0

They paid the death tax, didn't they?

Good point!

I happen to listen by accident to John Edwards whiny loser speech last night! Man, that guy is willing to give taxpayers money to anybody that seemingly has never paid and will never pay any tax!

0

I happen to listen by accident to John Edwards whiny loser speech last night! Man, that guy is willing to give taxpayers money to anybody that seemingly has never paid and will never pay any tax!

Isn't that what Democrats always preach, money for the poor? Nothing new there, just a modern version of "Robin Hood"

0

nice avatar by the way aia - photoshop?

Yeap, but not by me. From a tutorial.
She's cuter than me, and since impressions are important...

Back to topic, perhaps:
Demonizing the rich it has been always a good strategy to gain the favor of the masses.
The greed of getting `something for free' is a powerful tool in the hands of those in need to control masses.

0

Isn't that what Democrats always preach, money for the poor? Nothing new there, just a modern version of "Robin Hood"

The Dems preach money for the poor, and the Reps preach money for the rich. There needs to be something in the middle, like money for the good of the country (infrastructure, security, energy, education, transportation, my own wallet and the like).

Your avatar Aia, is she covered with soot? Rather unhealthy grey skin.
Your avatar jb, like that red hair and the penguin, rather cool colours!

0

lol

same here, the poor get everything free, the rich dont care because they are loaded, and the middle class ends up with the short straw

0

Your avatar Aia, is she covered with soot? Rather unhealthy grey skin.

Hey, hey, I only accept favorable comments about my avatar. ;)
After all, I prefer for my avatar to look covered with soot than to look all the time like a dog lifting his foot to take a leak. ;)
Sorry, just joking, just joking.

There needs to be something in the middle, like money for the good of the country (infrastructure, security, energy, education, transportation, my own wallet and the like).

I am going to take that last part as that you meant to keep "your own money" in your wallet. If not, I don't see how money in "[your] own wallet" would be good for the country. Other that you have started to think as a politician.

0

The Dems preach money for the poor, and the Reps preach money for the rich.

I think that's a gross mischaracterization.

0

I really like John Edwards. Hopefully he can get VP.

Sit and hold your breath, wishing very strongly that it would happens. But you need to keep holding your breath, when you start seeing little stars you'll know that your wish is about to come to pass. The more stars you see the better.


My good deed of the day. Getting rid off of another Democrat. ;)

0

John Edwards is a snake-in-the-grass. I wouldn't vote for him for city dog catcher.

>>Getting rid off of another Democrat
There are no republicans that are worth voting for. That only leaves "The Witch Hillery" or Obama. There are a few other minor political parties but none are electable.

0

>>Getting rid off of another Democrat
There are no republicans that are worth voting for.

Did you get that I wasn't taking about any candidate?

That only leaves "The Witch Hillery" or Obama. There are a few other minor political parties but none are electable.

What makes them so worthy of being left untouched by the wrath of Mr Ancient Dragon?

0

The only one I really really dislike is Hillary -- the spectical she and Bill made of themselves in SC was just awful. How many Clintons are running for President anyway? It looked like they were both running. Bill Clinton has had his 8 years and should now keep his big mouth shut.

BTW: I really like your avator too -- very artistic looking.

0

The only one I really really dislike is Hillary -- the spectical she and Bill made of themselves in SC was just awful. How many Clintons are running for President anyway? It looked like they were both running. Bill Clinton has had his 8 years and should now keep his big mouth shut.

But didn't they claim it was a joint presidency, or something like that, way back when? So it's logical they'd use the same argument now, isn't it? Even if they're not directly saying so?

0

The Dems preach money for the poor, and the Reps preach money for the rich. There needs to be something in the middle, like money for the good of the country (infrastructure, security, energy, education, transportation, my own wallet and the like).

Exactly what middle would this be? I saw an editorial in my local paper a while back (~2 months, if I recall correctly) which provided some interesting statistics. Admittedly, I haven't acutally managed to verify them, so feel free to take them with a salt lick if you'd like. The 'definitions' were supposedly drawn from various bits of legislature.

Rich: Family of four, making at least $65,000.00 per year.
Poor: Family of four, making up to $60,000.00 per year.

How many people can fit into that gap?

Although I'd prefer that they don't get another chance to damage the economy, if the democrats do obtain/retain power, I'd hope they would continue the patterns that seem to have lead to that. I kind of look forward to the day when, by accident, two pieces of legislature manage to overlap their definitions, and some people qualify as rich and poor at the same time.

Oh, and that 'my own wallet' comment? That's the kind of thing that occurs when 'the rich' get their benefits, from what I've seen. Congrats - you've just sided with the vilified rich.

0

The Dems preach money for the poor, and the Reps preach money for the rich.

I think that's a gross mischaracterization.

In deed.


Mitt Romney at an interview:
"I don’t believe that we should increase our capital gains tax rate. My view is in fact that for people earning 200k or less, we should eliminate the cap gains tax, the dividends tax, and the tax on interest altogether. I’d like Americans to save their money, and not get taxed on their savings. And with regard to carried interest associated with venture capital, real estate, private equity, I do not believe in raising taxes. And it is a capital gain because those individuals do make an investment, it’s a small investment, but they make an investment of their own capital and I would treat capital gains as capital gains instead of trying to re-categorize them as normal income."

0

a mischaracterization

the first thing the democrats did when a tax rebate was proposed as a way to stimulate the economy was complain that the poor (who do not pay taxs) will get nothing.

I don't think those tax rebates will be as helpful as Bush thinks -- most people will just use it to pay off existing bills or buy something made in China. Hows that supposed to create new jobs in the US ? A better solution I heard is for the feds to spend the money to repair our ageing interstates (autobahns for you european folks) and bridges -- US jobs, US employees, US concerte and US steel. Now that would do far more to stimulate our economy then buying Chinese made toys to stimulate the Chinese economy.

0

Isn't that what Democrats always preach, money for the poor? Nothing new there, just a modern version of "Robin Hood"

Robin Hood didn't rob the rich to give to the poor. He stole back repressive taxes from a greedy government.

0

Back to topic, perhaps:
Demonizing the rich it has been always a good strategy to gain the favor of the masses.
The greed of getting `something for free' is a powerful tool in the hands of those in need to control masses.

The problem is that government gets the majority (72%) of the money. So the government is "the rich."

0

The Dems preach money for the poor, and the Reps preach money for the rich.

The purpose of letting companies have more money is so they can HIRE more. The Democrats think only government can create jobs (which government has no power to do at all).

There needs to be something in the middle, like money for the good of the country (infrastructure, security, energy, education, transportation, my own wallet and the like).

What is needed is less money in government hands, and more money in the hands of the people:

- Abolish income, property, business, and excise taxes.
- Have a single 10 percent consumption tax that does not tax products necessary for living.
- Prohibit government from spending tax money on nonessentials (such as pro football stadiums and the arts).
- Abolish health insurance for all but catastrophic cases. Then health care costs will shrink to former levels.
- Tax legislators at three times the tax others have to pay.
- Never penalize work.

0

I was thinking I would like to see an Obama vs Huckabee race. Then Kennedy endorsed Obama, destroying the good points he had.

0

The problem is that government gets the majority (72%) of the money. So the government is "the rich."

maybe you should have surrounded that with [sarcastic] [/scrtastic] tags because we all know that isn't true -- at least in our country.

0

maybe you should have surrounded that with [sarcastic] [/scrtastic] tags because we all know that isn't true -- at least in our country.

I believe [post=463050]this[/post] is Midi's reasoning.

0

The purpose of letting companies have more money is so they can HIRE more.
---

I don't think companies were considered 'the rich'. Besides, these companies will spend that money on increasing their operations in China or such. Yes they will hire people, but not Americans.

0

I don't think companies were considered 'the rich'. Besides, these companies will spend that money on increasing their operations in China or such. Yes they will hire people, but not Americans.

The companies aren't necessarily 'the rich', but those qualified as such in the news do seem to turn out to be company bigwigs (CEO, CFO, etc) most of the time. And what makes you think that most companies would do as you have described? Some, perhaps, yes, but you're using the statement as a generalization, and I'm not sure it's a fair one.

0

The bigwigs with their big salaries actually make the company poor. They in turn take this money to buy another BMW, or hire an illegal to do the cleaning and cooking in their estate.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.