One problem in this recession is that the even rich people who don't need to cut spending, are doing so anyway.
And what does that have to do with taxes anyway??
anyway by what you were saying, we should really not increase taxes on the rich because that will reduce the money that they would surely spend to help the economy.
Last edited by nerv14; 05-11-09 at 10:03 PM.
The signals were rarely followed up on by the press, and McCain given opportunities galore to keep Obama busy defending his hard left ways and associations did little to nothing.
But a half assed observant voter had enough goods to make an informed choice about the the radical leftist running for POTUS.
It took one bimbo to nuke Gary Hart.
Obama had no bimbo's with breasts, but he left a trail of bimbo ideas and statements, verbally and through his books, the equivalent of being one big blonde joke.
Wright and Ayers; these two are pure poison, and he sought them out. What type of judgment does a man have to associate themselves with these radical dolts.
Spread the wealth around.
His voting record in the Senate.
Defending and pushing for infanticide.
His getting schooled by Gibson about wanting to raise Cap Gains.
Referencing actions taken by US troops as terrorism.
His ACORN association.
The tip of the iceberg.
These alone were enough fodder to have enabled McCain to hammer his opponent relentlessly, and drag the press screaming and kicking to reporting it.
Last edited by zimmer; 05-12-09 at 12:19 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
Where the heck did Obama get that $250K number?
Having the highest tax bracket at 40% but with it only applying to income over $1 million would be far more realistic. $250K in some places really isn't all that much.
It could be worse. 1987 was 38.5% starting on $90,000. Yikes. 1944 was 91% on a mere $200,000. Good god.
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Yes, I'm sure some rich people are only vacationing in the Bahamas instead of the French Riviera. BooohooooOne problem in this recession is that the even rich people who don't need to cut spending, are doing so anyway.
You said don't raise taxes on rich people because they spend money...And what does that have to do with taxes anyway??
Of course not, we should never raise taxes on anyone. In fact we should do away with taxes altogether!! Then we would all lead fulfilling lives... who needs a police and fire department or a library or unemployment or social security or road maintenance, or clean water...anyway by what you were saying, we should really not increase taxes on the rich because that will reduce the money that they would surely spend to help the economy.
When we all wake up from the garden of eden fantasy we'll realize that someone has to pay for the new cool fighter jet that's over budget or the missle defense shield or your granny's SS check or the war in iraq and afghanistan and troops spread out all over the world protecting our corporate interests... So shouldn't the people who benefited the most pay the most? Hasn't the corporate tax as well as the tax on the rich been much higher in the past and didn't we do alright, for 220+ years?
Of course someone needs to pay taxes, but right now since we are in a recession we should keep that to a mininum.
If anything, cutting portions of the stimulus package that doesn't help the economy will "pay" for new airplanes better then increased taxes on the rich.
and don't argue a strawman. I am not some libertopia ideologue. We need taxes to pay for things like SS and the war in Iraq. However, we can BORROW for that now, and there is spending that can be cut untill we have to ballance the budget later.
I am not sure what you mean by the corporate tax and taxes on the rich being higher in the past 220 years... before the Wilson we didn't really even have an income tax.
Last edited by nerv14; 05-12-09 at 06:55 PM.