A Simplistic Notion that YOU can keep your wealth!

[joviroxx]

This man (Moron? nice...really really nice ) is absolutely correct. When you have corporations making record profits, CEO's making billions of dollars, but no pay increases (not even cost of living increases) for the "grunts" who helped get them there, I see a problem. Believe it or not, there are many many hard working Americans who cannot afford to put food on the table. The cost of gas goes up, the cost of food goes up, the cost of healthcare goes up, but do they see those increases reflected on their paychecks? Nope. And that's assuming they still even have a job that hasn't been shipped overseas...

And that's certainly a concern. But is the answer taking it from someone to give to another? Or is it better to create more wealth for those that don't have it? I will never understand the notion of bringing down some to bring up others. I have more faith in Americans and their human abilities than thinking a hand out will make their lives happy, easier and more fulfilling.

 

[DawnCt1]

I hear that all the time, but that makes no sense to me. None. I can't figure out the concept of why politicians would just want to 'take everyone's money'. All politicians and govt officials come up with programs that are paid for with taxes. Rep and Dem. But of course, someone will come along and tell me I just don't "know" or I am dumb, etc. Just don't get it.

When a politician promises you money back in taxes that YOU didn't pay, that isn't a "program". It isn't a "tax cut". It is taking money from someone who was over taxed, so it could be given to you (a collective you, not you specifically). I consider that WELFARE. I consider a promise to give money to 40% of the population that pays no income tax, buying votes; but hey, that's just me.

 

[Barbossa]

Ahh yes, republicans. They want to pee money away in a lingering, poorly executed, and unnecessary war. But they don't want to pay for it. Leave it to them and our military will consist of 100 soldiers (who will be the "other guys'" kids, not theirs) with no ammo for their rifles. Look on the bright side, though, we got to keep all of our money.

 

[DawnCt1]

Delta had to struggle with cutting costs, slashing wages, cancelling pension plans in order to stay afloat. Now they are merging with Northwest and the CEO of Delta is getting a 13.6 MILLION dollar bonus. Explain how that makes the workers whop took paycuts to keep their job happy, Dawn?

That is the free market. As long as Delta and Northwest Airlines solved their own financial problems and weren't part of the bail out, how they deal with their business is, their business. Is it up to the government to decide how much a CEO should make? How about how much a baseball player should make? New Zealand has decided how much physicians should make and right now there is such a physician shortage, that they are offering tons of locum tenens positions to fill the vacancies of physicians who have left the country. New Zealand is paying for a house, transportation for the family, limited hours to allow time for sight seeing, etc. How much $$$ are they saving now. How did that egalitarian approach actually work out?

 

[yeartolate]

Ahh yes, republicans. They want to pee money away in a lingering, poorly executed, and unnecessary war. But they don't want to pay for it. Leave it to them and our military will consist of 100 soldiers (who will be the "other guys'" kids, not theirs) with no ammo for their rifles. Look on the bright side, though, we got to keep all of our money.

I real fiscal conservative would never have gotten us into a war of choice.

 

[Mr Man]

From Rep Jim Moran (misspelled MORON) D. VA.

"Now in the last seven years we have had the highest corporate profit ever in American history. Highest corporate profit! We’ve had the highest productivity! The American worker has produced more per person at any time, but it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem because we have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJyS1WJNisM

Here's a good one too........

"When I become chairman [of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies], I'm going to earmark the **** out of it" http://www.sungazette.net/articles/2006/06/10/arlington/news/nws936e.txt

Huzzah for fiscal responsibility.......

 

[DawnCt1]

Ahh yes, republicans. They want to pee money away in a lingering, poorly executed, and unnecessary war. But they don't want to pay for it. Leave it to them and our military will consist of 100 soldiers (who will be the "other guys'" kids, not theirs) with no ammo for their rifles. Look on the bright side, though, we got to keep all of our money.

The primary purpose of taxation should be for the common defense of the country. I have no problem paying for that. Our military is doing quite well, thank you. DH has served in Iraq for two tours and he will no doubt be deployed again. Of course, he could leave and retire whenever he wants to. He has 28 years in. Only 20 is required for retirement, but he believes in the mission and he believes in our military..no matter who is CIC.

 

[All American]

This statement is not aimed at you directly but If you (the general you) are unable to obtain wealth through your own effort why is it OK for the Gov to take my wealth to give to you? How does that make sense?

That is the 700 Billion dollar question.