Hillary's Star Continues To Rise

and he's not going to get the nomination, so why bother talking about him?

no, but i'm not a f*cking pollyanna.... do you think practically that ron paul has a snowballs chance in hell of being the republican nominee for the white house?

kickycan wrote:

blatham wrote:

kickycan wrote:

One more time, for the people in the back.

HILLARY CLINTON WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT.

Carry on.

Ya wanna wager, ya chickenshit italian?

Name the stakes, vile northern creature!

Do you have a sister?

blatham wrote:

kickycan wrote:

blatham wrote:

kickycan wrote:

One more time, for the people in the back.

HILLARY CLINTON WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT.

Carry on.

Ya wanna wager, ya chickenshit italian?

Name the stakes, vile northern creature!

Do you have a sister?

No, but I'd be willing to put up my brother's wife. She's a born-again, and you know what they say--you ain't had a woman til you've had a born-again Christian woman! Now what/who am I getting in return? How about your wife? She must be getting sick of you by now.

Halfback, we need to raise taxes; we're deep in the red. Not a hard concept to understand.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Halfback, we need to raise taxes; we're deep in the red. Not a hard concept to understand.

Cycloptichorn

The tax increase is already more than offset by at least 100 billion for Hillary's new programs. And has any government bureaucracy ever cost less than projected?

EmilyGreen wrote:

Cycloptichorn -

More money is just more money. If you don't have people in office that will distribute it properly, then its pointless.

And taxing the wealthy a higher percentage is just punishing people for working hard. The fair tax is a consumer based tax - poor people buy less and will pay fewer taxes, and the wealthy buy more and will pay more taxes... this is different because its their choice to buy more, and pay more taxes. Of course, there's a bit more to it than that, but not much.

Punishing people for working hard. That's rich!

At the end of the day, even with high taxes, the rich still live an absolute life of luxury and extravagence compared to pretty much everyone else. I'm not too concerned about the 'punishment' that they are getting.

Cycloptichorn

Raising taxes will have the direct effect of bringing in more money, which goes to paying the debts. It's not a complicated subject.

The Fair Tax is just another method of keeping the rich, rich. I favor progressive taxation which makes the wealthy pay far higher percentages then anyone else.

Cycloptichorn

Bill Gates started his business in a garage, yet he is now one of the richest people on the planet.
Do you think he should give up what he has?

Heres some advice...If you want to be rich, you gotta work for it.

And lowering taxes has been PROVEN to mean an increase in revenue to the govt.
EVERY time taxes have been cut, more money has gone into the treasury.

We all know that if the dems raise taxes,they will increase spending $5 for every $1 they raise taxes.
They have always done that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmilyGreen wrote:

Cycloptichorn -

More money is just more money. If you don't have people in office that will distribute it properly, then its pointless.

And taxing the wealthy a higher percentage is just punishing people for working hard. The fair tax is a consumer based tax - poor people buy less and will pay fewer taxes, and the wealthy buy more and will pay more taxes... this is different because its their choice to buy more, and pay more taxes. Of course, there's a bit more to it than that, but not much.

Punishing people for working hard. That's rich!

At the end of the day, even with high taxes, the rich still live an absolute life of luxury and extravagence compared to pretty much everyone else. I'm not too concerned about the 'punishment' that they are getting.

Cycloptichorn

So what you are actually saying is that you think the taxes on the rich should be raised because you envy them.
You seem to be saying that "if you cant have it,then neither should they".

You aqre getting dangerously close to "class envy", instead of recognizing that many of the "rich" have worked and bled to get where they are.
THey havent gotten where they are by handouts, they have worked for it.

Bill Gates started his business in a garage, yet he is now one of the richest people on the planet.
Do you think he should give up what he has, just because you dont have it?

Heres some advice...If you want to be rich, you gotta work for it.

Raising taxes will have the direct effect of bringing in more money, which goes to paying the debts. It's not a complicated subject.

The Fair Tax is just another method of keeping the rich, rich. I favor progressive taxation which makes the wealthy pay far higher percentages then anyone else.

Cycloptichorn

Mysteryman is right. Cycloptichorn, you are sounding like the stereotypical socialist who doesn't want anyone to have more than you do.

And its not necessarily about working hard, you have to work smarter and manage your money. There's all kinds of help out there for you if you're having trouble making ends meet.

Neither the democrats NOR the republicans do the right thing with the budget. Raising taxes and giving them more to play with isn't going to solve anything. I know, though, that economics can be very difficult to understand, so I'm not upset with you for not really understanding what's going on in the government - but that doesn't mean that you have to stay in the dark about it. This is why I feel that education should be the US' number one priority - so many people don't understand how their own country does business. Its truely pitiful.

A Nation of "Haves" and "Have-Nots"?
Far More Americans Now See Their Country as Sharply Divided Along Economic Lines
by Jodie T. Allen, Senior Editor, Pew Research Center and Michael Dimock, Associate Director for Research, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
September 13, 2007

Over the past two decades, a growing share of the public has come to the view that American society is divided into two groups, the "haves" and the "have-nots." Today, Americans are split evenly on the two-class question with as many saying the country is divided along economic lines as say this is not the case (48% each). In sharp contrast, in 1988, 71% rejected this notion, while just 26% saw a divided nation.

Of equal importance, the number of Americans who see themselves among the "have-nots" of society has doubled over the past two decades, from 17% in 1988 to 34% today. In 1988, far more Americans said that, if they had to choose, they probably were among the "haves" (59%) than the "have-nots" (17%). Today, this gap is far narrower (45% "haves" vs. 34% "have-nots").


These shifting attitudes have occurred gradually over the past two decades, although the perception of personal financial stringency appears to have risen more rapidly in recent years. As recently as 2001, a 52%-majority still viewed themselves as resting on the positive side of the economic balance, compared with 32% who felt they were monetarily in need. Since then the number of self-described "haves" has fallen by seven percentage points, a decline as large as that which occurred over the previous 13 years.

EmilyGreen wrote:

Mysteryman is right. Cycloptichorn, you are sounding like the stereotypical socialist who doesn't want anyone to have more than you do.

And its not necessarily about working hard, you have to work smarter and manage your money. There's all kinds of help out there for you if you're having trouble making ends meet.

Neither the democrats NOR the republicans do the right thing with the budget. Raising taxes and giving them more to play with isn't going to solve anything. I know, though, that economics can be very difficult to understand, so I'm not upset with you for not really understanding what's going on in the government - but that doesn't mean that you have to stay in the dark about it. This is why I feel that education should be the US' number one priority - so many people don't understand how their own country does business. Its truely pitiful.

EmilyGreen
When you look at the previous century and divide it into the first 50 years versus the second 50 years, which economic theorists would you say were most influential as regards the policies of the US? And could you say why you think so?

Raising taxes and giving them more to play with isn't going to solve anything. I know, though, that economics can be very difficult to understand, so I'm not upset with you for not really understanding what's going on in the government

Mysteryman is right. Cycloptichorn, you are sounding like the stereotypical socialist who doesn't want anyone to have more than you do.

And its not necessarily about working hard, you have to work smarter and manage your money. There's all kinds of help out there for you if you're having trouble making ends meet.

Neither the democrats NOR the republicans do the right thing with the budget. Raising taxes and giving them more to play with isn't going to solve anything. I know, though, that economics can be very difficult to understand, so I'm not upset with you for not really understanding what's going on in the government - but that doesn't mean that you have to stay in the dark about it. This is why I feel that education should be the US' number one priority - so many people don't understand how their own country does business. Its truely pitiful.