Obama : "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 09:44 PM by skeptic1

reply to post by GamerGal

And, what's the excuse for the last two years while the Dems have been in charge?

Honestly, what have they done on this issue since they gained control of both the House and the Senate?

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 10:03 PM by chickenshoes

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by chickenshoes

By your own admission, you were already struggling, yet you CHOSE to have a 2nd child.

You may not have felt abortion/adoption was the right option, but it would have been the smart and responsible one.

Yes, trugod is just supposed to walk away from the down if they couldnt meet the terms. There is more to the story (as is always the case) that trugod isnt telling us.

Again, trugod is the one responsible for his current predicament. He signed on the dotted line.

Well, even though you say you have a 10 month old, you obviously have never grown a child inside your body, Jay. It's not as easy as saying kill it or give it away. Yes, that may have been the more responsible and smart thing, as you say, but still.....you are extremely flip about human emotion and evidently know......... well, not very much in that regard.

Whatever....you are what you are, and only being 30, I wouldn't have expected you to have developed a whit of compassion or wisdom. You only think you know everything at this point. I suggest you wait a few years and then rethink your position.

At any rate, we work our butts off to pay for insurance for our kids, we don't have any for ourselves. Not to mention all the other expenses kids accrue.

The point is, that we don't receive any help from anyone, nor do we ask for it. We wouldn't qualify anyway.

I do think it would be great if the large corporations were held accountable, and actually had to pay some taxes, instead of the bulk of the burden put on folks like us, out there busting ourselves just trying to eek out a living, while they're taking expensive vacations and doing whatever it is that ridiculously rich people do.

And yes, we have a computer, but it was frankenstiened by a buddy of my husbands who does it for a living. We live on an extremely tight budget. Anything we have now we traded for or bought outright before we had kids. Our cars were made in the '90's for pete's sake. It would be nice to be able for us to afford health insurance for ourselves, but we just can't swing it. Believe me, most any of the cheaper policies are useless pieces of crap. You'd be better off with nothing than to throw your money away on it.

The system sucks, and it needs to be changed.

Oh well, I guess that about all I've got. Bye now, have a nice life.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 08:18 AM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by truthquest

Low income earners may have taxes withheld, yet they receive each and every cent back in the form of a refund, usually more through the EITC.

They are not paying any taxes, they are merely giving the government an interest free loan.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 08:21 AM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by chickenshoes

Do either you or your husband have a cell phone? Cable TV?

Obviously you have internet access, so thats what, an extra 30 or 40 per month right there?

Couldnt that 30 or 40 bucks per month be put to better use?

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 09:23 AM by GamerGal

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by GamerGal

And, what's the excuse for the last two years while the Dems have been in charge?

Honestly, what have they done on this issue since they gained control of both the House and the Senate?

You mean how Bush NEVER VETOED a bill until the Dems took control? So Bush and the GOP were still able to do everything they wanted since the Dems couldn't get anything passed. Anything that would help the American people? Vetoed. Anything that would help destroy it, Bush would use the same scare tactices they've used since 2001 to get it passed.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 09:24 AM by skeptic1

reply to post by GamerGal

I didn't ask you about Bush.

You are foaming at the mouth about the Republicans being in charge and "destroying this country". Well, the Dems have been in charge for 2 years....what have they done?

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 09:55 AM by GamerGal

reply to post by skeptic1

You asked about the Dems for tha past two years and I answered you. Bush has vetoed anything that would help America. The Dems don't have enough in the Congress to override his veto. And so they've been unable to pass anything to help America. "What? This bill will remove everyone's debt and save America? VETO! What this bill will end the murder of American Troops in Iraq? VETO! WHat this bill will remove the tax breaks to billionaires that have sent American jobs overseas to use Child Slave Labor? VETO!"

[edit on 16-10-2008 by GamerGal]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 09:57 AM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by GamerGal

Specifically which bills did he veto that would have "helped America"?

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:00 AM by GamerGal

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

The bill that had a timeline to end the Iraq War. You know, stop murdering American Troops, stop spending 1,200,000,000,000 a year to kill Americans. I know, 1,200,000,000,000 a year that could be spent on America and not Iraq is Anti American...

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:11 AM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by GamerGal

Ever think he vetoed it because it had last minute provisions added by democrats?

If the D's were so concerned about the troops, why would they add anything that would lead to a veto?

I definitely do not support the war in Iraq, but timelines cannot be put in place in any conflict in which positive results are expected.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:21 AM by GamerGal

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

I guess they were hoping Bush didn't want to murder every US Troop. But as Bush and McCain have said Iraq will last a hundred years if they have their way. A hundred years of our tax money being used to murder US troops for Halliburton profits. I guess the Dems hoped Bush would have one shred of morals and they hoped wrong.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:24 AM by Jadette

Taxing higher income brackets has /always/ been about redistribution of wealth, and yet for some reason, /this/ time it's on the table, some people want to claim it's a sign of 'socialism' or worse.

First, I want you to look at the tax rates for top income brackets in the US over the last century.

73% in 1920
25% in 1930
79% in 1940
91% in 1945
82% in 1950
91% from 1950 to 1965
77% in 1970
70% until 1982
50% for much of the 1980s - and down to
28% by 1990

It's now 35% and under the Obama tax plan will be 39%.

I think anyone that thinks they're going to be 'taxed to death' is fooling themselves.

I also think that raising the taxes on the very wealthy isn't the solution necessarily. What I'd like to see addressed is the tax 'loop holes' that allow cooporations to pay 15% or less, or even nothing at all, and yet have billions of dollars of income. While there are some arguments to be made about encouraging business, in the end you have to decide if that serves the country (and by serving the country I mean the people OF that country) better than ensuring that the Coorporation carries their fair share of the tax burden.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:29 AM by mystiq

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by chickenshoes

Do either you or your husband have a cell phone? Cable TV?

Obviously you have internet access, so thats what, an extra 30 or 40 per month right there?

Couldnt that 30 or 40 bucks per month be put to better use?

Yes, I suppose, like giving it to the government or something. Really don't even insult people to suggest that they shouldn't have media, or access to the world, or heaven forbid consider it necessary to talk, often with video, to their loved ones across the country, or world, let alone entertain themselves in a way that brings them meaningful information and connectedness from others. And I suppose they should work hard in the slave market for wages that don't stretch far beyond the cost of shelter, and think its unreasonable to expect it to stetch to upped nutrition, phones, internets. Man thats just feeling unreasonably entitled. Serfs have no rights, except to work and die to allow room for their low cast offspring to work like dogs in an overpopulated world.

We're all entitled!

[edit on 16-10-2008 by mystiq]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:36 AM by thisguyrighthere

All taxes are evil. I dont care if it's the rich, the poor, the business or the individual.

What I want is a spending freeze. But oh no, the infrastructure! Boo-hoo. If it's costing more than we can afford to maintain these things chances are we shouldnt have these things. If a large plant stops getting the nutrients it used to grow so large it pulls back until it can sustain itself.

Until America pulls back it will never get out of the hole its in. If we cut every program and cease all payments on GDP alone we'll still be in dept for years.

It's no different in your house. If you spend more than is coming in your going to be homeless. Either get more coming in (tax us all at 100% and it will still take years to pay off) or stop spending and sell whatever you can to kill as much debt as possible then scrape and toil to clear the rest.

Maybe it's not the same in your household. I heard car dealers saying they wont give loans to anyone with a credit score under 700 followed by uproar and fear. How badly do you have to screw up to drop your score below 700? Just pay your damn bills. If you cant pay the bill get rid of the thing thats costing you.

Really, it's not damn rocket science.

We overspent to overbuild. Let the overbuilt crap crumble or sell it off. We never should have gone into cities. We never should have so much as said hello to other countries. Hell, we never should have formed these "united states."

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:52 AM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by Jadette

39%.

Why should anyone give 39% of their income to the government, when others pay less?

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 10:55 AM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by mystiq

No, I meant like towards food.

Whats more important, having some expendable income in case of an emergency (car breakdown), or having internet access?

Want access to media? Fine, buy a newspaper. Watch local news.

One of the biggest problems in this country is that peoples priorities are out of whack.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:02 AM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by truthquest

Low income earners may have taxes withheld, yet they receive each and every cent back in the form of a refund, usually more through the EITC.

They are not paying any taxes, they are merely giving the government an interest free loan.

You boasted that you aren't paying taxes either, while being well off.
Your point?

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:07 AM by GamerGal

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Reagan charged more. Hear that? Reagan charged more! Reagan charged the rich more then Obama will! So unless you are implying that Reagan was an evil socialist that wanted to destroy America, you just hate Obama because he's black. Also, 3% of 10,000 is 300. 10% of 1,000,000 is 100,000. But the person making 10,000 needs that 300 a lot more then the person making 1,000,000 needs that 100,000. Unless they're like Spears or Hilton and spend more then they make every month on clothes and clubbing.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:14 AM by Constitutional Scholar

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Reagan charged more. Hear that? Reagan charged more! Reagan charged the rich more then Obama will! So unless you are implying that Reagan was an evil socialist that wanted to destroy America, you just hate Obama because he's black. Also, 3% of 10,000 is 300. 10% of 1,000,000 is 100,000. But the person making 10,000 needs that 300 a lot more then the person making 1,000,000 needs that 100,000. Unless they're like Spears or Hilton and spend more then they make every month on clothes and clubbing.

Immediately assuming its a race issue? Wow, I thought you were smarter than that. I guess not.

You wont find a single post of mine where I ever supported Regans tax policy.

The entire tax system needs to be eliminated and replaced with Constitutionally authorized taxes.

There is no reason one person should pay a higher percentage simply because they can afford it.

Why should I pay more than you?

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 11:18 AM by Jadette

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Because it's less of a burden (and this is the key word here) for someone making $370,000 or more a year than it would be for someone making, say, $10,000 - 40,000 a year. And an insignificant burden for people and corporations making millions and billions.