Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Is the congress still working on those "first 100 hours"?
LOL, I think they gave up on those and rewrote their first 100 hrs promises.
NOW, all that they want people to see is how many bills pass the house, whether they can pass the senate and get signed into law or not.
Talk about Moving the Goalposts!!!
They not only moved the goalposts, they changed ball games...
Tennis anyone?
Ok, here's a better analogy: the Democrats came to play flag football, and found out the Republicans were all set for a nice friendly game of Rugby.
(For those of you unfamiliar with the sport, if you walk off the field after a rugby match, you haven't played hard enough. There is even a saying that goes "Give Blood, Play Rugby.")
Good analogy..
Okay, the "patch" is a go. Does anyone know what is the AMOUNT of the patch (exemption)? The exemption was, I believe, $64950 in Rangel's bill, and $45000 without a patch. What is the exemption in the Senate bill? I have not yet seen one article that mentions the amount.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d110:HR3996:
You can find the text of the whole bill there.
It is nice that we are discussing the fact that the top 50% of the country is paying the taxes. I believe that the ones that make the most must pay the most to run the country. But, we are not discussing the lopsided taxes now are we? We are talking about putting more burden on a guy that is not able to make $30,000 a year to feed his family.
We dont want to really understand why he is not able to make that money. We dont want to understand why a single mom who got in that situation because she believed something good could come her way and is running on under $25,000 a year. We just want to put taxes on them because we have the dictum "You are responsible for your own actions". But wait, I thought the general establishment of a govt is so that we dont have to create a situation where the children born in these homes dont grow up so frustrated with the rich enjoying their happiness and turn to real crime.
We need to give them the break they can get to give that additional 3,000 that they would pay in taxes back to their children so those kids actually have a chance.
Today we have a situation where we implemented the BUSH tax cuts. We have a war that is costing us over 2 trillion and have a national defecit of over 9 trillion. What does this mean? well it means that Warren Buffet pays taxes at 16% and my house hold pays taxes at 41%. And this author wants to tax the lowest of the population so he can feel like everyone is squeezed enough. Your fat is in this unnecessary war that he started. People keep going back to the original gulf war without even understanding what happened then. We attacked our Ally Iraq then because the monster we created decided to take Kuwait. Even then, this guy was not our ENEMY!!! Why on earth do people keep thinking that this guy was sitting there to kill Americans in 1991?
Republicans believe that if you say something over and over again a million times, it will eventually become true!! This war caused the budgetary problems and the defecit we are currently facing, not the 2% fat we cannot trim.
Why are we not challenging a republican govt that increased govt spending by a factor of 3? Why are we talking about taxing the little guy instead? We dont have money to give insurance to children in this country but we want to talk about the rich being looted.
A guy making 30k is squeezed enough already. He has nothing to look forward to. No end in sight for his plight. Yes he could go do something to get into the big bucks game but guys, when a guy is 35 and was born in a house that made 25k so could not have access to understand what is possible, how can one expect him/her to be able to dream big?
People born in upper middle class have the opportunity and the access to guide their careers, not ones born in the lowest part of the society.
Being compassionate to your fellow citizen who did not choose to be born in poverty in the first place makes you a better person.
I dont gi
In case you didn't read the full post, we are NOT talking about taxing the 'little" guy, we are saying REDUCE SPENDING then they don't have to raise taxes on any group.
Try reading the full thing before commenting next time.
Yes. The answer to people who are struggling financially is not to basically steal from some to give it to others. Once upon a time that was wrong. Conversely, people who struggle to get by on their income should not have additional burdens placed on them by the government.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's ridiculous to somehow blame the "rich" (now making 60k-90k is rich?) for the troubles of the poor... and insane to appoint the government to punish the rich for being successful; if somebody knows how to make money, why do we now vilify them instead of encouraging the use of the money in ways that benefit those who have less?
I have no greater joy than giving away a significant portion of my income. It is far more productive to hand somebody $100 who really needs it than to have the government take it from me.
Well said.
The AMT is just one example of politicians using taxes as a means of waging class warfare. It is also a lesson of how taxes like these morph into things totally different from their original purpose. It should be a lesson to all to fear any politician that uses taxes as a means of waging class warfare. here is how I analyzed the AMT and other taxes that are used to wage class warfare.
http://proprietornation.blogspot...-and-
class.html
Great piece Mike. Well said and well written.
ANONYMOUS POSTINGS NOT ALLOWED...PICK A NAME NEXT TIME.---Spree
Commenting by HaloScan
