2 Humped Camel

It seems clear to me that your views are rather Reactionary. I can understand your pro-life stand, but calling the President anti-life, anti-capitalism, wanting one world government, socialist come on.....Sounds like you believe everything Jerome Corsi's ever written.:confused:

I guess so as opposed to all the fair and balanced sources that you link to. The numbers and facts are the same no matter the source.

Ok I know enough about all the threads you start to know where you fall on the political spectrum. I am not sore I am just trying to carry on a debate which is very difficult to do on this site with how much it is dominated by NeoCon ideals. If anyone is sore it would be you IMO, you seem awfully bitter about having BHO as our President. When did I say that no one worked hard and that everyone was born into it?? There are certainly a large population of folks who are born into money and have certain advantages. However many bust thier tales to get to where they are are are handsomely rewarded with a nice salary. So what is your problem with a progressive tax system? Has Rush and Sean hammered it in so much that you think a rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will bring a crashing hault to American civilization?

Are you suggesting that I am not being truthful with my statement?:confused:

That is exactly what I am saying.

My goodness we agree on something corporate tax rates should be as low as possible.

I would keep the brackets similar to what they are now but I would add another tier. 0-10k 10% 10-35k 15% 35-75k 25% 75-175k 28% 175-350k 33% 350-1mil 35% above 1 mil 38% Just my thoughts.

If you really think that this is true further debate is a waste of time..... To your series of questions IMO yes because they have more money. Our country is at its best when we have a strong middle class and everyone who WANTS to do good can. The government has to provide defense and other social services that have to be funded. If someone making 35k a year is taxed at 25% that means they are bringing home just over 25k a year and that is not even including health insurance premiums. Someone making 350k taxed at 35% brings home around 228k, so the precentage is higher but I'll think we can agree that the person making 350k can afford to feed and cloth a family a little easier with thier tax burden. By the way 350k is currently not even in the 35% income tax range and I don't know that I've ever even met anyone in that income bracket. I know you disagree but this is what I believe; I'm not a social darwinist.

You prove yourself right, right of even Rush and Hannity everyday. I do disagree with you on just about everything politically which is a good place to be.

It's not class envy, I would love to be in that class and if I were I wouldn't be belly aching about paying a 35% income tax. I obviously feel 35% is a fair figure. The top ten percent of income earners pay around 1/3 of the income taxes. Can you tell me what percentage of the wealth in this country that they control? Why do the righties insist on continuing to punish those who haven't been fourtunate enough to hit the genetic lottery or the educational environment to succeed. I know I know they should pull themselves up by their boot straps......

One of the more ridiculous statements going around over the last few weeks is "this is an Obama bear market." This statement is, well, ill-informed at best and fraudulent at worst. Let's look at why. First -- who is saying this? Such economic luminaries as John Hawkins at Right Wing News (who actually asked Is Obama Deliberately Tanking the Stock Market?), Powerline, Brit Hume along with a host of other right wing bloggers. What all of these people have in common is their incessant chearleading during the Bush years despite mounting evidence of an upcoming recession. There are the same people who argued that ... housing is a small part of the economy ... most people are paying their mortgages ... the US economy will decouple from the rest of the world .... it's the greatest story never told ..... you get the idea. Simply put, these are people who have distinguished themselves by being some of the best contrary indicators around. Secondly, the SPYs -- the tracking ETF for the S&P 500 -- dropped from (roughly) 155 in the summer of 2007 to (roughly) 85 at the end of last year. Yet I don't remember any of them saying that was the Bush bear market -- even though that's a drop of roughly 43%. No -- it's the new President that's causing the problems. In addition, when Bush took office the SPYs dropped from roughly 130 at the begging of 2001 to 85 in the fourth quarter of 2002. Yet somehow I don't think any of them blamed Bush's policies for the drop. Then it was the "lasting effects of the Clinton recession" or something similar. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/the-economy----not-the-pr_b_172968.html

Thanks I hope everyone else agrees

I didn't know rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would be considered class warfare.....:isurrender:

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:

:thumb:

I went there when in college in the late 90's it was a blast, just make sure you don't end the week picking up trash in an orange vest.

This post is almost laughable. Name me one of the CEO's that BHO or any that you may know of a fortune 500 company that had anything to do with putting everything on the line to start that company. THe type of people that take those risk are not who he is talking about and are virtually completely excluded from any tax increase that has been suggested because they simply don't generate enough revenue.

Cheers hands down IMO.

In some cases yes it is. When jobs are shipped overseas because of cheap labor to increase dividends a few pennies a share. They increase thier personal wealth as major shareholders while ruining the lives of regular working people. This is just one example and please forgive me for feeling that multi-millionaires can afford to pay a little more in taxes. I know some of the ideas of the left are hard to take but IMO a progressive tax structure is not unreasonable and since this was one of the major topics of the campaign I think the majority of Americans agree.

Oh so now the Republican's have found thier fiscally conservative voice after the massive spending spree they went on. I don't know if it is sad or hypocritical.

:thumb::thumb::clap:

I guess approval levels in the upper 60's is a fart in an elevator.....RTS wants examples of something that isn't there but can't answer a related question about the fact that the class divide grew much wider under his parties control. What purpose does this serve? RTS are you for widening the class divide while a few prosper while the vast majority of working peoples lives as they know them are going down the drain?

So you believe that the trickle down theory actually works. I thought that was proven ineffective 20 years ago.:deadhorse:

As a Bush fan what did it gain the country to further increase the class divide?

The economy is going to continue to decline until jobs stop being purged. The stimulus bill is designed to increase spending on projects and create jobs to stop this. Will it work, who knows, but I do think that further deregulation and additional tax cuts on the wealthy would only have made things worse.