Save the rich, screw the downtrodden

[funcpl27]

The Right is wrong, the Left is stupid

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by funcpl27

The Right is wrong, the Left is stupid

I have to travel all over the US on business and I can tell you that your sentiment is pretty much where everyone seems to be right now. People are so fed up with both parties. I really think that if a Ross Perot were running now he would win. That is in spite of the fact that the media is so biased on both sides now. This is probably the reason that Herman Cain has stayed up there in the polls. He is perceived as an outsider which is a huge asset right now. The funny part about this whole election is that Romney is probably the most centrist of all the candidates and the one who is in agreement with more of electorate than the others, and yet he is the one who is getting pooh poohed all over the place.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

I agree. On the other hand the same thing could be said about democrats in regards to the communist,welfare recipient, social parasite, big government,OWS, tax and spend vote.
Both partys are pretty polarized now to the point that you have people on either side and no one in the middle.

rdubnpk
And Bush II was a conservative???? Let us not forgot the parasite that led us in to this whole mess.

[Ben & Lisa]

How do you figure that Bush was a cause of the problem we are currently in?

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

How do you figure that Bush was a cause of the problem we are currently in?

rdubnpk
Please read any assessment of the Bush presidency by anyone and tell me that he was not a total drain on the economy. Where have you been?

[Ben & Lisa]

While not a fan of Bush at all I dont think he was a bad as you think.
Certainly, I would rather have him in the oval office the Obama. And to blame Bush for whats going on know isnt factually based.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

While not a fan of Bush at all I dont think he was a bad as think.
Certainly, I would rather have him in the oval office the Obama. And to blame Bush for whats going on know isnt factually based.

You can go to ANY internet web site, be it right leaning or left leaning and, if they are truthful with the facts, will show that Bush was a spending machine. He made the Democrats look like spendthrifts. And how does the reckless spending of a previous administration not affect those that come after? Obama gets elected and wham the country is in the shitter?
Obama may not have handled things the way we all would agree with, but there is no doubt he inherited a country in terrible trouble.

[Ben & Lisa]

You can go to ANY internet web site, be it right leaning or left leaning and, if they are truthful with the facts, will show that Bush was a spending machine. He made the Democrats look like spendthrifts.

Maybe if you talking the Daily Kos or Moveon.org. Obama took government spending to a whole new level and keep in mind Bush had to deal with a Democrat congress for the last two years of his last term.
Federal Spending: Charts on Growth and Trends of Government Spending

And how does the reckless spending of a previous administration not affect those that come after? Obama gets elected and wham the country is in the shitter?
Obama may not have handled things the way we all would agree with, but there is no doubt he inherited a country in terrible trouble.

Its called leadership-taking responsibility for the problem and correcting the situation. Obama has shown no leadership and really hasnt done anything other than to suggest more spending.

[Brewster]

I wonder if our Republican friends could make a list of what they believe Bush Jr. and his administration did right?

The only thing I hear consistantly is that there were no further successful terrorist attacks during his Presidency.

But what about other domestic and foreign policies? Were his decisions and the actions taken by his administration, on the whole, sound? Did they move the country forward in a positive direction?

I would also be curious to know how they feel about the position of many that the actions of the Supreme Court during his first term election was unconstitutional and illegal.

[Ben & Lisa]

Brewster, sadly Bush didnt do much right. And as scary as it sounds Obama has been even worse. I lean right and I look back at the Clinton years as good times....
As for the view that Bush's win on 2000 was unconstitutional. I dont believe that is the case. I think Florida's screwed up voting sytem was the issue, not some pre orchestrated fraud by Bush. For all Bush's faults I dont think being dishonest was one of them.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Brewster

I wonder if our Republican friends could make a list of what they believe Bush Jr. and his administration did right?

The only thing I hear consistantly is that there were no further successful terrorist attacks during his Presidency.

But what about other domestic and foreign policies? Were his decisions and the actions taken by his administration, on the whole, sound? Did they move the country forward in a positive direction?

I would also be curious to know how they feel about the position of many that the actions of the Supreme Court during his first term election was unconstitutional and illegal.

rdubnpk
It wasn't necessary for the terrorist to attack us here in America. We put our young men and women in the line of fire in their own back yard and it became a shooting and bombing gallery. And for what?
Two words epitomize George Bush to me. They were "Mission Accomplished". When he stood on that aircraft carrier in that flight suit that he had not earned the right to wear and in his utterly contemptible naivete declared the war in Iraq essentially to be over........It just goes to show you the total lack of any serious thought he put in to getting us involved in that quagmire that has cost so many and so much. That is his legacy and the reason he deserves no respect.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

Maybe if you talking the Daily Kos or Moveon.org. Obama took government spending to a whole new level and keep in mind Bush had to deal with a Democrat congress for the last two years of his last term.
Federal Spending: Charts on Growth and Trends of Government Spending

Its called leadership-taking responsibility for the problem and correcting the situation. Obama has shown no leadership and really hasnt done anything other than to suggest more spending.

rdubnpk
I am no fan of Obamas, but he has to deal with the Republicans in congress having one and only one goal. To make sure he is not reelected. Therefore, they automatically take the opposite side of anything he suggests. And thank goodness the Demos held congress during the last of the Bush years or he would have spent us into oblivion. He almost did anyway.

[Ben & Lisa]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
I am no fan of Obamas, but he has to deal with the Republicans in congress having one and only one goal. To make sure he is not reelected. Therefore, they automatically take the opposite side of anything he suggests. And thank goodness the Demos held congress during the last of the Bush years or he would have spent us into oblivion. He almost did anyway.

Oh, BS. He had control of both houses for two years.
And Obama's record on spending makes Bush look like a miser and Bush had to deal with two years of a democrat controlled congress.
BTW the Republicans have stymied Obama to the extent they can not so much because they dislike Obama, but rather they are opposed to his Socialist, Marxist policies.

[Franco27]

Other than what we get on the news, I haven't really been following this too much, we've got our own problems over here lol .. but found this article so thought I'd post it, the website is generally pretty sound

The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending

[BillS]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
I am no fan of Obamas, but he has to deal with the Republicans in congress having one and only one goal. To make sure he is not reelected. Therefore, they automatically take the opposite side of anything he suggests. And thank goodness the Demos held congress during the last of the Bush years or he would have spent us into oblivion. He almost did anyway.

Obama and the dem's had complete control of our gov't from jan 09 thru Dec '10. 2 years. What is your response now?? The deficit in Bush's last term was $440 billion. Obama, thru the 'stimulus", jacked it up and has kept it up to $1.4 trillion ever since. He has crammed down his foot on the spending gas pedal since his election as most of us predicted he would. Bush was lousy, Obama is worse. He is not the psuedo-God figure so many lib's exulted over....Have the courage to admit about Obama what we Bush voters have done on this very page...Admit it. Which brings up a salient point: Why do we Americans place so much faith in a guy-in-suit who speaks well??

[BillS]

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

Oh, BS. He had control of both houses for two years.
And Obama's record on spending makes Bush look like a miser and Bush had to deal with two years of a democrat controlled congress.
BTW the Republicans have stymied Obama to the extent they can not so much because they dislike Obama, but rather they are opposed to his Socialist, Marxist policies.

Ben smacks one over the left field wall! And sports a beautiful woman on his arm....Doubly admirable...Most Americans forget that dem's controlled congress the last 2 years of Bush's 2 nd term.....Not to forgive him (dammit). BTW, this is the hubby posting here...I just fully realize no one wants to look at MY picture...

[BillS]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
Hot off the presses.......the Republican plan to reduce the deficit and bring in more revenue reduces or deletes the use of home mortgage interest as a write-off against taxes. Is that not an increase in MY taxes if I, in fact, own a home and utilize this write-off? Does this mean, following your logic, that I am less capable of deciding how to spend my money than the rich folks you guys are so heatedly protecting? If the rich don't chip in, where the heck do you think the money is all going to come from? Are all the rich entitled to a free ride while the rest of the country foots the entire bill?? Bull****!

Rdub, You really should quit with this "the rich should chip in" stuff. You well know the top 10% earners in our country pay 70% of our federal revenues and that the bottom 50% pay zero (they do have $$$ withheld but get it all back at tax time). To say the rich are getting a "free ride" is intellectually disingenuous and frankly, discredits your arguments...

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by BillS

Rdub, You really should quit with this "the rich should chip in" stuff. You well know the top 10% earners in our country pay 70% of our federal revenues and that the bottom 50% pay zero (they do have $$$ withheld but get it all back at tax time). To say the rich are getting a "free ride" is intellectually disingenuous and frankly, discredits your arguments...

To correct your stats, the top 5% of earners pay 75% of all taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% of taxpayers pay. Most of the bottom half of taxpayers not only pay no income taxes, but they get back MORE than they pay in. America, What a Country!!!!

[Brewster]

Originally Posted by twinimini

To correct your stats, the top 5% of earners pay 75% of all taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% of taxpayers pay. Most of the bottom half of taxpayers not only pay no income taxes, but they get back MORE than they pay in. America, What a Country!!!!

How would you respond to the assertion that the top 1% have seen their income bloat to what many would describe as an obsene amount when compared to the average income. Should CEO's of publically held companies really be awarded millions of dollars annually? Their income is far above their counterparts of 20-30 years ago, proportionately.

I know the argument exists that they are merely being compensated at a level that the market dictates.

How would the market go about correcting this inequity?

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by Brewster

How would you respond to the assertion that the top 1% have seen their income bloat to what many would describe as an obsene amount when compared to the average income. Should CEO's of publically held companies really be awarded millions of dollars annually? Their income is far above their counterparts of 20-30 years ago, proportionately.

I know the argument exists that they are merely being compensated at a level that the market dictates.

How would the market go about correcting this inequity?

I agree that there is a huge imbalance in what public company CEO's get compensated. As far as I'm concerned there should be an additional tax on any Company CEO in a publicly traded company that exceeds $1,000,000. I agree that they should be compensated for making money for their shareholders, but the level of compensation that is being seen now is way out of control. I think anyone who has compensation in excess of $1,000,000 per year should be looking at a higher tax rate than those who are well below that figure. I know that is substantially different that what is being proposed by the Republicans, but on that factor alone I have to disagree vehemently with the GOP. A public company has a responsibility to not only their shareholders but also their customers, their community, and most importantly, their country. I have not seen much good corporate citizenship in the last few years. I think that a higher tax rate on public companies can be justified.

How about this? Let's put a tax rate on any CEO of a public company of 55%, but he or she can lower that rate by 1% for every 1,000 jobs created in the US. That might create some incentive out there.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by BillS

Rdub, You really should quit with this "the rich should chip in" stuff. You well know the top 10% earners in our country pay 70% of our federal revenues and that the bottom 50% pay zero (they do have $$$ withheld but get it all back at tax time). To say the rich are getting a "free ride" is intellectually disingenuous and frankly, discredits your arguments...

rdubnpk
My point was that the rich have their right not to be taxed defended to the point of signing pledges not to do so while the middle class is about to get it stuck to us. Who is defending us??

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

My point was that the rich have their right not to be taxed defended to the point of signing pledges not to do so while the middle class is about to get it stuck to us. Who is defending us??

I guess we ALL missed the wording in the pledge that said, "We won't raise taxes (but only for the rich - the middle class we're going to tax the shit out of by raising only their taxes)."

Thanks for pointing that out.

Jamie

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I guess we ALL missed the wording in the pledge that said, "We won't raise taxes (but only for the rich - the middle class we're going to tax the shit out of by raising only their taxes)."

Thanks for pointing that out.

Jamie

rdubnpk
Actions will soon speak louder than pledges. Watch and see if I am wrong!!

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
Everyone please check out "Need Prayers" on this site and show that young lady some love.

[LemonHead]

A very Merry Christmas to the 'layaway angels'!

So nice to see some love being spread.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
Everyone please check out "Need Prayers" on this site and show that young lady some love.

Please Folks, if you can stop by the thread "Need Prayers" to give the lady some encouragement and show that this site is kind of a family. We may grumble at each other once and a while, but we're all good people who want the best for each other and care for our fellow TTR goers.