reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
10.6 BILLION dollars. And a year before that they made MORE then that. Do they really need that much money? Oil needs to be natoinalized and get
rid of these burglars. That way there is no more hundreds of billions in corporate welfare and with the government running it they wouldn't need
high taxes on gas to get a chunk of change thus lowering gas prices. And instead of leasing land to the oil companies, about 65,000,000 acres, that
they don't use the government could pump on it, producing millions more barrels a day, lowering prices even more. Man, if I had more then ten
billion a year... I'd be retired after a week and never have to work again.
|
reply to post by GamerGal
Haha ah now we get down to the real issue.
Who are you to decide how much they "need"? They are a business. Businesses have one motive: PROFIT.
What you suggest actually already exists. It's in a place called Venezuela. Ever thought of moving there?
You will never have 10 billion dollars, simply because of your opinions on economic policy.
You actually think government could be more productive? Thats your problem right there. Government is inefficient, as well as fiscally irresponsible.
Increased oil profits are a result of increased demand. Dont like it? Why dont you come up with an alternative to oil and give people an incentive to
reduce demand.
Wait, let me guess, you think government should do that too right?
|
reply to post by llpoolej
that is because you like having more than the person next to you. Being a success is only concievable while standing next to many more failures.
trouble is, with a growing population, there are bound to be more and more failures and that adds up to unrest. You could say "too bad for them,
they didnt try hard enough," but that is not true because if we could all be successfull then nobody would be.
Maybe the bar of success needs to be lowered a bit, or shared amoung a larger population.
The US is the POOREST country in the world, with the most "success" stories. Something is obviously wrong here.
Im moving to the Netherlands, they are at least happy there it seems.
|
The Obama camp has declared that the word "welfare" is racist. If McCain had started his career in the living room of an unrepentant terrorist,
trained and funded ACORN operatives who are responsible for the huge mortgage mess, and listened to a hatemongering preacher for twenty years, he
would have been kicked out by the Republican party a long time ago. Obama gets a pass because everyone is afraid of being called a racist. That is
what he is counting on.
|
Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
Who are you to decide how much they "need"? They are a business. Businesses have one motive: PROFIT.
That is the sole motive at this stage of history, sadly, and that is one major reason we are in the mess we are.
Once upon a time in America, businesses had the idea that "I'm going to make the best widget anybody has ever seen. And if I make money doing it, so
much the better.".
That is the attitude that made the US great. And that attitude has been replaced by "profit first, last and always" which has led us to buying cheap
Chinese crap instead of quality made products.
Note: I've got nothing against Chinese people. But my own personal experience has been that a US made item (from a few years ago when they existed)
is generally pretty good quality, while the equivalent from China today is crap.
Originally posted by ferretman2
Obama is on record now that he wants to redistribute wealth. Take from the people who have worked hard to be successful and give it to others who have
refused to help themselves to a better life.
OP - I have worked my entire adult life. I have spent maybe a total of 3 months on gov't handout (i.e. unemployment) in the last 35 years. And
in that time, especially in the last 8 years, my wages have stagnated while executive-level wages have skyrocketed. Due largely to my contributions.
Your insinuation that I, and others like me, have refused to help ourselves to a better life are unfounded to say the least.
It is bloody well time the wealth was re-distributed. That is the idea of the trickle down economic theory, that if the wealthy get all these breaks,
the wealth will distribute itself due to market forces. News flash: It has not worked. The wealthy are more wealthy than ever, by
percentage of income, and the wages of the soon to be former middle class have stagnated.
If the wealthy cannot be trusted to behave in the way trickle-down claims, then yeah, let the gov't do it. Can't make the situation any worse than
it is now.
|
The only real solution is to disband the IRS.
NO one should have to pay tax.
[edit on 19-10-2008 by In nothing we trust]
|
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
Yep just look at the wealthiest people in this country and see wether they align themselves with the liberal side or the conservative side of the
political scene. Of course the majority keep their assets off shore to avoid those taxes our more socialist brethern wish to impose upon us.
I guess they feel that all wealth should be redistributed except theirs.
|
Here's a very relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have".
There is bottom-line truth in that quote my friends, and it should scare the ---- out of people of both parties.
|
reply to post by centurion1211
Funny thing is, by todays standards, Thomas Jefferson is a democrat. The man you want to look up to is more of Alexander Hamilton. You should look
into him.
He was basically America's first big capitalist and helped drive the economic system we have today.
Another cool group, which was driven by great minds like Adams, was more socialistic. He believed society should be driven by merit, instead of
inherited wealth or status.
Lot's of great ideas back then. Some got pushed under the carpet and some flourished. Thanks for the quote, though. 
p.s. I think my favorite quotes from that era are from Benjamin Franklin.
|
Does anybody REALLY think anybody will cut taxes in the near future? If you do, I have some wonderful property I would like to sell you; it is
a beautiful white mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue...if I am not mistaken it is part of a historic district.  Get real everybody, the only group
that will not face an increased tax burden is the corporations...they seem to find all of the best loopholes in the tax code. Maybe I should go work
for a giant corporation to see exactly how I can cook my own books, and get away with taxpayer dollars to boot. If anybody would actually think for a
minute about what the next president will face, one would realize there will be no tax cut in the foreseeable future. I see tax increases across the
board; how else can we cover all of the programs both candidates are promising...we could always issue more debt. As somebody said earlier:
'different sides of the same coin', a coin less worthy of pocketing than the lowly penny.
|
State ownership of businesses and banks and property....hmmmm, that I call socialism, and that we have under the current Bush administration.
Republican I might add.
I REALLY wish people would stop with the whole socialism arguement. Nobody is trying to turn America into a socialist, classless society. Nobody.
If you want to argue the fairness of the current capitolist society we have, I'll argue that with you all day, but nobody has stripped more of our
freedoms away than the current administration, so go eat them apples. Quote all you want, twist it all you want, but Obama is NOT talking about taking
ALL of peoples money and redistributing their wealth. He is talking about re-assigning the prgressive tax system, which, btw, we have had since 1913.
Don't like it?? Then vote for change to a flat tax. But if Obama is a socialist, then so is Bush, his father, Mccain, Regan, and all the other
Presidents. Oh, I forgot, the Republicans like to give thier cronies the wealth, and braek the backs of the middle class. They believe in trickle-down
economics, and that the wealthy will share thier money by creating jobs. They just forgot that the wealthy are so damned geedy that they don't want
even a minumum wage, nor to give moderate pay increases when thiers are exhorbanant. Yeah, that seems MUCH better. I wonder if THAT could be why we
are in the mess we are in. I think SO!!!
|
John McCain's Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
by Human Events
01/16/2008
1. “I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big—it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the
wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax
cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …
“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
2. “I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I’m deeply concerned
about a kind of class warfare that’s going on right now. It’s unfortunate. There’s a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and
that gap is growing, and it’s unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines.
“I feel very strongly that we ought to have middle-income and lower-income tax cuts, and we’ll be getting into it, I’m sure, later on in this
program. Mine are basically comparable to Gov. Bush’s, in some cases far better. But I’m not sure we need to give two-thirds of that tax cut, of
that money, to the wealthiest 10% of America.”
—Michigan Republican Debate, Jan. 11, 2000.
3. “I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said,
there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it’s clear that there’s a growing gap between rich
and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the
relief most are working middle-income Americans and that’s what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give
them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don’t think it’s fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on
future generations of Americans.”
—NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Jan. 16, 2000.
4. “We give the millionaire a $2,000 refund. Gov. Bush gives him $50,000.”
—Quoted in “John McCain: How Straight a Shooter?” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 2000.
5. “There’s one big difference between me and the others—I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly
benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest
generation.”
—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.
6. “I don’t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think you and your parents do.”
—Michigan State University rally, Feb. 20, 2000.
7. “Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and
middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income
families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why
tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to
make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
“I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more
tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate
of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American
taxpayers.”
—Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.
8. “During the debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I had urged my colleagues that substantial tax relief to middle-income
Americans should be our top priority. While I regret that my amendment to cut the top rate by one percent to 38.6% so millions more middle-class
Americans would fall into the 15% tax bracket failed on a tie vote, Sen. Grassley did move in that direction in the Senate bill by insisting that the
top rate should be cut to only 36%. As a result, I reluctantly voted for the bill but pledged to vote against the conference report should further
reductions in the top tax rate be made at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief.
“Unfortunately, the conference report did just that by jettisoning the commendable work both Senators Grassley and Baucus did in crafting a Senate
reconciliation bill that provided more tax relief to middle-income Americans. This conference report lowers the top rate cut to 35%, at the cost of
delaying, for several years, much needed tax relief for married couples unfairly penalized by our tax code. …
“We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in
which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”
—Senate floor statement before voting against President Bush’s tax cut, May 26, 2001.
9. “I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the
country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on
the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are
paid by the estates of people whose annual
income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. …
“We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. … We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant
tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the
repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.
“We will need resources to deal with … responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”
—Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.
10. MCCAIN: “Shouldn’t we give relief to average citizens who also are double taxed every single day?”
HOST KATIE COURIC: “But, Sen. McCain, if you listen to Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and he just appeared on this program, working Americans, the
middle-class Americans, under the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a year, according to Mr. Evans, will get a
$1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won’t just simply benefit the
wealthy.”
MCCAIN: “Well, I think it will. But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that—as the previous tax cuts—that go to the wealthiest
Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans. … A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a—low and
middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.”
—NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003.
|
