higher percentage in taxes. I would bet that there are quite a few people in this country who would love to make that much money, and if someone told me, here is a $250,000 per year job, with one catch. You have to pay 35% in taxes, I would jump at the chance. Maybe I can "outbid" them, I will pay 50%.

Very true, I don't understand what the problem with having those who make over 250,000 pay a higher percentage in taxes. I would bet that there are quite a few people in this country who would love to make that much money, and if someone told me, here is a $250,000 per year job, with one catch. You have to pay 35% in taxes, I would jump at the chance. Maybe I can "outbid" them, I will pay 50%.

 

:thumb:

Glad you find it amuzing. So when Sam Walton was still alive he wouldn't fall into that catagory? Bill Gates didn't start Microsoft from nothing? Phil Knight didn't create Nike? What about Michael Dell? Sergey Brin? Larry Page? Would you like me to continue.

 

What's laughable is you think because someone makes millions they couldn't have done anything or take any risks to earn it. Twist this however you want to support your weak arguement.

 

You and your party had 8 years of genuflecting at the feet of the super wealthy and the only real thing that I see that it acomplished was to further the wealth disparity in this country. So IMO they can afford to pay 35% instead of 28%, its just a small price to pay to live in a country that provided the opportunity for them to have multi-million dollar homes, private jets and luxury automobiles. :ohbrother:

Very true, I don't understand what the problem with having those who make over 250,000 pay a higher percentage in taxes. I would bet that there are quite a few people in this country who would love to make that much money, and if someone told me, here is a $250,000 per year job, with one catch. You have to pay 35% in taxes, I would jump at the chance. Maybe I can "outbid" them, I will pay 50%.

 

Yes, YOU would. But someone who didn't have it handed to them might not. Someone who maybe spent several extra years in college working and studying 12-15 hours a day might not. Someone who risked their entire life savings and worked 80 hours a week building up their business or their career might not. Someone who uprooted and moved their family every 18 months to take on greater responsibilities might not. It's always ok for the other guy to pay more, isn't it?

You and your party had 8 years of genuflecting at the feet of the super wealthy and the only real thing that I see that it acomplished was to further the wealth disparity in this country. So IMO they can afford to pay 35% instead of 28%, its just a small price to pay to live in a country that provided the opportunity for them to have multi-million dollar homes, private jets and luxury automobiles. :ohbrother:

 

THIS is exactly what Obama is shooting for. No class envy or warfare? Sure.

Our positions are not remotely similar. I have only asked for proof, an argument, or an explanation why it should supersede the criticism leveled from the group doing the complaining. As it stands, you have provided a conclusion with no reasoning to support it other than your own persistence in affirming it.

 

As the Supreme Court once said, "we can't define pornography, but we know it when we see it."