Remember how all Dems were outraged over the

[calfoxwc]

The same on this board. The libs here railed against the Bush tax cuts, saying that it was so little that

it made no difference, and they didn't want it? Really? The big lies repeated again and again.... ad nauseum?

 

How the BUSH TAX CUTS ONLY benefitted the rich? Really?

 

The truth all along, is that we were right again. The Dem Controlled Congress, both houses, AND the White House,

want to continue the PRESIDENT BUSH TAX CUTS. A BUNCH of "Dems" want to continue the BUSH TAX CUTS for the RICH, TOO.

 

Fancy that. All those lies, all that time.... trolling for votes by the dishonest "Democrat" party, which isn't even the American

Democratic Party anymore.

 

That Dem party is gone, bought and paid for by Soros, and others of his ilk. Watch the Bush tax cuts get PASSED.

 

Even the Dems are giving up their big lies. It must really suck to support Obamao in any way now.

*************************************************

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100916/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts

 

EXPIRING TAX CUTS HIT TAXPAYERS AT EVERY LEVEL

 

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – Thu Sep 16, 7:09 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Here's some pressure for lawmakers: If they don't reach agreement on extending soon-to-expire Bush-era tax cuts, nearly all their constituents back home will get big tax increases.

 

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

 

Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $52,300.

 

The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level.

 

Democrats have been arguing for much of the past decade that tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under former President George W. Bush provided a windfall for the wealthy. That's true, but they also reduced taxes for the working poor, the middle class, and just about everyone in between.

 

Those tax cuts expire at the end of the year, setting the stage for a high-stakes debate just before congressional elections in November. If Congress fails to act, families at every income level will see more taxes being withheld from their paychecks come January.

 

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 reduced marginal income tax rates at every level. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples.

 

Taxes on capital gains and dividends were reduced, while the federal estate tax was gradually repealed, though only for this year.

 

President Barack Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and joint filers making less than $250,000 in adjusted gross income. That's income from wages, capital gains and dividends, before standard deductions and exemptions are subtracted.

 

Republicans and a growing number of Democrats in Congress want to extend all the tax cuts, at least temporarily.

 

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said he wants an up-or-down vote on extending all the tax cuts before congressional elections in November.

 

"Raising taxes on anyone, especially small businesses, is the wrong thing to do in a struggling economy," Boehner said. "On the issue of job killing tax hikes the American people are not going to accept anything less than the vote that they deserve."

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wouldn't commit to vote on any tax proposals before the election. She did, however, pledge to address them by the end of the year.

 

"The only thing I can tell you is that the tax cuts for the middle class will be extended this Congress," Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

 

More than half the country backs raising taxes on the richest Americans, according to a new Associated Press-GfK Poll. The survey showed that by 54 percent to 44 percent, most people support raising taxes on the highest earners.

 

In a breakdown of the numbers, 39 percent agree with Obama, while 15 percent favor raising taxes on everyone by allowing the cuts to expire at year's end. Still, 44 percent say the existing tax cuts should remain in place for everyone, including the wealthy.

 

While Obama's plan would spare about 97 percent of tax filers, it would mean big tax increases for the wealthy.

 

Under Obama's plan, a family of four making $325,000 a year would get a tax increase of $5,400, while the same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $56,300, according to the analysis by Deloitte Tax.

 

A family of four making $5 million a year would get a tax increase of $325,600.

 

Pelosi said the nation cannot afford to extend tax cuts for top earners.

 

"I see no justification for going into debt to foreign countries to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America," Pelosi said.

 

Making all the tax cuts permanent would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to congressional estimates. Obama's plan would cost a little more than $3 trillion over the same period.

 

_Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

[drake54]

we should have higher tax rates for the rich. sorry but how can anyone justify increasing the tax of people who can barely survive now, while people wipe their asses with $100's . sorry but low class shouldn't pay for the upper class. this country was fine when the upper class were forking over , i think 30% if not less of their wages to taxes. yet NOW after all the tax cuts the low class loses home and must find a way to cloth and feed their children.

 

The staue of liberty has a tablet in her hand which reads "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door"

 

but i guess that was just so they could die or starve to death on the streets. while fat cats live in the penthouse suite that could house 5 family's comfortably.

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

we should have higher tax rates for the rich. sorry but how can anyone justify increasing the tax of people who can barely survive now, while people wipe their asses with $100's . sorry but low class shouldn't pay for the upper class. this country was fine when the upper class were forking over , i think 30% if not less of their wages to taxes. yet NOW after all the tax cuts the low class loses home and must find a way to cloth and feed their children.

 

The staue of liberty has a tablet in her hand which reads "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door"

 

but i guess that was just so they could die or starve to death on the streets. while fat cats live in the penthouse suite that could house 5 family's comfortably.

 

 

Lets all sing "kumbaya"

[Kosar_For_President]

we should have higher tax rates for the rich. sorry but how can anyone justify increasing the tax of people who can barely survive now, while people wipe their asses with $100's . sorry but low class shouldn't pay for the upper class. this country was fine when the upper class were forking over , i think 30% if not less of their wages to taxes. yet NOW after all the tax cuts the low class loses home and must find a way to cloth and feed their children.

 

Just a question. What justifies the rich having to fork over money they earned?

 

"What you think that the world owes you" - Beastie Boys

[drake54]

what justifies any tax, because its in the constitution. the only thing that is being enforced from it is about money. the government doesn't care about the rest of it.

 

i know its a selfish view to say hey you give me your money since you have more. but is it right for the owners of companies to make money than fire everyone. certain lines are crossed that shouldn't be.

 

im not saying to world owes me anything. i think people should work for things, but what if there is no work. shouldn't we take care of ppl who are sick or unable to find work or should just let them die and not care.i don't know if anyone saw it but there was over 100 ppl applying for a haunted house job. we don't have jack when it comes to jobs now.

 

and diehardbrownsfan, would you have a problem with world peace cause that comment seems like it. are you telling me if world leaders , in a highly unlikely scenario, decided to do just that and sit down to sing, you would have a problem with it. it may sound stupid, but it would solve alot of things.

[Mr. T]

we should have higher tax rates for the rich. sorry but how can anyone justify increasing the tax of people who can barely survive now, while people wipe their asses with $100's . sorry but low class shouldn't pay for the upper class. this country was fine when the upper class were forking over , i think 30% if not less of their wages to taxes. yet NOW after all the tax cuts the low class loses home and must find a way to cloth and feed their children.

 

The staue of liberty has a tablet in her hand which reads "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door"

 

but i guess that was just so they could die or starve to death on the streets. while fat cats live in the penthouse suite that could house 5 family's comfortably.

 

Sorry to let you down but those so called rich people dont wipe their asses with $100 bills. Nobody is starving to death in the streets, all they need to do is go to a local church and they will be given food to eat.

 

Or is it in your opinion the government must wipe everyones ass and level the playing field by wiping out all the wealth in America, that has been created by those willing to take risks and stick their necks out to build a business.

 

You sound like a Socialist, one who is Anti-American.

 

If you do not like this country renounce your citizenship and move to France or Greece. I am sure you will fit right in.

[calfoxwc]

We already take care of the needy, dummy. It's called welfare, WICS, and other programs.

 

Food stamps... etc etc etc. Mortgage bailouts for those who got loans but couldn't pay them back,

 

because liberal dems insisted that those loans be given out or else...

 

And it's incorrect to think that the rich should have their money taken away to subsidize

 

the folks who don't have jobs, or don't make enough money, etc etc...

 

or everybody would be broke. I believe we tax our business folks the second highest in the world.

 

You take their money, and they have to let employees walk, sometimes shut their doors.

 

The U.S. has spent way, way too much more than Bush did, and now, hyper-inflation is a possibility.

 

That would make for very bad things, for everybody.

 

Here's an older article to explain:

************************************************

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/mayer/01/tax.html

 

Wealthy Americans Deserve Real Tax Relief

Editorial

February 2001

 

by: David N. Mayer

 

Opponents of President George W. Bush’s tax-relief plan have continued to voice the tired objection that an across-the-board cut in income-tax rates would "favor the rich." Of course it would: it’s their money. The wealthiest 5% of taxpayers now pay a majority of federal income taxes, and the top 25% pay more than 80% of income taxes, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

 

In contrast, those in the bottom 50% pay a mere 4% of all federal income taxes. So naturally the wealthy would get the most relief from a rate cut-and they should, because they pay a vastly disproportionate share.

 

If President Bush’s proposal can be faulted for anything, it would be for not doing enough to redress this great imbalance. The tax-cut debate has focused attention on the issue of fairness, and all Americans should seriously question whether the federal income tax is really "fair" at all. Under its so-called "progressive" rate structure, a minority of taxpayers in the upper income brackets are forced to pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes. Moreover, there is no correlation between the amount of taxes an American pays and whatever benefits, if any, he receives; indeed, a wealthy person may get fewer government services than a poorer person. As H. L. Mencken noted in 1925, "The intelligent man, when he pays taxes, certainly does not believe that he is making a prudent and productive investment of his money; on the contrary, he feels he is being mulcted in an excessive amount for services that, in the main, are useless to him, and that, in substantia l part, are downright inimical to him."

 

The history of federal income tax rates shows a constant temptation to raise tax rates on productive citizens to pay for new government programs. At the limit, persons with the highest incomes may face a marginal tax rate of 100%, while those with low incomes pay nothing. During the 1950s, indeed, top marginal tax rates exceeded 90% in the United States. The confiscatory nature of the federal income tax was lessened somewhat by the tax reforms of the 1980s, but it is still true that wealthy Americans pay a highly disproportionate share.

 

Federal taxes today are at an all-time high. The tax receipts of the federal government in 1998 were 26.4% of national income (and nearly 22% of gross domestic product), the highest level in American history. At their peak in 1945, the final year of World War II, federal tax receipts amounted to 23.4% of the national income—13% less than in 1998. And federal tax receipts rose sharply during the Clinton administration, thanks not only to the legislated tax increase in 1995 but also to the "unlegislated tax increase" which economist Milton Friedman has attributed to "bracket creep" and to inflation. Wealthier Americans thus not only shoulder the vast bulk of the tax burden, but that burden increases disproportionately as the economy grows.

 

A "progressive" income tax is not only unfair; it’s also contrary to America’s founding principles. Those principles include consent of the governed and equality under the law.

 

When the Patriots uttered their famous cry—"No taxation without representation!"— they were following the principles of John Locke, who recognized that consent was a necessary condition to legitimate government. Because the end of government is to protect individual rights, government must be formed by a procedure that does not itself violate those rights. "Men being ... by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent," Locke wrote in the Second Treatise of Government. Moreover, he argued that consent was especially necessary to "take from any man any part of his property," given that the purpose of government is to preserve property. Taxes, to be legitimate, must be imposed with the consent of the people on whom they will be levied.

 

Progressive income taxes, by their very nature, violate this fundamental principle of legitimacy. They represent the very worst sort of "tyranny of the majority," for they subject a small portion of citizens—those with the highest incomes—to taxes imposed by the "consent" of other citizens, the majority of voters, who do not pay taxes. Indeed, that was the story of the origin of the Sixteenth Amendment, which empowered Congress to levy taxes on income. When the Amendment was ratified in 1913, it was sold to voters in the western states as a way to soak "the luxurious incomes" of industrialists in the East. And very few people paid the first income tax, which was only 1% on the first $20,000 of taxable income, with the rate raised to only 7% on income above $500,000. As late as 1939, only 5% of the population filed returns. As journalist David Brinkley has noted, the income tax "was voted into law by people who were confident it would pu nish the rich they despised while they themselves would never have to pay it. Envy and resentment [of wealth] carried the day." It’s not surprising, then, that public opinion polls today show little support among voters generally for easing the federal tax burden: a large portion of Americans continue to pay little or no income taxes at all!

 

Because it discriminates against individuals simply because they have higher incomes, a progressive income tax also violates another fundamental principle of our constitutional government: that individuals are equal under the law. The minority of Americans who shoulder the federal income tax burden are denied the equal protection of laws. Moreover, when we consider the full impact of the federal budget, it is clear that the federal income tax is an integral part of a massive redistribution of Americans’ wealth. Thus, it constitutes "class legislation"—the type of law that "takes property from A. and gives it to B."—which, as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase noted in 1798, violates "the great first principles of the social compact."

 

If we really care about fairness, legitimacy, and equality under the law, we need to abolish progressive taxation and institute a flat-rate tax, preferably applied to consumption rather than income.

 

David N. Mayer is Professor of Law and History at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, and an Adjunct Fellow at the Ashbrook Center.

 

 

 

 

[drake54]

after the read. i understand the points. i do like the idea of taxing based off of what you use than what you make. that wouldn't be bad.

 

This is something where we are going to differ.Not sure how we can come to an medium on this, don't really know if we can.

 

i ask you this question, what amount of money can you live happily off of? lets be reasonable.

 

mr.t

 

Why attack me saying I'm anti-American, because my views are different? My views may have socialist ideas, but that doesn't make me any less American. This country wasn't founded on capitalism, it was about different people have different views who wanted a place they could call home. A country in which they could share ideas. So don't attack me because i believe differently than you. You sound like one of those people who say "love it or leave it". What about change it? Not this change were hearing from the white house, actual change that we can all strive to make this a better country to live in.

 

if there was something you could change what would it be. not anythign where all people who believe X die or are kicked out of the country. Something that betters the country and the world.

 

I think you already know, but the $100 bills thing was a figure of speech.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

"and diehardbrownsfan, would you have a problem with world peace cause that comment seems like it. are you telling me if world leaders , in a highly unlikely scenario, decided to do just that and sit down to sing, you would have a problem with it. it may sound stupid, but it would solve alot of things."

 

It's a stupid dream to think it would ever happen. Man has been at each others throats since the came into existence. If you can't deal with that well, sorry.

[calfoxwc]

This country wasn't founded on capitalism, it was about different people have different views who wanted a place they could call home.... Drake

****************

NO.

 

This country was founded on FREEDOM as the basis for the struggle to BE the United States. FREEDOM means

 

silly but arrogant college jibber-jabbering kids who learned anti-status quo stuff from socialist profs don't get to take the money away from older, richer folks, because it "isn't fair".

 

Freedom to have your own property, have your own beliefs, make your own decisions, and be free from government

intrusion into your freedoms.

 

Freedom. Freedom to sit and smoke and never work for a living, on welfare... @@, freedom to create a small business,

 

and work tirelessly, sometimes for years, before it's a success. NOT the freedom to take $$$$$ from the person who finally succeeded.

 

That's just class/wealth envy.. and wrong.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And if the top tax rates go back to where they were under Clinton, when we had more jobs created and better growth than under the lower Bush rates ...somehow we lose our freedom? And there will be no more small businesses created. Or success.

 

Yes, those horrible 90s, when we had no freedom and success.

 

This is about lowering the deficit by $700 billion over ten years. That's what going back to the Clinton rates is designed to do.

 

It's funny. You guys scream about deficits and debt, and then you argue for a tax policy that not only made that problem worse, but will continue to make it worse. Well, which one is it?

 

[calfoxwc]

False choice. The choice is government deficit spending, and balanced budget.

 

Nobody wants to pay more in income tax, more in health premiums (Obamao is a college leftist idealogue nutjob),

 

more in energy costs (Obama SAID energy prices MUST NECESSARILY SKYROCKET), the complete elimination of coal

 

to please his way leftist base (watch the unemployment rate skyrocket then), ..

 

nobody wants to pay MORE FOR EVERYTHING, like groceries, medicines, new hot water heaters....

 

EVERYTHING when Bush and OBAMA's DEFICIT SPENDING creates severe inflation across the board.

 

I'd say Bush is at 33 percent fault, and Obama added the other 66 percent.

 

so, Bush was 1/3 an idiot, and Obama is 2/3 an idiot for the deficit spending.

 

Clinton was wonderful, right? for the economy?

 

but when Reagan got the economy straightened out, "it has nothing to do with the president, he's

 

just one guy, and he can't really affect anything".

 

It's always politically expedient contradictions with you, Heck. We just have fun pointing them out.

 

Steve is best at it, that's all.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here you go again, fellas. The cost to the federal Treasury between the Obama plan and the Republican plan. You know, since you're so concerned about deficits:

 

Keeping Bush-era top tax rates: raises deficit by $840 billion over ten years

 

Obama's plan to restore Clinton-era rates on top earners: reduces deficit by $700 billion over ten years.

 

We'd all like to let everyone keep what they earn. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in one where we have to make tough choices.

 

[calfoxwc]

Here you go again, fellas. The cost to the federal Treasury between the Obama plan and the Republican plan. You know, since you're so concerned about deficits:

Keeping Bush-era top tax rates: raises deficit by $840 billion over ten years

Obama's plan to restore Clinton-era rates on top earners: reduces deficit by $700 billion over ten years.

We'd all like to let everyone keep what they earn. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in one where we have to make tough choices. Goofy

************************

You need to learn what happens when those BUSH tax rates stay low. It's simple and silly to just calc the

estimated cost. But tax rates stay low, and people can buy things, do things, invest. Companies can

invest in R&D, and resources - including personnel. Companies expand, employment goes up, companies make more money,

companies pay more in taxes.

 

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, and families will be hit badly in the poorer and middle class. For not much reason,

since it's the businesses and rich folks that fund the vast majority of funds in tax revenue to the gov.

 

Only hit the rich and companies, and the costs create cutbacks, ...layoffs...much less investment in resource materials

to produce goods, and R&D, and the budgets of charitable giving are cut back dramatically, bonuses are cut or lost,

cutbacks create less production of goods or services. Companies cut back, shrink in size all too often, lose business,

make less money, and pay less tax.

 

Which, is just another way progressives do things in a strictly emotional, irrational way, that creates the exact

opposite result of what they allegedly intended.

 

yeah, let the Bush tax cuts for the middle class expire.. and try to force them to buy health insurance,

and pay exorbitant energy prices (capntrade) after they scrunch the coal companies out of the energy business,

if the Bush tax cuts are so bad, why are a whole bunch of Dems wanting to continue them?

 

The answer is, the gov should SPEND a HELL OF a LOT LESS OF OUR MONEY. If the money isn't there, we do NOT

do a health care fiasco takeover bill. We do NOT lavish millions and billions into silly leftist special interest projects.

If we have to bail out fannie and freddie etc, then the people responsible for being so irresponsible should

be held responsible. Barney and Dodd, to name two examples.

 

sounds like global warming baloney - "the polar bear jumped into the water because of man made global warming boo hoo"

 

The BEARS SWIM for food. It's WHAT THEY DO.

 

It's baloney because it's LINEAR THINKING. When you think COMPREHENSIVELY, you consider at least several various other factors in the same

analysis, and you consider the results of different actions as a set.

[calfoxwc]

here's a tiny little example, Heck, of what I'm saying, from an article from the NY Times:

 

Meredith Whitney, a bank analyst who was among the first to warn of the subprime mortgage disaster and its impact on big banks":

 

“We expect compensation to be down dramatically this year,” she wrote in a recent report. She predicts the American banking industry will lay off 40,000 to 80,000 employees, or as many as 1 in 10 of its workers.

 

That may be extreme, but Ms. Whitney argues that the boom years are not coming back anytime soon. As both consumers and companies cut back on debt, and financial reform rules put the brakes on profitable niches like derivatives and proprietary trading, the engines of earnings growth for the last decade will continue to sputter. "

***********

SO, if they don't renew the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, the middle class will

even FURTHER avoid new debt, they will AVOID new purchases of goods and services, even cash purchases,

they will AVOID investment. Some will lose their freedom to sent their kids to private schools...

they will curtail plans for vacations, won't buy a new car... and used cars are also expensive, thanks to Obama,

will will hurt businesses, and those businesses will pay less tax, and employ fewer workers...

 

Progressives never learned how to play pickup sticks. They still get angry that they pull the wrong stick, the other

sticks move. They don't know why, because they didn't WANT the other sticks to move.

 

Progressives don't think that's fair, and it shouldn't happen. Why, maybe the Dems should pass a law banning

pickup sticks from moving.

 

That's pretty much how progressives see problems to be solved. They don't ever see the other pickup sticks.

 

 

[Mr. T]

The Obama economy has gone Kerplunk!

[drake54]

everyone keeps throwing the word socialist around like its communism from the red scare.

 

sorry if everyone is taken care of and has health care. free health care works, great britain, france, and canada are ovious examples.

what would you do with everyone who feels that way?

 

i agreed with you cal. the idea of taxing what you use instead of what you make is a great idea. it probably would solve many things.

 

everyone's entitled to their opinions even jibber-jabbering kids who go to college. which to me you seem to throw theirs out the window.

 

i don't think we should have bailed out the banks. they were running a business and failed, than whined until they got their money. Which they gave to CEOs as bonuses.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, please. You posted a story about layoffs in the banking industry. What does this have to do with top tax rates returning to 39%? Absolutely nothing. It's about weakness in the overall economy.

 

You're clueless.

 

[Mr. T]

LOL!

[calfoxwc]

everyone keeps throwing the word socialist around like its communism from the red scare.

sorry if everyone is taken care of and has health care. free health care works, great britain, france, and canada are ovious examples.

what would you do with everyone who feels that way? Drake

 

**********************************

The "take care of everybody", John Lennon "Imagine" song stuff.. does NOT work.

The "Great Society" actually was counter-productive - it created support alright, but it also created a dependency

and an entire huge subculture of malaise and entitlement.

 

People weren't giving the opportunity to become self-sufficient.. they were economically locked in to survivable poverty.

Which is never ending, and created the huge entitlement subculture in the next generation.

 

Come on, Drake... Great Britain and France and Greece and other European countries are suffering in a huge way from

overspending on dependency-based social programs. The riots in Greece? Great Britain may very well be next.

 

Our country is ALREADY BROKE, and we haven't even hardly begun to implement this disastrous and impossible hc bill.

 

and we haven't even had capntrade passed. You know why? Because even those Dems in Congress, in complete control of the House and Senate, KNOW BETTER.

 

It was a rallying call for votes from their base, but in reality, it would be a disaster of inflation, the likes this country has never seen.

 

But the left wants "sharing of wealth" globally. After all, they think "it's only fair".

 

Nice thought, but it is absolutely impossible. It can NOT be done. Global warming is now defunct. I think even the WH is

renaming it to something else. LOL

 

Even Sweden refused to bail out their car company... whatever the name of it was... because they said they could not afford it.

And Sweden is not a big country, and they aren't the vanguard of freedom in our entire world.

 

Drake, the amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ it would take to have a complete government mandated

health care system is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to pay for, even if you took ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the richest ten percent

of the country's money.

 

It isn't possible. Which begs the question: Why try to FORCE Americans to buy this hc coverage, and screw over the

medical insurance companies that currently DO a wonderful job... when it can't possibly be afforded?

Obama DID SAY that energy prices would "necessarily have to skyrocket"... capntrade would cause the most destructive,

traumatic inflation in this country in our history... the rampant and reckless spending for so many leftist programs... to what end?

 

Sure, medical costs and premiums keep going up. But this hc is completely the wrong attempt at a solution. So, why?

 

Cloward-Piven. It's the only anwswer. Obama thinks our Constitution is flawed. He is angry when the U.S. Supreme Court rules

like he doesn't want them to.

 

And global taxation via the fraudulent "global warming" ... is JUST a flimsy excuse to sharing the wealth.

btw, face it, Obama is an anti-colonialist. He even SAYS in his book "Dreams from my Father" that the influence of his

father is a driving force to his beliefs.

 

well, his father despised the U.S., was an extreme radical...

anyways, the utopia you refer to is quite noble, sure. But utopia is impossible. Screwing up reality, what works, to

remake a perfect storm of "fairness to all" in terms of financial wealth is an old, old class warfare maneuver used by

fascists to manipulate the masses into accepting the "new way" of losing their freedom.

 

Which, is why I refer to college stuff.. I remember the exact same thing being taught at Kent State back in the day.

The answer is Cloward-Piven, two Columbian professors who wanted to take down our economic system by overloading it

to the point of breaking it completely apart.

i agreed with you cal. the idea of taxing what you use instead of what you make is a great idea. it probably would solve many things.

*****************************************************

everyone's entitled to their opinions even jibber-jabbering kids who go to college. which to me you seem to throw theirs out the window. Drake

****************************************************

Well, nothing personal, Drake. I just jibber-jabber on the subject too, from my experiences in life, and what I've leaned

about history. I used to confront a few America hating profs at Kent. With two of them, they took it out in my grade...

I'm just seeing things completely differently, and I'm trying to explain how much and why...

****************************************************

i don't think we should have bailed out the banks. they were running a business and failed, than whined until they got their money. Which they gave to CEOs as bonuses. Drake

***********************************************

It's a huge disaster. What I don't get is, why the bailout, but completely ignoring who was resonsible?

 

Hint: It was the Dems who completely controlled Congress, and Dodd and Franks, who I believe headed up Fannie and Freddie.

 

It was the "utopian" idea that all Americans had better be given loans to buy homes, to achieve the American Dream,

or else it "wasn't fair" in our society.

 

The trouble is, so many of those given those loans, could not repay them. The banks were intimidated into

giving out those loans, for VOTER support from the underpriveleged in this country...and the result was the exact opposite, again, of what the liberal Dems intended.

 

Utopia can not work.

 

You can only help those who need help, take care of those who must be helped... and make absolutely certain

to give assistance and legal protection from discrimination... to those who need a helping hand to LEARN HOW TO FISH.

 

Just giving a fish feeds the person one meal. etc.

 

It's called freedom.

Should there be assistance to help those who need hc insurance to get it? Sure.

but that is certainly not all that is in the Dems hc bill. It is rather, a gigantic gov takeover/power grab/vote

getting fiasco, with more pages in it than was ever read, by those who voted for it.

 

In fact, it is estimated that millions of Americans will LOSE their hc insurance if this bill totally went into affect.

Does that make any sense to you?

[We need Tom Tupa]

Here you go again, fellas. The cost to the federal Treasury between the Obama plan and the Republican plan. You know, since you're so concerned about deficits:

 

Keeping Bush-era top tax rates: raises deficit by $840 billion over ten years

 

Obama's plan to restore Clinton-era rates on top earners: reduces deficit by $700 billion over ten years.

 

We'd all like to let everyone keep what they earn. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in one where we have to make tough choices.

Tough choices? The administration wants to leave almost all spending alone and not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k. Increasing taxes on the same 1% of people several times is by far the least tough proposal for closing a huge deficit.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's so easy you can get the Republicans to go along, as well as the conservative Democrats in tight races, right?

 

Sadly, this is what passes for a tough choice these days.

[calfoxwc]

Yes, Heck, you really don't get it. We get it.