jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (385 posts)

And the rich get richer

  1. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 4 years ago

    Or they will if Romney gets his way:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20 … _rich.html

    1. yellowstone8750 profile image61
      yellowstone8750posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Or until there is a revolution/

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Man, don't you just hate it when your own source says that his policies will end up lowering the tax burden on everyone, including the poorest?

      "Romney's would cut taxes for those with incomes under $20,000 by an average of less than 1 percent, those with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 by 3.2 percent, and those with incomes of more than $1 million by 9.3 percent."

      So, really, by the calculations, everyone becomes richer. It's just that the RELATIVE wealth gained is different.

      "But taxes help the poor, and if there is less spending then the poor will starve to death", is the common reply.

      Theft doesn't solve poverty.

    3. dmop profile image86
      dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      When we stop allowing politicians to accept bribes, I mean contributions, from special interest groups we may have a fighting chance.

    4. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Come on...

      Reducing taxes helps the entire economy. It encourages spending and investment, encourages businesses to start and expand, and in the long term it raises governmental tax receipts.

      Yeah, he's not going to lower taxes on those making $20,000 or less by much, but those people already don't pay any taxes at all, so it doesn't really make a difference.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image61
        Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And this worked when?

    5. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As always.  The Republicans are the party of the rich and the banks.  What happened to real choice in American politics?

      1. Marquis profile image60
        Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You make no sense whatsoever. Most of the people who vote Republican are not rich. The Republicans are the party of opportunity. Democrats are the party of business unfriendliness and pro government intrusion.

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're right.  And that my friend, is what makes no sense!  Voting against your self-interest, and the interest of the future habitability of the planet?  That is beyond irrational.

  2. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    That's the reason he is running, IMO.
    He will finish us off for good.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Man, I hate it when someone's tax policy makes the tax burden even lower on everyone!

      I love it when people pay taxes!

      ...

      1. gregas profile image75
        gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If everyone would pay their fare share there would be no problem. My girlfriend works for a tax lawyer and it amazes me at how many people don't pay their taxes and how much some owe and then they need to pay a lawyer to get their tax burden reduced because now that they haven't paid the amount is really built up and IRS is coming after them.  Greg

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Their fair share" should never be 40%.

          Taxes are NOT charity.

          1. justmesuzanne profile image90
            justmesuzanneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Who ever said "40%"? At this point, Santorum, who makes billions of dollars a year pays at a rate of 13%. I, who earn a couple thousand dollars below the poverty level per year, do without health care, and am eligible for no assistance due to being self employed, pay at a rate of 20%.

            Where's the 40% coming from? Evan, you are just full of nonsense, and the fact that I have half a dozen notifications of your blather on this board makes you a troll!

            You've clearly been brainwashed by Faux News. Corporations and the military and our members of congress and the senate and other so-called representatives of We the People are getting a free ride at the expense of the poor and middle class. That's the reality of the situation.

            Cuts surely do need to be made - in our bloated military budget, the massive pay and benefits we give our supposed representatives, and the handouts we give to corporations, big oil and big coal. The huge amount of payroll taxes paid by anyone who gets any kind of income (including wages, social security, welfare, and unemployment) needs to be put back into the system to benefit those paying in. We need universal health care for all and repair to our infrastructure as well as education and job creation.

            The Faux News, Mad Tea Party, GOP/Republican Reich notion that the poor and the middle class are paying "no taxes" is just bullshit. The 1% is riding on our backs, and it's time for We the People to shake them off!

            1. justmesuzanne profile image90
              justmesuzanneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              From a friend at FaceBook:

              Let's look at the ways businesses socialize their costs while privatizing their profits:

              1) They receive billions every year in direct federal subsidies, coming from taxpayer dollars.

              2) The US government protects their overseas installations and resources through military bases and military intervention, at the cost of trillions to taxpayers.

              3) The government picks up the tab for pollution spills, pollution management and monitoring and other environmental protection costs.

              4) The government pays for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure used by businesses to move around their products and make their sales.

              5) The government subsidizes and supports the communications network that they use for advertising and sales.

              6) The government pays for ecosystem restoration after businesses have depleted them, including expensive programs to rescue endangered species that have been decimated by business practices.

              7) The government (along with the public in the form of private tuition payments) pays to educate all American children on behalf of private enterprise, so business doesn't have to train its workers and bear the cost of doing so.

              8) The government picks up the tab as the payer of last resort for people who get sick or are injured by dangerous or toxic products, like tobacco and alcohol, or Vioxx.

              9) The government ensures that workers who aren't paid a decent wage receive federal supplements in the form of food stamps and other programs, enabling businesses to earn higher profits at the expense of their workers.

              10) The government, through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, cares for the elderly and discarded workers who weren't paid high enough wages to ensure they could care for themselves in old age, and whose pensions were gutted by corporations in the name of "profitability."

              Wow. When we look at these items, it becomes clear that we're one of the most socialistic nations out there...we're just socializing the wrong things!

              If we really want government to run more like a business, the first question to ask is this: who's going to be the payer of last resort that will enable government to offload their costs so as to seem profitable? Because without that massive government safety net, our corporations would all be deep in the red.

              1. justmesuzanne profile image90
                justmesuzanneposted 4 years ago in reply to this
              2. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This an excellent summary! The American people make it all happen for business, and they act like they are doing us all the favors!

                It's the other way around. Only thing we are left out on is the profit.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting article from a site whos headlines clearly says Liberal, so wonder what point of view it carries? Point of view is not facts. They can make the claims of reducing the deficit, but the CBO has scored the budget and it will add 1.3 trillion dollars to the national debt. Wonder how something that adds to the debt can lower the debt? I really would like an explanation on that please.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's the truth View....we all know it, and it's obvious.

                    Business gets a good deal here....and a high quality of life.

                    They need to go back to the days when the realized that, and thought of their workers as valuable assets, not throw-away commodities.

                    "hey--let's go where the labor is cheap, and the working conditions suk....mo' money, mo'money!"

                    "Market economy doesn't exist (as doesn't communism), it's just a theory that has never been applied (as is communism)... exploitation exists, oligopolies or monopolies do too, corruption is abundant, and your “elite” is a sad collection of immature men (and women, when this happens) who need 5 different Porches, a yacht, half a dozen 2000-sqm villas they hardly use, fly a personal plane, pay insane money for relatively normal sex and spend 10,000 USD on a leather jacket to feel like men, possibly even with the illusion that this will preserve them from what awaits everybody. The real flat line."

                2. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LMC,

                  Happy Valentines Day

            2. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Santorum, who makes billions of dollars a year pays at a rate of 13%"
              Please cite your source showing this to be true. Please stop sputtering utter nonsense then accuse someone else of doing so.

            3. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I doubt that Evan needs Faux News to come up with his, umm, views.   I think he does it all by himself.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Federal government spends just under $4 trillion a year.

                Each year the US economy, spends about $10 trillion.

                In order to pay for everything our FEDERAL government did, we'd have to have a 40% tax rate.

                We'd probably need a 50% rate to pay for local and state.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  For once, you are correct.

                  Of course you are still wrong in thinking that is a horrible thing.

                  Low income people cannot bear that burden, which is why the wealthy must bear more of it.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Haha, you can't be serious. Yes, that is a very bad thing.

                    Do you know what would happen to the markets if tax on investments was raised to 40 or 50 percent?

                    Do you know what would happen to the economy if businesses had to pay 40 or 50 percent?

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's funny - you said I'm correct AFTER you made fun of me for using these stats.

                    Oh well.

            4. dmop profile image86
              dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I know what you mean, the last two years I ran my business I showed a loss at the end of the year, yet somehow owed Uncle Sam over 5,000 dollars while multi-billion dollar corporations don't pay that much after all their loop holes and tax breaks. I've had this discussion more than once with people who claim that the poor and middle class pay little or no taxes. It makes me sick to see how easily many people are blinded by smooth talking politicians and news reporters.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                DMOP,

                Is it your business that owed or was it your personal income? Do you have employees? Are those taxes employees SS or Medicare tax?  If you are not drawing a salary and your business really is posting a loss but the business still paid taxes, you need a new accountant. Business only pay taxes on the net profits.

                1. justmesuzanne profile image90
                  justmesuzanneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It is my personal income, and I have no employees. Sole proprietorship.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, so you claimed you make a few thousand less than the poverty level.Poverty level for 2011 was $22, 250 per year. Tax rate for $8,500 to $34,500 is 15% (SOURCE irs.gov). So based on your  information you should have paid 15% before deductions. If you paid more, you need a new tax preparer.

                2. dmop profile image86
                  dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It was personal as I had no tax id number, though they call it a self-employment tax. I had employees, who all signed a waiver for unemployment and were all issued a 1099 at the end of the year. I did not have an accountant for those years as I said I showed a loss, how would I have afforded one. I took a few tax classes so I was doing them myself, I probably didn't know all that I needed to, just saying that was my situation.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    DMOP,

                    I understand. We all learn from our mistakes. Just wish the mistakes we make did not cost so much.

              2. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Don't you know 47% of Americans pay no taxes? That's the canard they use.

              3. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                How did you run a loss on your business and still owe taxes on it?

                New accountant maybe?

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Jaxson,

                  The tax they were talking about was the self employment tax. This is the SS and Medicare tax. I am not sure but I do not think they realized you only pay this tax on your Net income. I think they paid it based on their Gross income and that is where the error occurred for them. At least that is what the information they provided shows

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok.

                    SE tax does need fixing... it should come before deductions just like regular income... it's disastrous to new companies. I understand the situation they were in, too bad they apparently didn't get them filed correctly...

                    They might be able to amend the returns and get their money back though, I think. I'm kind of rusty on tax law.

                    I've only posted a net profit the last few years... it's a good feeling even though I hate paying the taxes big_smile

                  2. dmop profile image86
                    dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You would be surprised how many businesses find themselves in the same boat, you pay self-employment taxes whether you make a profit or not, the privilege of being self-employed.

            5. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Non federal GDP = $10T
              Federal Spending = $4T

              40%

            6. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              His income tax is probably 13%.

              What about the other taxes he has to pay?

          2. gregas profile image75
            gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's just that if people would pay what they are supposed to every year, that would be more fair than not paying. What about the people that do pay their taxes every year and then the people that don't. There are billions in unpaid taxes that should have been paid. Then they are forgiven a certain amount if they agree to pay a certain amount. I have always paid my taxes whenthey were due.

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Romney doesn't need his taxes lowered, he needs them raised.
        He got all the Bennies for the past 30 years. Times up.
        Time to give back what was taken from all the rest of the country who have suffered for his, and people like him, greed.

        "The top 1 percent of households by wealth had a net worth 225 times greater than the median household in 2009 http://mojo.ly/AlTlnI

        1. gregas profile image75
          gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's why a flat tax should be used. Everyone pay the same percentage of what the make. No write-offs, no tax-breaks for spending more money. Greg

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And how are the poor supposed to afford that?

            1. gregas profile image75
              gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Afford what PC?

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A flat tax.

                1. gregas profile image75
                  gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  PC, if they are poor, they wouldn't pay tax with a flat tax. The more someone makes, the more they pay for taxes, likewise, the less they make the less they pay for taxes. A flat tax is the same percentage of tax for everyone.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, exactly as it is now. The poor pay nothing and the rich pay a lot.

          2. livewithrichard profile image84
            livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A flat tax is still not a fair tax.  The only truly fair tax would be a national sales tax... Eliminate all income taxes, corporate and individual and add a federal sales tax.  Neal Boortz introduced the Fair Tax which I see as the only tax system that is completely favorable to those living below the poverty line. It's also the only tax system that is completely fair to everyone regardless of the amount of money they earn.  This system eliminates the IRS, or at the very least changes their mission from income based accounting to sales tax based accounting.

            1. gregas profile image75
              gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know how you figure that would be fair. The only way you would be able to buy anything is if you are rich. Also, that would discourage people from buying anything. That would hurt business. Greg

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The only fair tax is 0. The founders pretty much knew this - the main stream of revenue for the Federal Government was through tariffs.

            3. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A Federal sales tax is not a good idea. You think there is fraud now? Not to mention the size of government needed to keep track of accuracy. The only fair system is one that eliminates all deductions for business and personal. Then establish a tax rate based on income. under 15,000 pays 0% 15,000 to 30,000 pays 5% 30,000 to 50,000 pays 10% 50,000 to 75,000 18% 75,000 to 100,000 22% 100,000 to 150,000 26% 150,000 to 200,000 pays 30% 200,000 to 300,000 pays 35% above 300,000 pays 40% That way everyone pays except the very low income earners. The 50% that do not pay will now be paying.

              1. gregas profile image75
                gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A flat percentage rate for everybody, no matter what the income, with no deductions. The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make, the less you pay. That way everyone pays according to what they make.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If the flat fee is say 26% as most who are for this say the rate needs to be, why should a person making $10,000 pay the same percetage as the guy making $100,000?  It is tough enough to get by on 10 thousand think how tough it will be on $7,400. At least the 100 thousand guy still has $74,000 to live on. That is why I stagger the percent paid starting small and working the way up with the more you make. We do agree on eliminating all deductions. I have written about overhauling the tax system

              2. livewithrichard profile image84
                livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I disagree.  Income shouldn't be taxed at all, the government shouldn't get one red cent from what I earn.  If anything, they should collect off of what I consume.  Having no income tax or FICA would make the take home pay exactly what it is supposed to be.  Sure, every tax system is open to fraud but with a sales tax instead of an income tax, we wouldn't have to worry about off shore tax shelters or where people are hiding their income from Uncle Sam because Uncle Sam would get paid from every stick of chewing gum to every ounce of fuel put into Romney's Lear Jet.  Plus, the Fair Tax has safeguards in it for the working poor called prebates.  Effectively, consumers would receive sales tax returns based on how much they consumed compared to how much they earned.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually you have to worry about off shore accounts more with the sales tax system. There are so many ways to discount and not count tax collected. If you use an international bank or off shore bank, you can deposit those funds and only pay a fraction back making it easy to hide. There are also 3 ways to not pay a sales tax. It is way to easy to not pay a sales tax.

                  1. livewithrichard profile image84
                    livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure it is easy to hide sales tax but a sales tax will also account for the 100k + of illegals working here under false id's.  No longer would we have to worry about those funds not being collected or reported.  They consume, they pay, just like every other person in this country.

                    Is it a perfect system? No.  Is it more fair than an income tax? Yes.  Will an income tax completely fund social security forever? No but the Fair Tax will.

                    Explain why off shore accounts would cause more worry when income is taken off the record completely.  An individuals income would become immaterial.  The income of publicly traded corporations would still need to be reported so that shareholders are protected.  Privately held corporations would benefit just as individuals.

                    Government would no longer be able to legislate through the tax code, such as deciding to levy heavy taxes on bonuses paid to brokers, or wielding moral legislation by increasing taxes on cigarettes or alcohol consumption.  The size of government wouldn't change by replacing the current tax code with a sales tax since the 90k+ IRS employees would only need be reassigned by their mission.

                    The fact is, a sales tax system would make the US the ultimate tax haven and create growth in every industry and also reduce unemployment.  People working, people consuming.  It's a self sustaining model that the current system could never achieve.

                2. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Unless there are exemptions from the tax, a sales tax still unfairly burdens the poor.

                  Exemptions get complicated and abused (most often by those responsible for collecting the tax, of course).

                  1. livewithrichard profile image84
                    livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    They are called prebates and the poor will effectively be making purchases tax free.  All the welfare programs that are safeguards now will still be in place and funded through a sales tax which would place an equal burden on every consumer and not just on those that are working or have an income.

              3. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The 50% pay FICA...where does that chime in?

                You are talking about income tax...and it's a crying shame that 50% of Americans don't make enough to afford it!

                Why are we allowing such a small wage? Profits have soared, yet workers are in poverty.....

                Business needs to pay a livable wage...THAT'S where the problem is!

                Hey fellas.....a little less vacation an luxury homes...more equity from making your business a success.

        2. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LMC,

          Mother Jones? could you not cite a more unreliable source.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this
            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I asked and you did, Just another opinion piece more unreliable than the last one. Just because this person disagrees with the Wall Street Journal does not make him right. In fact if you check on some of his numbers and facts as I did, you will find he was inaccurate.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Are you seriously questioning whether the bulk of the wealth of this country went to the top 0.01% of "Americans" these past 30 or so years....

                Then you are not half as smart as I thought you were!

                How bout the Economist? Sufficiently right leaning to be true? and this could go on all day...no matter how you spin it, the truth is obvious.

                "Yeah, there's a class war, and my class won!" Warren Buffet

                http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha … ty-america

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Are you seriously questioning whether the bulk of the wealth of this country went to the top 0.01% of "Americans" these past 30 or so years...."

                  What I question are the opinion one side sources you use. Of course when you look just at numbers on the income level I can make it look like the 1% are ripping us off. But as I showed you in an article I wrote, by percentages they did not. if over the last 30 years income levels went up 50% then a person making $10,000 30 years ago is making $15,000 today. Someone making a million is now making 1.5 million. while one went up 5,000 the other went up 500,000 dollars. Yet the percentages are the same. And just the same is the cost of living. Just like the cost of your purchases, went up 200 percent, so did theirs. Everything is relevant. If you turn back the hands of time, people were complaining then as well about the top earners. But the proportions then are the same today.

                  And just a note, while you say about the bulk of the wealth, I do not hear anything about who pays the bulk of the taxes?

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    They have to pay the bulk of the taxes....they have all of the INCOME!!!

                    AND the amount of taxes they pay, >percentage-wise< is LESS than my kids school teacher!

                    Percentage of income taxed is less for very rich peeps.

        3. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          America is NOT a country where anybody decides 'That person has done well, so we should take his stuff.'

          America is a land of freedom and opportunity. Romney paid a higher tax rate on his income than you probably ever will, so if anyone should complain, it's him.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh yes it is!

            From 2000-2008, gvt decided that the Rich get it all.

            It's no longer the land of opportunity. It's the land of opportunity for those who can afford it to begin with.

            Romney hides his income, uses tax favors, outsources jobs, takes complete advantage of the advantages afforded him.


            Meanwhile, those employees of his can make $8.oo an hour and no bennies....gee, what a guy!

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The rich get it all? How so?

              The top 1% payed a tax rate 13 times higher than the bottom 50% in 2008. You don't think 13 times more is fair?

              People outsource jobs because America is a difficult place to run a business with employees. The second highest corporate tax rate, cost of benefits, etc... Many companies would go bankrupt if they didn't outsource jobs.

              As far as taking advantage of the tax code... what about the family of 4 that makes $21,000 and gets a $6,000 tax REFUND(even with no taxes withheld all year), by 'taking advantage' of the tax code... the door swings both ways.

  3. calpol25 profile image76
    calpol25posted 4 years ago

    That is what it is like living in Britain at the moment Cameron helping the rich to get richer and the poor to starve to death :*(

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Britain is a welfare state. The simple fact that people think that Britain isn't doing enough for the poor has got to be the biggest irony this planet has ever seen.

      Next you're going to tell me that Greece needs to tax more and spend the money on the poor (psst, no one has money in Greece, that's why they're begging the rest of the world to give them money).

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        On the contrary Evan, Britain is doing loads for the poor, it's on a massive recruitment drive to increase the numbers.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, that was my point.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Where on earth do you get your facts from, Evan? Are you aware that those families in this country who are underemployed (not because of choice but because of lack of opportunity) are about to have whatever government aid they had previously received, you know, for the essentials like food and clothes, terminated. They are being forced into unemployment, period. Why? because we are a welfare state, Please. It is because our shameful government wants to return to the post world war 11 period. Take jobs from women and give them to men. Lots of women receiving income support do not count as unemployed. It's a political ploy to bring down the unemployment figures. By the way, where are your "facts" in this respect?

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Here's America's. It's enough to make you cry when you realize that they are blamed for all our troubles! And the perps walk!

          "We spend about 5% of the federal budget on the nonworking poor." http://tmblr.co/Z0-QTyGM-Yms

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks LMC for this link. Some people just don't even bother before spouting off nonsense. It's shameful, the poorest in society are demonized for every woe. Same here. What gets me, is why people aren't shouting about the billions we spend on war, foreign aid and tax evasion. Are people nuts, can they not see who really benefits from their tax dollars. It certainly isn't the homeless, or those in trailer parks or the working poor.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It always amuse me(wryly) when people go on about the working poor scrounging off the state but never bat an eyelid at the rich scrounging off the working poor!

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well of course not, John. All things considered they are the wealth creators. *grins*

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wait, I'm confused here, you do mean that the poor are the wealth creators don't you? smile

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Do they buy Mcdonalds, shop in pound stores, obtain their groceries from supermarkets, tax their cars, buy Christmas presents for their kids... and wait for it...pay their taxes? No the poor make absolutely no contribution whatsoever to the wealth of a nation. wink

            2. yellowstone8750 profile image61
              yellowstone8750posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well its time for Evan or American Romance to chime in. American Romance told me on a Hub that he bought a new truck but has no health insurance. I asked him why and he won't answer, but he sure will verbally flog anyone for disagreeing with him. I'm sure Evan will take the pulpit on this thread also.

              1. yellowstone8750 profile image61
                yellowstone8750posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am responding to Hollie.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, yellowstone8750, AmericanRomance has the right to decide how he spends his money. He does not, however, have the right the right to judge poor people who pay their taxes,(those lucky enough to have jobs) and those who pay for health insurance (those who can afford) who after all, maybe subsidising his health care. Funny, wasn't it the republicans who winged about paying their neighbours health insurance?

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I already chimed in.

                Everyone's tax rate is being reduced.

                We should be happy.

          2. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LMC,

            Complaining the poor do not receive enough.Who cut their funding?

            WASHINGTON -- Less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, President Barack Obama proposed a spending plan to Congress that cuts funding to programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, and expand access to graduate-level education, undermining the kind of community-based organizations that helped Obama launch his political career in Chicago.

            Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.

            Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. SOURCE- Huff-Post

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No you don't View...this was all done to placate the Right. Congress would not let a dollar be spent if they didn't take something from the poor.

              This is not on Obama....this is on the Tea Party Republicans.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I knew that was going to be your response, but guess what, the tea party was not in power then. This was an article from the Huff Post written in February 2010 about the new budget and cuts Obama had made with the Democrat controlled House and Senate. The Tea Party did not come on board until after the November 2010 elections, 9 months after Obama made the cuts. So I guess since it was not the Tea Party the blame will be on the Republicans, oh wait, you will use the old Bushco stand by. It is getting old. Time for the blaming to to end and admit what Obama has done and been doing. Obama with the Democrats made those cuts to those programs, they and they alone. You can try and twist it all you want, the facts are the facts

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, if it's from the Huffpo, it can't be reliable, can it? Every single article I post, you say it's left, it's no good...and Huffpo?? You like it now?

                  And I do blame the tea party and the republicans. You have a short memory.
                  Those tax cuts were used as a bargaining chip by the GOP.

                  No tax cuts....no unemployment insurance...remember?

                  I totally blame Boehner and Cantor and all the rest of em.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No I do not like it, I know you do. Funny how when you show it then it is fine, if I show it then they are not good. You cannot have it both ways.

                    Again, blame them all you want to. This occurred under Obama and the Dem controlled Congress that could pass and do what they wanted to do.Time to end the blame  for what Obama has done by trying to put it on someone else.

                    "And I do blame the tea party" I love the continued blame on a group that did not exist at the time when these things happened. Hell, why not blame George Washington while your at it.

                    My memory is fine, They were not bargaining chips, they were what Obama proposed in his budget before anyone even began a debate on it. I know for a fact what Obama did for college grants and loans because it had a direct impact on my daughter and how her aid was cut, how she had to scramble for extra jobs to pay for her semesters.

                    He can sit there and brag how he is going to help the college kids now that is election year, but it is all rhetoric. His actions of the past show his true intent. He can make more money available but it is nothing more than undoing what he did.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm pointing out that "increased government aid / spending" is strongly correlated to "failing economy".

          I'm glad that you pretty much agreed with me.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Increased government aid/ spending on what though? If you are suggesting the amounts we spend on war, helping billionaires to evade taxation etc, etc, then yes I agree. If your suggesting that the economies are failing because of welfare then are perspectives are poles apart.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It doesn't matter on what the government spends its money -- the money is doomed to be wasted.

              Governments don't use a proper pricing structure, nor do they spend their own money.

              Governments are doomed to waste wealth. Ludwig Von Mises showed this 80 years ago when he predicted the failure of socialism when every other economist was predicting its domination over capitalism.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Who's this "they", Evan?

                Last I looked, we had a say in our government.

                WE are the government.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not the government. Our government is lying to us repeatedly over and over again.

                  If "we're the government" then why didn't I get a free car when my tax dollars were spent on GM?

                  If "we're the government" then why the f**k are we still killing brown people?!

                  If "we're the government" then why do I feel so disenfranchised.

                  No. "we're" NOT the government. We're the people that the powerful USE the government to STEAL from.

                  Government is, at best, a necessary evil.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Paul Ryan voted for the Bush tax cuts, Iraq war, Medicare Part D & TARP but got to play debt expert on Greta tonight"

                    BTW--have you seen Santorum going around saying Obama put TARP through? To smear him, of course.

                    W was an hallucination. He never happened.

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Rubbish, it does matter what the government spends money on, it does matter how they collect money and it does matter who they collect it from. Suggesting that this is unimportant is like saying to your partner "Hey honey, I've been offered a job earning $200,000 dollars a year. I've also been offered a job earning $50,000 dollars a year, however, I'll accept the latter, because irrespective how we spend the money, or budget, we'll end up skint anyway. We are all irresponsible. That's ludicrous. And many socialists have predicted the failure of capitalism, take a good look around you. Unbridled capitalism has led both yours and my nation into the whole they're in. Wake up.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  NO.

                  If I receive money from the private sector, then THAT matters.

                  The government is incapable of creating wealth.

                  Your example confuses private vs. public.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I think ole Ron Paul did pretty well for himself creating wealth in gvt! After all....what gynecologist do you know that has a worth of 5 million?

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The governement is not incapable of creating wealth. Unfortunately, they create it for the already wealthy. Think bailouts and minimal taxation of billionaires.

        3. justmesuzanne profile image90
          justmesuzanneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Evan - that's nonsense.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I know. That was the point.

            To think that "Britain doesn't do enough for the poor" is a completely nonsensical thought.

            Notice how they're going broke.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Going broke?

              Hmmm, let's see.

              US external debt per capita: $47,000
              UK external debt per capita: $144,000

              US external debt as percentage of GDP: 99%
              UK external debt as percentage of GDP: 400%

              I don't see any problem with the UK having 4 times it's annual GDP in debt... At least, there better not be a problem since we're heading there ourselves.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                smile

                Ron Paul will end this. Give him a shot.

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But  Evan, why is it welfare payments that are making us go broke? Why not bail outs to the bankers? Massive tax evasion? Selling off our industries to none British companies?

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                C'mon, John, you know I'm against all of those things (except the last two).

                Governments are inherently wasteful. They are - at best - a necessary evil.

            3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Correction, we are not "going broke" we are broke. Why? You are naive, Evan. You still do not see that every government is merely a front for their masters. Tax evasion alone, costs the Uk at least the same amount as welfare payments (and they are only the tax evaders we're aware of) I'll dig out the link for you. I wouldn't expect you to accept my word.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't read my posts, do you? I'm anti-government. So, "government" being "a front for their masters" really isn't something I disagree with.

                I find it interesting that you can find out how much tax evasion is happening. ... if they knew who was tax evading, and how much they owed, then why don't they just get the money? derp

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I do read your posts. You blame government for everything. I blame them for being puppets. Take big money out of politics and we all have a chance. There is not a politician in the western world who can succeed if he does not conform to the desires of "big money". Keep blaming governments, you'll end  up with banana republics. You have not addressed the "real problem"

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly, if coca-cola were your main funders would you hound them for taxes? Derp.

      3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello, Evan, the people that bankrupted Greece got out of there a couple of years ago. Where have you been, man?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The government is still there, actually. The previous bailouts went to building Olympic buildings, pensions, and government paychecks.

  4. Moderndayslave profile image61
    Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago

    People are just staring to get this?

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A lot of people foolishly think that they should be voting for someone with "business experience".

      Who doesn't have business experience?  Most people have worked in businesses all their lives, haven't they?

      Oh, wait, that's not what they meant.  They meant "successful" in business, right?

      Well, let's see: there are a coupe of ways to be successful.  You could inherit your success from your parents business.  You could accidentally be successful through dumb luck.  You could actually provide a useful product or service and through skill and luck make a lot of money from it..

      Or you could be a nasty, conniving sort who lies, cheats and manipulates their way to the top.  You might, fot example (just picking this out of thin air) be someone who buys into failing businesses, strips them to their core and then sells them off at a profit, not caring a bit who gets hurt in the process.    If you were someone like that, you might stick your gains in offshore accounts for favorable tax treatment - maybe like this http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html (not that it has anything to do with that we are talking about, of course).

      1. justmesuzanne profile image90
        justmesuzanneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Paul Krugman did a very good piece recently on why running a country is NOT like running a business.

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 … economics/

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks. That's a good piece. Krugman is the smartest guy who writes for the NYTimes.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Paul Krugman contradicts himself more often than Romney.

          1. justmesuzanne profile image90
            justmesuzanneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you, Ralph.

            Evan - that's nonsense.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Evan, I didn't realize you're a Paul Krugman fan.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't realize that you didn't know I like Ron Paul.

              I guess I'll have to speak up for Ron Paul much more!

        3. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How would Paul Krugman know? Has he ever run a business?

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            duhhhh, he dun hab a ECON DI-Ploma!

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Some of them are lured to vote against their economic interests by GOP appeals to social conservative and racist issues.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sure.  And some are just plain dumb. 

          But a lot foolishly think we need a "business leader".  It is business leaders who screw us up the most.

          1. Moderndayslave profile image61
            Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Loot a company and sell off the assets. Loot a Nation and siphon off the assets, what's the difference?

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There's only one difference. Sovereign nations also lose their sovereignty, become trash status and are indebted for years and years. Most business' only go bankrupt once.

              1. Moderndayslave profile image61
                Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I thought that was the plan?

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, me too. wink

      3. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I notice that you never bothered to post when I analyzed Bain/Romney. You're way off the mark from what Romney did with those companies.

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Some people still don't.

      1. yellowstone8750 profile image61
        yellowstone8750posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        At some point they will.

        1. gregas profile image75
          gregasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They will only when it is too late.

          1. yellowstone8750 profile image61
            yellowstone8750posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I hold to the basic Marian theory that when change comes from advanced capitalism, real change will take root. We have not seen socialism evolve from that yet: It has always been from an overturned monarchy or the overhtow of an evil dictator.

  5. ImKarn23 profile image80
    ImKarn23posted 4 years ago

    Ya think? Mitt Romney paid 14% tax on an income of 21.7 MILLION dollars! And - yeah - it ALL came from investments...uh-huh..If people don't open their eyes (which they won't), they'll quickly find their services cut, their taxes up, and those of corporations and the 1% down. And, the republicans are supposed to be the people's party??? Maybe 100 years ago..or even before 9/11?

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What's wrong with paying 14% on investments? He paid higher tax rates than the likes of us will ever pay on his taxable income, and pays the same on investments as anyone else.

      Seriously, do you really think you have the right to complain when someone else pays the same tax rate as you on investment income?

  6. Manna in the wild profile image82
    Manna in the wildposted 4 years ago

    People will pay taxes when the government has least power, most checks & balances, and therefore least corruption, because only then do ordinary people see community benefits for their dollar.

  7. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "FACT: Buffett Rule, requiring millionaires to pay a 30% tax rate, will reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 yrs" http://thkpr.gs/yuWH80

    FACT!
    Think the repubs and other right-leanings will go for it??
    What's more important? The country or their bank accounts?

    Cause none of them care one whit for the freedom of women--so speaking of the freedom of rich people kind of rings very hollow. Like a tin bell.

    "FACT: Obama's budget eliminates 12 tax breaks for oil, gas + coal companies, saving $41 billion over 10 years." http://thkpr.gs/y90GDz

    Halleluuuu~!

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LMC,

      Fact, if those tax cuts Obama put in place plus the extra income on taxes gives us a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit( CBO) how can you say Fact the buffet rule wll reduce the deficit??? Perhaps because the source is just peoples opinion and not really a fact.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How was our deficit before 03?

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A lot lower than it is now thanks to the over spending of Congress

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And the Bush tax cuts!!! 60% of it!

            Let Obama end them. He wants to....but will the GOP?

            And Obama IS cutting spending..has been from the get go....but will the GOP raise taxes??


            It's been an all-or-nothing game for a long time AV...they got it all, and the rest of us got nothing.

            If they can't participate in a Democracy....if it's Oligarchy they continue to want...

            They are barking up a bare tree. It has been stripped to the bone.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Obama is cutting spending and has do so from the get go" Really LMC.

              Prove it The new budget is 3.9 trillion dollars, the largest ever proposed. The CBO is estimating we will spend around 4.2 trillion dollars this year, the largest ever. WOW we can all see those cuts can't we.

              After the Bush tax cuts revenues went to the highest in the nations history. But the Dems got control of Congress and spent all the revenues and then some. Under Obama the revenues are not what they were under Bush even after those breaks you claim drained us.

              All good economists agree the problem was not the Bush tax cuts, it was the spending in Congress. Both sides are guilty of that. Bush is responsible for not vetoing those out of control spending budgets, and Obama, well he cannot veto anything since one, he is for all the spending as shown by his budget proposals every year, and two, he cannot veto what is not there. There has not been a budget in over 1000 days. Even his own democrats voted against his budget 0-97. He did not get one single Dem to vote for him

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I love the idea that we want to increase taxes to the point where DEFICITS are decreased by X amount.

      I WANT THE DEBT TO BE DECREASED

      Every dollar spent is a dollar taxed. Cut spending.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        We can't cut our way out of this mess.....it's what got us IN it in the 1st place.

        Here's what I learned in kindygarden school:

        It takes money to make money.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, spending got us into this mess.

          Cuts are the only solution.

          Stealing money is theft.

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Tax cuts increase the deficit.

        Reagan said deficits don't matter. GOP Luuuuuv Reagan: ergo, deficits don't matter to them!


        They want to put it all on the credit card of Uncle Sam.
        And NOT for the people of Uncle Sam, but for the corporatists of the whole world!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Spending increases the deficit: every dollar spent is a dollar taxed.

  8. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6169966_f520.jpg

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LOL Good one Wiz

  9. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 4 years ago

    http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11 … ome-group/

    The top 1 per cent have won out to an astonishing degree in the last 40 years.

    These figures certainly give the lie to the idea that higher tax rates for the very wealthy hurt the economy.

    The fifties and sixties were boom times.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, it's a joke for kids nowadays. A complete and total joke.

      EVERYTHING is tainted with a profit-motive as the bottom line....everything.

      Good job Capitalists.   NOT.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        GOD DA**IT!!! I HATE CAPITALISTS!!!

        ... ohhh, look at that nice computer.... Oh, check it out, a great new iPod!!!  Oh man! Look at that, I can BUY FOOD AT MY LOCAL STORE... oh man, a place to live...

        ... sigh

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That had nothing to do with capitalism. Here's capitalism:

          I pay $2.69 for a gallon of gasoline.
          My bank charges a $27.00 overdraft charge on a penny over.
          Credit cards charge 19% interest.
          School ...a normal college, costs near $50,000 now!

          Using my computer costs money.....50 a month. Computer costs money to buy. They're not doing me any favors! They make a profit on it.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A - They are providing you a service. You don't have to pay for it if you don't think it's worth it.

            B - If you manage your finances you won't have overdrafts. You agree to pay those if you incur them by banking at your bank. It's not the bank's fault.

            C - It's your fault if you run up credit on high interest. You are paying them for the privilege of spending money you don't have. It's possible to live without credit, by the way.

            School - go to a community college or earn scholarships.


            What do you want? Everyone to go broke providing things to you for less money? Give everything to you for free?

            The U.S. standard of living is really great, what would you rather have?

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Gvt provides you a service too...and you don't want to pay for it!

              And sorry--I don't make enough to cover my costs....and I always have overdrafts...that is why they are there...people like me pay for the upkeep of the bank, while they use rich people's money. And rich people get their services for free... Weeeeee capitalism!

              I don't have a credit card...I learned that lesson long ago. If I want to find a loan-shark, I'll go to downtown Boston.

              I want a livable wage, and a livable cost of living. Like my parent and theirs before them.

              I want the ultra rich to stop using my country and give commensurate with what they take.

              I want a democracy, not an oligarchy.

              I want money to stop being God. Anything else on my want list??????
              Oh yeah...I want that guy who suggested assasinating Obama to be jailed and tried for treason.
              Good enough?

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I want to pay for the services the government should be providing. I don't want to be paying for foreign aid, I don't want to be paying for wars we don't need to be in, I don't want to be paying for a failing SS/Medicare/Medicaid program that will bankrupt the country, I don't want to be paying for any other number of failing, wasteful governmental programs.

                I only want to pay for what the government should be doing, and what the government can do without tremendous amounts of waste.

                Have you trimmed down your expenses as far as you can? What is your internet/computer/phone/tv/entertainment situation? What about assets? If you have enough to cover your costs late, with overdraft fees added in, you have enough to cover your costs on time. You just have to do a little work to get ahead rather than behind.

                Rich people don't use banks for free. They put their money in and the banks make money off of their money. That's how they pay.

                Then why are you complaining about the interest rates?

                Stop right there. Go talk to the older generations. They never expected to have the standard of living we do. Now it's buy a house right out of college, or before. It's have a brand new car in college. It's have an iPhone, iPad, laptop, desktop, cable, satellite, internet, etc, etc, etc.

                It's the expectations that are off the mark. I have friends in debt with $200,000 mortgages and $800/month in car payments. Know what I did? I bought a $2000 honda and rented a cheap apartment until I could afford to buy a cheap apartment. Now I'm about to purchase my first house, cash. The expectations for standard of living in the young generations is just stupid...

                You don't think the rich do any good for the country? They are the ones who create the jobs. They spend tremendous amounts of money every year, which helps the businesses they interact with. The top 1% earns 20% of the income yet pays 40% of the taxes, so they pay twice their fair share. What are you complaining about?

                If you hate capitalism so much, save up and move to a country you like better.

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "I don't want to be paying for foreign aid, I don't want to be paying for wars we don't need to be in"

                  Then why are you pro Romney? He supports Netanyahu 100%, and we give Israel 8 mil a day. And he wants to attack Iran.

                  "Have you trimmed down your expenses as far as you can?"
                  Yeah..I have trimmed. Sometimes we don't eat or have heat. Is this how America treats her workers?

                  "They put their money in and the banks make money off of their money. That's how they pay"

                  That's not paying, that's getting it for free.

                  Not complaining about credit cards, just pointing out-- when the Mafia does it, it's a crime!

                  "Go talk to the older generations."
                  I do all the time. In fact, my mom and her friend were just talking about the high cost of college these days.
                  My grandfather did not speak English, worked in a factory and supported a wife and 3 kids.
                  My dad did the same--did not work in a factory, but supported a wife and 3 kids on his income. I work and have 3 kids...and my quality of life is way below theirs.
                  Cost of living has quadrupled, my wages have not. Hmmmmm, who's rigging that game?

                  "The top 1% earns 20% of the income yet pays 40% of the taxes, so they pay twice their fair share. What are you complaining about?"

                  They don't "earn" their money, it's all investment and deferred interest,or hiding it as "gifts"... all that crap. That's why they pay lower taxes, cause labor is taxed more than wealth! 400 people have more than 1/2 the rest combined. That's highway robbery!

                  "If you hate capitalism so much, save up and move to a country you like better."

                  I thought of that...but I love this country too. Why should I let some greedy punks ruin it for me? I'll stay and fight.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'll support him because he's better than Obama.

                    Unfortunately, yes it is difficult sometimes. America has always been a free land where there has been risk, not a nanny welfare state.

                    Maybe you could find something more productive than arguing on HP forums if your finances are that bad?

                    No, it's letting the bank use your money in exchange for services.

                    The banks don't make as much money off of someone who has very little in their account... so how do you expect them to pay the bills if they don't charge?

                    Nobody is forced to accept high interest rates.

                    Interesting... A buddy of mine is going to college right now for $750/semester tuition. Another friend of mine supports himself, his wife, and a child off of $10/hour... And yet, most people who complain still have nice tvs, computers, phones, internet, etc, etc, etc,... Standard of living is much better than what I have seen in the past.

                    It's not all investment, but even with investment income they AVERAGE %24 percent tax rate, when the bottom 50% averages 1.85%. How is that not fair? They DON"T PAY LOWER TAXES THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN AMERICA.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LMC - I never asked my government to kill brown people. That's why I don't want to pay taxes.

                However, I did tell HP that I want a pimped out new computer to play a game that simulates killing undead, vampires, monsters, dragons, and demons.

                See the difference? One is consent, one is theft.

                ... ugh... why do I bother.

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Who do you suppose did the research and developement that lead to those super-d-duper computers? The U S military! That's right...the evil gvt!

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    who paid for it?

                    Her der.

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              JaxsonRaine, in which world are you living? If you have kids, and want them to do well at school you need the internet, you need a computer. You sound like like someone who has always been in a position to earn enough to cover the basics. Not everyone is that fortunate, it's not a matter of managing your finances, but finding employment that pays enough to cover the essentials. Instead of judging another, why don't you attempt to see a reality from a different perspective?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Aye Hollie,although he hasn't touched on it yet I'll take bets that he thinks the minimum wage is the downfall of the US and everybody (except him) should be paid barely enough to live on!!

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ayup.  It makes me sick.

                  I've been one of the privileged ones who has usually had more than we needed.  We started our lives in poverty, but through intelligence and hard work, we did fairly well. 

                  However, I always knew that luck played a part in it.  I have empathy for others and I also know that it makes economic sense to help those  who have fallen on hard  times.

                  People are so cruel and greedy.  It is disgusting.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @John. Indeed. Those people who make minimum wage should be thankful, shouldn't they? I mean, they get food, how much more dare they ask?

                    @Pcunix, I fear that intelligence (that's a slippery concept which now has to be demonstrated with diplomas), and hard work, simply aren't enough any more. I'm a Wiley old bird, I've always gotten by but I worry about my kids. It's a completely different game now. However, as has always been my stance, I will gladly donate a percentage of my income to help those who are  not in a position to help themselves. That's what socialism means to me.

              2. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Before Murdoch bought our local "rag", they used to have a comments section. This was way back when my own descent into poverty started...2003. Well, there were these 2 old-timers who always used to come on there and laugh at me for my concern..something bad was happening! They would call me a whiner....tell me to just fix it...stop being lazy, how all these "bums" don't work, blah blah blah.

                Well, right next door to me was a single mom with 3 kids. She worked as a dental assistant...pretty good money for here. But every morning, she had to get up, get her kids ready for school, get herself ready for work, get them to the bus or drive them wherever they needed to go. Work a days work, come home and then start her work at home. Making dinner, doing homework, taking baths,cleaning up.

                Then she could relax and watch tv for a while, go to sleep and do the same thing the next day....barring none of her kids got sick..then she would have to scramble.

                So I compared HER work day to these old-timers.....
                How when they got up, their wives fixed them breakfast, made their coffe, packed their lunches.

                How when they got home, their wives kept the house clean, made their dinner, listened to their day.

                See-their only job was their job...the women held down the homefront. Compare this to my neighbor, who had the work outside the home, work inside the home and was mommy and daddy all rolled up in one. And they had the nerve to say she was a "bum". And SHE was the one Bushs' policies were hurting.

                Now just the other day, Obama mentioned "suppose you are a single mom", and my neighbor came to my mind....

                Obama cares about her! R's don't. Simple as that for me.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes Lmc, it's really tough for lone parents. As you say they work full time and then come home again to their other job. And that doesn't even include all those lone parents who are also carers for elderly relatives. It fascinates me that the ones that often accuse another of being lazy often do the least work.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Or the ones who never went to war, push for war. Or the ones who never can get pregnant push for forced birth. Or the ones who were born to wealth push for cutting social programs.

                    It's a lost wisdom that came from the "Americans before Columbus"...."walk a mile in another man's moccasins" !!

                    I mean--I could do the same...because celebrities always say that as soon as they get paid, Uncle Sam takes half....cause it's "work", not "investments"...That might be galling....

                    BUT then if you consider, they STILL make millions....well, I don't feel so bad. I could def handle that!

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Dude, Jaxson...

              LMC just admitted that 'buying things in a store with money earned from a job" doesn't qualify as capitalism to her.

              Don't bother wasting your time.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Capitalism or commerce?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  He's a simple soul, our Evan, to him any thing to do with money is capitalism. He once insisted that co-operatives were capitalist because they used money!

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think he's simple. 

                    He lives in a different world where people are good and can be trusted. Tthe strange part is that he knows that the liars and the thieves exist, but he still thinks Libertarianism would work.  I don't know how he reconciles that, but he does.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    He didn't?  lol

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're right.

            Buying things in a store has NOTHING to do with capitalism.

            ... talking to you is now OFFICIALLY pointless.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, acting like they do it out of the goodness of their hearts is not capitalism! They are not doing me a favor...I have to pay for it. They make a profit.

              But somehow, the things the gvt provides are supposed to be free. ODD, that. It would seem you want the gvt to do things for nothing, while your capitalists reap the benefits.

              hmmm--no wonder we are brainwashed.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                yeah, like I said: Officially pointless.

                You're defining "Capitalism" as "Charity"

                No wonder you think the government can pay for everything.

                The joke is: it can't.

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And you're defining it as good!

                  It isn't. It's a racket, bub.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "I'm LMC! Governments have infinite money!! And then when they give the money to companies, the money suddenly turns into evil!"

  10. 68
    logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago

    The president and his wife are in the 1%.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, and his policies are geared towards helping those who aren't.

      How bout those Republicans?


      *chirp* *chirp*

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Last time I checked, we're in like 3 wars, insurance companies gained one of the greatest subsidies in all US history, banks got bailed out to the tune of $20 Trillion, and companies have been bailed out for more than a trillion...

        ... LMC, wake up. It's impossible to defend Obama. He's ACTUALLY worse than Bush.

        The more I see you mindlessly type pro-democratic things, the more I suspect you're a paid poster. I know you aren't, but it's just impossible to defend the Ds.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I love Obama's new budget. It's right in line with my thinking.

          You may insult it if you like...I'm not too keen on your ideas either.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LMC: If his new budget is right in line with your thinking, then

            *you hate brown people
            *you like theft
            *you don't understand how money works
            *you like giving money to banks and wall street
            *you enjoy having a debased currency
            *you think that breaking windows creates jobs

            ... and on and on.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              We are as far apart as 2 people can be.

              Nothing you said I agree with. nada. Zip. NuuNuu

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                OFFICIALLY pointless.

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I know. Cause you know it all. Ron Paul Ron Paul.

                  Hope and change
                  The new Messiah

                  Puritan Redux if you ask me.

                  Santorum: birth control leads to things in the sexual realm....can't have that. Ron Paul agrees?

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    you just got done telling me that Capitalism isn't capitalism because it involves profits.

                    I'll let the readers decide.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yep, and how many times have I hear Obama say "I should pay more taxes."

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How many times do people who say they want to pay more taxes actually VOLUNTEER to donate their money to government?

        Never? Not even Buffet?

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Now you must be playing with me, I don't believe you could be that stupid. People VOLUNTEER to donate to governments all the time, they don't like mandatory requirements, ie: obligatory taxation, there are no perks. But voluntary is good, they're known as party funders and get a whole load of favours for their trouble.

  11. leenamartha profile image60
    leenamarthaposted 4 years ago

    If everyone would pay their fare share there would be no problem. My friend works for a tax lawyer and it amazes me at how many people don't pay their taxes and how much some owe and then they need to pay a lawyer to get their tax burden reduced.

  12. Marquis profile image60
    Marquisposted 4 years ago

    That is what happens when people decide that working is not important anymore. A wonder mix of socialism and atheism. Great Britain is what you get. Cradle to the Grave welfare is not the answer.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Another one away with the fairies. Dare I ask, how many Brits do you know that have decided working is not important any more? Moreover, on which studies do you base your ASSUMPTIONS? By the way, Great Britian, although far from perfect, does not allow the poor uninsured to die without healthcare, or to suffer acute pain when they cannot afford prescriptions. I know where I'd rather live.

  13. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    People bash on the idea of lower taxes just like they bash on Romney's work at Bain. No real research, and often just ignored when real data is presented. It's just repeating headlines and popular phrases, with no real thought.


    Here's a thought for anyone who thinks we should raise taxes:

    If a company's taxes go up, it can do one of three things.

    1 - Just take the hit, less net profit, weaker financial sheets, and (in the case of public companies) a drop in stock prices(and total company worth).

    2 - Raise prices. In this case, the increased taxes come straight out of the pockets of the 99%.

    3 - Shaft the investors. Don't give out as much, or any dividends. Stock prices fall. Mutual funds under-perform. Again, the end result is the money comes out of the pockets of the 99%.

    These situations don't even include the shockwaves. If all corporations' financial sheets were weakened, not only would all stocks fall, but this would lower the risk appetite for investments, slowing the cash flow as well. People sit on their money and the economy stagnates.

  14. momster profile image61
    momsterposted 4 years ago

    Some people pay in alot of taxes and work hard for what they earn and dont get back an eighth of what they pay in. My dad paid $11,000 in taxes one year and he barely got back $1,700. That is 1 person. So if 1 person pays in that much money for taxes for the year and gets very little back, what is the taxes paying for since our country is in debt and budgets cut for the things that need the money?

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Define "got back".

      Did he use public roads?   Was he protected by our military?  Was he protected from epidemics by our public health system?  Was he protected from adulterated food, air pollution, stock market manipulation and on and on and on and on?

      1. momster profile image61
        momsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but that is not what I was pointing out. If 1 person pays that much money in for 1 year, how much money is the government collecting from everyone else for that 1 year? How much of that money is actually going to the budgets when budgets are being cut because there is not enough money being paid in from taxes?

        1. momster profile image61
          momsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting reading when you have a minute Subject: Wal-Mart vs. The Morons 1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 2. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year. 3. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined. 4. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English. 5. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world. 6. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years. 7. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy. 8. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world. 9. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA, of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago. 10. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.) 11. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart. You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy. This should be read and understood by all Americans, Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!! To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature: It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons: a. The U. S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right, and it is broke. b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right, and it is broke. c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right, and it is broke. d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more. e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right, and they are broke. f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke. g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees, with a budget of $24 Billion a year, and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right, and it is an abysmal failure. You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats, while overspending our tax dollars. AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??!!!!! Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected officials' staff" (they themselves never read anything), and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.ANDSomeone please tell me what’s wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!I know what's wrong. We have lost our minds to "Political Correctness" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.??????????? In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey ... and now Pakistan ...home of Bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!! Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks, and have had their meager incomes frozen for two years now, while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food into Foreign Countries! We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans. AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment, most of them mentally ill because of the treatment they received --etc., etc. YET...................... They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies. Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it? 99% of people won't have the guts to forward this. I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did


          This was posted on Facebook. Not sure where  it was orginated from but I would have to agree with this.

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    GOP tax cut plan cost more than healthcare reform and stimulus combined.


    http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2010/ … -stimulus-

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Except for the part about how lower taxes cause the economy to thrive, increasing tax receipts.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  16. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Good luck with the foreign aid.......they would sooner cut from your gramma. Oooops.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The government has already ruined SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Through 2084, we're going to be $45 TRILLION DOLLARS short in paying out those benefits.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      TALK ABOUT FOREIGN AID!!!

      OBA~~~~MA~~~!!!!

      http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/01/27/ … -hated-it/

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ummmm, it was this other dude who was talking about foreign aid...the one you told to ignore me cause I'm just too stupid for words. I was just pointing out that the main GOP ally takes a LOT of it.
        So--he still supports Romeny despite that. SEE? That's how it works..we all support things we don't necessarily like because we know we can't have everything.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I shore do hate Capi-to-lism!!

          but if OBAMA dun like to give me money to da companies! me think it's ok!

  17. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "Romney filed his finacial disclosure form..made $40m paid 14% tax"

    My mother is retired. She pays at 28%. Ummmm, he does pay less >a percentage< than my mom.
    So--he gets to keep more of what he has!

    Here's some interesting data to support my assertion:

    *White Raven*

    It's not the Rich... the "upper/middle/lower class" are all considered part of the 99%

    Your talking about the Elite the MultiBillionaires, not the Rich.

    (rich/upper class is still part of the 99% )

    Elite Deritatives
    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inv…

    http://www.thehiddenevil.com/foundations…

    Tax Exempt Foundations.
    http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Arti…

    "You cannot tax them.

    Their wealth and profits have long left the country.

    They are Transnationalists !

    In fact if you look into the bylaws of how the BIS, IMF, and World Bank are written they are actually immune from any form of taxation by any country.

    They cannot even be prosecuted. They are legally above all laws. "

    http://www.care2.com/causes/the-price-of…

    Certain Elites exempt from paying "taxes"

    http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/14/taxing-th…

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct201…

    Australians Elites, call for tax cuts ^
    "The underlying theme of the tax summit was that the profitability and wealth of the corporate elite must be protected at the expense of the majority of the population."

    Hope that change can happen... http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/11/w…

    *** The SYSTEM is FLAWED at a GLOBAL scale. ***

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You're comparing capital gains tax to income tax? And why would your mother be paying at 28%, no income bracket pays a 28% tax rate. Marginal rates aren't what you actually pay.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Better question to me is why is Romney paying at 14%? And I've read analysis that says it's really more like 10.

        Why do you think that hotel magnate said "Only the little people pay taxes"?

        Do you think she knew something you don't?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Because it's capital gains!

          If he had salary money coming in, he'd be paying a higher rate on that income.

          If grandma had investment income she would pay a lower rate on that as well.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            X-actomundo!

            We need to change the tax laws so that capital gains are taxed same as labor.

            Coddling leads to sucking of thumbs

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, lets discourage people from investing by raising taxes on investments.

              Investing helps the economy. It shouldn't be taxed any higher than it is.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They have had 10 years of tax cuts...where are the investments? Not here.

                Geee, since you invited me to leave the country...maybe they should move to where their investments are?

                Cause you know they are only taking up air space from those of us who actually support the U S of A.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Their investments are in the markets. The markets consist 100% of investment money.

                  If you tax it at a higher rate, there will be less investing, less cash flow, less capital for companies to grow/operate/expand.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That might be a good thing....i'm tired of buying things made of Chinese slave labor.
                    Goes against my values.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  18. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "If a college student can't afford $750/semester, then they need to work full time and go to school part time. It's doable."

    And yet...Michelle Bachmann needed $250,000, and all she had to do was ask.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You change topics like a rabid cheetah on a proverbial trampoline.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Same topic!
        College kid needs money for school: work for it!

        Bachmann needs money for farm: No problemo. Here you go: Quarter Mil Tax-Payer gift.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, that's a different topic.

          Did I say there was no political corruption? No!

          I said, if a student can't afford $750/semester, they should work for it. That's the American way. You just deflect to an irrelevant subject.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, Bachmann's an American...is she better than my daughter?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not saying she is!

              I'm saying, if you daughter can't afford $750/semester for an education, then she needs to work for it. That's America. It's taking your future in your hands and working for your goals.

              Not complaining that a politician is treated differently and wasting away.

              You can try to change politics, but you still have to live your life.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, that might be your America, where favors are given to the few...but my America is this: All people are equal.

                If she gets a quarter mil....where's mine?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Listen, I don't like that crap any more than you do, but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

                  America isn't a place where the government is supposed to pay for your education, your health care, your house, your car, your computer, your internet, or anything else like that. America is a place where you earn your way.

                  Can you really not understand that you are deflecting from the topic?

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm telling you I earn my way....it's not enought to keep up with the cost of living.

                    Gvt is supposed to protect us from gaugers, isn't it?

                    Or is it to give free-reign to crooks?

                    Here's what I know: the rich have gotten filthy rich, and the poor have gotten dirt poor.

                    Gvt policies did it, gvt policies can reverse it.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Excuse me, but what do parents work for? What do they pay their taxes for? I know I pay both for the benefits that are supposed to accompany both, including the right for my children to have a decent education. As someone who worked part-time, whilst raising two children and studying for their first degree, I can tell you that without support from your family it is practically impossible. Not everyone has a family that can help, however, if you have paid your dues to the government, then you should be able to expect some help from them.

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Here's a link to the Social Security Trustees' Report for 2011:

    http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

  20. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    You see...you R's always try and make it personal...like it's one person complaining and that's just cause they're lazy.

    It's a theft syndicate...on a global scale. And you are their cheerleader.

  21. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    BTW....I like Obama's new term for it:

    The American Promise.

    Also like his slogan: Built to Last

    Here's Romneys: gimme more gimme more

    .....which he will do. Give himself a tax cut......on 21 mil. Whew...poor guy must be HURTIN!

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, whilst you all pay taxes, as we do, to bail out his puppet masters.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What, you do not like hope and change anymore? He did deliver on it. He CHANGED America for the worse and now we HOPE to vote him out.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Know what's funny? Now others are saying they want change from Obama!!

        My my....will it be denegrated and made fun of?? Is Santorum the new Messiah?

        Oh no. They shall get a pass as they always do.

        Say---did you know Obama did TARP? Caused the crash? Created the problems we face now?

        whoooooosh. 2000-2008: erased from history.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Talk about erase from history, who forced the regulations that allowed the crash? Who lied that Fannie and Freddy were solvent, strong and never have a problem while the Republicans warned of a crash? Who doubled the deficit in 3 years?? Who wants you to pay $5 dollar gas? Who passed more regulation than the last 6 presidents combined? Who said no lobbiests then appointed several of them? Who grew the federal government more than 30% under his watch? Who has made us weaker around the world? Who had a pink model airplane sent to him from a country just spitting in our face and who sad nothing about it? Who is begging for Super Pacs to back him, get people to donate to them and said so publicly? Who violates the Constitution every chance he gets?? Seems like you want to forget 2009 to present. And yes we want change from Obama. He need to change course from destroying the country.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I feel the exact total opposite.

        2. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You may want to forget 2000-2008 because they show the truth that you refuse to admit to. The following chart shows actual spending and actual revenues under Bush and Obama. Notice revenues went up after the Bush tax cuts, notice how they tanked after Obama was elected. These are actual figures from both the GOA and CBO web sites. Figures are in Billions

                                Spending      Revenues
          2000 Clinton      1,921      1,992
          2001 Bush       1,863      1,853
          2002 Bush       2,011      1,782-after 911
          2003 Bush       2,160      1,782 Tax breaks approved
          2004 Bush       2,293      1,889 Tax breaks go into effect
          2005Bush       2,472      2,153
          2006 Bush       2,655      2,406
          2007 Bush       2,729      2,569
          2008 Bush       2,983      2,524
          2009Obama       3,518      2,105-raises taxes stops drilling
          2010Obama       3,457      2,167
          2011Obama       3,601      2,302
          2012Obama       3.900       4.300-CBO estimates

          The important part of this is notice the tax breaks did indeed work, they raised revenues. Notice how Congress outspent the revenues and how spending dramatically rose under Obama. Raising taxes or tax breaks alone will not fix the problem, the problem is spending. Did you know if congress kept all money Americans make, in other words they taxed us at 100%, it would take 5 years to pay down the national debt and that does not include paying the bills. Raising taxes is not the answer, and this President does not understand that or he is just clueless, either way he needs to go. If Obama stood at the podium and honestly made as many cuts that could be made and we still did not have enough revenue, then raise our taxes, not before, Oh I know he says he cannot find a place to cut, let me say this. Congress, President, VP and all federal employees, take a 25% pay cut. Stop paying for useless crap like studying the mating habits of bees, watching shrimp on a treadmill, building models, studies of how fast tickets to concerts sell on the internet, just to name a few.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The important thing to me is WHO they spend the money on. Some people need it, others don't.

            R policy gives globs of money to those already wealthy. THAT to me is wasteful and ridiculous.

            I am WAY more conservative than you on that issue.

            Stop the wasteful gift-giving to millionaires!!!

  22. Thell Stars profile image60
    Thell Starsposted 4 years ago

    if we want to get rich we must write more right.

  23. AssistedLivingEve profile image61
    AssistedLivingEveposted 4 years ago

    I agree with lovemychris. Overdraft fees and ownership of mass media by a few are all symptoms of the issues we are having. The core of this is that there is very little protecting the middle class in the US today.

  24. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Stop concentrating on the dummies and focus on the ventriloquist...Corporate Capitalism.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      America no longer practices Capitalism. It is now a form of mercantilism.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Highway robbery, more like.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes: that is what Mercantilism is.

          See how you hate it? But how Obama practices it?

          But see how you like Obama?

          These two facts SHOULD wake you up... but they won't.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Obama was not pres from 1980 til 2008. Sorry: FAIL!

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              HE'S CONTINUING THE POLICIES!!!!

              Why does "Obama" equal "holy angel from on high" to you?!

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Go read the chart provided earlier in this thread. The spending and revenues do not lie, even though LMC wants to ignore them

              2. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No he's not. Pay attention.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes he is.

                  We're still at war; we're still bailing people out; we're still printing money; we're still taking away freedoms.

                  wake up.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Obama supports my freedom of choice.

                    He couldn't BE more different than those squeegy old men R's put up as candidates.

                    Obama is for taxing the Uber rich, not letting them steal from us...those old squeegys aren't.

                    Iraq war is over...going to end Afghanistan soon.

                    How come no kudos from Paul?

                    And most important....he can sing! (joke...in case you don't get it)

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wrong, America no longer practices mercantilism, it is now out right capitalism.

  25. LeanMan profile image82
    LeanManposted 4 years ago

    So... We lower taxes for the top earners and businesses and they invest the money in Job creation to help everyone... Can anyone provide any evidence to say that happens?? I think the statistics show exactly the opposite, higher job creation rates when the taxes are highest!

    What do the rich do with their money? Do they go and create a new company to employ a few people? Do they spend the money in our local businesses? I don't think so, they will buy million dollar watches, designer dresses and invest in pieces of art etc! Most of their money goes to other super rich people!

    They will also speculate in land and other investments causing the cost to spiral upwards in excess of the true value raising costs across the board for everything we (the not super rich!) have to buy!

    1. 68
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      and if you were rich you would do the same thing.  You'd try to avoid all the taxes you could.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really?   Have you ever had enough income that it was worth your while to avoid taxes?

        I have.  And I didn't. 

        I still don't look for every opportunity I could legally take. 

        For example,  I am self employed 100%.  I go to the post office and the bank almost every day.  That's 13 miles round trip, say  2600 miles a year or so.  I could legally deduct 51 cents per mile for that because it is business use.

        I don't  because I'm always always doing some personal errands, too.  I also don't because when I calculate my taxes without looking for every possible deduction, I consider what I'm paying to be fair.

        Not everybody is greedy.

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The evidence has shown just the opposite actually.

      Those tax cuts made the wealthy into the Uber wealthy...that's about it.

  26. NotPC profile image59
    NotPCposted 4 years ago

    I'm having a hard time believing this actually. Does anyone have a brain anymore??? @bSide4Life

  27. scrabblecheat profile image60
    scrabblecheatposted 4 years ago

    That is how the system works

  28. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6177786_f520.jpg

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm voting for the one man who said no to each one of those entities.

      IN fact, the lobbyists call him Dr. No, because he's a doctor who tells them no

      RON PAUL 2012

      1. Druid Dude profile image59
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It isn't about republican or democrats. The reason why the rich get richer is capitalism. It doesn't matter who is running the country.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No but the fact that the capitalists are running the country doesn't help.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I admire your passion, but your delusion leads me to doubt your posts further.

        1. Druid Dude profile image59
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Everyone is drunk on greed. Greed kills. Left, right doesn't matter. Every aspect of our society is addicted to greed and the bottom line. If each of us lives long enough, we all become a burden to the system which that system can ignore only so long. I find both sides to be interested in one thing. Getting wealthy as Pres and getting wealthier on the lecture circuit. There is still only so much wealth to go around, but both parties are bound by this. Corporate control over the nation, the nation itself, mirroring the corporate structure is a mistake.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't mean you Druid Dude, I meant Evan. In my heart of hearts, I believe the ideology of the left is in tune with my thinking and my ethical code. I come from a family of Labour party activists. As a little girl I would go to the labour club with my dad, I learnt a lot about socialism from a very young age, and no, this was not indoctrination but an introduction to the "world" and its inequalities. Today, I'm afraid that I would have to say that I would not vote for the labour party as we know it, to me it is alien. They are so far removed from my version of socialism and what it means to me.

            It's a shame, I would, however, suggest to any trade unionist that they fund the green's from now on. Their ideology is in tune.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +1

              Join the disenfranchised.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Peas of a pod. smile

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Taxation is founded on theft. If you enjoy theft, please continue to argue for liberal beliefs.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Taxation is based on mutual agreement.

                If you don't  like it, maybe you can find a country that  doesn't have taxes.  Unfortunately, they'd probably have real thieves instead..

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What part of "Dr. Paul doesn't hand out money to lobbyists" is hard to comprehend?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But would lobbyists hand out money to him? That is the question.

            1. livewithrichard profile image84
              livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That would be the better question considering lobbyists, on behalf of their clients, are the ones doing all the paying and extorting and whatever it takes to get their clients views on the front burner.  Although, couldn't we consider PR firms as 'unofficial' lobbyists and all politicians pay for and use PR firms or personnel.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I suppose so. But at least there's some transparency there, we know it happens and it's out in the open. I wish we had the same transparency with party donors and lobbyists.

                1. livewithrichard profile image84
                  livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's just it, lobbyists have to be registered and for the most part everything they do is transparent.  PR firms do much of the same things as lobbyists and they do not have to be registered and can pretty much get away with anything.

  29. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image93
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago

    I've got some news for folks....take a deep breath, this might raise your blood pressure a tad.

    If you think Bill Gates is even close to being the world's most wealthy individual....then you're merely a product of mass media.

    There's no way Gates is remotely as wealthy as someone like David Rockefeller.  John D. Rockefeller was America's first Billionaire.  Anyone who understands how economic works realizes then that someone with that kind of wealth would have to continually make the most idiotic business decisions imaginable for several lifetimes in order to foul away that advantage.

    Imagine yourself as one of the ten or so wealthiest persons on the planet....would it be in your advantage for everyone to know who you are and what all you control?

    Heck no it wouldn't!  You'd want folks believing that a common techy dude from out West somewhere could work his way into being the world's richest person!

 
working