my kind of "hope and change"

[dbw]

Huh?  *I* sure didn't say that... I was just stoked about my tax cut 

You've become richer with your tax cut... might have to consider you an evil, greedy rich bastard now.   :toothy10:

Why does everyone assume liberal = poor?  I make lots of money, did before the tax cut too...

 

[Superlizard]

Huh?  *I* sure didn't say that... I was just stoked about my tax cut 

You've become richer with your tax cut... might have to consider you an evil, greedy rich bastard now.   :toothy10:

Why does everyone assume liberal = poor?  I make lots of money, did before the tax cut too...

Doesn't matter - you have more money than you did before, so you're greedy rich and evil now.

(I'd be willing to bet there's more rich liberals than conservatives... gotta take Hollyweird into account.)

 

[Superlizard]

Everytime I play the lottery (like yesterday's 200+ million mega-millions) I always find it funny how people say first thing they're gonna do is  they're going on vacation, going to disneyworld, gonna buy a new house or whatever.

If I hit the lottery, first thing I'm doing is voting Republican...


2nd is buying every guitar and neck in the showcase. ;-)

What about World Peace?

 

[Lucky #7]

stub's assessment of federal government is a but suspect to me ever since he claimed the government was covering up people dying and starving on Galveston Island after Ike.

Lebron James wouldn't make what he makes if it wasn't profitable to pay him that much.  The same can be said for about every rich person out there.  Yes, some of these rich folks made very poor decisions.  It doesn't mean they aren't worthy of their salaries.  You can't quantify how hard someone works and say what they should make.  Paul Allen may not work 87K times harder than others, but he works smarter. 

 

[Alfang]

Wow, some great posts on this thread, and so far no one seems to uptight.

Here's some news for some of you, the economy isn't gonna get better until big business feels things are gonna get better and that that expansion to their plant that,s been on hold for six months can begin.

So raising taxes on another group, like people making more than 250k, is not the answer, Ronald Reagan had it right, get govt out of the way and the economy will flourish.

The govt loves to tax small groups of people for their luxury or sins, because the majority of us are not in those groups, Should we raise tax on BMW drivers? I don't drive a BMW so I don't care, But I do care because they're gonna Tax Guitar builders next, and no one will care but us.

I can tell who my fellow conservatives are, great posts guys, libs too

 

[tfarny]

Alf, you make some good points. I'm actually not a socialist or anything like that, though Stub makes some good points. Did you know that under Reagan, tax rates on the rich were a lot higher than they are now? The Eisenhower admin  (Republican) soaked the rich with huge, 70%+ tax rates to pay off WW2, which was what got us out of the depression by going to a planned economy with wage and price controls, and huge massive deficit spending? Or that the wealthy share of taxes as a portion of their income is substantially less than the middle class (i.e. they pay more taxes but less as a proportion of their income)? Or that the best economic conditions post-ww2, with budget surpluses, came under a democrat who raised taxes on the wealthy in order to pay off the deficit? The wealthy are doing just fine, in fact better than they have done at any time since the 20s(!!)  and have plenty of defenders, it's amazing to me that middle class people who are losing their health care and jobs right and left are so worried about the rich. That's really ironic to me and I think it's pretty twisted. The rich are dependent on you and I, not the other way around.

The arguments I hear people make just aren't born out by historical experience, even the talking heads seem to be in need of some basic history lessons.

I just think that the basic facts of history are good things for people to know when they argue this stuff, it's not you Alf it's most people out there.

 

[GoDrex]

whatever happened to these kinds of guys?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Political_views

 

[dbw]

Again, liberals don't have anything against rich people.  As SL points out there are lots of rich liberals.

The thing liberals hate is hungry, sick, poor people.  We hate them so much we want to eliminate them by making them into happy, healthy, productive people.  I know "welfare state" isn't a popular term in this country but it's what we liberals want.   :toothy11:

Hence, all the taxes.  Sorry!   :doh:  Democrats do love raising taxes.  Of course Bush Sr. did it too

But not this time!  I got a tax cut, and I'm willing to bet you did too, SL... so these are our own personal mini-bailouts.  Honestly I thought Barack was gonna break his promise and raise taxes but he didn't so let's enjoy :rock-on:

 

[Lucky #7]

To quote the old line: Welfare is a hand up, not a hand out. 

That unfortunately is not true as it is currently employed.  It's so poorly managed that you can have a Top 10 single and still be pulling welfare.  I would have no problem with it if we weren't handing it out on an unlimited basis to people that have no problem doing nothing all day but picking up their check, living in government housing, and leeching off of everyone else.  I've seen the nonsense first hand.  I worked on an Angel Tree/Toys for Tots deal for a radio station I was working with and part of it was delivering the toys and such that had been collected.  Some of the people's homes I went to were legitimate: single moms trying to keep their kids in a safe neighborhood (decent rentals, but virtually no furniture and crappy when it was there), families living drug infested motels in 3rd world conditions, etc.  Sadly, these were in the minority.  I delivered to a lot more houses with DirecTV satellites on the roofs, big screen HDTVs, and $50,000 SUVs.  All living in crappy neighborhoods with a minimum of four kids and "no money" for their kids Christmas.  Same thing at a food bank I helped at with my grandmother.  Plenty of genuinely poor people, but lots that we would see on the way out walking a few blocks to their SUVs, Cadis, and Beamers.  There needs to be more regulation and oversight.  If I thought that's what increased taxes for the wealthy would fund, I wouldn't mind so much, but instead it is going to keep the status quo.  Sure it will keep legitimate folks fed, but it will also go to people who are too lazy to do anything about their situation.  Sorry, but the government shouldn't be funding that.

 

[Superlizard]

Here's some news for some of you, the economy isn't gonna get better until big business feels things are gonna get better and that that expansion to their plant that,s been on hold for six months can begin.

So raising taxes on another group, like people making more than 250k, is not the answer, Ronald Reagan had it right, get govt out of the way and the economy will flourish.

You got that right.  So many people (who are ignorant as to the way things really work in this nation) look at the corporations/the "rich people", etc... and rail against them
for the sole fact that they have money (plenty of class envy in there too), or because they're corporations, etc... . 

What they don't realize is these individuals create jobs and stimulate economic growth on a large scale. 

So it's all this "let's penalize those rich bastards!" and "hey I work hard too - how come he has more money!" or the infamous Hillary quote (pure Socialism): "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Rich people can afford to hire and pay people... poor people cannot.  'nuff said.

 

[Lucky #7]

That's what's scary: the shear number of times that members of the cabinet and the President himself have made completely socialistic statements and his supporters cheer on.  The phrase the "common good" as it is being used is of great concern to me.

 

[tfarny]

I would respect your post (a little bit) if you could find the source of that made-up Hillary quote. Here are some facts and a source, since you conservatives are the ones in love with facts and the liberals are just ruled by emotion:

Under Eisenhower, revered republican, top marginal tax rates (the highest income tax rate you could pay):91%. The 50's economy rocked from start to finish.
Nixon: 70%
Reagan: Started at 70%, went down to 28.5% but the min. income under which that rate kicked in went from 215,000 to 90,000 so the effect of the cut is overstated. And the economy SUCKED in the 80s, did you Reps forget? My dad spent a whole year looking for work, it was miserable, I'll never forget it.
Clinton: 39.1 (best economy of the post-war era, plus the first balanced budget since eisenhower)
Bush: 35 (ended with this disastrous crash which has NOTHING to do with Obama, who's been president for 5 weeks)
Obama's proposal: 39.1, Clinton's rate. Who's the socialist, again? I'm confused.

Source: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

What was the connection between taxing the wealthy and economic growth, again? Are you sure it's not just wealthy people pulling the wool over your eyes?

Median household income in the US has gone down over the last 8 years under 'capitalism' and has in fact not changed very much since the 1970s.

 

[Superlizard]

That's what's scary: the shear number of times that members of the cabinet and the President himself have made completely socialistic statements and his supporters cheer on.  The phrase the "common good" as it is being used is of great concern to me.

Well, they obviously know what's best for the "common good" (that's you & I as well), because they are educated intellectuals, and we're "not".

And they feel your pain.

C'mon, let Uncle Stalin... oops - Sam - take care of you... he knows best.  :toothy12:

 

[Superlizard]

I would respect your post (a little bit)

Oh come now, tfarny - you don't respect anything I say.

I know I certainly don't respect anything you say, mainly due to your feigned, smarmy "let's all get along" comments like the one above.  :toothy10:

 

[Lucky #7]

And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

Barak Obama


Here's your context on Clinton.

I don't particularly agree with their assessments on some of them, but that isn't unusual on some of their explanations.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

 

[GoDrex]

And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

Barak Obama


Here's your context on Clinton.

I don't particularly agree with their assessments on some of them, but that isn't unusual on some of their explanations.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

oh wow she's clearly a commie

I win! :laughing7:

 

[Superlizard]

Again, liberals don't have anything against rich people.

Not necessarily true - it all depends on how said rich person got rich.

If they got rich by some sh!tty acting part in some sh!tty movie, then that's okay.

If they got rich by building their small business into a corporation, then they have problems with that.

So, if your thang is artsy-fartsy liberal-arts (heheh) inclined, then it's okay.

 

[GoDrex]

Not necessarily true - it all depends on how said rich person got rich.

If they got rich by some sh!tty acting part in some sh!tty movie, then that's okay.

If they got rich by building their small business into a corporation, then they have problems with that.

Are you being honest or are you being cute? It's not easy to tell.

 

[Superlizard]

Not necessarily true - it all depends on how said rich person got rich.

If they got rich by some sh!tty acting part in some sh!tty movie, then that's okay.

If they got rich by building their small business into a corporation, then they have problems with that.

Are you being honest or are you being cute? It's not easy to tell.

Us left-handers are a tough read.  Add that to the fact that I'm part Irish and well there ya go... just blew your mind.  :toothy10:

 

[tfarny]

SuperL, your guitar threads are helpful. Your politics threads are kind of a joke - I kind of wonder if you are serious. You just throw out whatever attacks you heard on the AM radio or O'Reilly that day and then complain that 'liberals' are a bunch of emotional whiners who don't care about facts. When someone offers facts that contradict you, you ignore the facts and get emotional again. So I guess you're right, I don't 'respect' any of your posts on the subject, I see no reason to.

Lucky provided the context for that Hillary quote which makes the point yet again - she was explaining to a group of wealthy democratic donors that they would be paying higher taxes. The 'common good' can be defined in a lot of non-scary ways if the phrase scares you - public schooling, roads, fire and police, universities, disaster preparedness, the military. Balancing the budget is a common good as well. A useful debate we should have right now is whether health care is included in the common good. Why does this have to be explained to a voting age adult, though?
If you guys want to run around like Jim Cramer's recent chicken little act, all emotional, go right ahead. It doesn't bother me.