Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We asked the wealthiest Americans to kick in an additional 3% of their income above $250k. The Rightwing conservatives blocked any attempt to raise taxes on even those making above $1 million a year
Where was Sarah Palins call for sacrifice then?
If that would have happened there would have been a spike in job loss, dumb ass.
What evidence do you have for that? The top rate was raised in 1993, and we got about 20 million jobs that decade.
Here's her speech, instead failgo picks out one quote and goes apeshit over it.
SNIP:
Union Brothers and Sisters: Seize Opportunity to Show True Solidarity
.by Sarah Palin on Friday, February 18, 2011 at 8:32pm.The union-led school closures and demonstrations in Madison have left most ordinary Americans shaking their heads in disbelief. Months ago, I penned a message to my fellow union brothers and sisters when I found myself on the receiving end of union boss Richard Trumkas wrath. Yesterdays demonstrations reminded me of the full-page ads taken out against me when I put my foot down in dealing with union demands while I served as governor. My message then and now to good union brothers and sisters is that you have another option. You dont have to kowtow to the union bosses who are not looking out for you, but instead are using you. You can join millions of other union members in a commonsense movement to help fight for the right causes in our great country for budgets that share the burden in a truly fair way and for commonsense reforms that take power away from vested interests like union bosses and big business lobby groups, and put it back where it belongs with We the People.
Here we are still struggling to get out of a deep recession and coping with high unemployment, record deficits, rapidly rising food prices, and a host of other economic problems; and Wisconsin union bosses want union members out in the streets demanding that taxpayers foot the bill for unsustainable benefits packages. I am a friend to hard working union members and to teachers. I come from a family of teachers; my grandparents, parents, brother, sister, aunt, and other relatives worked, or still work, in education. My own children attend public schools. I greatly admire good teachers and will always speak up in defense of the teaching profession. But Wisconsin teacher unions do themselves no favor by closing down classrooms and abandoning childrens needs in protest against the sort of belt-tightening that people everywhere are going through. Union brothers and sisters: this is the wrong fight at the wrong time. Solidarity doesnt mean making Wisconsin taxpayers pay for benefits that are not sustainable and affordable at a time when many of these taxpayers struggle to hold on to their own jobs and homes. Real solidarity means everyone being willing to sacrifice and carry our share of the burden. It does no one any favors to dismiss the sacrifices others have already had to makein wage cuts, unpaid vacations, and even job lossesto weather our economic storm.
read it all here.
Union Brothers and Sisters: Seize Opportunity to Show True Solidarity | Facebook
That context only makes it worse.
The old 'union bosses' canard. Does she know that union reps and leaders are elected?
She wants teachers to defy their 'union bosses', who are fighting to preserve their right to even have a union?
gawd. This woman is an idiot.
Oh dear me, what are "teachers" SLAVES to their Union boss.
gawd you people don't mind having a Master.
If that would have happened there would have been a spike in job loss, dumb ass.
What evidence do you have for that? The top rate was raised in 1993, and we got about 20 million jobs that decade.
All economists, even liberal economists would agree with the statement tax increases cost jobs and particularly tax increases for the rich bastards who earn it on the back of the working man because earning it on the back of the working man means giving the working man a job.
I don't know, maybe the field of economics is crap and you know better. But I'm thinking not.
That context only makes it worse.
The old 'union bosses' canard. Does she know that union reps and leaders are elected?
She wants teachers to defy their 'union bosses', who are fighting to preserve their right to even have a union?
gawd. This woman is an idiot.
Oh dear me, what are "teachers" SLAVES to their Union boss.
gawd you people don't mind having a Master.
What part of elected don't you understand?
Are the people of Wisconsin slaves to their governor?
Government forces me to pay into a horrible so called retirement system and spends all the money, they are controlling my access to health care, they spend my money incent people to not work then tell them it's an entitlement and not to appreciate it. They tell me who can treat me medically, represent me in court, write scripts for the shows I watch, cut my hair, manicure my nails and even decorate my house. They tell me what drugs I can put in my body, inspect me if I have too much cash, track my financial transactions and force me to prove they are correct at their whim.Oh dear me, what are "teachers" SLAVES to their Union boss.
gawd you people don't mind having a Master.
What part of elected don't you understand?
Are the people of Wisconsin slaves to their governor?
Government forces me to pay into a horrible so called retirement system and spends all the money, they are controlling my access to health care, they spend my money incent people to not work then tell them it's an entitlement and not to appreciate it. They tell me who can treat me medically, represent me in court, write scripts for the shows I watch, cut my hair, manicure my nails and even decorate my house. They tell me what drugs I can put in my body, inspect me if I have too much cash, track my financial transactions and force me to prove they are correct at their whim.Oh dear me, what are "teachers" SLAVES to their Union boss.
gawd you people don't mind having a Master.
What part of elected don't you understand?
Are the people of Wisconsin slaves to their governor?
Slaves? Not yet, but we're heading there and unfortunately my vote is buried by the leaches who want an easy living and vote for the people who promise it to them no matter how many times that promise is proven a lie.
That context only makes it worse.
The old 'union bosses' canard. Does she know that union reps and leaders are elected?
She wants teachers to defy their 'union bosses', who are fighting to preserve their right to even have a union?
gawd. This woman is an idiot.
Oh dear me, what are "teachers" SLAVES to their Union boss.
gawd you people don't mind having a Master.
What part of elected don't you understand?
Are the people of Wisconsin slaves to their governor?
You cannot logically select one fact and conclude it leads to one conclusion. That tax rates went up. You are saying tax rates went up and jobs went up. Ergo tax rates don't reduce jobs. It's simple, but wrong. You cannot conclude that based on one data item.What evidence do you have for that? The top rate was raised in 1993, and we got about 20 million jobs that decade.
All economists, even liberal economists would agree with the statement tax increases cost jobs and particularly tax increases for the rich bastards who earn it on the back of the working man because earning it on the back of the working man means giving the working man a job.
I don't know, maybe the field of economics is crap and you know better. But I'm thinking not.
I cited a historical fact, not an opinion.
All I see in that table were State and Local tax rates. The largest tax burden today are hidden taxes. George Bush was no friend of business, and Government under Obama has only intensified his attack. I own two businesses and the extent of what government makes me do and spend to comply with endless regulation and taxes is staggering. And none of that makes my businesses more competitive or is paid by me, it's in the price of what we sell. Consumers in the end pay all taxes. The only exception is the death tax.According to the Tax Foundation, that conservatives seem to admire,
the total state/local tax burden on Americans is lower now than it was 30 years ago.
The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens: All Years, One State, 1977-2008
How much is Sarah Palin willing to ask Americans to 'sacrifice' to pay down the national debt?
That requires tax revenue.
You cannot logically select one fact and conclude it leads to one conclusion. That tax rates went up. You are saying tax rates went up and jobs went up. Ergo tax rates don't reduce jobs. It's simple, but wrong. You cannot conclude that based on one data item.All economists, even liberal economists would agree with the statement tax increases cost jobs and particularly tax increases for the rich bastards who earn it on the back of the working man because earning it on the back of the working man means giving the working man a job.
I don't know, maybe the field of economics is crap and you know better. But I'm thinking not.
I cited a historical fact, not an opinion.
What you have to compare is how many jobs we had compared to how many jobs we would have had if all else were equal. In other words, if everything else that happened in the 90s happened except the tax rate increase. There were a lot of things that happened in the 90s. Some helped jobs, others hurt jobs. The biggest was HUGE productivity gains in American business because of a surge in technology.
You are the one who made the claim that raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't cost jobs. That was the statement which was wrong I was addressing. The one you responded to didn't make that claim, you did.You cannot logically select one fact and conclude it leads to one conclusion. That tax rates went up. You are saying tax rates went up and jobs went up. Ergo tax rates don't reduce jobs. It's simple, but wrong. You cannot conclude that based on one data item.I cited a historical fact, not an opinion.
What you have to compare is how many jobs we had compared to how many jobs we would have had if all else were equal. In other words, if everything else that happened in the 90s happened except the tax rate increase. There were a lot of things that happened in the 90s. Some helped jobs, others hurt jobs. The biggest was HUGE productivity gains in American business because of a surge in technology.
Why are you taking me to task instead of the poster I responded to?
How much is Sarah Palin willing to ask Americans to 'sacrifice' to pay down the national debt?
That requires tax revenue.
How much are liberals willing to pay extra since the lions share of the money spent is because of them? They should go first since they disproportionately own this mess.
Riiigghttt. Socialism is free. GotchaHow much is Sarah Palin willing to ask Americans to 'sacrifice' to pay down the national debt?
That requires tax revenue.
How much are liberals willing to pay extra since the lions share of the money spent is because of them? They should go first since they disproportionately own this mess.
That is false. But, feel free to attempt to prove otherwise.
We asked the wealthiest Americans to kick in an additional 3% of their income above $250k. The Rightwing conservatives blocked any attempt to raise taxes on even those making above $1 million a year
Where was Sarah Palins call for sacrifice then?
If that would have happened there would have been a spike in job loss, dumb ass.
Then why were no jobs created when Bush gave the cuts in the first place? We borrowed $2 trillion over 10 years to pay for these cuts and had no jobs to show for it
We gave $2 trillion in tax cuts and the wealthy just kept the money
You are the one who made the claim that raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't cost jobs. That was the statement which was wrong I was addressing. The one you responded to didn't make that claim, you did.You cannot logically select one fact and conclude it leads to one conclusion. That tax rates went up. You are saying tax rates went up and jobs went up. Ergo tax rates don't reduce jobs. It's simple, but wrong. You cannot conclude that based on one data item.
What you have to compare is how many jobs we had compared to how many jobs we would have had if all else were equal. In other words, if everything else that happened in the 90s happened except the tax rate increase. There were a lot of things that happened in the 90s. Some helped jobs, others hurt jobs. The biggest was HUGE productivity gains in American business because of a surge in technology.
Why are you taking me to task instead of the poster I responded to?
