In fifty years, I have little doubt that we will regard the administration of Barack Obama as the presidency that saved America. No, not in the sense that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and all the other media John the Baptists foretold, as they proclaimed, the coming of our political messiah just over two years ago. Rather, the history of our time will show that it was the radical nature of Obama's dogged devotion to a liberal progressive philosophy far out of the American mainstream that jolted awake a generation of apathetic and passive citizens just in time to save the republic.
Last edited by Conservative; 12-05-10 at 05:54 PM. Reason: Content
What is your "big" interest in protecting the wealthy people's tax cuts? We've already seen that the tax cuts didn't help the economy, neither did they provide jobs, so please explain what your interest is.
Don't tell me that you are being "fair" - because you don't seem to care about the unemployed losing their benefits.
Those not asking for the money back are the same wealthy that you are fighting for and of course they are not sending more to the Federal Government. Why not? Only a real dunce would not be able to answer that. Because everyone wants to keep more of their money. But, our country is in dire need, if anybody would want to help the country, the super wealthy should be the first, since they are the ones that can most afford it. Your party keeps saying no more deficit spending, but when it comes to the rich, they look the other way?Do you see those not asking for the money back sending more to the Federal Govt? Why not?
I don't care if the rich get to keep more of what they earn, I care that they get to keep more of what they earn than the middle-class person. Why don't you? Are you one of the super wealthy?Why do you care if the rich get to keep more of what they earn?
There is a difference in earning and keeping more of what one earns and giving the super wealthy big tax cuts so they get to keep more money than others that are not as wealthy.Here we go again, someone who doesn't understand the concept of earning money and keeping more of what one earns.
Yes, it is their money, so is my money mine. So, why did Bush give the super wealthy bigger tax cuts? Why are they allowed more loopholes so they don't have to pay as much. It seems to me that you don't understand what is going on. Faux News and Rush Limbaugh have got you so brainwashed - of course, commentators on Faux News and Rush Limbaugh are super wealthy, it is in their best interest.Giving the rich more money? Who is giving the rich more money? You don't seem to understand it is their money? You work for the govt?
By the very nature that the super rich will be paying more in taxes, that will increase revenue. Plus, not having to borrow $700B to give them the tax cuts (that is what it will cost the U.S.), that is $700B money the gov saves.Yep, buying what this Administration tells you since they have been so accurate on all their predictions. What makes you so sure that any tax increase will generate more revenue to the Federal Govt.
Well, your party seem to think that the Stimulus and the Tarp were only hurting the country, why don't they feel the same about the tax cuts for the super wealthy? They are all about the same amount of money. The difference being, the Stimulus and the Tarp were an effort to help the economy, the tax cuts for the rich are an effort to help only the rich.and that the govt. will use it to lower the deficit and/or debt?
Well, it seems to have made Tea Partiers better had the Stimulus $700B, and the Tarp $700B were not spent, so how come the $700B tax cuts don't seem to bother them anymore?700billion over 10 years with my math means 70 billion a year. The 700billion sounds better doesn't it vs. 70 billion. If all that money got to the govt, and it was used to lower the deficit we would have had a 1.23 trillion deficit instead of 1.3 trillion deficit, Now doesn't that make you feel better?
Don't rewrite History. It is a fact that Bush's policies (tax cuts for the rich and two unnecessary wars) put the country in the toilet. Obama has been trying, even against the efforts of the Republican party to thwart them, to help the economy recover as well help those hit by the recession, and there has been some progress made. Bush outsourced a lot of our work to China and other countries, you have that to be proud of.Right, it was Bush's fault that Obama lost 4 million jobs the last two years. Didn't he "bring us back from the brink" or was that just another lie? If this is the education you are getting from the schools we are indeed doomed.
And, as a matter of fact, Corporations are doing great in profits, but are still not hiring. Are they just trying to keep more money to themselves?
Something's Wrong With This Picture: Corporations Have Most Profitable Quarter in U.S. History as Unemployment Soars
According to a new report (PDF) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. corporate profits are at an all-time high, despite the turbulent economy. At the same time, the real unemployment rate remains astronomically high, affecting some 1 in 5 Americans.
Something's Wrong With This Picture: Corporations Have Most Profitable Quarter in U.S. History as Unemployment Soars | AlterNet
I have to run now, do volunteer work, so don't think my not responding right away means that you have shut me down. I noticed you accuse others of that.
"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." --Adlai Stevenson, Politician
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
The average fed income tax rate for someone in the bottom 50% of earners is 2.49%. For the next 25%, it's 6.75%. For the next 15%, it's 9.29%. Those are not even close to the rates paid by the "uber rich."
If you ask a stupid question, don't be surprised when you don't get a good answer.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.