to Moderate Republicans
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3159) 9 years ago
well stated. Sad but true.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3245) 9 years ago
The following is from a David Brinkley article...says it all, I think..

If Obama wins re-election, his domestic agenda will be anchored around a guarantee to all Americans that civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, affordable health care, public education, clean air and water, and a woman's right to choose will be protected, no matter how poorly the economy performs. Obama has grappled with two of the last puzzle pieces of the Progressive agenda - health care and gay rights - with success. If he is re-elected in November and makes his health care program permanent, it will take root in the history books as a seminal achievement. If he loses, Romney and Ryan will crush his initiatives without remorse.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 9 years ago
Jeri this is fine and dandy, but who pays for it?
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 9 years ago
BARACK OBAMA'S LITTLE RED SOCIALIST HEN 2012

"Who will help me plant my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
..."Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself." She planted her crop and the wheat grew and ripened.
"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.
"Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share, but the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."
"Excess profits!" cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Harry Reid)
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
When the farmer (Obama) came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
Individual initiative had died but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.
And perhaps....this is the end...................
And the next week, there was no bread, or anything else to eat. So, they all starved equally. -
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
Your brain must have been starved of oxygen.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 9 years ago
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20?. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1671) 9 years ago
Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.


~ George Carlin
Top
Posted by Larry W. Dann (+52) 9 years ago
Give the rich more money and they don`t seem to want to invest in the United States. Ask Mitt Romney as he made a lot of money by closing the Sensata plant back east, raising the Chinese flag over the plant, closing the plant and sending those jobs to the new plant in China. Then hid the money he made in a foreign tax shelter so he did not have to pay taxes on that money.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
I remember moderate Republicans. Folks like Reagan, who raised taxes several times because it was necessary to get the economy going again. Eisenhower, who warned against the military-industrial complex that is Mitt Romney's second wife. Even Goldwater, who thought worrying about other people's sex lives was a waste of time.

If low taxes make the economy boom, and the wealthy are paying the lowest taxes in half a century, how come the economy isn't booming?
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 9 years ago
Bain bought Sensata in 2006 -- four years after Romney no longer owned the firm -- for $3 billion, from Texas Instruments Inc.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
tax payer wrote:
Bain bought Sensata in 2006 -- four years after Romney no longer owned the firm -- for $3 billion, from Texas Instruments Inc.


SHEEPLE!
Top
Posted by Tom Cat (+163) 9 years ago
It seems none of us can agree on anything so the great experiment will ultimately meet it's demise...
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 9 years ago
Romney still has an owership stake in Bain.

"According to his recently released 2011 tax returns, Romney transferred $701,703 worth of Sensata stock to the Tyler Charitable Foundation, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit controlled by Romney. The gift is listed on page 323 of the pdf, on form 8283 (below).
Moving the stock to his nonprofit brings Romney twin benefits. First, he gets to deduct the full value of the stock. At a 35 percent tax rate, that's nearly a $250,000 benefit. At 15 percent, it's just over $100,000.

Second, Romney is able to avoid paying capital gains taxes on the stock price increase. Romney's returns list no cost for the stock, and indicate he obtained them as part of a partnership interest in Bain. Avoiding capital gains taxes on the full increase would save an additional $100,000. In 2010, Romney gifted $170,000 worth of Sensata stock to his charity, saving $25,000 in capital gains taxes that year.

Cheryl Randecker, a Sensata worker facing an imminent layoff, said, "I could pay off my house with that [$25,000], and he doesn't need it anyway."


http://www.huffingtonpost...26662.html
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 9 years ago
Okay, taxpayer, if "how much will this cost" is your focus, chew on this:

How does giving civil rights to gay Americans hurt your bottom line?
IT DOESN'T.

Will giving gays civil rights and the ability to marry help the economy?
YES, GUARANTEED
(the State of New York got a $259 million dollar boost in just the first year of marriage equality)

How does giving civil rights to gay Americans hurt the government fiscally?
IT DOESN'T.

Will continuing to marginalize and treat some Americans as "less than worthy" or "less deserving of rights" hurt the economy (as the Romney/Ryan plan and GOP platform intend to do)?
YES, UNEQUIVOCALLY.
(You are looking at 10% of the population that is less productive, less apt to support their local economy, less likely to travel (as it can be dangerous when your rights change at State Lines), less likely to invest (as rights change with different investment companies with no Federal protection, or guarantee of benefits since the person isn't your "spouse"), and a slew of other Rights infringements.)

To continue to claim that Civil Rights are just a social issue and not intrinsically tied to economics is foolish.

Romney and Ryan wish to further marginalize and hurt hard-working, tax-paying American families. Shameful.

There's your bottom line, taxpayer.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
Hannah:









Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 9 years ago
Hannah, awesome post!!! +infinity and thanks...
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 9 years ago
Geez, you throw facts, stats, budget numbers, etc at "taxpayer" and others... And they can't rationalize their bigotry or skewed economic theory. Hard to defend such ugliness without having to admit how anti-American and anti-human it is? I can understand your difficulty.

When the bottom line is spelled out for you, are you ashamed of your candidate's bigotry and promises of continued and increased marginalization and abuse? Re-thinking supporting such an anti-humanity candidate?

I certainly hope so.

(On the other hand, I was hoping for continued opportunities to blast holes in their arguments...)
Top