Do you think it's OKAY to raise taxes in this economy? (companies, national debt)

[bentlebee]

Originally Posted by FreshFresh

Obama is not raising taxes.


If youre making $250,000 or more dont complain.

Don't complain if the consumer prices will go up either, because the people making over $ 250K will pass the bill to you as well as to me and all other people...Happy? Not me!

[quelinda]

Originally Posted by bentlebee

Don't complain if the consumer prices will go up either, because the people making over $ 250K will pass the bill to you as well as to me and all other people...Happy? Not me!

Given that you are an immigrant and its not clear if you are legal, do you even pay taxes?

The dollar will be stronger because we will be covering our bills and not living on credit. That is what a responsible politician does.

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by Centaurmyst

There is no socialist movement...instead there is paranoia on the part of those who constantly screech "socialist!", "communist!"

Actually, you appear to be so poorly read that you don't really know what the socialist/communist/liberal/progressive movement is.

The current tax base has the people with lower incomes paying almost twice as high a tax rate as those with the highest incomes.

No ma'am. You're a liar or uninformed, IMO. Tax write-offs like mortgage interest and the EIC off-set the actual tax rates.

The only tax that the less than $100K earners pay that the higher earners don't is SS/MC. That's consistent with the oppressive systems introduction to not be socialistic.

Making the wealthiest people pay the same percentage of taxes is not "spreading the wealth around"...

Yes it is. The middle-class elects Congress. Congress controls the purse strings. Congress legislates projects for their districts. When the rich are forced to pay for those projects, it's the middle-class who benefits from their wealth. Hence, redistributing the wealth.

If you honestly feel you are oppressed there are other places you can live. No one is making you stay here.

You mean like "put out or get out?" You're so reasonable.

Again...I am not the one crying like a lactating wench about how unfair life is. I rarely had any really good choices available to me...and I always made the smartest and best one I could given my situation...and NEVER complained about it. You also have a choice...you can leave and go live somewhere without any government influence. Again...no one is stopping you.

Isn't that like saying "I have sex with your father, you shouldn't cry when he comes to get some?" You see? You repeatedly ignore morality in favor of saying "if I have the force of government on my side, to bad for you."

Think more.

Majority rules...that is the way it goes.

Yes. And I'm giving you the tools to realize that you don't have to be a tyrannical majority.

You can do that as well or again, you can leave...it's your choice.

Let me show you how stupid this argument is: You move!

You see? That's stupid and unreasonable.

I am speaking of American owned corporations who sell their goods here but send their jobs overseas. They get insane tax breaks while the middle class picks up the tab for the country. They aren't creating jobs in the US because they are too greedy and want that sweatshop labor from 3rd world countries. Americans buy their goods and make them rich while they reward us by moving the jobs overseas.

So you want to control what your fellow Americans can buy? Sure... that's not socialism.

Why, exactly, do you care more about the interests of those corporations than you care about your fellow Americans? YOU are paying their share.

Because if Americans choose to support socialist legislation that makes them uncompetitive in the world market, I support both their right and right of corporations to do what's in their best interest when they choose not to infringe the rights of others.

The middle and low class vote for who runs the country. As far as I can tell, if you vote for someone to build a bridge, then you should pay for it.

My liberty has never been infringed upon.

Yes it has. Every time the government does something, you lose the option to do that or not do that for yourself. Liberty is freedoms of choice.

No, we wouldn't have because we were not making the same mistakes that Russia did.(What mistakes did the Soviets make that the U.S. wouldn't have and why would one beleive, just as mistakes were made in Iraq, similar mistakes wouldn't be made in Afghanistan?) We utilized friendly Afghanistan people who know the land and terrain.(The Russians didn't?) Our troops are the best trained and most capable in the world, and the smartest.(How does that overcome the disadvantages of the Afghan terrain? Soviets were better trained and armed also.) A more favorable battlefield? LMAO! Bin Laden is not in Iraq and neither were Al Qaeda.(But his resources were consumed in Iraq.) Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. They were NO threat to us at all. Sure, Saddam was a miserable rotten person who did terrible things...YEARS prior to us going into Iraq.(Yes, Clinton ignored Hussein's violation of the cease-fire agreement. Bush fixed that.) The time to go in there would have been back during the Gulf War when we could have actually stopped ethnic cleansing...but we didn't do it then. Talk about a MASSIVE waste of 10 billion a month while our troops in Afghanistan desperately need more troops to help.

Please cite a reference for each claim.

Oh, I know my history quite well thanks.

We shall see when you produce references for you outlandish claims.

I typically am a very kind person to everyone...unless they give me reason not to be.

No you're not. You think you are, but you're claiming in this thread that you're supporting imposing yourself on business because you want socialism. What's nice about that?

If you honestly believe that then you don't understand the first thing about earmarks.

Source to support your position please.

But, of course, you imply agreement with "the best chance to reducing earmarks is to have all branches of government from the same party because there won't be a need to "buy" votes... ?"

John McCain will be just as bad as Bush with earmarks, if not worse.

Yeah right, because 30 yrs. of no earmarks really gives that impression, huh?

LMAO...you pay into social security for YOURSELF...so when you are old you get it back and then some. It's not being "stolen"...it comes back to you later.

Kind of like a rapist screwing you for your own good, eh?

Would you prefer they gave it all to you to put into stocks and see it all wiped out now?

No, I'd prefer it go into euthanasia machines to eliminate old people. But if I can't have that, I'd just assume have it to do whatever I like. You think I shouldn't have freedom to choose? You think you're justified to control my income? Why?

Again...the borders are open...if you hate America so much then just leave. This isn't the United States of One Thousand. It's the United States of America. That means EVERYONE in America has to decide what is best for our great nation. The majority makes that call. Sure, that stinks for the people on the fringe, but no one is making you stay. You can always chip in together and buy an island somewhere and live free of government if you are really that unhappy.

Put out or get out?

Again...most people are not paranoid about communism and socialism.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you read a little history, you'll find that there's good reason to fear government. Only an uninformed fool wouldn't.

Stupid? My IQ is over 150 so I'm far from stupid.

The ability to draw conclusions rapidly means little when the premises which you accept as true are false. No matter what your IQ the choice to accept a position without clear reason is stupid because, no matter how sharp you are, speed doesn't replace knowledge.

(BTW: the characteristic overwhelming sensitivity to right and wrong typical of the exceptional that is lacking in your posting demonstrates to me that you're not a point above average. The exceptional has no need to disregard right and wrong in favor of the argument "leave if you don't like it." As you mislead on the subject of your past of paying taxes, I'm quite certain calling you a 1st deviant would be too generous... let alone a third or fourth.)

Just because you aren't capable of understanding the views of another person it doesn't mean that other person is stupid. It means that you either are incapable of or refuse to see the persepctives of people who don't agree with you.

Yeahp... No one could convince the slavers they were wrong either.

[floridasandy]

i bet the people who were for raising taxes are the same people not paying the taxes. (or else they are like arianna huffington and don't have to pay taxes because they have good tax lawyers). that shows how incredibly skewed the internet forum is in terms of the general population!

[Outsiderlookingin]

Answering your question with another. Okay you have had Bushes tax breaks for years now so you would think your economy would be booming why isn't it?

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Dieter

The economy is bad and higher taxes ARE fine by me.

And it would make the economy worse.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Outsiderlookingin

Answering your question with another. Okay you have had Bushes tax breaks for years now so you would think your economy would be booming why isn't it?

Because of the mortgage crisis.

[camaro69]

Originally Posted by atxcio

I'm with Obama, Joe Biden, and Warren Buffet -- I don't mind giving a little more to fix the country. I can afford it. McCain & his wife should be able to afford it too. After all, they don't pay healthcare premiums (their sweet plan is paid for by us taxpayers). So they could put at least that much in the kitty to help pay down the war debt.

Now I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give any more money to the government, I'm just saying I can live with the taxes as they were under Bill Clinton. And that's a tax increase for me.

Biden gives diddly squat to charities...FACT. So why should I give more when I'm already paying more from the get go?

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

i bet the people who were for raising taxes are the same people not paying the taxes. (or else they are like arianna huffington and don't have to pay taxes because they have good tax lawyers). that shows how incredibly skewed the internet forum is in terms of the general population!

In addition to the payroll taxes taken out of my check...I had to pay around $750 in taxes last year. Let me take that back. With the rebate I only had a $150 expense beyond the normal payroll taxes. The rebate I don't consider to be "my" money.

I prefer to pay my taxes on April 15th, and have more money on a week to week basis--since I LIVE week to week.

[teatime]

Originally Posted by Centaurmyst

Sorry about your Lupus. I actually know a thing or two about the disease. My mother had it and my neighbor has it now. Medical technology has come a very long way, fortunately. I offer a great deal of help and emotional support to my neighbor. Because of how bad her rash is she has been treated badly by some people...even some have accused her of having AIDS. She's a tough cookie, though...and she keeps pushing forward.

One thing I know is that keeping a positive attitude is important for you. It does make a difference. I'm not sure how she copes sometimes because she flat out refuses to take any pain medication because she doesn't want to get addicted to it. She's very scared a lot of the time.

Even though you don't like Obama I really, really urge you to do equal research on the health care plans of both McCain and Obama. With McCain's plan there is a risk that employers would stop offering health insurance and no protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Obama's plan includes protection to people with pre-existing conditions. For you, that matters and is a big deal because I know full well how much medical treatment someone with Lupus NEEDS.

I will pray for you to be as healthy and feel as well as you can.

Centaur, I was an ardent Hillary supporter -- I'm an Independent, not a Republican. Health care has been one of the big issues for me and with Hillary's many years of working to improve the situation, I knew she could effect her plan.

Her plan REQUIRED participation if you didn't have insurance. This is important, and one of the big reasons Obama, if he can effect any change at all, and his voluntary plan make no sense. If the president is going to invest a whole lot of political capital in changing the system and negotiating with all of the players, which Hillary would have done, it will only work if EVERYONE participates. To make participation voluntary for adults virtually ensures that there will be millions of stubborn Americans who won't participate and will still turn up in emergency rooms and expect to receive care and have it written off if they have a serious condition and no way to pay the huge bills. This is a big part of the problem now. Obama's plan doesn't fix it.

I've read independent critques of his plan and it's apparently big on assumptions, as well, that professionals in the industry say aren't realistic, such as his claim of saving families $2,500 per year in premiums. Moreover, he simply doesn't have the experience necessary to take on all of the special interests to get anything done.

I've come to the conclusion that only two systems would work -- a completely socialized system similar to France's system (America won't go for it, though) or taking health insurance from being mostly the "responsibility" of employers to helping people buy their own insurance by removing the restrictions that benefit the insurers and pharmaceutical companies and assisting people with the accessibility and the cost. McCain's plan resembles this system.

Tying health insurance to traditional employment hurts entrepreneurs, independent contractors, those who have at-home businesses, and those who have or had chronic illnesses and can be discriminated against in hiring because of it. It is currently IMPOSSIBLE for a person with a chronic pre-existing condition to buy a decent health-insurance policy. You can get a short-term policy but it won't cover the pre-existing condition. This is because our system is built solely for businesses being able to negotiate better rates for bringing hundreds or thousands of "customers" to the insurer. Buying a single policy is very expensive and very restrictive.

McCain's plan addresses the pre-existing condition problem by working with the states to improve access by giving money to the states to help cover their chronically ill citizens. It creates a better program than the current state "risk pools" (for those states that even have them!) with lower, negotiated rates and better coverage. McCain also improves competition and lowers costs by permitting companies to sell policies across state lines instead of limiting their coverage areas. I am DELIGHTED with my Medicare Advantage Plan and recommended it to friends elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's not available where they live.

No, McCain's plan isn't perfect but it's definitely do-able, will help ease the problem and it begins a much-needed transition away from employer-based health care. That is VERY important.


If I had ANY confidence that Obama actually could deliver even a sliver of his grandiose plans, I'd consider voting for him. The fact is, I don't believe he has the experience needed to deliver. McCain's plans are far more realistic and much easier to accomplish, so he gets my vote. Moreover, the Russia and Iran situations are becoming more intense and difficult. There's no way I'd trust Obama with those.