Wash. Times repeats McCain campaign's false assertion that Obama "oppos[es] ... tax cuts for small businesses."
SUMMARY: The Washington Times uncritically repeated the McCain campaign's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama "oppos[es] ... tax cuts for small businesses." In fact, Obama supports tax cuts for small businesses, including "eliminat[ing] capital gains taxes for small businesses" and "provid[ing] a refundable credit of up to 50 percent on [health care] premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees."
In an August 19 Washington Times article, reporter S.A. Miller uncritically repeated the McCain campaign's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama "oppos[es] ... tax cuts for small businesses." In fact, Obama supports tax cuts for small businesses.
According to his website, Obama proposes to "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses." Obama has also proposed a Small Business Health Tax Credit that "will provide a refundable credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees," as well as a rural small business initiative that would "provide a 20 percent tax credit on up to $50,000 of investment in small owner-operated businesses."
Obama's website also states: "Obama will also support small business owners by providing a $500 'Making Work Pay' tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation."
From the August 19 Washington Times article:
The McCain campaign said it had a strong volunteer organization and was "working for every vote" in Georgia. It also said it was confident the state would remain in the Republican column, especially once voters learn of Mr. Obama's liberal views, including his opposition to offshore oil drilling and tax cuts for small businesses.
If that's the case, then why do you right-wingers always make such a big deal out of them? If it's money you wouldn't have had anyway (since you just pass it on) then why should your CEO's and Board's care about them? Why not have a well-funded, functioning gov't as a nice side effect of commerce? (Maybe because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about?)
Don't make it so easy 'wuss. That will be McCain's undoing as well.
Businesses don't pay taxes because the customer/consumer picks up the tabs.
Why do you think the price of gas is so expensive and oil companies are having a difficult time maintaining a profit margin that yields in a positive outcome?
If we eliminated corporate taxes that customers/consumers pay (like the FairTax will), prices will drop.
If we eliminated corporate taxes that customers/consumers pay (like the FairTax will), prices will drop.
If you truly believe that, Wuss, I know a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing. Prices will reamin high, consumers will get hit with a double-whammy and the corporations will reap even more obscene profits.
And how many of those corporations have execs who donate money to liberal and Democrat candidates, the people you want to vote for?
Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.
Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.
Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money." Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.
"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/30/2008-06-30_barack_obama_has_collected_nearly_twice_-2.html
Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities.
Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.
Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.
On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%
The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere.
Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Then there is the spending side of the ledger. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.
His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers."
Currently existing tax credits would also become spending programs in the Obama tax program. The Savers Credit would be made fully refundable, and would be expanded, according to the campaign, "to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000." The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses."
The Earned Income Tax Credit is already refundable. Mr. Obama would expand it to "increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to noncustodial parents who fulfill their child support obligations, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families." In short, welfare spending is to be increased by paying more money out to low-income income tax filers.
The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.
Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.
Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate's tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits
Wow. That's a lot of writing with no reference to small business at all. How long did it take to you write something like that just to avoid the issue?
Hey, Barney, is MGarnett another of your sockpuppets ? Or a completely different long-winded plagiarist being suckered by conservative diggs ?
Awww, Col., you sprung my trap too soon.
Actually, the piece was originally published on Wall Street Journal Online.
And I give Barn more credit. At least he attempts to defend his inanity once in awhile. I don't think this "Garnet" simpleton has mounted a defense to ANY of his comments.
Okay, pay attention. I'm going to show you how to do this the right way. The INTELLIGENT way...
I never said nor implied that the WSJ was a "FAR RIGHT WING crap". However, the author of that opinion article (to whom you neglected to give any attribute nor identity, making you a plagiarist) does have a history which anyone can learn about here. I urge everyone to read about this Jack Abrahamoff mouthpiece and come to their own conclusions regarding his intent and the amount of "FAR RIGHT WING crap" contained within HIS column.
Secondly, your original "comment" (or plagiarism, whichever you prefer) had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this MMfA article. That, and your overwhelming misuse and mispelling of words, have convinced me that your head is best used to keep your neck from leaking. Just my opinion.
See how easy it is? A few facts, a little logic, and BOOM - you've got yourself a coherent comment. You might give it a try some time.
Way to cut and paste! And you did it all without actually referencing what you cut and pasted, and noted what your source was, instead, pasting it as if it was your own. Of course, we all knew that it wasn't even close to what you might call your own.
How many times can one person be discredited? This is a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. And the opinion page at the WSJ is more right wing that FoxNews.
Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Supply-side economics is a joke.
But really jackasses, like Garnett, don't see the benefit we all receive from our tax investments in our physical and intellectual infrastructure. All they see is the cost to their bottom line. They love their ruling elite and will fight to force a caste system in the U.S. by constraining the rest of to making of ourselves only that which we can afford to become. They will destroy our individual freedom to choose our own paths by denying equal access to everything from education to healthcare. It's pay to play, profit over people.
Is WalMart selling a Sean Hannity brain chip now? Because yours has a glitch. I'm sure there's a warranty.
They also sell the Rush Limbo chip.
WalMart had those chips made in China. They've found chromium and cadmium, but their not harmful to cats or dogs, so he should be OK. :->
Pearlene, I'd recommend against putting the Rush chip into your dog or cat. Sure, it's a cheap alternative to spaying or neutering,but if the pet gets hold of some Viagra, it's going after the puppies and kittens.
Besides, why do you want to make your pets louder and stupider?
Currently 1.5 Trillion in offshore tax shelters and climbing. No doubt helping to prop up democracy where ever it might be lying, currently.
Gag..sarcasm arf.
Being unfamiliar with the source of tour data, I looked by Michael J Boslin on Wikipedia. This is the very first sentence I read:
Michael Jay Boskin is the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
That tells me all I need to know. The Hoover Institution is so far right-leaning it's a miracle its buildings don't fall over. This is the same place tha't the home of the touroughly worthless Thomas Sowell, and anything they put out is nothing more that pure right-wing crap.
Unless you can provide imformation from a less biases source, we will all operate under the basic premise that like Boskin and his ilk, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
NoLeft,
After a while you realize that 80% of the posts from those on the left have nothing remotely to do with the subject at hand. Most are juvenile insults aimed at those who express a different opinion or atta-boys by doppelgangers after those juvenile insults.
Hey, Barney, give us some credit. That 20% of the time that we spend trying to educate you and the rest of your gaggle (without much success, I might add) takes a lot out of us. All work and no play, as they say... Oh, see? There I go again.
McCain was against the tax cut before he was for it.
There. Fixed.
Neon, Have you actually broken the posts down?
What percentage are from documented plagiarizers and liars whining about mild insults in response to their brain-dead echoing of conservative talking points?
How about requests from conservative posters to have the basic premise of the MMFA item explained to them in terms a 2 year old could understand, and how many are from posters still confused after it's dumbed down that far?
What percentage are dittoheads mistakenly thinking that having their arguments exposed as BS is intolerance of opposing opinions?
What percentage are from wingnuts who are so delusional, hypocritical and lacking in self-awareness, that after a couple of years of constantly making clowns of themselves, they still post condescending, insulting comments to other wingnuts about the liberal posters who, way too generously, generally treat said wingnut with respect?
And out of all of those, how many are from ANutterAmerican? I'd guess about 93%.
But the source compiles its information from what Obama has said.
And twists them to fit his agenda. I wouldn't trust that liar as far as I could throw him. And since I'm disabled, I can't throw him very far......
The source is BOH !
ROFL, the lies come from you, not me...
These are figures PROVIDED by BHO but you will NOT even look at the numbers, just the try for once, to address the numbers.
One thing you'll NEVER get here is somebody addressing the facts and making an argument.
As you did in this post, right? Oh, wait, in your posts there was nothing but attacks, which you say are the last resort of idiots who have nothing of substance to offer.
So you did it again. Do you never tire of displaying nothing but abject hypocrisy?
The figures may have come from Obama, but that scumbag from Stamford cooked them to advance his right-wing agenda. If you really want the truth about Obama's positions on taxes, you need to go to an impartial source. Like this:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html
And here's more I found at FactCheck.org that shows how McCain lies about Obama's position on taxing small business:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
ALL OF THE POSTS HERE TELL YOU THAT IF YOU THINK IT'S BAD NOW, and it is... Bush bites had hurt the US in so many ways and so does the DEM Congress... WAIT TIIL WE GET THE ABOVE !!!
You just think unemployment is BAD now, all projections are it will get MUCH worse under BHO
Bush bites had hurt the US in so many ways and so does the DEM Congress...
LOL
YOU'VE somehow CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN that REPUBLICANS HAD TOTAL CONTROL OF CONGRESS FOR 6 OF THE LAST 8 YEARS!
BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS HURT THE US!
Continue to play the "class envy" and we'll have ZERO jobs and growth. POOR PEOPLE do not create jobs, RICH DO...
TAX THEM ALL YOU SAY, till we have no rich, make them all pay and bleed and SUFFER, the EVIL rich of America, make them pay...
ROFL, we will be the ones that pay in the end, with ZERO GROWTH and no jobs...
The rich will simply keep the money hidden and not invest and still remain rich...
I agree with MGarnett. Rich people are better than poor people, because they're rich (obviously!) and they worked hard to get their money. They are the ones who built America, and they shouldn't have to pay any more taxes, because they are struggling to make ends meet as is! (I just had to sell one of my private jets)
Poor people should be the ones who pay most of the taxes, because they are the freeloaders who benefit from the government welfare programs! Rich people don't need government handouts or any other government programs, so why should we pay taxes? Too many poor people are living their lives in luxury, with their government-subsidized designer health care programs and their food stamps (that I paid for!!), how dare they?!?
Hear! Hear!
SCREW those poor people living off the backs of the rich who provide their jobs, build their homes, administer their medicine, and write their insurance policies. Always suckling off the government's teat, the poor are basically being a burden on the rich, those who actually PRODUCE something and make this country great. Send 'em all back to Mexico, and get them out of North America where we're (for the most part) STILL self-reliant.
Neon,
When you get a minute please define what you mean by poor and rich.
thanks
Well, I'm kind of busy right now, but here goes:
The rich are those who create jobs, work harder than anyone else, and are taxed too much.
The poor are those who envy and leech off the rich and rely on government to redistribute wealth to themselves.
Pretty much the same definitions that McGarnet-5-oh was using.
WTF is "proff?"
I guess that proves that you can only cut and paste, because when you use your own words, you're quite illiterate.
MG did a pretty good imression of a reasonable poster with the first cut & paste. Then the hysterical CAPS and ranting came out.
I will give the rich some credit . Look at the two longest posts here. A lot of busy work, done for free, by a couple of ( probably not rich) suckers hoping for some crumbs from their heroes. Talk about Class Envy, this stuff is beyond envy to worship.
Chumps.
The real chump is someone who is waiting for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or some other politician OR the benevolent big government to provide them with all their needs. A job, food, healthcare, a mortgage, student loans, etc.
Oh..that would be YOU
Another insult? You really must have nothing of substance to offer.
Keep on proving it.
I own my own small business, I can do this if I choose.
You however, are prob home on welfare and waiting for you gov handout.
I own my own small business, I can do this if I choose.
No way to check this claim out, of course, we're just supposed to believe it like we're supposed to believe you ignorant cutting and pasting.
You are aware of the logical fallacy called "arguing from authority," aren't you? It's the only debating tactic the right wing ever uses, except the classics "I'm rubber, you're glue," and "I know you are, but what am I?"
The only legacy of the Bush administration will be a brush-free Crawford pig farm when it's sold and the poseurs get the hell out of Podunk, Texas.
I believe MGarnet. I think he sells his own original "Huked on Fonics" door to door, which could be classified as a small business.
really small...
*snort*
You lose.
You however, are prob home on welfare and waiting for you gov handout.
NO WAY! You are sooo wrong, I have automatic deposit so I don't have to stay at home!
Cruising the Sun City buffets on your Harley for guys, eh? And at my expense...
Disgusting.
:-)
The far left in America have been waiting for the communist goals to be achieved. The class envy, the dumbing-down of the nation, the feeling of ENTITLEMENT...
Can you guys imagine the folks that settled the wild west in America saying... it's hard out here, death, no water, indians... Where in the gov, where is our give-away ?
These folks make me ill, wanting everything that everyone else has, but not willing to EARN any of it.
"Can you guys imagine the folks that settled the wild west in America saying... it's hard out here, death, no water, indians... Where in the gov, where is our give-away ?" MGARNET
Who do you think provided the land and then also killed off all those "pesky" indians?
Again with the put downs, the name calling.
Do you guys do that because you can't stand on your points or answer our questions ?
Let me try again:
1) Why the class envy ?
2) Why should I pay for YOUR needs ?
3) America was NOT founded, nor build this way. People would help each other out on the local level, small towns worked to help, but the GOV did not provide for all our needs, why should we change what build this great nation?
Let's see if they try to answer or just call me a name...
Again with the put downs, the name calling.
The defense against slander is that the claims are true.
You offer nothing but cut-and-paste from your intellectual betters, who are so wrong it causes a sane person to feel nothing but pity for you.
before you ask anyone to defend "class envy," you must prove that it is evident in their posts. You haven't done that, therefore there is no reason to respond to hypotheticals. The frame you are trying to put around the question was devoured by termites years ago, and you have nothing left but sawdust, and you insist that it is fine mahogany.
Take your delusons elsewhere, you have asked nothing worth answering.
Let me clarify some points WingNut.
I believe and have the opinion that most democrates are great, hard working, patriotic Americans, as good as me if not better in some ways. The working class in American has bee, for the most part, the blue collar Democrates. Union members that work hard and raise family with values and pride.
I believe the "new progressive" Dems are socilists and want the gov to do all for everyone. They want "equal results" for unequal efforts. Tax the rich, make the evil rich pay for everthing. Blame America for ALL of the worlds ills.
I feel, aagain just an opinion, that the proof of the differences could be "seen" by all that looked in the floods that happened this year in the mid-west and the Katrina aftermath.
In Katrina all the folks could do was blame the gov, blame Bush, blame this, blame that, and wait for "sombody else" to fix the problems with handouts, housing, food, everything... while they did nothing but complaine.
The direct opposite happened in the flodded towns in Iowa and elswhere, entire towns maned sand bag lines, they did not ask for the gov, nor blame anyone for the levies, they stood there, in the rain, men, women, black, white, young, old filling bags... A entire community of ALL races working as a team to do for themselves. The flooding caused more damage then Katrina, more destruction of homes, and more deaths, but we did not see shooting at rescue choppers, the angry cries of blaming Bush. We saw real America, working together, finding common ground. Real old time Dems with Repubs along side. Not whinning "welfare rejects" sitting on the ground in a stadium wainting for yet yers more hand outs.
Until you can demonstrate that you understand the differences between New Orleans and Iowa, your opinion on that topic will be officially known as this:
"wainting for yet yers more hand outs."
Sorry my spelling is horrid.
The diff is simple to me, one group of people of ALL races and political parties, has an very clear understanding of working hard for what they have and self-reliance, taking care of each other without the need for the feds.
The other group, has been handed some of what they have and do not have the same work etihic as the folks in Iowa.
If you're sincere about developing your own well-informed opinion about the topic rather than using limpaugh talking points to further the standard con line, then do some research, and understand the differences in scope of the two disasters. The immediacy of each disaster, the population density involved, the damage done to each area, escape routes, etc. You might also do a little research on how much private New Orleans residents really DID contribute.
Right now, you're going on nothing more than the limpaugh "flood vs. flood"-level comparison. I have no respect for that level of analysis.
Iowa - 52.4 people per square mile.
New Orleans - 2,684.3 per square mile.
The manner in which you are comparing the floods is RACIST. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do you hate Americans so much?
Why do you hate Americans so much?
Looks like Garnett doesn't hate ALL Americans - just the darker ones.....
Fog,
As usual your analysis is off. For one thing, Nobody claimed that all of Iowa was flooded. So your comparison of population densities between the State of Iowa and the City of New Orleans makes no sense.
The second reason is that the number of people per square mile inhabiting either place is immaterial to the argument at hand.
Even if there is a connection, what are you trying to prove?
I suppose you're in that group of people that always ask why didn't the folks from NO just get away from the hurricane when it was coming in?
It's funny that you don't understand the fundamental differences of what happend in New Orleans, and what happened in Iowa. The differences are vast, and incredibly different from one another.
but the GOV did not provide for all our needs
Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States?
I didn't think so.
So you're OK with the following then:
1. Your house burns down, or catches fire, you put it out yourself, with help from your neighbors, because the fire department is a government entity.
2. You drive home from work, and the roads are wrecked. You get out there at night, and on weekends to help patch the roads, because the government pays for that as well.
3. You provide your own electricity. Again, government provided. We saw what happened when the "free market" put out electricy didn't we? Enron.
4. You provide your own water, again, water being controlled by the local governments, unless of course you have your own well, then discard this point.
5. Trash collection.
6. FAA
7. FCC
8. Military forces and protection.
You guys are all nuts about the government leaving you alone, but without the government, our infrastructure would crumble in short order. You spoke before about employment being down. Who has been in charge for almost 9 years? Yes, republicans. When did the biggest economic up turn take place? When a liberal was running things (hint, the answer is Clinton). If we go back in time, we had Reagan, George HW Bush, and we had bad times economically. Clinton comes in, and we hit pay dirt. He leaves, downturn it goes. I think we can expect that Obama will fix things. Maybe not in the short turn, but by the time he gets done his second term, things will be MUCH better.
How do you think things will be better after 8 years of BHO ?
To address your points:
1) Volunteer Dept in Fredon NJ. We give our time and money not gov fro protection and equipt.
2) $14,233.00 in Propt Tax this year for NO city services, I'm sure the schools and roads can be done with that, did I pay enough ?
3) GOV does not provide my elect., my bill way 307.00 this month to JCP&L...
4) Is well water...
Why bother... the FCC ? rofl, to provide me more anti-American garbage like Charlie Rose on PBS ?
1. You don't believe that the fire department gets money from the government? That they're self funded? That's cute and adorable of you to think that way.
2. You paid that much in property tax and didn't get anything you said? Nobody hauled your trash away? Or did you take it to a city dump? I assume that you drive a car. How do you think the roads got paid for? Do you like schools in your area? Even if you don't have kids? Those got paid for by your taxes as well. Police? Taxes hard at work. To say you didn't get anything is laughable, and wrong, unless you live on some self sufficient militia type compound, which again, at the very least, you use roads. You have to take your trash somewhere. Police. Fire. Sherrifs. Electrical transfer lines. Electricity in general. Most, if not all of those things are provided by, and or licensed through the government.
You guys yap about self sufficiency, but when it boils all down. We need the government, and the important things that they provide. I noticed you didn't answer the military question, as in, how do you think those things get paid for? Interstates. Army. Navy. Air Force. Marines. If you fly anywhere, it's pretty nice to have the FAA around. How about drugs? The FDA does a pretty good job of things. Like your cable TV? Thank NASA for that.
$14,233.00 in Propt Tax this year (MGarnett)
M, Judging by your posts ( and that's all I have to go on), I'd guess you have about a 6th grade education (based on spelling and grammar).
The critical thinking skills you've displayed here show that you're not really one to take the initiative and come up with your own thoughts.
That's proven even more by the fact that your first post was entirely plagiarized.
To review; you're not very bright,you're dishonest, and you're lazy. If you grossed 14k last year, you were blessed.In a real meritocracy, you wouldn't be capable of earning a fraction of that.
Please, no more crying about the insults. These aren't opinions, they're objective facts, exhibited right in this comment thread. If the truth insults you, don't blame others.
If you paid 14k in property taxes, you have some aort of angel looking over you.
2) Why should I pay for YOUR needs ?
They're not our needs, they're the needs of the poor. I thought the right-wing Christianists knew the words of the One whose name is on their religion. He said a lot more about helping the poor than He did about drilling for oil.
Also, paying for others benefits the entire country. The educated child doesn't grow up to be a thug who hits you rich folks on the head and steals your money. They also contribute to the advancement of the nation as a whole, as opposed to the right, who wants to advance the nation as a hole.
What are the classes you are talking about?
The top 2% ecomonically have recieved the benifits of the economic miracle of the past 7.7 years. The economic unequality in this counrty was only matched in the 1930's.
If your in a red state, except Texas, you recieve more in federal tax revenues than you contribute.
Government providing all needs is a strawman. If your local Gov is abusing you. The first recourse is to go to a higher level of government for help. If that higher level of government is toothless then your local level of government will continue to abuse you.
If you'd paint your arguments with a finer brush, it would be helpful.
The top 2% pay for 70% of the rest. Is that enough yet ?
What number is enough ?
Should the top 2% pay it all ?
Give us your number, when is enough enough ?
Peebs,
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Right?
Your whole worldview is premised on the myth of a free market. You are fundamentally flawed.
Plagiarism.
"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or homes sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need..." Acts4:32-36
Mary,
Respectfully, do you live in a commune?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Right?
No one here is advocating a classeless society where everyone is forced to live only according to their needs. No one here is advocating the abolition of capitalism, either.
That's the right wing boogeyman at work. The assumption that every wealthy person earned their money through hard work is a myth. Those who did work hard had a LOT of help along the way via government services. And the idea that poor people are lazy is just a myth also. Yep, some are, some are physically or mentally handicapped, but most work hard at 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. They pay social security taxes for all those hard earned wages, a very regressive tax.
Tax structure can either lift up all boats or keep oligarchs in power and the rest too poor or stressed to get ahead.
Mary,
You are arguing for equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity.
Peebs,
Speaking of civics... I took the quote from Marx, not Lenin.
Say, isn't that a little egg on your face? ;-)
more destruction of homes, and more deaths
THAN KATRINA???? Where in hell did you get these "facts"? That post is completely free of factual content. Oh, I know, you got the email that was sent around by the geniuses who rewrote the blizzard/hurricane comparison. Good job absorbing baseless crap. Snopes.com. Use it.