| Author | Post |
|---|
rks1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 03:11 pm |
|
No_mood wrote: Good Bye RKS1, see you again in four years!
Where you going, dude? You can't handle it here, or what?
|
Slow Lane
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 09:25 pm |
|
Trickle down hasn't worked so far! I'm still waiting.
|
bigwavedave
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 621 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 08:38 pm |
|
| Let's see....trickle down economics or trickle up poverty.....HMMMMMMM I'll take my chances on the former.
|
No_mood
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 12:14 pm |
|
| Good Bye RKS1, see you again in four years!
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 270 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 05:43 am |
|
rks1 wrote: Just more evidence you have no idea what you're talking about. Giving tax breaks to "the wealthiest and biggest corporations" and "redistributing wealth" are two different things. Especially since one can create jobs, the other gives people reason to not try and get a job. Yes, and we've seen how well that has worked.
|
rks1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 05:13 am |
|
| Just more evidence you have no idea what you're talking about. Giving tax breaks to "the wealthiest and biggest corporations" and "redistributing wealth" are two different things. Especially since one can create jobs, the other gives people reason to not try and get a job.
|
Spin Reply
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 349 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 11:20 pm |
|
Yes, we must remember that Bush tax cuts gave the most relief to those with the highest incomes and largest corporations! I quess that is real "trickle down economics", except it hasn't trickled down.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 11:11 pm |
|
Your ol' pal Bushy was one of the biggest redistributors of wealth this nation has ever had. Pipe, smoke it.
|
rks1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
| ohhh......that hurt SO bad...........
|
No_mood
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 01:01 pm |
|
| Another master of the "Cut and Paste"
|
rks1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 08:43 pm |
|
By Editorial, Union Leader (NH)
October 22, 2008
Article Excerpt:
Sen. Barack Obama claims that if only we let him raise taxes on a measly 5 percent of "working Americans," he could do great things.
Well, that sounds just peachy. Tax the rich, give to everyone else. Except there's one little detail the national media don't seem to like pointing out. The math doesn't add up.
Numerous organizations, including the Associated Press, have noted that Obama's proposals spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than his tax hikes raise. What is less well known is that Obama's tax plan itself sends out of Washington far more than it brings in. Obama's campaign twice admits that in the wording of the tax plan.
According to the plan, "his tax relief for middle-class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000." That sounds like he's giving a net tax cut. But much of what he calls "tax cuts" are actually cash payments to low- and middle-income Americans. Ultimately, he sends out of Washington hundreds of billions of dollars more than it takes in.
In other words, Obama promises more in benefits to low- and middle-income Americans than his plan can finance with his tax hikes on "families" making more than $250,000 a year. And note the word, "families." Even though Obama says that no "family" making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase, in fact his plan raises taxes on individuals making $200,000 a year or more.
The bottom line is that Obama is not being honest about his tax and spending plans. It is impossible -- impossible! -- for him to finance his giveaways by taxing only those making $250,000 or more. He will have to raise taxes substantially on people making much, much less than that.
If you think you are going to avoid a tax increase on Obama's watch because you aren't "rich," remember this: A government that arbitrarily picks $250,000 as a dividing line can, using the same purely political considerations, pick any number as a dividing line. What makes you so sure that you will wind up on the right side of that equation once an Obama administration begins making up the difference between the massive number of benefits it promised to deliver and the tiny amount of pain it promised to inflict to finance those benefit?
|
Current time is 12:27 am | |
|