Interesting socialist quote from a Democrat Congressman today. It matches the Obama redistribution of wealth comments nicely.
"We've been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it." Jim Moran
MEANING: Don't work hard and earn above the norm because the "better" administration will make others will flip the bill for you.
The PRIME reason why I'm voting for McCain.
I really have a tough time putting in a 12 hour day, every day, so I could pay an increased tax for some guy's health plan who comes home from his 4 hour day and spends the balance of it in front of the TV.
You know before catholic priests were outed for molesting little boys, I used to be proud to say I'm catholic. I hope the day never comes when I'm embarassed to say I live in America.
MEANING: Don't work hard and earn above the norm because the "better" administration will make others will flip the bill for you.
The PRIME reason why I'm voting for McCain.
I really have a tough time putting in a 12 hour day, every day, so I could pay an increased tax for some guy's health plan who comes home from his 4 hour day and spends the balance of it in front of the TV.
You are just "selfish" Mike. At least that's what Obama says. This from a response to McCain/Palin making fun of his "spread the wealth" comment:
“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”
There's an old sea story in the Marine Corps about a Lieutenant who inspected his Marines in the field, and afterward told the "Gunny" that the men smelled bad. The Lieutenant suggested the solution is that they should change underwear. So the Gunny responded, "Aye aye sir, I'll see to it immediately!" The Gunny went straight to the squad. The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear. Smith, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowsky, and Brown, you change with Schultz. Now get to it!"
THE MORAL: A candidate may promise 'change' in Washington , but don't count on things smelling any better...
MEANING: Don't work hard and earn above the norm because the "better" administration will make others will flip the bill for you.
The PRIME reason why I'm voting for McCain.
I really have a tough time putting in a 12 hour day, every day, so I could pay an increased tax for some guy's health plan who comes home from his 4 hour day and spends the balance of it in front of the TV.
You are just "selfish" Mike. At least that's what Obama says. This from a response to McCain/Palin making fun of his "spread the wealth" comment:
“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”
The reason it's viewed as selfishness; All that is being proposed is that the amount of taxible income you make over $250K to be taxed at a rate 3% higher than it is now. And the money isn't 'earmarked' for the bros in the hood. It's to get our country back on track, paying down the national debt and stimulating the economy, by helping with energy independance and infrastructure projects. For those that are so thick headed that they are freakin' blind, deaf and dumb, that means stuff like windmills, solar farms and roads. If you do not make $250K a year or more you are barking for nothing...
MEANING: Don't work hard and earn above the norm because the "better" administration will make others will flip the bill for you.
The PRIME reason why I'm voting for McCain.
I really have a tough time putting in a 12 hour day, every day, so I could pay an increased tax for some guy's health plan who comes home from his 4 hour day and spends the balance of it in front of the TV.
You are just "selfish" Mike. At least that's what Obama says. This from a response to McCain/Palin making fun of his "spread the wealth" comment:
“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”
The reason it's viewed as selfishness; All that is being proposed is that the amount of taxible income you make over $250K to be taxed at a rate 3% higher than it is now. And the money isn't 'earmarked' for the bros in the hood. It's to get our country back on track, paying down the national debt and stimulating the economy, by helping with energy independance and infrastructure projects. For those that are so thick headed that they are freakin' blind, deaf and dumb, that means stuff like windmills, solar farms and roads. If you do not make $250K a year or more you are barking for nothing...
why is it so hard to understand that $250,000 or $150,000 or whatever it is going to be is not just for persons...its fopr small business`s too, and when they get an increase in their tax bills and if they are not very profitable, they can do only two things... a) swallow it , and possibly go under = lots of layoffs b) charge more, meaning the customer pays for it...that is YOU the consumer...meaning ,everybody pays for it...thats not hitting the rich!
I guess people that are or have been in bus. will understand this simple logic.
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."
"he promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party proposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."
The reason it's viewed as selfishness; All that is being proposed is that the amount of taxible income you make over $250K to be taxed at a rate 3% higher than it is now. And the money isn't 'earmarked' for the bros in the hood. It's to get our country back on track, paying down the national debt and stimulating the economy, by helping with energy independance and infrastructure projects. For those that are so thick headed that they are freakin' blind, deaf and dumb, that means stuff like windmills, solar farms and roads. If you do not make $250K a year or more you are barking for nothing...
Because that number has already trickled down and he has not even taken office yet. It STARTED at $250,000 than went to $225K, than $200, now he say $150K. What will it really be? And as Bjorn said, it applies to businesses to. We are already taxed to death. With all the different taxes that exist, I am willing to bet we pay close to 50% of what we make back out in taxes.
68' Firebird 400 convertible, numbers matching, solar red w/ deluxe parchment interior. 66' Pontiac Ventura Hardtop 66' Pontiac Catalina Convertible
What is it Jim? $250, $200, $100? I wish he would have gotten it staight before the last debate.
Regardless, I really wish he would look at some BS programs before he comes to me with his hat in his hand for somemore. And for those that think making $250 means you could spare another penny come visit nyc for a week. Just remember to bring your wallet.
Say for instance right now 10% of the taxpayers are above the arbitrary threshold, let's say $250,000, and they will be taxed 50%. So now they have $125,000. From that, they pay for their insurance, utilities, home, medical care, retirement funds...
Say for instance 25% of the taxpayers fall into the next bracket, let's say $125,000, and they will be taxed 25%. So now they have $93,750. They are also responsible for all their living expenses.
And 50% of the taxpayers fall into the next bracket, let's say $62,500. They will be taxed "only" 20%, so they get to keep $50,000. From this, they pay their living expenses.
The remaining 15% are deemed to have income insufficient to maintain a reasonable standard of living and are not taxed, so 10% of the $2.65M in taxes collected from the self-sufficient is made available to subsidize health care, housing, food, and other living expenses so that no American is left cold and hungry. That's $17,708 subsidy per household, meaning that someone making $15 an hour would have the same net earnings as someone making $30 an hour, and wouldn't have to worry where their next meal was coming from.
Redistribution of wealth, whether through social programs or entitlements, is WRONG.
As the rich become poorer and the poor become richer, the whole reward-for-work concept will go out the window. They may achieve the equality they seek, but only for a moment, as eventually there will be no more rich to pay for the poor. It's like moving money from one credit card to another without ever paying the bill, it's an illusion, there are no late fees, but economically it's not sustainable or paying down any debt.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."
"he promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party proposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."
Again, Bill Clinton is the luckiest SOB on the face of the planet. He was handed a perfect storm for economic growth during his term. And for the record, I voted for the guy twice.
68' Firebird 400 convertible, numbers matching, solar red w/ deluxe parchment interior. 66' Pontiac Ventura Hardtop 66' Pontiac Catalina Convertible
What is it Jim? $250, $200, $100? I wish he would have gotten it staight before the last debate.
Regardless, I really wish he would look at some BS programs before he comes to me with his hat in his hand for somemore. And for those that think making $250 means you could spare another penny come visit nyc for a week. Just remember to bring your wallet.
It is $250K. Just the part over that. And only 3% more which would put it at 39%. When you voted in Bush what did you expect? It's his bill that you are paying. At least I didn't vote for Bush so I can [censored] at y'all for making the wrong choice last time. It was the lies your candidate told about Iraq that is costing us now. We didn't need that war at all. 10 freakin' billion a month because of 'faulty intelligence'. I think just the people that voted for Bush should have to pay it but it's a Democracy so we all will have to pick up the tab.
Do you really, for one minute, believe that social programs, foreign aid, UN integration, and WTO [censored]-kissing will be less of an impact on the budget? Should the military be disbanded to save more money?
Those who forget history...you know the rest.
Go read the Federalist papers. This country has been through many political revolutions as it evolves. This is close to another. Unfortunately I do not believe this one is evolution, but degradation. Government spending is out of control.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
Again, Bill Clinton is the luckiest SOB on the face of the planet. He was handed a perfect storm for economic growth during his term. And for the record, I voted for the guy twice.
the point is, of course, all of those "sky is falling" warnings were dead wrong. Obama's tax plan is almost identical to Clinton's, that librul commie America hater who balanced the budget.
BTW, the Wall Street Journal disagrees with your assessment as to who gets the credit for said balancing:
A Vote for Clinton’s Economic Program Becomes The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes.
—WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
And what was the Journal’s take on the subject three years later? Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors.
—WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
(Note: For the deficit reduction, the Journal gave more credit to Clinton’s tax increases than to the cost-cutting Republican Congress.)
And another year later—the Journal is still giving credit to "tax-on-wealthy" for the deficit reduction: Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up."
The Electoral College consists of 538 popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States. In 2008, it will make this selection on December 15. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election. Indirect election is a process in which voters in an election do not actually choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.
The Electoral College consists of 538 popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States. In 2008, it will make this selection on December 15. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election. Indirect election is a process in which voters in an election do not actually choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.
It has been proven before that whoever wins the popular vote doesn't always win the Electoral College vote. In the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888, the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the Electoral College vote. It could happen again, or not.
I can't believe all of you people think that the Republicans trickle down economics and tax breaks for the rich actually work. We've had that for the past 8 years and where has it got us ?
Record unemployment,the countrys deficit in the Trillions. And the worst economy since the great depression. Need I say more ?
It has been proven before that whoever wins the popular vote doesn't always win the Electoral College vote. In the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888, the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the Electoral College vote. It could happen again, or not.
I believe, sir, you neglected to mention one more election!!!!
Regardless of who wins the popular vote, as Jeremy says, all the candidates are still on the ballot until the Electoral College vote. Hillary is not on the ballot.
This type of vote may have made sense when it took a rural population hours or days to reach a polling place, or perhaps could not read the ballots or hear the candidates' positions, but it seems a bit archaic today.
Doug, I can tell you right now that even 2% more in taxes will cost one person a good paying job. I can't pay an employee out of my own wages. Multiply that by all the small business owners, and you'll see the impact.
The U.S. Government employs 2% of the country's workforce, currently about 2.7 MILLION people.
Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
I had heard that there were still people who believe that myth even after it has been proven false by multiple studies.
No myth- More people voted for Gore both Nationally and in Florida. I'm not contesting that Bush won legally, but when all the Florida votes were counted (after the election), Gore had more. Both the left and right wing media agreed on that. Ironically, Gore still would have lost if he won his lawsuit, because it only asked for a manual count in one county, which was still short after the recount. The recount
This may all be over within the next hour. NBC is calling PA for Obama, and he has big leads in Florida and Ohio. Add either of those to PA and its over. McCain seems to be taking GA, Indiana, and Virginia- so no landslide, but a solid win for Obama. Probably with 4-6% popular vote margin.
It has been proven before that whoever wins the popular vote doesn't always win the Electoral College vote. In the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888, the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the Electoral College vote. It could happen again, or not.
Also happened in 2000..
Am I right?
Si Vis Pacem Parabellum
1967 Starlight black PMD Engineering 400 Auto 1968 Alpine Blue 400 4 speed 1968 Verdoro Green 400 HO 4 speed 2013 1LE 2SS/RS Inferno Orange Camaro.
This may all be over within the next hour. NBC is calling PA for Obama, and he has big leads in Florida and Ohio. Add either of those to PA and its over. McCain seems to be taking GA, Indiana, and Virginia- so no landslide, but a solid win for Obama. Probably with 4-6% popular vote margin.
Socialist, American-hating, terrorist-coddling Fox News has called Ohio for Obama.
I can remember ten of the eleven US Presidents of my lifetime. I liked some and didn't like others. But I always, although often with criticism, supported all ten due to my respect for the Office of the President. I cannot accept or support this Marxist. I truly believe he is an enemy of this great nation.
I hope the damage done to the US Constitution will not be too great or permanent. We already know that he disrespects the 1st Amendment. He wants to gut the 2nd Amendment. He may be in violation of the Article Two. He wants to add a second bill of rights for a liberal agenda that destroys self-motivation. And he will appoint far-left activist Supreme Court Justices that will pervert the document.
Only Article Two of the Constitution can save us now.
He will last somewhere between tomorrow and 4 years from now at most. So hopefully we can last 4 years unless something terrible was to happen.
Oh well, the folks who voted him in will get exactly what they deserve and then some. I guess if there is anything positive about losing your vision, it's not having to watch that turd be sworn in... LOL
Well, we can look forward to free healthcare & lower college tuition. Two things he promised evreyone in the US. LOLOLOLOLOL Meanwhile college tuition is said to rise at the highest rate ever come Jan 1st. I can't wait to see how he is going to lower this "so EVERYONE who wants to, can afford it"! LOLOLOL
