Whats wrong with spreading the wealth around? For the gullible and naive who actually think that it is sound fiscal policy, it bedazzles them into believing that they're on their way to the Big Rock Candy Mountain. You know the place, "Where the handouts grow on bushes." Ideally, this idea would mean that the people at the bottom would be able to spur on the economy by increased spending. However, in order to spend more, you have to, first, have the means to make money. If the job creators are overburdened by taxes, they're going to make cuts, in services, in products, and in personnel. Not exactly what you want to do with a struggling economy. What might start out as a trickle up, will end up a wave crashing down. One that could make the current "Credit Tsunami" seem like a small ripple in a still pond. Of course, I could be wrong, but historically speaking, you cannot tax your way into a sound economy. Are we not our brother's keepers? Dont you want better roads? Schools? Air? Counterintuitively, tax revenues tend to decrease with the increase in taxes on capital gains. Hence, there will be less money available to make needed infrastructure improvements, improving education and funding social programs. Some companies may decide that it is better for them to move more of their operations overseas, further exacerbating the revenue problem and leading to still fewer jobs being created here. I don't think we would be helping our brothers and sisters by taxing their jobs out of existence. And I was in the military, and it sucked. Alot of guys in the service are crooks, junkies, and jerks. You have to do something other than be able to stand, walk and blink to be a hero. First of all thank you for your service. I did 26 years in the Air Force, and while I can't say it was always great, it didn't suck for me. As in any society, there is a small number that break the law. I would dare say that the number is far less than in the civilian community. My last few years, I worked as a First Sergeant, and I got to see those decided that the rules didn't apply to them; not a large percentage of my troops by any stretch of the imagination. As far as jerks go, I've seen more in the civilian community than I ever did in the military, but there are always a few. I don't claim to be a hero, it was an honor to serve. He didnt ''diss'' blue collar workers. He dissed stupid redneck hillbillies. And who can blame him for that? Actually, he did "diss" blue collar workers, if you want to call it that. IIRC, his comment was that because these folks in small towns in Pennsylvania and small towns in the mid-west haven't had jobs for the past 25 years, and neither the Clinton, nor Bush administrations did anything about it, they cling to their guns, their religion, et cetera, out of frustration. I'm pretty sure Senator Obama wasn't referring to people in white collar jobs, or working on the family farm. I'm not certain whether you meant that people in small towns were "stupid redneck hillbillies" in general, or just those that like to keep firearms, or are religious. I believe that epithet to be wholly inappropriate, as I would any other prejudicial or racist comment. Ok they messed up the T-shirts. Send them back and have the company correct it. I agree with you on this. Sorry for writing a major thesis on this. I'll go back to lurking from this small West Texas town. (I hate it when my fingers don't type what I tell them to.)
I do have to add that I'm not all that enthralled with the other side either. Speaking colloquially, the choice seems to be one of "Worse and Worser."
I have firearms, but I dont think I'm a hillbilly. And I meant hillbillies. Yes, stupid redneck hillbillies. But you dont have to be from a small town to qualify. So who should pay the brunt of taxes? The middle class? And that pretzel logic that more taxes lead to less revenue is nonsense. I pay more in taxes than my Dad did. He paid more than some guy did in 1922. It goes like that. And if a company wants to leave rather than do its fair share to fortify a country that has helped in making them a success; see ya later, pal. They arent the kind of Americans we need anyway.
Ok, who does qualify for that odious sobriquet in your eyes? Anyone whose political views are askance to yours? Or are you referring to the real McCoy, so to speak? Since wages have increased since 1922 or since your father's time, I have no doubt that you're paying more, but is it proportionally more? What would you consider to be a fair marginal rate? 35%, 53%, 70%? Personally, I think everyone should pay the same rate, no loopholes, and kept low enough to where the government could function efficiently without loss of services, damaging people's standards of living or a company's productivity and level of innovation. A pipe dream, I know. Yes, let's just kiss those jobs good bye, we don't want their kind here anyway. While we're at it, let's set up selective tariff's so those miscreants can never do business in this country again. Protectionism has worked SO well in the past. People can always find other jobs, I hear Mickey D's is hiring at minimum wage. Do you want fries with that? Back to lurk mode.
My impression from reading posts would be that it has more to do with religious clinging than gun toting. Maybe my impression is wrong? Dunno. Yeah. You can tax people 100% but what does it matter if you go back and reward your chosen groups, lobbies, whatever with 95% back though loopholes and subsidies and payouts. That is the way our tax game is played and why our tax code is so bloated and inefficient. It isn't meant to be fair.
without doubt...taxes, like our national debt has always only increased by percentage thus if the percentage is increased then it is proportionate. At one time, people didnt pay taxes at all, there was no income tax so indeed for some time the tax burden on the individual was non-existent. The government's tax revenues were derived from excise taxes, tariffs, customs duties, and sometimes land tax. Wealthy land owners and business were the only ones paying tax. So from where it started. at 0, its far more than that now Congress was given the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." but the collection of the taxes was left as the responsibility of the State governments and very little came from income but goods, services, money collected for government services and permissions, etc.... "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father 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, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." Jefferson So congress started taxing everything and since congress took the power to directly tax citizens, either scaled (rich pay higher percent) or flat...As late as 1913 still less than 1% of the population paid income tax. There after taxes would just skyrocket...WWI where taxes for some were as high as 77% then it went down to 25% for the top taxed...FAR less than 77 but far higher than it had been been compared to pre-wwI rates but people were just happy to pay less so it seemed like a tax rate decline. In the end it was a permanently higher income tax that would continue to go up and the government would continue to bump it...because now they count on it as revenue and are spending far far far over what they could collect anyway...We have allowed the government to get this nation into a situation where we NEED to constantly and heavily tax every aspect of our lives. Oh how we just let the government slip one on us...from almost no income tax for 99% of the population...to now where we have allowed the government to take a significant percentage of our income on a yearly basis...shame on us.
Maybe we should just live by, ''What's mine is mine; and what's yours is what I feel you should receive.''. And if by odious sobriquet you mean ''American''. You can include me as one with that distasteful nickname.
I think this nation is torn between a greater respect for human life and dignity than ever before in history, something that has been adopted by most western nations and a so called 'free market' capitalist creed. They understand what most socialist have come to accept as reality, that there are and will always be those people who either cannot, or will not support themselves. They can either die in the streets or we can share what we have with them. People rail about the evil of socialism without realizing how socialist we already are and how aspects of socialism have always been a part of MOST human societies, especially modern. If you were a Roman citizen of a more humble stature in society you were given free games and grain among other things... Ironically sometimes the most conservative people are often times the ones who enable the socialist mindset, often times without realizing it. Farming in the US is one, labor rights, welfare, Social Security, the idea that people should be guaranteed by the government a certain standard of living (that most live above already). If a factory that supports 80% of your town closes and you cant find a job...move...that is the only reason why I live where I live, I moved for work and my family has always done so. MY family would be what many would call 'rednecks' or 'hicks' or 'hillbillies'...we are from a small town in Georgia. These hicks moved to stay employed, went to school, got better jobs, moved again...etc...I do not find being called a 'redneck' a bad thing...I know hicks who could buy and sell most people. Lets be realistic, there is no name you can call a white person that insults us...we are white Americans, deep down we know we have it good If you aren't making enough sweeping floors, improve yourself, to say you cant is simply denying the reality that people do it everyday and YES the government will help with Pell Grants and other similar type programs. If what you do is no longer needed because they do it another way, or you simply cant get a job in your field...learn how it is done now or do something different...I cant tell you how many people I know who have had to 'keep up' with the changes in the field they are in to stay viable...dont just say 'I do this, if I cant do this I cant make a living'...that isnt hick, it small thinking period...and I will freely admit, being from a small town, that it is very much a small town mindset sometimes. If it means working at McDs for a bit to keep yourself working...do it...too good? Tough crap...I resent anyone who says they are too good to work a job like that. I am not above working anything before going for help...though sometimes I wonder why? I have done every job in existence to keep myself having to eat from trash cans and be supported by the government and never once have I. I saw a show that showed examples of people who lost manufacturing jobs do to outsourcing, most of the people got new jobs, many if not most liked the job they got MORE than the one they used to do, others sit around and say 'they took my job to china!!' its unfair, what can I do? I need help!! So you have a problem with share the wealth? understandable but dont kid yourself that this country isnt already socialist in many ways. The trick is to be a realist, realize that there will always be a need to support or give aid to a percentage of the population...the trick is, IMO, to deal with those who take advantage and 2. identifying and trying to fix the reason why people arent working or need help. Reeducation, or education in general, mentoring, relocation, apprentice, teaching people to cope and adapt, being open to change, living in ones means, teaching them to make the means larger through their own actions.
You tell me then. What has worked SO well for this country. Hoovervilles? Interesting you bring that up, might be a good chance for their reappearance if things go the way you hope...though I doubt they'd be called Hoovervilles, maybe Bidentons or Obamavilles. And if by odious sobriquet you mean ''American''. You can include me as one with that distasteful nickname. Being called an American, is neither odious nor distasteful, at least to me or anyone I know. Interesting attempt to turn the table, but I think I'll spin it back your direction. You knew exactly which phrase I was refering to, but don't bother answering. That horse is long dead and no longer needs to be flogged.
So you have a problem with share the wealth? Not in the least. What I have a problem with is someone dictating how much and to whom.
Interesting you bring that up, might be a good chance for their reappearance if things go the way you hope...though I doubt they'd be called Hoovervilles, maybe Bidentons or Obamavilles. Funny, those guys arent the ones who called for a trillion dollar bailout for banks and stock brokers
Not sure just who "those guys" includes, but the last time I checked, the executive branch has no power to vote for or pass any proposal without congressional approval and right now congress is Democratic. It may not have been Biden/Obama directly, but I assure you Reid/Pelosi knew full well Biden/Obama's wishes.
OK. To clear it up for you Rim's. The idea for the bailout was Bush's and Paulson's. If it wasnt then please tell me whose it was. But I recall seeing the president making the plea for a 700 billion dollar rescue. With Lurch standing right behind him. The proposal then went to the Senate and Congress. That clear it up any? And hears the best part. The money that goes to these financial companies can be used for anything. ANYTHING! Its not solely for home foreclosures. It doesnt have to be used for that at all.
For me, there is more than enough blame in the Handout Bill to taint both major candidates and the sitting President permanently.
Bush can plead all he wants to, but nothing happens because of it until Pelosi/Reid say it does. Period. End of story.
You are missing the point. It wasnt Pelosi's idea for the bail out. It was Bush's. See? See now? Jeez, its like talking to Bill O'Reilly. End of story. Why didnt you just write, 'I'm right, because I believe I am.'? And stick your tongue out as you do.
Who cares who's idea it was. Both candidates helped get it pushed through. Later at a rally in Detroit, Obama called the bailout an "outrage." "But we have no choice," he said in prepared remarks. "We must act now. Because now that we're in this situation, your jobs, your life savings and the stability of our entire economy are at risk." To think Obama would have came up with anything else is lunacy. The only think he may have done differently is doubled the amount in order to include the poor.
