[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
And here’s Alan Keyes talking about his good buddy Obama
Alan Keys comments on this administrations bail out bill and abortion stance. - YouTube [/quote]
Why does Keyes keep looking left? I’m being semi-serious, I know that when I’m telling the truth I look to the right, when I’m trying to fabricate a story I look to the left.
I always find these body language ticks distracting
[quote]johnconkle wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
And here’s Alan Keyes talking about his good buddy Obama
Why does Keyes keep looking left? I’m being semi-serious, I know that when I’m telling the truth I look to the right, when I’m trying to fabricate a story I look to the left.
I always find these body language ticks distracting[/quote]
Because the guy asking the questions is standing to his left?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Like all good pseudo conservatives, he is going to show it by screwing the most economically disadvantaged of his population. I am glad some one is taking care of the wealthy.[/quote]
I know much of the poor and most aren’t worth a damn. We have to get away from the evil rich guy honest poor guy thing.
I treat welfare cases and most are lazy and stupid to be blunt. There is a reason they are poor.
My family was upper lower class in income when I was growing up. I went to college, paid my loans back and had a great life so far. Because I didn’t do stupid shit to get in my way and I’m smart.
How do you screw people who take without putting in, producing, or paying taxes? why should they get a break as opposed to a guy who is increasing the standard of living for others, such as a business owner? You know those rich guys who hire people and often invent stuff that raises the value of their publicly traded stock that we buy and get more money.
When is the last time a guy sleeping under a bridge smelling of cheap wine ever hired someone for a job?
how is letting one keep more of their money taking care of the rich?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
how is letting one keep more of their money taking care of the rich?[/quote]
The crux of the argument is that. I get so angry with giving a tax cut, like the government owns our money. I would vote in a heartbeat for a guy who says I will take less of your money and explain that we are not serfs but free people who deserve the fruits of our labors.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how is letting one keep more of their money taking care of the rich?
The crux of the argument is that. I get so angry with giving a tax cut, like the government owns our money. I would vote in a heartbeat for a guy who says I will take less of your money and explain that we are not serfs but free people who deserve the fruits of our labors.
[/quote]
May be the answer is do away with all taxes except income tax. And pay for everything from that tax. And do a flat tax on income. No other taxes
[quote]tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Like all good pseudo conservatives, he is going to show it by screwing the most economically disadvantaged of his population. I am glad some one is taking care of the wealthy.
I know much of the poor and most aren’t worth a damn. We have to get away from the evil rich guy honest poor guy thing.
I treat welfare cases and most are lazy and stupid to be blunt. There is a reason they are poor.
My family was upper lower class in income when I was growing up. I went to college, paid my loans back and had a great life so far. Because I didn’t do stupid shit to get in my way and I’m smart.
How do you screw people who take without putting in, producing, or paying taxes? why should they get a break as opposed to a guy who is increasing the standard of living for others, such as a business owner?
You know those rich guys who hire people and often invent stuff that raises the value of their publicly traded stock that we buy and get more money.
When is the last time a guy sleeping under a bridge smelling of cheap wine ever hired someone for a job?
[/quote]
I do not necessarily want the rich guy to pay for the poor guy, but I live in the real world where the banks charge fees for bounced checks that can equal hundreds of dollars for one mistake, they change a credit contract right in the middle of the agreement, If the poor customer is not aware of the fine print and the customer wants cash, that can be charged at a different rate than any other use of the card. Does that sound like fair treatment of the non wealthy?
How do you screw people who take without putting in, producing, or paying taxes? Why should they get a break as opposed to a guy who is increasing the standard of living for others, such as a business owner?
You know those rich guys who hire people and often invent stuff that raises the value of their publicly traded stock that we buy and get more money.
This statement is not very realistic, there are a lot of poor that contribute and pay taxes, just as there are a lot of rich that do not contribute and pay taxes
I have to give you credit , you seem to be into a discussion that is about what is really happening as opposed how do I sound like I am totally right
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Like all good pseudo conservatives, he is going to show it by screwing the most economically disadvantaged of his population. I am glad some one is taking care of the wealthy.
I know much of the poor and most aren’t worth a damn. We have to get away from the evil rich guy honest poor guy thing.
I treat welfare cases and most are lazy and stupid to be blunt. There is a reason they are poor.
My family was upper lower class in income when I was growing up. I went to college, paid my loans back and had a great life so far. Because I didn’t do stupid shit to get in my way and I’m smart.
How do you screw people who take without putting in, producing, or paying taxes? why should they get a break as opposed to a guy who is increasing the standard of living for others, such as a business owner?
You know those rich guys who hire people and often invent stuff that raises the value of their publicly traded stock that we buy and get more money.
When is the last time a guy sleeping under a bridge smelling of cheap wine ever hired someone for a job?
I do not necessarily want the rich guy to pay for the poor guy, but I live in the real world where the banks charge fees for bounced checks that can equal hundreds of dollars for one mistake, they change a credit contract right in the middle of the agreement, If the poor customer is not aware of the fine print and the customer wants cash, that can be charged at a different rate than any other use of the card. Does that sound like fair treatment of the non wealthy?
How do you screw people who take without putting in, producing, or paying taxes? Why should they get a break as opposed to a guy who is increasing the standard of living for others, such as a business owner?
You know those rich guys who hire people and often invent stuff that raises the value of their publicly traded stock that we buy and get more money.
This statement is not very realistic, there are a lot of poor that contribute and pay taxes, just as there are a lot of rich that do not contribute and pay taxes
I have to give you credit , you seem to be into a discussion that is about what is really happening as opposed how do I sound like I am totally right
[/quote]
The so called rich pay the bulk of the taxes. The poor pay none. Right now there are 60% of people paying all of the taxes. If you are in the classification of poor and are working you get all your taxes back, along with the earned income tax credit which is money for nothing.
Taking more from the supposed rich takes away from investment capital, jobs and such. Poor people don’t hire people for jobs, own factories, or provide capital for investing in new businesses.
If you are in a lower income level and look into a budget, work your ass off and save money, you will soon not be poor. Have a kid out of wedlock, don’t try in school, waste time on drugs and drinking and you will hold yourself back.
I have upper middle class income and came from an upper lower class family. Back then you had poor working people. I was born a few years before Johnson’s war on poverty. the welfare state was no at near the level causing the tremendous drain that it now does.
My mom and dad worked and were fairly smart people. I tried in school, avoided drugs, drinking, and did not get anyone pregnant. Having a kid out of wedlock is the number one way you can say, " I think I want a poor miserable life, I wonder what I can do to achieve this goal."
Even though I’m doing well, I can still look back on decisoins I made that held me back. As soon as the alleged poor get that idea, that it is their fault through their actions, things will change.
Like that will ever happen.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
The so called rich pay the bulk of the taxes. The poor pay none. Right now there are 60% of people paying all of the taxes. If you are in the classification of poor and are working you get all your taxes back, along with the earned income tax credit which is money for nothing.
Taking more from the supposed rich takes away from investment capital, jobs and such. Poor people don’t hire people for jobs, own factories, or provide capital for investing in new businesses.
If you are in a lower income level and look into a budget, work your ass off and save money, you will soon not be poor. Have a kid out of wedlock, don’t try in school, waste time on drugs and drinking and you will hold yourself back.
I have upper middle class income and came from an upper lower class family. Back then you had poor working people. I was born a few years before Johnson’s war on poverty. the welfare state was no at near the level causing the tremendous drain that it now does.
My mom and dad worked and were fairly smart people. I tried in school, avoided drugs, drinking, and did not get anyone pregnant. Having a kid out of wedlock is the number one way you can say, " I think I want a poor miserable life, I wonder what I can do to achieve this goal."
Even though I’m doing well, I can still look back on decisoins I made that held me back. As soon as the alleged poor get that idea, that it is their fault through their actions, things will change.
Like that will ever happen.
[/quote]
I was born in the Eisenhower administration, I was born, middle class, in a steel town in Ohio. Everybody was middle class. You had some people that did well with their money and some that did not.
But most people had a job that would sustain life with out help from anyone. If you were to lose your job, you would probably get another one with little trouble. This was all accomplished with just the fathers working.
My mother was the first in the neighborhood to go to work at the local Hospital. By the late 60s and early 70s all the mothers were working. Life was very good.
Now both Moms and Dads are working and just barely getting by. The way I see it is that the wealth has already been transferred and if it gets much worse there will be some type of a revolt.The middle class no longer exsists. That is just my guess on the future of America.
Protip: Paying taxes isn’t contributing to society. Making money and investing that money thereby creating jobs and raising the standards of living IS.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
This statement is not very realistic, there are a lot of poor that contribute and pay taxes, just as there are a lot of rich that do not contribute and pay taxes
I have to give you credit , you seem to be into a discussion that is about what is really happening as opposed how do I sound like I am totally right
Protip: Paying taxes isn’t contributing to society. Making money and investing that money thereby creating jobs and raising the standards of living IS.[/quote]
Thanks
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I was born in the Eisenhower administration, I was born, middle class, in a steel town in Ohio. Everybody was middle class. You had some people that did well with their money and some that did not.
But most people had a job that would sustain life with out help from anyone. If you were to lose your job, you would probably get another one with little trouble. This was all accomplished with just the fathers working.
My mother was the first in the neighborhood to go to work at the local Hospital. By the late 60s and early 70s all the mothers were working. Life was very good.
Now both Moms and Dads are working and just barely getting by. The way I see it is that the wealth has already been transferred and if it gets much worse there will be some type of a revolt.The middle class no longer exsists. That is just my guess on the future of America.
[/quote]
LOL. Yeah, I remember as an undergraduate and an econ prof was arguing that “free time” or “time away from work” or somesuch had increased significantly in the US over the last 50 years. I ask if that took into account that women now are, and have to, work to support a family…it was like a damn lightbulb went on in this guys head.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I was born in the Eisenhower administration, I was born, middle class, in a steel town in Ohio. Everybody was middle class. You had some people that did well with their money and some that did not.
But most people had a job that would sustain life with out help from anyone. If you were to lose your job, you would probably get another one with little trouble. This was all accomplished with just the fathers working.
My mother was the first in the neighborhood to go to work at the local Hospital. By the late 60s and early 70s all the mothers were working. Life was very good.
Now both Moms and Dads are working and just barely getting by. The way I see it is that the wealth has already been transferred and if it gets much worse there will be some type of a revolt.The middle class no longer exsists. That is just my guess on the future of America.
LOL. Yeah, I remember as an undergraduate and an econ prof was arguing that “free time” or “time away from work” or somesuch had increased significantly in the US over the last 50 years. I ask if that took into account that women now are, and have to, work to support a family…it was like a damn lightbulb went on in this guys head.
[/quote]
I have seen studies (maybe one that came across several times over) that track hours worked by income bracket. Guess who works more hours? I’ll have to look for that one again.
I think the response should have went something like , ? I know that the Republicans have not been very good stewards of the public money during the Bush Administration, and when we get back in power, we will resume screwing the little guy. So in the mean time all we can do is piss and moan about how much money Obama is spending. I know we are offering nothing else except a tax cut for the wealthy, because we know how well it works when you increase spending and cut taxes
Didn’t we want an economy that expected women to work? In the past, in order to attract labor weren’t men paid basically a “family wage?” Something to take care of the kids and the stay at home mom? What happened to that when women jumped into into the labor supply pool at an increasingly increasing rate?
Did they offer their labor at cheaper rates to compete with men? Did simply having more people out of the house looking for work, in the supply of labor, have an effect on wages? Do employers assume that, “now that society is cool with mommy working too (and almost expects it, really), mommy and daddy both should work if they want a family wage”?
How’s an intact 2 income household today, compare to the old “Daddy goes to work and puts the food on the table” household of yesteryear?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Didn’t we want an economy that compelled women to work? In the past, in order to attract labor weren’t men paid basically a “family wage?” Something to take care of the kids and the stay at home mom? What happened to that when women begin to jump into into the labor supply pool at an increasingly increasing rate? Did they offer their labor at cheaper rates to compete with historically male positions? Did simply having more people out of the house looking for work, in the supply of labor, have an effect on wages? Do employers assume that, “now that society is cool with mommy working too (and almost expects it, really), mommy and daddy both should work if they want a family wage”?[/quote]
While respecting women?s rights you are correct
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Didn’t we want an economy that compelled women to work? In the past, in order to attract labor weren’t men paid basically a “family wage?” Something to take care of the kids and the stay at home mom? What happened to that when women begin to jump into into the labor supply pool at an increasingly increasing rate? Did they offer their labor at cheaper rates to compete with historically male positions? Did simply having more people out of the house looking for work, in the supply of labor, have an effect on wages? Do employers assume that, “now that society is cool with mommy working too (and almost expects it, really), mommy and daddy both should work if they want a family wage”?
While respecting women?s rights you are correct
[/quote]
Then we got what we wanted, no?