America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[Bfgrn]

So if we read this correctly, school teachers are takers. Policemen are takers. Firemen are takers. Those people work too. Never have I seen such a hatred for those serving us. My daughter teaches kindergarten. She's one of those takers.

The truth is just the opposite.

"Teachers are givers in a world dominated by takers, and they're also sharers. This collaborative instinct makes our profession unlike any other."
Barbara Keshishian

 

[Bfgrn]

At some point the liberals are going to have to do something besides stamp their feet and shake their curls. Property owners and asset holders just aren't going to give up everything they worked for that easy. They won't turn over their holdings just because of a tantrum. At some point, the liberals will have to use force.

A 4.6 % increase in income tax will be giving up everything they own? WHY is the polarized argument a right wing epidemic?

 

[Care4all]

Ahh, now I see.

Report: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz held Swiss banks stocks - National Conservative Politics | Examiner.com

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz may enjoy attacking Mitt Romney for his use of Swiss bank accounts, but new information suggests she invested in the same institutions some years ago.

Clever right-wing propagandists, trying to blur the lines between investing in foreign corporations and hiding your money in Swiss Bank Accounts.

Will their falsehoods and obfuscations never cease?

apparently not....

 

[Listening]

Ahh, now I see.

Report: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz held Swiss banks stocks - National Conservative Politics | Examiner.com

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz may enjoy attacking Mitt Romney for his use of Swiss bank accounts, but new information suggests she invested in the same institutions some years ago.

Clever right-wing propagandists, trying to blur the lines between investing in foreign corporations and hiding your money in Swiss Bank Accounts.

Will their falsehoods and obfuscations never cease?

The first question is will liberal witch hunts never cease ?

This issue isn't going to sway the right. What is at stake are the independents and that is what Obama is seeking to retain.

By using this kind of propaganda.....he hopes to keep them away from Romney.

I guess we will to see if Mr. Nimble Teleprompter can work his magic for another 4 months.

BTW: Wasserman won't release her tax returns (or so it is being reported). While I am sure that is O.K. with a hack like yourself....I find it truly hysterical that Mrs Ed can indignantly demand Romney's but won't release her own. She is a total moron.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The private sector built the strongest economy in the world. It armed the free world in World War Two, and then in the three decades after the war turned America into the most prosperous society history had ever seen. It revived America in the Reagan and Clinton years, and thanks to the Bush tax cuts brought this country back from economic collapse after 9/11.

In those same years a growing public sector, by contrast, turned Europe into a cesspool of debt, stalled economies, and chronic social dysfunction that’s set the streets of Athens -- and perhaps other European capitals--on fire.

That’s where we’re headed, too, more rapidly than we like to think.

That public sector–state, local, and federal -- now consumes 40% of GDP, compared to 33% just twelve years ago. It’s brought us to the point where 48% of Americans are now on some form of government handout, from 44% when Obama took office–almost a fifth more than during the Reagan years. And too many of them have been programmed to believe they have no future unless the government takes more from the Makers -- precisely what Obama promised on Monday.


Read more: America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

You are out of your damn mind.

You have your head up your ass...so what.

 

[MikeK]

The private sector built the strongest economy in the world. It armed the free world in World War Two, and then in the three decades after the war turned America into the most prosperous society history had ever seen.

That part is true: And the productive force behind those prosperous decades was FDR's New Deal, which included substantial tax increases on upper income levels and a raft of regulations preventing exploitative banking, usurious loan interest, unfair labor practices, and more.

It revived America in the Reagan and Clinton years, and thanks to the Bush tax cuts brought this country back from economic collapse after 9/11.

That part is not true: Reagan put the Nation on a credit card and ran up enormous debt. Clinton repaired most of Reagan's damage but left a few ticking economic time bombs, such as the repeal of Glass-Steagall for one. The notion that Bush did anything good for any entity other than his super-rich base is shallow, onanistic self-deception.

You appear much too intelligent to be deluded by such easily debunked propaganda.

George W. Bush did more damage to the United States than did Usama bin Laden and his nineteen 9/11 shahids. And that is no exaggeration.

 

[Vast LWC]

The first question is will liberal witch hunts never cease ?

This issue isn't going to sway the right. What is at stake are the independents and that is what Obama is seeking to retain.

By using this kind of propaganda.....he hopes to keep them away from Romney.

I guess we will to see if Mr. Nimble Teleprompter can work his magic for another 4 months.

BTW: Wasserman won't release her tax returns (or so it is being reported). While I am sure that is O.K. with a hack like yourself....I find it truly hysterical that Mrs Ed can indignantly demand Romney's but won't release her own. She is a total moron.

Has there been a call among the constituents in Ms Wasserman's district to release her tax returns?

I don't remember hearing about that.

I know that a lot of people that Mr Romney is planning on making his constituents have been asking him to show his...

You see, when someone runs for public office, they are held responsible for their past only to their own constituents, you know the people who are going to vote for them or not?

Because it's really nobody else's business.

If you want to run for office, you have to listen to the people who are voting for you. Everyone else can just piss off.

That's the nature of a representative Democracy, and it's why I don't have a right to ask for Mitch McConnell's past tax returns when he runs for office.

 

[Steelplate]

Having a NEED takes no effort and creates nothing. And a lot of times you don't have a clue what to buy for someone do you? But you go to the mall, and find cool shit that you NEVER EVER imagined. A good entreprenuer can CREATE a need. You don't NEED to buy a 12" cookie with your Family Size Pizza --- do ya?

Outside of consumer market -- which is a LARGE chunk of the marketplace, Average Joe has no fucking idea what kind of new bedside monitor he needs in the hospital. Or what kind of gear your ISP should have. You guys are limiting your thesis to CONSUMER need.

Bullshit. Having a need is what creates a market...that market is what creates the opportunity to make money off of it. Consumer need drives innovation and the ability to pay for those products and services drives the economy.

Not Bullshit.. Your needs only affect the Consumer part of the market and 1/2 the time, you have no idea what you're gonna buy for a birthday.

But when in doubt --- do an experiment..

China was shit poor in the 80s. Only folks with stuff was literally a couple million politically connected people. NEED was rampant. Not much was handed out from Beijing. Wht happened to create a WHOLLY NEW Middle Class and move them into SuperPower status in 30 short years?

Did UNESCO hand each poor soul there a $100 bill? Did the Chinese govt go into massive debt in futile Keynesian attempt to STIMULATE the economy? No.

Outside Capitalists came in and INVESTED HEAVILY in Chinese factories. From all over the world with the INITIAL goal of NOT serving the needs of the Chinese people, but to serve their OWN needs in far off places.

The Chinese govt capitalized on this momentum and invested wisely in the growth of their economy which came from OUTSIDE investment. In many places, like Shenzheng, they had a laissez faire attitude to regulation and control and LET IT HAPPEN.

The middle class grew, and some needs got fulfilled by default based on what OTHERS had decided to supply to them. Their needs were not addressed by what factories made stuff available. UNTIL --- they became a big enough factor to be served directly by AGAIN -- Outside capital being expended to fill their new BOURGEOIS wants and needs.

THe outside capital investment, influx of technology, and training was the KEY spark that drove that development.

Now do the experiment for yourself. All the Castros are dead. You want to serve the Cuban peoples needs and wants. How do you go about it?

Got nothing to do with mere consumer appetites. Or govt stimulation.

You guys ABHOR consumerism anyway dontcha? What's all the noise about "sustainable development" from your side if consumer spending is the primary fuel of advancing economies. Isn't that a little hypocritical? When the leftists are trying to tell Africans (in an economic Imperialist way) that they SHOULDN'T strive for the Western standards of life.

First off.who says we "hate" consumerism? Oh...that's right, I keep forgetting...idiots like you think we're Communists. You're a fucking moron. Turn the fucking channel and turn off your radio in the car.

What we "abhor" is companies who are so fucking greedy that they'd rather destroy this country rather than pay a decent wage. The people that made vast amounts of money off of the dismantling of our fine country bitching about taxation, and then funding a massive PR/MARKETING campaign to convince weak minded idiots like yourself that they are to be worshiped like Gods.

As far as the Cuba thing? I would let the United States know that we are open for business and invest as much as possible into the infrastructure and look for outside investment for as little as necessary to make Cuba a desirable place to visit and do business.

 

[Oddball]

Ahh, now I see.

Report: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz held Swiss banks stocks - National Conservative Politics | Examiner.com

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz may enjoy attacking Mitt Romney for his use of Swiss bank accounts, but new information suggests she invested in the same institutions some years ago.

Clever right-wing propagandists, trying to blur the lines between investing in foreign corporations and hiding your money in Swiss Bank Accounts.

Will their falsehoods and obfuscations never cease?

Ahh...So a (D) does it and it's "investing", while an (R) does the same thing and it's "hiding".

Blurry lines indeed.

 

[Steelplate]

Ahh, now I see.

Report: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz held Swiss banks stocks - National Conservative Politics | Examiner.com

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz may enjoy attacking Mitt Romney for his use of Swiss bank accounts, but new information suggests she invested in the same institutions some years ago.

Clever right-wing propagandists, trying to blur the lines between investing in foreign corporations and hiding your money in Swiss Bank Accounts.

Will their falsehoods and obfuscations never cease?

Ahh...So a (D) does it and it's "investing", while an (R) does the same thing and it's "hiding".

Blurry lines indeed.

So...you don't see any difference between holding a stock in a bank and actually using that bank to avoid taxes? You're dumber than you look.

 

[Pheonixops]

Sorry guys.

Your Atlas Shrugged wet dream isn't going to happen, no matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

LOL, funny and true!

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry guys.

Your Atlas Shrugged wet dream isn't going to happen, no matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

LOL, funny and true!

What is not funny, but so very true, is the model conservatives want to bring to America was the biggest conservative failure in history.

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

 

[flacaltenn]

From the OP, describing the "makers":



Since the only people targeted by Obama's tax hikes are those making above 200k, that would be the richest 10% of Americans.

But, I see that reading comprehension is not really a skill you possess, and, since you appear to be mildly retarded, I'll forgive you.

It depends on where you are. You are probably somewhere in an Applachian mountain village, but in the real world of the major cities, $200,000 a year doesn't get much.

No matter how much money you make, if you make any at all, you are going to be in the upper something percent. The poor are already not paying any taxes at all. Their tax burden is already being paid by someone else. The richest 10%, or more likely the richest 5%. Tax cuts cannot possibly help the poor who pay no taxes at all.

Please quit lying about the poor not paying taxes. If they are completely out of work, then no, they don't pay taxes, but then again, should we expect someone who is not earning any money to pay taxes? For the working poor, they pay almost as much in taxes as the super wealthy when you include all local state, and payroll taxes. At the state level, the working poor pay as much as four times more, as a percentage of income, than the wealthy.

Sorry -- but FICA Taxes are targeted premiums for benefits that are SUPPOSED to be Universal. Everyone is supposed to pay for their Retirement Insurance, and Medicare. I'm not impressed. We're talking about 47% of FILERS, folks that have income, not contributing a whit to the General Fund of the USA.. The fact that struggling people choose to live in High Tax states and cities is not germane and gets no sympathy. That's largely why the auto industry has moved to low tax venues.

You want to help these folks? You should have stop the Feds from stealing the surplus that the "working poor" were robbed of in FICA taxes. It's the "profit" that the Feds raked off the top --- largely on the backs of the poor.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sorry guys.

Your Atlas Shrugged wet dream isn't going to happen, no matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

And you know that how ???

Because the American people will never support a terrorist such as John Galt.

 

[flacaltenn]

Asswipe poster !

You can, like I do, believe in America.....but not in the American government in it's current trajectory of large wealth distribution efforts.

isn't it funny how the exact same sentence can mean completely opposite things depending on the outlook?

It's the spending stupid Perhaps Steven King would like to personally reimburse the treasury a couple $BILL for the silly use of stimulus money that went to FOREIGN workers, Solyndra and costly shovel-ready jobs. That would show some TRUE concern for the financial situation..

"No more Taxes" isn't because we're selfish and greedy --- It's because YOU insist on ignoring the SOURCE of the problem...

Leftists are slowly starting to realize that waste and debt will PROCLUDE services and programs to the needy. When they realize how much govt incompetence and irresponsibility hurts their causes --- they will understand that their soaking the rich rhetoric isn't a wad of gum on a busted dam.

 

[flacaltenn]

In reference to highlight above^: The job of a business (EVERY BUSINESS) is NOT to pay its employees the most it is able to, the job of a business is to make a profit for its owners, and investors. When a company increases its profit then it can reinvest in itself by hiring more people to meet its own expansion which will result in increasing pay as its workers move up the ranks. That is what some of you are finding very hard to grasp.

then please, tell us how this has happened? I thought a rising tide, raises ALL?

Seems to me, that we have laws and regs on the books that have encouraged this gap to become larger and larger and larger...

why is that in your opinion? Businesses were there to make a profit back in 1979 as well as today, so what has caused this?

I think it has a lot to do with the revisionist history that Glenn Beck and his ilk have perpetrated on the poor dumb schmucks in Tea Party land.

That top bracket has tracked pretty exactly the rise in pay for major sports figures, entertainers and CEOs alike.. Got a problem with that?

Today's CEOs are presiding over companies that are 4 to 10X LARGER than they used to be. Caterpillar in the 70s (where that graph starts) was a Medium size business in Peoria with almost ALL American workers. Today it has 20 factories worldwide and 30 business segments. YES -- the compensation needs to go up.. Just like it did for Kobe Bryant.

We don't make basketballs anymore.. But Rawlings serves a larger world. So they reap larger profits. The moral of that story is --- become a MBA or an Industrial Designer -- not a factory worker. Jobs are changing -- manufacturing AS IT IS --- will not support a middle class.

NO MAINSTREAM POLITICIAN is telling you the truth about the future of careers in this country. It's NOT about Green Fantasies or simple tax structure. All of you are being manipulated by the 2 parties and THEIR special interest in gaining power.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nancy Pelosi: Calledi a hypocrite because she made MILLIONS out of foreign investments | Mail Online
Hypocrisy: DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also had foreign investments - National Elections | Examiner.com

Damn, it's a shame I don't live anywhere near their districts, or I would definitely not vote for them in the primaries.

Though, the article from the left wing blog does not actually say Pelosi has Swiss bank accounts, it simply points out that she has invested in an overseas company...

Wasserman Shultz though... That is fucked up. BAD Debbie! BAD!

Got an Swiss bank accounts for someone who's actually running? Like Obama?

Debbie IS BAD -- but not for this. Being invested in a Swiss Bank is a lot different than having an ACCOUNT in a Swiss Bank. The 2 parties continue to blow smoke. They cover each other's back by being equally immoral and incompetent. THey love it when you get distracted by antics like this.. Takes the heat off the totally fucked record of governance.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry guys.

Your Atlas Shrugged wet dream isn't going to happen, no matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

LOL, funny and true!

Try to find a Medicare Doctor when YOU turn 65. Maybe --- finding a job is harder these days because the folks who USED to turn out 200 new successful Silicon Valley ventures a year have already joined John Galt.

Leaving you with Apple and Microsoft to serve your every desire and high tech need. Or haven't you noticed that they SHOULD have TONS of competition --- but the challengers went strangely quiet about 2000...

Or maybe you LIKE an operating system designed by TV commercials and that comes to a screeching halt when you press "Print"?

Don't be so sure there ISN'T a little shrugging goin on... Why do you think I'm wasting time on USMB instead of starting another Silicon Valley venture and creating jobs and taxes?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Ahh, now I see.

Report: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz held Swiss banks stocks - National Conservative Politics | Examiner.com



Clever right-wing propagandists, trying to blur the lines between investing in foreign corporations and hiding your money in Swiss Bank Accounts.

Will their falsehoods and obfuscations never cease?

Ahh...So a (D) does it and it's "investing", while an (R) does the same thing and it's "hiding".

Blurry lines indeed.

So...you don't see any difference between holding a stock in a bank and actually using that bank to avoid taxes? You're dumber than you look.

You sat 'po-Tay-to', we say 'po-tah-to'.

 

[Care4all]

it's NOT the same, not even close to being the same.....it's just more lies from the right wing rags...and anyone should know this, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on....

I personally, still don't care about romney stashing money in to tax havens overseas because it is a legal loophole....he didn't write the law or rules, they were handed to him on a golden platter by Congress....

I'm more interested in knowing if Mitt has any plans to CLOSE this loophole for the very elite.