Smart guys always make oodles of money. Dumbasses just sit and complain about why they don't have any.

Got into a, um, discussion, the other day with my local's Vice President, a guy who claims to be a conservative and tea party supporter as well as a proud union member. He was throwing around the old "47% of people don' pay any taxes" line with the usual implication that they are a bunch of freeloaders and ne're-do-wells. So, I provided him with these fun facts, courtesy of the bipartisan Tax Policy Center. You could see the light of contemplation go on in his head. According to the TPC, 47% of American HOUSEHOLDS have no Federal Income Tax LIABILITY, due in large part to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Of that 47% figure, 69.5% of those households are those with an annual gross income of less than $50,000. The next demographic the TPC provides is the 50K to 100K household earners, with 16.5% of them having no FIT liability. Over 85% of that 47% number coming in at under 100K a year - a bunch of high rollers, huh? And bandying about the "pay no taxes" part of that phrase is either ignorant or disingenuous. Even if they owe no FIT or get a refund, they still shell out for Social Security and Medicare taxes, as well as state and local taxes, and sales and excise taxes where applicable. And what about Seniors drawing a Social Security check? Are they layabouts too? Beyond that, let's say a family making 70 large with a couple of kids gets a tax refund of $8,000. What do they do with that refund? They're not sittin' on it. I'll betcha they're not running down to Charles Schwab or logging onto Etrade to invest it. Most of them use it to pay down existing debt or buy things they want or need: new furniture, a TV, a used car, maybe a down payment on a new car, etc. Regardless, the bulk of the refund ends up going right back into the economy, where it's wanted and needed.

If the government taxes the rich more, are they going to tax me less? It may, or it may just buy me some time to keep paying what I have been paying. So we should cheer their taxes going up, knowing full well the government will come back later looking for more from someone.
If I were Gates, I would say the same thing. Now he is an acceptable rich guy. He is smart enough to shoo away the barn flies with a simple statement so he won't be distracted from what he does, make money. Bill Clinton must have taught him a valuable lesson back in the late 90s.
Going after the rich for more taxes is like going after the auto industry for drunk driving violations, or the gun manufacturers for gun crime. you don't solve a problem by hammering on the symptom, you have to go to the root of the problem. In our case it is spending and the size of government. Like that is a surprise to anyone.

358normamag, first off, glad to see you back,
Now, I reject out of hand your re-definition that progressive, liberal, or whatever name you choose and equate it to socialism. That's just your opinion...not supported by Webster's or Merriam's. By your definition, every time we banded together to build roads, bridges, state or national parks we acted in a socialistic manner. How about 2 world wars? Was our banding together to defeat Germany (twice) and Japan considered acting in a socialist manner? How about when a bunch of farmers banded together to win independence from the British? Was that socialism?
You GOP types seem to employ pretty loose definitions at times.

Yes shared.
We as a nation have employed a progressive tax rate for as long as I've been around. It has been just recently that the rate was lowered to nearly half of what is was. As everyone agrees, the tax cuts were intended to free up money so the mythical job creators would invest in new manufacturing, technology, and retail...except it didn't happen. For the most part the funds just ended up in the tax shelters.
As you know, this nation has taxed at as high a rate as 60%...maybe higher in some instances. And you know what? I have yet to meet anyone who would turn down an offer of being wealthy because a bigger portion would be paid in taxes.
Here's another thing to ask yourself: Why wasn't it deemed class warfare when the rates were cut? I mean turn about is fair play isn't it?
And finally, maybe you can answer this, (nobody else has) at what point did Bush's temporary tax cuts made permanent?

Phlyzor,
Thank you very much for the theory.
As we know, theories exist as a possible explanation supported by evidence until proven wrong…and so far, your definition and this one look pretty good to me.
cognitive dissonance
Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists. Cognitive dissonance is nonetheless considered an explanation for attitude change.

So in the specific instance we are discussing, (the audience reaction to sensitive issues) I find the line: “when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists”, to be particularly pertinent.
A kind of knee jerk reaction or dismissal if you will.
Yep, that’s just what the nation needs at a Presidential nomination debate, an audience that reacts with emotion instead of intellect when in the process of choosing the next possible leader of our nation.
I must take this opportunity to thank you for helping to confirm my belief that for the instances we’re discussing, the audiences are pretty much on the intellectual level found at a professional wrestling match.

Now let’s look at one of your oft repeated line: “connect the dots”.
I find it pretty convenient that when “you” connect the dots, they always seem to re-enforce a pre-conceived conclusion.
Kind of enforces that self appointed superior intellect.

I must agree with you on one point though…the price of gas.
I could remind you of the capitalist model where refineries, drillers, and transportation companies are encouraged to make a buck too, but I won’t.
I don’t know why Obama doesn’t just declare the price of gas to be $1 or $2 a gallon and be done with it.

I would say that I am not enthusiastic about the Republicans running this year, not much different than 08. I am confident that Romney or Knewt will clean Obama's clock in a debate quite handily. Assuming this is Obama's race is putting all of your confidence in the media because it's their job to spin what Obama has said, will say and keep Biden's mouth shut all at the same time.

I read a story tonight on how Michele Obama was praising NYC for the 200 jobs they were adding in the near future and was using it as a measure against how fast and furious the economy was roaring back. I'm pretty sure she didn't know the jobs were for the welfare and rental assistance department. Apparently when the number of New Yorkers on welfare goes up 65% in four years, it creates jobs!!

To even insinuate that Obama has nothing to do with the price of gas going up is ridiculous. He hate big oil, he killed all those gulf oil jobs, he is a fan of cap and trade. These are all dots to connect, I won't do that for you this time. Because you will say 'gosh, i drive by gas stations all the time and i have yet to see my glorious president at any pump with keys in his hand jacking up the cost per gallon. if i don't see that then i know he has nothing to do with it. period.'

If it was a name calling contest I would have no hesitation in declaring the outcome in advance and presenting the trophy to the Whiner in Chief, President Agitator.

I think everybody on page 1 of any phone book knows more than Barry. If it isn't written out for him he can't say it. He walked away from college with a fraction of the million dollar education he brags about. Who paid for it? Did he pass? What kind of grades did he get? Did he take his own tests? Sorry fellow citizens, that is none of your bees wax.

Pig a VAT would help raise some funds no doubt, I think though they have one on gasoline imagine how 8$ a gallon would go over.

538 I was talking about the 2% cut in SS tax that was the price of not allowing the entire tax break to revert to nothing as it was originally planned to do under Bush and voted for by the entire Republican side of the house and senate. They voted for there to be an end date for those tax cuts to avoid a filibuster, but they still haven't ended, and every day we borrow money from the Chinese to pay for those tax breaks.

Our debt isn't an issue short term, we have to get out of a severe recession first, mid range, five to seven years, we should be paying it off, drastic cuts in the worlds largest military that has done nothing to defend us from people with towels around their heads and box cutters, and increase in taxes.

FYI, the Earned Income Tax Credit was a creation of the Ford administration. Raise your hand if you've never taken a deduction - I'll bet everyone who has a kid or ten has used the CTC. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Child Tax Credit was raised twice under Dubbleyuh. Glad to see some folks are still slingin' the same ol' half-baked dogma. And still struggling with reading comprehension, too!

And someone else will take it away in the future. Thank you.

Shared sacrifice. hahahahaha. Shared but not equal or (gasp) fair.

This is all about feeding the beast so that it will/can grow and need more money again later.

More spending = more money. Is less spending the only answer? No. But it is the start that nobody wants to address. Class warfare is better because it keeps a raw nerve out there so the little people can hate the rich people. President Oblahblah made his living doing that next to ACORN in the past so he knows how to spread the hate.

Libdims at it again!

whitetailfreek,
I've argued this point before...at what point did those temporary tax cuts become permanent?
Look, that was the whole point in Bush "freeing up" funds at the top end, it was hoped that the wealthy, the investers, the "job creators", would use the extra to re-invest and create jobs.
Where are they?
They didn't appear.
Hedge fund managers did pretty good, bankers in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Switzerland did alright.
Now a quick return to the first point...for months and months you go to the grocery store once a week and along with your staples you buy a quart of ice cream. After Months and months of paying the same price for that quart of ice cream lo and behold it's on sale for a dollar less. This price continues for a month straight after which the price reverts back to the price you were quite content to pay before it went on sale.
Has the price increased?

phlyzor,
We don't really need to state opinion on the jobs issue...just google up the Dept. of Labor Statistics.
One point I'd like to discuss is your claim of Bush creating or saving any jobs.
Am I to understand you think the 800K jobs lost per month was faked?
Truly have no idea what you refer to concerning Presidents declaring anything unconstitutional as we both know SCOTUS is the authority on that matter. Specifics?

If a liberal/progressive walks and talks like a communist, then they are just normal Americans working together? But if 4 people boo a gay soldier's comments at a Republican debate then Republicans are all homophobic, correct Hoski? This is why you have earned the title of hypocrite.

If you want to see shared sacrifice we need to scrap the system we have now and institute a fair or flat tax. Then everybody will have some skin in the game.

The problem with your reasoning on these complex issues hoski is you are very shallow. That means you don't or can't connect the dots. Where have I heard that before?

1+1 does not equal 2 in a thinking person's brain. 1+1+1+1+1=5 if you would take the time to think instead of react. 'phlyzor says people who work together are communists, look it says so right there'. All I said is if it walks like a commie duck and quacks like a commie duck, it's probably a commie duck.

Shallow, shallow, shallow. You must have been a joy to work with Mr. Know it all.

What voters rejected a few years back was the notion of taxing over a certain lot of money, I think it was a million bucks, 98% of it, or there abouts. Democrats dropped the notion very quick the polls indicating that the ave. Joe didn't like it because they had the dream of getting rich someday. And remember the special tax levied on "luxury" boats and airplanes? 50% of the industry was lost overnite. Companies closed down, and workers lost their jobs. So don't continue to say that taxation doesn't matter. It is a business expense that can easily make companies uncompetitive in a global market which is a big part of why our economy is shrinking.

I was referring to the envirotards that have slowed our production and made it more expensive.

PigHunter came out of nowhere and hit Hoskie with a haymaker!

Emotional outbursts from the right seem to really bother you as much as they don't fit the definition of the term we are discussing here. Maybe they should go occupy something, sell drugs, assault one another and destroy some public property, you seem to applaud that.

WAM,
I'd be more than happy to accompany you anytime you get over this way.
Lately I've been reading of the steelhead out your way and I'd love to fish any of that water, particularly BC.
Awesome fish.

358normamag
Your continued repetition of campaign rhetoric is getting equally old.
Also getting tired of you whining about having to pay your tax just like the rest of us…as I’ve pointed out before you do have a choice, just don’t pay, you’ll get fed and housed on my dime.
Your entire whine about being "forced" to pay taxes so it can be "given" to someone else is childish. You know as well as I that the vast majority of our taxes goes for our defense, infrastructure, fire and police etc. If you wish to somehow choose to direct your tax then I suppose every other citizen would demand that right too...what part of our country do you think will take the biggest hit?
The figure quoted for tax rate under Eisenhower was after deductions, as in that's the lowest possible rate one could accomplish after taking all applicable deductions. I’m pretty sure I mentioned that.
As usual you seem infatuated with Mr. Reagan, and I need to look at revenue too…that’s fine. Then you should also remember Mr. Reagan raised taxes a total of 11 times, AND tripled the national debt from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion…but the defense contractors did alright.
So now your position is by lowering rates folks will be more likely to file an honest return, but if the rate is a few percentage points higher then they’ll risk fines and possible imprisonment? Oh good, by all means lets cater to the folks who’d consider breaking the law as long as the payoff is big enough. Brilliant.
Investors are waiting to see if the tax rate goes up? Really? What’s been their excuse for the past 10-12 years?
Waiting for markets to clear?
How about it’s regaining 60% of their losses during the waning Bush years? since
Like I said before, the mythical job creators are in love with the notion that they’re the lynch pin. You say they’re waiting for all mentioned hurdles to be cleared before they’ll invest.
Sounds to me like you want a sure thing.
We have discussed the need for tax reform before, as I said then I’d like to see everyone contributing. How about we start in reverse order?
Also, I'd like your opinion on why Bush's 2 tax cuts wasn't considered socialism, but the elimination of same, iscalled socialism?

The UK has over a $2.00 per gallon tax on gasoline before the VAT is applied. Ouch! Our State and Federal combined averages less than 50 cents per gallon.

This specific piece of news will give "he who shall not be directly addressed" fits!
He constantly trots out Gates as his favorite example of economics.
I also love it when he mentions S. Jobs as a titan, knowing full well Apple's manufacturing is in China.

phlyzor,
It's called shared sacrifice.
Btw, if you're a working stiff like most citizens, you are paying less in taxes as per the payroll tax break and pending extension.
Your welcome.

phlyzor,
Class warfare?
Did you know we're discussing a few measly percentage points in the tax code?
So when you can't, or won't defend your position, what's the next best tactic?...create a slogan---class warfare.

Look, it's really pretty simple, wars and Govt giveaways in the form of Medicare part D and huge tax cuts have to be paid for at some point, and this is the time.

phlyzor,
Actually, that's the only one not paid for.
Here's another little point.
Why does the GOP speak in a disparaging tone when speaking of the misnamed "entitlements"? They're not magically produced from some tree somewhere...they're paid for, approved and voted into existence by the citizens of this country.
As for Mr. Buffet's secretary's salary, if you'd have paid attention, she wouldn't be affected...nobody would until income surpasses $1 million dollars. As in the first million stays the same, the tax doesn't start until the next mil.

You can be a smart guy or a dumb guy but one thing that isn't going to change much is your income compared to your fathers. America leads the developed world in having an inelastic class system which was all well and good until middle class wages started heading south under Reagan/Bush/Bush.

So who are the Republican candidates and what do they advocate. Some guy whose dad was CEO of GM and Governor of Michigan who claims he is a self made man. Talk about disconnect! People joke about being born on 3d base and claiming you hit a triple.

They brag about wishing to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, tax cheats and serial adulterers, seriously?

Big difference between "banding together" for a common cause, and having a redistribution of wealth strategy at the top created by enacting policy, regulations, and heavy handed oversight into many facets of American business.

I worked "union" for 14 years, clinchknot! I got paid the same as the slackers! ....and the same payrate when I decided to "slack"!!!!!
Know all I need to about "union".

I have a dear friend who retired from a "union" job. Even though he doesn't "like" Obabble, declares he "has" to vote Dem to support "union"!

Just like Homaski and rat!

Bubba

Who needs to spin it? Obama is a proud progressive. Hillary is a proud progressive. Obama hired proud socialists that gave fervent speaches regarding the need for socialism. The Black guy (?)(can't think of his name right now) was a proud communist, and his alliance group (?) contributed to the wording of ObamaCare, and contributed to the Trillion dollar tax payer stimulus bill. Bill Ayers, the terrorist, was a member of that Alliance group. Why the need to lie about Obama's connection to them, and socialism? Why did Obama lie about his connection to ACORN? They were a well known socialist group that diverted tax payer money to their movement's causes. Wonder if "The Knot" knows that?

So, because 4 people at a Republican debate couldn’t control themselves when this soldier was saying something that goes against the majority of the crowds beliefs and you didn’t hear anybody discourage that kind of behavior, then every Republican is homophobic. That there is shallow thinking if you ask me I don’t care who you are. In fact, I will go a step further and say that isn’t thinking at all, it’s reacting. I still say that being a liberal is the easiest most convenient way to live. ‘No facts please just let me know if this is a nice law so that I can support it’.

Here is a term and a definition for you, Cognitive dissonance. It doesn't call you out specifically but it doesn't have to.

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1] The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions or adding new ones to create consistency.

Your definition of redistribution of wealth is very nice and simple and follows along with your weak rationalization quite well. If EVERY purchase, fee, tax, wet dream isn't robbed in some way then we don't have a redistribution of wealth problem. No dots to connect, nothing to see here just move along and don't look back. See cognitive dissonance definition above. Compare your redistribution of wealth rationalization with your knee jerk homophobe assertion and see if you can find a clue in there. I'm putting my money in that either you don't or you will tweak what you meant to say.

I saw an Obama reelection sign yesterday. It said Unleaded Regular $3.45. The day before it said $3.39. That means that it just keeps getting better every day!

Four more years please King Barry!

Or gas and lunch when they round up, and bus these ACORN folks to the polls. I Don't think it will work this time though. The morale of Obama's ACORN base is in the dumpster. Black unemployment running over 40% for young Blacks! Poor folks upset they didn't get the distribution money when rich cronies that donated to Obama got a lot of it. Look out for blood in the streets as I stated long ago when the poll numbers tank, and Obama appears to have no chance at re-election. Businesses had better board up their windows, and cars off the main streets. A WATTS type senario could happen around the country.

Hoski quote: 'So in the specific instance we are discussing, (the audience reaction to sensitive issues) I find the line: “when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists”, to be particularly pertinent.
"A kind of knee jerk reaction or dismissal if you will.
Yep, that’s just what the nation needs at a Presidential nomination debate, an audience that reacts with emotion instead of intellect when in the process of choosing the next possible leader of our nation.
I must take this opportunity to thank you for helping to confirm my belief that for the instances we’re discussing, the audiences are pretty much on the intellectual level found at a professional wrestling match."

I take exception to the way you skewed the definition of that term and used it to your advantage. First I will say, bravo, nice try, you get an extra biscy from Uncle Soros. Now, had this been an ACORN rally and this person had been booed, then you have a good point. But seeing as how the setting was a Republican debate, full of people who disagree with the idea of repealing DADT and granting special rights to gay people, you fall way short. Their beliefs were not compromised in an emotional reaction by 4 people. Because an idea is floated out there and it is rejected does not constitute cognitive dissonance. Their beliefs were not compromised by showing a negative reaction. Now, when you say the Bush tax cuts did nothing for jobs but give Obama a big thumbs up in the 'created or saved' category in his money and job loser legislation, that is cognitive dissonance. Neither one can be proved. It's a name for talking out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe it should be called the hoski syndrome.

Hoski quote: 'I must agree with you on one point though…the price of gas.
I could remind you of the capitalist model where refineries, drillers, and transportation companies are encouraged to make a buck too, but I won’t.
I don’t know why Obama doesn’t just declare the price of gas to be $1 or $2 a gallon and be done with it.'

Capitalism is not responsible for the Obama reelection signs at the gas stations. Did capitalism shot down all those refineries we used to have in this country? Is Capitalism responsible for all the lawsuits tying oil companies hands for years, delaying new oil in the market? Nope. Democrats are. All those leftwing environmental goons are doing it to cause the price to go up. Of course there are the transportation costs that add into it as well, caused by the same people. When energy costs go up we are all affected by it. But you probably knew all of this and chose to short cut it and just blame capitalism. Cognitive dissonance made you do it. Maybe the King will declare it $2 a gallon, he has already declared DOMA unconstitutional, something else he has no power to do. You keep voting with your imagination, you might get that pink unicorn under your non-specific holiday tree this year!

phlyzor,
The emotional outbursts don't bother me a whit, it just proves my point that to this point, the GOP candidates are playing to the Roman Coliseum.
You seem a tad miffed that the grand ol party has produced a bunch of weak candidates...and it's true that they have, but it's not my fault.
Listen, in all honesty with the shape the economy is in, in any other presidential election year the incumbent would be a goner for sure...but as I have pointed out, to this point the opposition candidates are weak, and as I see it, it's Obama's election to lose.

If buffet and gates (Intentional small case) want to pay more taxes I am willing to let them, I pay what the Army Jag Corps say I have to pay and that is enough (They prepare my returns) I dont care to pay more than I have too.

phlyzor,
If your goal is to see Obama verbally knee capped at a debate, then I'd say you're setting your mark just a little low. Verbally insulting a guy on national TV doesn't necessarily win the office of President. Plus I think you're dismissing the possibility that Obama just might be a pretty good debater himself, after all, he does have some accomplishments to his credit... like NOT exporting 800K jobs per month, unemployment trending down, fewer Govt jobs, 60% increase in the stock market, GM profitable again, elimination of Bin Laden, Somali pirate victims rescue, zero troops on Iraqi soil, Qadaffi isn't a pest any more, successfully denied Palestine from petitioning the UN for statehood, (which many of the world's leaders describe as brilliant) and more that I'm sure I've forgotten to mention.
Thanks for pointing out how the British are screwing up...that certainly explains why we're paying too much compared to the rest of the world.
BTW, have you considered adding the cost of our military operations "protecting" the flow of oil into our price paid at the pump? Didn't think so.

Britain is a nice example of why overtaxing the rich wont work. When they tried it the rich packed up their money and their bags and left for more reasonable shores. Thats exactly what will happen in the US. The rich can afford to leave and will. and who will they go after then? Tax the Rich, feed the POOR, till there are no rich no more. ten years after.

from Hoski wrote 19 hours 53 min ago

well there is that editor of the Harvard law review thing. generally speaking, not just any bozo can claim that title.

Obama claimed it for about 6 whole months.

You made my point.

Hoski,

Your definition of redistribution of wealth is weak to say the least. Money changing hands for goods and services is not redistribution of wealth. The government taking 30% of someone’s income by force and giving it to someone else is redistribution of wealth. No one in this country is forced to buy a good or service…with the new exception of health care thanks to that is. But you are forced to pay taxes under the penalty of law.

Your understanding of tax rates verses tax revenue is even weaker.

You say: “President Eisenhower, a Republican, presided over an administration where the tax rate, after all possible deductions, was 52%...did it break the nation? Did it drive the wealthy to bank in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands?”
First of all the top marginal rate under Eisenhower was 91% not 52% and they must have done something with their money because the top revenue collected during that time was only 18% which is the same amount collected under Regan after he dropped the rate to 28%. As I said before if you had been paying attention…you can’t just look at rates you have to also look at revenues. I know you lefty’s like to tell the part of the story that fits your agenda and leave the rest out, but come on. Even the lefts beloved JFK cut taxes and we were better for it. You could raise the top tax rate all the way up to 91% again but you won’t collect anymore revenue. People will simply change their investments from corporate bonds to municipal bonds. Keep in mind that at lower tax rates people are less willing to risk an audit, fines and jail time when filing their taxes…raise the rate above that threshold and people will do what they feel is necessary to hold on to their money.

What are investors waiting for? They are waiting to see if taxes will go up. They are waiting to see just how Obama care affects the economy and their business. They are waiting for interest rates to go up. They are waiting for the markets to clear. They are waiting for the government to cut spending. They are waiting to see how high inflation will rise. Why on earth would anyone risk their money with so much uncertainty?

So half the country is poor huh? I knew we had some people living below the poverty line here but I didn’t realize it was half the country. So my neighbor who pays nothing in federal taxes is poor? I didn’t realize you could own a house, 2 cars, 2 atvs, a nice bass boat and still be considered poor. Where do I sign up for that program?

A couple with 4 kids (at least 2 in daycare) under 16, with itemized deductions of 20,000, can make $80,000 without paying tax.

80,000-20,000-(3,650x6)=38,100

The tax on that is 4,881. Credits of $5,200 (4,000 child tax credit & 1,200 dependent care credit) wipes out the whole tax.

I suppose next you’ll tell me that a household making 80k a year is poor right?

Hoski,

Please. No one spews more liberal garbage talking points than you and Rat. In fact I doubt you’ve ever had an original thought. Watch some more MSNBC and keep listening to MPR you seem to soak it up like a sponge. Most of the time I can’t distinguish your words from what Ed Schultz says.

Ignore facts about revenue and concentrate on rates and then tell us all how smart you are. It’s become obvious to me why you spent your career working for someone else. Keep spewing the evil rich rhetoric. You liberal socialists are all the same with the same old tired message…I don’t need to explain a thing that you can’t twist into liberal propaganda. So since I think our tax system is unfair because I have to pay more because I did the right things in life and worked harder than my neighbor who pays nothing, you call me a whiner? You’re an idiot if you believe the American dream is to do well in life so you can give more of your money away to the government. The more I give them the more they spend…I suppose next you’ll tell me I should shut up and be happy about that too huh? Pay taxes or go to jail. Only a complete moron would call that a choice.

Yes, Federal tax dollars go to national defense and I don’t have a problem with that. I also don’t have a problem with police, fire, or roads. Those are the reasons we have a government. But what about all the other services my tax dollars go to that I don’t use, need, or want? The people using these services are the ones paying nothing. So to sum it up the people using the most government services are paying nothing and the people using the least amount of government are paying the most. Only an idiot would think that’s a good thing. Oh but you’ll bring up the plight of the poor who can’t take care of themselves and tell me I should be ashamed of myself because they are helpless and it’s our job to take care of them. I’ll tell you right now it’s not my job. It’s my job to take care of myself and my family. It is my responsibility to not intentionally do harm to another person beyond that they are on their own just like me. I have struggled through life just like everyone else and trust me I know all too well what it is to be poor, yet I have never looked to the government to take care of me nor have I ever wanted them to. I have what I have today because I worked for it, not because someone else gave it to me.

Liberals would have us believe that government is the answer to everything. According to them we would have nothing if not for the government. Instead of talking about success they focus on sacrifice. Instead of promoting self-reliance they focus on safety nets. Instead of letting the free market work they promote regulations that stifle production and jobs. Instead of utilizing our natural recourses they promote conservation and more sacrifice. And when their philosophy is challenged they tell us to stop whining, shut up and go away. Nice try, but I will speak my mind whenever I please, if you don’t like that’s your problem and I could care less.

Yes I would like to decide where my tax dollars go. In fact the fairest system would be to pay for the amount of government that you use. We could start with the services that benefit everyone like National defense, police, fire and roads and call that the base tax that everyone pays for. From there the amount you pay would be based on the amount of government services you use. The more you use the more you pay…the less you use the less you pay. For example, when I sign up for phone service I am only expected to pay for the services I elect to use. I am not expected to pay for services I don’t receive. Why should a government service be provided to some for free at the expense of others who don’t benefit from the service? Liberals not only tell us that we have to pay for Government services we don’t need or use they tell us that we should pay even more for them. They call this “shared sacrifice” I call it theft. You want more taxes? Then collect them from everybody. If the rich are expected to pay 30% the poor should pay something even if it’s only 1%. Don’t even try to tell me that it’s okay you can afford to pay more and then tell someone else it’s okay you don’t have to pay anything. 47% of the population should not be getting a free ride. If everybody had to pay something there would be public outrage every time the government tried to raise our taxes.

Like Margret Thatcher once said; “socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money”.

Ah yes, once again the ol' sage of the southwest shuffles on down to the library to access the internet because being the staunch GOP type that he is, He's to cheap to get access at his residence...so what does he do??? Why head on down to use the publicly funded access point of course!

Why not? Obama verbally insulted lots of voters. He blames well to do successful folks for not supporting his big govt programs enough. He insulted small town Pennsylvania christians, as gun tottin, church gone folks. he sends his supporters out creating racial remarks, and other divisive attacks firing up is liberal base, and when asked to make a public statement about curtailing the divisive attacks he says nothing. Obama will ONLY debate well IF the liberal media MC's the debate, and asked the questions. That is the ONLY WAY. You can NOT ask the hardball questions regarding ALL this administration's failures, and have Obama not get slaughtered in a debate.

Taking from successful folks and giving to other less successful folks via the govt trickle down at the expense of the economy is exactly what Obama told Joe the Plumber was his top priority. When joe asked, "How can I make a profit?"..Obama said that was not his concern...taking from joe and redistributing Joe's money was his concern...and that's a fact.

Rat,

Are you referring to the 2 month tax holiday Obama championed?

I am surprised you’re not upset that they are taking money away from your beloved Social Security program. Why would you be happy about a tax cut? You libs love taxes and according to Hoski you enjoy paying them. Or wait, maybe you just enjoy it when other people pay them…

On taxes...the fact that SS is screaming for more money should tell you something..That should be a lesson about big government, never give them a source of revenue or they will spend it without consideration of future obligations.
Income tax was passed to replace the tax on alcohol for prohibition, it was 1% of the first few thousand in earnings.
Now the tax on alcohol is back, income tax is 35% on unlimited earnings, SS tax is 14 times what income tax was then, Medicare tax is multiples, and the libs are crying for a new fix, even though they have already obligated our grandchildren for their addiction..

NO, incredible ignorance regarding Econ 101 and the debt. When you shrink the real economy, and tax receipts dramatically decline, and that always happens under socialist governance like what is going on in Europe, the debt rises dramatically. Bush cut taxes, and unemployment dropped to 4.5%. That produces tax receipts. Obama? 6 trillion dollars of debt created in but 3 yrs. of office. We now are 15 trillion in debt...a 40% increase by my calculations. What do you get?

Ain't about raising funds. Funds get raised when capitalist governance expands the economy. Funds get shrunk when Obama socialism governs the economy. Get it? It will happen every time...Every time! Raising taxes just drives more jobs out of the country, and jobs disappear like an enormous amount of jobs have disappeared. Must be a cold Winter in Montana. It has frozen your brain.

Write all the stuff you want, the fact is you libs worked hard to exempt nearly half of the folks from paying fed. taxes. Then here is where you really showed your true colors. When GW Bush successfully created a tax cut that spurred job growth, and expanded the economy, he did it, not by spending tax payer money like you libs have unsuccessfully done under Obama, but by returning 10% of the taxes paid by ANYONE that paid in federal taxes. The notion was, those that paid in would re-invest it, and guess what? THEY DID!!!!!! Now here comes backcast with his two sense worth. " You can't give taxes back to just a few! You have to give them back to all the people that worked! Funny thing, those you exempted didn't pay in any, but yet you demanded they get a tax rebate!!! Can you call backcast a socialist?...sure can.