You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[Oldstyle]

"But that's the Republican MO. The poor are the enemy, the teachers are the enemy, the blacks are the enemy, the Muslims are the enemy, the gay people are the enemy, and the rich and powerful are our friends."

Sigh...I'm sorry but when you make statements like that, Chris it simply makes you look ignorant. I'm a Republican. My brother is a teacher. So I see him as "the enemy"? I grew up on a dairy farm with seven brothers and sisters and a father who worked three jobs to support his family. So I see poor people as "the enemy"? My great great grandfather was a major in the Massachusetts 54th Infantry during the Civil War, a black regiment commanded by white officers. But I'm a racist who hates blacks? I'm in favor of same sex marriage. But I see gay people as "the enemy"?

The absurdity of your statement should be apparent to even to someone like yourself who sees all Republicans as "the enemy". This might be a good time to take a step back and do a little "self examination".

 

[Vanquish]

"But that's the Republican MO. The poor are the enemy, the teachers are the enemy, the blacks are the enemy, the Muslims are the enemy, the gay people are the enemy, and the rich and powerful are our friends."

Sigh...I'm sorry but when you make statements like that, Chris it simply makes you look ignorant. I'm a Republican. My brother is a teacher. So I see him as "the enemy"? I grew up on a dairy farm with seven brothers and sisters and a father who worked three jobs to support his family. So I see poor people as "the enemy"? My great great grandfather was a major in the Massachusetts 54th Infantry during the Civil War, a black regiment commanded by white officers. But I'm a racist who hates blacks? I'm in favor of same sex marriage. But I see gay people as "the enemy"?

The absurdity of your statement should be apparent to even to someone like yourself who sees all Republicans as "the enemy". This might be a good time to take a step back and do a little "self examination".

I think both of you are doing what we all do too much around here - leaving out the word "some" or "many" in front of liberal or republican. Most people assume those words and don't take things personally. It took me awhile to get there...fuck I'm actually still not there.

I do think that many or some Republicans look down on the poor as all lazy bums who are responsible for ALL the social ills in our country. How many threads devolve into character assassinations of people on welfare? I'll tell you...it's fairly often.

I think there are people out there who haven't ever experienced poverty...they know nothing about it...and it's too easy to rally around a cliche...and say the poor just dont want to work. They're draining the country for the people who DO want to work.

That's where I see things.

 

[ShackledNation]

"But that's the Republican MO. The poor are the enemy, the teachers are the enemy, the blacks are the enemy, the Muslims are the enemy, the gay people are the enemy, and the rich and powerful are our friends."

Odd...my gay cousin is a Republican (aside from the issue of gay marriage, needless to say). I guess he must be his own worst enemy.

 

[ShackledNation]

"But that's the Republican MO. The poor are the enemy, the teachers are the enemy, the blacks are the enemy, the Muslims are the enemy, the gay people are the enemy, and the rich and powerful are our friends."

Odd...my gay cousin is a Republican (aside from the issue of gay marriage, needless to say). I guess he must be his own worst enemy.

 

[Steelplate]

"Same goes for your fire protection, your police force, the people that take care of your roads and bridges. You guys seem to have this simplistic view of taxation and only seem to focus on the Federal Income Tax... but that Federal Income tax helps every State in the Union and every Community in each state."

Once again, Steelplate...you seem oblivious to the fact that locals have to contribute to the Federal Government BEFORE they can be "helped" in return. So what you're doing is taking local money...sending it to Washington where it's run through a completely wasteful and inefficient bureaucracy...before sending what's left back to where it started to "help" the locals. Does that in any way make sense to you?

Once again... You seem oblivious to the fact that less comes out of your paycheck in federal taxes than if localities were responsible for their own solutions without the help of the Federal Government. Because Communities with a higher population, and therefore a higher tax base, helps out smaller communities that produce our food supply(rural and farming communities). Imagine if that stopped. How would a rural community with a population of 5k or less manage to educate their children, pave their streets, protect their citizens from crime and catastrophe?

Jesus... and you guys have the nerve to say that I don't know how economics work? Truthfully... the economy doesn't work when you have people struggling to survive... when wages vs. Cost of living is so out of whack that they can't afford the widgets that the rich folk make and sell.... so, instead of paying a decent wage and keeping the jobs home to keep the economy rolling... their solution is to find cheaper labor abroad, lobby for "Free Trade" agreements that is anything BUT free trade, so they can make $30 DVD players for our struggling people and still make a killing.

You can see the results of what that ideology has wrought. Now I understand we are looking for new free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia. More jobs and revenue sucking out of our country and into the arms of others.

What will be your excuse when even more jobs leave the country and nothing is here to replace them? Lost jobs = Lost revenue= lost buying power=shitty economy. The reason you want this downward spiral of the working class is because "they" told you that working people are the problem... they want too much... they don't live within their means, etc. But what they don't tell you is that the working people of this country are the SOLUTION, not the problem.

I give up... seriously. You guys are so stuck in your ideology that you can't tell the forest from the trees. You won't be happy until this country is destroyed. You think Obama hates America and wants to destroy the country? lol...you guys are bobbleheads, sitting there listening to Corporate Radio and Television... reading propaganda disguised in patriotic prose at the Heritage Foundation, telling you that if just given enough power.... Big business will save the country. But much like your cries of "let charity help the poor", while in the next breath you verbally tear the poor apart... All big business wants is more power and has no intention of saving the country.

They are more than happy to let China take our place as the Superpower on the Globe.... and all those cries of Marxism and Communism I hear you calling your fellow citizens? let's not forget that China is a communist Country. You know... real Communism... not the bullshit propaganda that the right spews, but real, honest to God Communists. Yet you have no problem with our businesses giving financial support to the Communist agenda.

So, maybe you ought to take a good look at the Right Wing agenda here. Why are they so intent on destroying our country and it's people? Oh... that's right... because profit has no loyalty, and this is the agenda that you support.

Sorry dude... I ain't buying what your selling.

 

[Steelplate]

If you are telling the truth, I think it's really sad that you could be that old, and be so woefully ignorant of how our economy works.

It sounds to me like you work for the government, and thus do NOT work in the private sector, so you have no understanding of it.

Like college profs who constantly preach about the private sector, yet they have never worked in it themselves.

BTW, ignoramous. Don't like taxes? THAT'S HOW THIS COUNTRY WAS BORN, MORON!

YOU HAVE to work for government. You can't get that ignorant in the real world.

How ignorant are you... it wasn't taxes... it was taxes without representation. Everyone here in this country, if fallen on hard times can take advantage of our system to help them get on their feet and keep their families safe and healthy. Comparing now to back then is utterly ridiculous... and goes to show what fucked up people you are.

And you think that when 49% of the country pays 3% of the federal taxes, while 1% of the country pays over 50% of the federal taxes, that it isn't taxation without representation for those 49% to vote themselves more government goodies at everyone else's expense?

I got news for you, that's what the Tea Party and the November 2010 election was about.

There are people saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We are NOT going to just shut up and keep paying for a bloated entitlement system.

You are totally out of touch. You think it's the 1960s and Johnson's "Great Society" is still a great idea.

Welcome to 2011, dude. The welfare state cannot be sustained indefinitely. They are now borrowing and printing worthless money just to try and hold off that day when it collapses.

Your living wage is not something that can be sustained forever.

The only people saying enough is enough is the extremely rich... who through loopholes and credits... end up paying less than I do in taxes at $100k. Them... and people like you who actually believe the "poor little rich folk" propaganda that gets spewed from the Corporate Controlled Media.

 

[editec]

The only welfare state this nation has that is truly effective is the one that insures the welfare of the extremely wealthy.

 

[Stashman]

No it isn't. That is not equality in taxation. Why should I pay more taxes than a homeless can man? Everybody should pay the same amount that the poorest among us can pay,...that is equality and fair.

I am a believer in a flat tax. But I don't know if you are aware or not the top 1% of our nations wealthiest own 51% of our countries total wealth. When you get to this level of money than more than likely they are so rich from ripping of the common people. It would be asking them to give back some of what they stole.

This class envy stuff gets me.

Stole? Stole from whom? YOU?

This bullcrap that getting PAID to do your job is "stealing" from other people.

You get your degree, you bust your butt to make something of yourself, you finally make it, and what does a bunch of losers say that expect everyone else to support them? YOU stole that money from them!

It's all about greed. Making up a justification for why you are entitled to the earnings of others.

You might as well call it theft, because that is what it boils down to.

Liberals want to take money that belongs to others. That is the purest definition of "wealth distribution."

We stand today in this financial mess NOT because of the poor, but because the very richest. They had to be bailed out and it was the taxpayers who paid. Well, the poor is the countries largest work force and it's the poor who will pay more than anyone else. It's not the poor passing on debt to the rich, but the rich passing their debt on to the poor.

The rich are the minority in this country not the other way around. The bailouts = $175,000 per American citizen. How would you like to be poor and get stuck with that?
How would you like to be among the millions of American poor who slaved for years working in factory's only to have the company up and go overseas and taking with it the only major employer in their area?

The poor are the very heart of America. Right now they are getting poorer by the day due to mismanagement of funds by the wealthy bankers and cooperation's. If you look at the statistics its this countries poor who enlist into our military services more than any other group. It's always been that way. So, they are the largest workforce thus paying in more taxes as a whole than any other, fighting and dieing for American freedoms more than any other, yet they are the scum of the earth to you?

 

[teapartysamurai]

How ignorant are you... it wasn't taxes... it was taxes without representation. Everyone here in this country, if fallen on hard times can take advantage of our system to help them get on their feet and keep their families safe and healthy. Comparing now to back then is utterly ridiculous... and goes to show what fucked up people you are.

And you think that when 49% of the country pays 3% of the federal taxes, while 1% of the country pays over 50% of the federal taxes, that it isn't taxation without representation for those 49% to vote themselves more government goodies at everyone else's expense?

I got news for you, that's what the Tea Party and the November 2010 election was about.

There are people saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We are NOT going to just shut up and keep paying for a bloated entitlement system.

You are totally out of touch. You think it's the 1960s and Johnson's "Great Society" is still a great idea.

Welcome to 2011, dude. The welfare state cannot be sustained indefinitely. They are now borrowing and printing worthless money just to try and hold off that day when it collapses.

Your living wage is not something that can be sustained forever.

The only people saying enough is enough is the extremely rich... who through loopholes and credits... end up paying less than I do in taxes at $100k. Them... and people like you who actually believe the "poor little rich folk" propaganda that gets spewed from the Corporate Controlled Media.

Dude, according to Obama, YOU ARE RICH, you poor clueless sap!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SavgJlBLA"]‪Obama: families making $97,000 are "upper class" and should pay more taxes‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

You are an idiot! Obama HAS STATED THAT THOSE MAKING 97K ARE "THE RICH!"

And what are you whining to me for? My husband makes under 75K while I am looking for a job (and since I have been a stay at home mom since 1994) I doubt our combined salaries will get us UP to 100K.

Yet, I have ABSOLUTELY NO ILLUSION that my taxes WILL GO UP under Obama.

You can be stupid and believe Obama will not raise YOUR taxes. But the last time taxes were raised, (retroactive to Jan 1) in 1993, guess what?

HERE ARE THE FACTS!

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 [WHEN REAGAN CUT TAXES] to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

What this means is, when taxes were cut it REDUCED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, while when taxes were raised, IT RAISED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHILE THE TOP TIER SIMPLY EMPLOYED STRATEGIES TO AVOID IT!

Now THIS IS REALITY! You can rattle off your fantasies about how Obama will close the loopholes, but his hundreds of waivers for preferred companies to avoid Obamacare prove it to be just that, A FANTASY!

The loopholes will go no where! And those who can't avoid the loopholes WILL SIMPLY LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Tim Horton's has already done so.

Obama's tax hike will NOT have the effect that you fantasize about. It will not hurt the rich you dream about "getting even" with. It will hurt and is DELIBERATELY TARGETED AT YOU!

You'll feel it first before I will, you moron!

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am a believer in a flat tax. But I don't know if you are aware or not the top 1% of our nations wealthiest own 51% of our countries total wealth. When you get to this level of money than more than likely they are so rich from ripping of the common people. It would be asking them to give back some of what they stole.

This class envy stuff gets me.

Stole? Stole from whom? YOU?

This bullcrap that getting PAID to do your job is "stealing" from other people.

You get your degree, you bust your butt to make something of yourself, you finally make it, and what does a bunch of losers say that expect everyone else to support them? YOU stole that money from them!

It's all about greed. Making up a justification for why you are entitled to the earnings of others.

You might as well call it theft, because that is what it boils down to.

Liberals want to take money that belongs to others. That is the purest definition of "wealth distribution."

We stand today in this financial mess NOT because of the poor, but because the very richest. They had to be bailed out and it was the taxpayers who paid. Well, the poor is the countries largest work force and it's the poor who will pay more than anyone else. It's not the poor passing on debt to the rich, but the rich passing their debt on to the poor.

The rich are the minority in this country not the other way around. The bailouts = $175,000 per American citizen. How would you like to be poor and get stuck with that?

How would you like to be among the millions of American poor who slaved for years working in factory's only to have the company up and go overseas and taking with it the only major employer in their area?

The poor are the very heart of America. Right now they are getting poorer by the day due to mismanagement of funds by the wealthy bankers and cooperation's. If you look at the statistics its this countries poor who enlist into our military services more than any other group. It's always been that way. So, they are the largest workforce thus paying in more taxes as a whole than any other, fighting and dieing for American freedoms more than any other, yet they are the scum of the earth to you?

No wrong.

WHAT CORPORATIONS???

GM? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Countrywide?

Who bailed them out? It sure as hell wasn't you or me.

And what do you mean I think the "poor are the scum of the earth."

That's typical liberal non thinking, that if I don't want to turn the US into some marxist "utopia" I must not care for the poor.

AS IF the only way to care for the poor, is through a bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy.

It was THE SAME BLOATED government that bailed them out.

Who's fault is that? Bush and the Republicans warned this country, the bottom was going to fall through as early as 2002.

Guess who blocked anything getting fixed until too late? THAT'S RIGHT, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs]‪Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

They were more interested in covering for Franklin Raines than fixing the problem. They didn't care how many Americans got hurt, when the bottom fell out. All they cared about was covering for a liberal corruptocrat!

Then there's Countrywide!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhojJFQbIS0]‪Tom Scott Exposes Chris Dodd's Special Mortgage Treatment From Countrywide‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Fannie Mae and Barney Fwank?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]‪Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Who doesn't care for the poor? Who made their condition worse?

Who caused this economic mess?

The evidence makes it clear it was DEMOCRATS, while liberals desperately try to pin the blame on Bush.

 

[Vanquish]

1.1 Trillion in tax cuts since 2008.....all with economic stimulation in mind....and you see where it's gotten us.

suck it.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Once again... You seem oblivious to the fact that less comes out of your paycheck in federal taxes than if localities were responsible for their own solutions without the help of the Federal Government. Because Communities with a higher population, and therefore a higher tax base, helps out smaller communities that produce our food supply(rural and farming communities). Imagine if that stopped. How would a rural community with a population of 5k or less manage to educate their children, pave their streets, protect their citizens from crime and catastrophe?"

I'm guessing you're one of those people that lives in a big city on one of the coasts? Here's a new flash for you. It's the rural farming communities in the heartland of America that have always lived within their means who subsidize the nation's urban areas that have not. We're not in the fiscal crisis that we are because of the "excesses" of rural towns in Kansas or the Dakotas...we're in the fiscal crisis we are because of the excesses of urban areas like New York City and Los Angeles.

 

[Oldstyle]

"1.1 Trillion in tax cuts since 2008.....all with economic stimulation in mind....and you see where it's gotten us."

We aren't in trouble because of tax cuts, Vanquish...we're in trouble because we have out of control spending. Raising taxes will not bring us out of this recession. Cutting wasteful Federal spending and allowing that capital to remain the private sector will.

 

[Moving to USA]

However, Ditch Diggers have families to raise, bills to pay and all the NEEDS that a CEO has. Why shouldn't they make enough to be able to so? THAT'S what we are saying.

Lets look at this shall we?
The ditch digger should have had the initiative to get an education that would have allowed him to watch someone dig that ditch instead of grabbing the shovel himself.
But since he did not show any concern for his future at that point, he should have realized that raising a family on 8 bucks an hour would be tough, and perhaps not had those kids to start with. Condoms are cheap.

Since he failed on all parts of his life, why should he be allowed to look at me to provide him anything?
As I said before, taking my child on vacations around the country and overseas is a far better use of my money than giving it to someone that failed to plan.

If I have to support the kids, take them out of the home, put them in a state or federal facility to be raised and have my tax dollar go there instead of the pocket of the unplanned laborer. At least this way the money can go to the kids instead of the liqueur store or drug dealer.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Walmart Republicans disagree, they are happy in their pimped out trailers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's look at this, shall we?

First, the nimrod, stupid ass comment, "But since he did not show any concern for his future at that point, he should have realized that raising a family on 8 bucks an hour would be tough, and perhaps not had those kids to start with. Condoms are cheap."

Second, the ass of a nimrod thinks he understands in other people's lives the events that lead to situations. Some of them, yes, are, undoubtedly, the result of poor choices. Others are events beyond one's control.

I have no use for such attitudes. Fuck em.

 

[Stashman]

This class envy stuff gets me.

Stole? Stole from whom? YOU?

This bullcrap that getting PAID to do your job is "stealing" from other people.

You get your degree, you bust your butt to make something of yourself, you finally make it, and what does a bunch of losers say that expect everyone else to support them? YOU stole that money from them!

It's all about greed. Making up a justification for why you are entitled to the earnings of others.

You might as well call it theft, because that is what it boils down to.

Liberals want to take money that belongs to others. That is the purest definition of "wealth distribution."

We stand today in this financial mess NOT because of the poor, but because the very richest. They had to be bailed out and it was the taxpayers who paid. Well, the poor is the countries largest work force and it's the poor who will pay more than anyone else. It's not the poor passing on debt to the rich, but the rich passing their debt on to the poor.

The rich are the minority in this country not the other way around. The bailouts = $175,000 per American citizen. How would you like to be poor and get stuck with that?

How would you like to be among the millions of American poor who slaved for years working in factory's only to have the company up and go overseas and taking with it the only major employer in their area?

The poor are the very heart of America. Right now they are getting poorer by the day due to mismanagement of funds by the wealthy bankers and cooperation's. If you look at the statistics its this countries poor who enlist into our military services more than any other group. It's always been that way. So, they are the largest workforce thus paying in more taxes as a whole than any other, fighting and dieing for American freedoms more than any other, yet they are the scum of the earth to you?

No wrong.

WHAT CORPORATIONS???

GM? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Countrywide?

Who bailed them out? It sure as hell wasn't you or me.

And what do you mean I think the "poor are the scum of the earth."

That's typical liberal non thinking, that if I don't want to turn the US into some marxist "utopia" I must not care for the poor.

AS IF the only way to care for the poor, is through a bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy.

It was THE SAME BLOATED government that bailed them out.

Who's fault is that? Bush and the Republicans warned this country, the bottom was going to fall through as early as 2002.

Guess who blocked anything getting fixed until too late? THAT'S RIGHT, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!


They were more interested in covering for Franklin Raines than fixing the problem. They didn't care how many Americans got hurt, when the bottom fell out. All they cared about was covering for a liberal corruptocrat!

Then there's Countrywide!

]

Fannie Mae and Barney Fwank?



Who doesn't care for the poor? Who made their condition worse?

Who caused this economic mess?

The evidence makes it clear it was DEMOCRATS, while liberals desperately try to pin the blame on Bush.

I am speaking of ALL of the bailouts be it Frannie and Freddie, Auto Industry, etc..

It goes like this: This country was broke before the bailouts happened. To pay for the bailouts we went to the Federal Reserve and had them print the money. The Fed is NOT a Government Entity, It is owned by private banks. Since we stopped using gold to back our currency in 1971 the Fed prints money out of thin air. This is than loaned to the Government to use and passed on to the taxpayers to pay. Every time you print money from thin air you devalue the dollar.

The U.S. dollar is worth 4 cents as compared to what it was when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Once again this is NOT owned by our Government. We cannot audit them or even look at their books.

Since the working poor make up the largest labor force than it stands to reason that they as the collective pay more money in taxes, thus are the ones who got screwed the most.

I am NOT of either party for there is NO difference in the two. They want you to think that there is though so you will not recognize their true agenda which is world government.
If there was a difference the first thing you would see from a new President taking office from a President of the opposing party would be him repealing things done from the previous.

I didn't mean to offend you in anyway, it's just that the poor are the true backbone of this country. Someone needs to speak on their behalf.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Perhaps the Progressives and their useful idiots could stop devising programs that enslave people in life-long, low-income lifestyles?

 

[Jarhead]

However, Ditch Diggers have families to raise, bills to pay and all the NEEDS that a CEO has. Why shouldn't they make enough to be able to so? THAT'S what we are saying.

Lets look at this shall we?
The ditch digger should have had the initiative to get an education that would have allowed him to watch someone dig that ditch instead of grabbing the shovel himself.
But since he did not show any concern for his future at that point, he should have realized that raising a family on 8 bucks an hour would be tough, and perhaps not had those kids to start with. Condoms are cheap.

Since he failed on all parts of his life, why should he be allowed to look at me to provide him anything?
As I said before, taking my child on vacations around the country and overseas is a far better use of my money than giving it to someone that failed to plan.

If I have to support the kids, take them out of the home, put them in a state or federal facility to be raised and have my tax dollar go there instead of the pocket of the unplanned laborer. At least this way the money can go to the kids instead of the liqueur store or drug dealer.

Here is the best way to look at it...

If a wealthy man invested all of his money in a stock...with the hope that his money will double......and the stock crashed....would you say he deserves to have the tax payer support him?

If a guy in his teens opts to drop out of school so he can have a good time.....should the tax payer support him when he cant get a job?

 

[teapartysamurai]

1.1 Trillion in tax cuts since 2008.....all with economic stimulation in mind....and you see where it's gotten us.

suck it.

I love it when liberals act like they know what they are talking about.

Here's the facts!

US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP

2001 -1.25
2002 1.48
2003 3.39
2004 3.48
2005 2.52
2006 1.85
2007 1.14
2008 3.18
2009 9.91
2010 10.64

US Federal Deficit as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History

US Unemployment Rate by Year

2001 4.76
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61
2008 5.76
2009 9.26

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

The FACTS are, AS I HAVE ALREADY POSTED, that tax cuts INCREASED REVENUES during the Bush years. Despite all the caterwalling about "Iraq spending" the truth is, Obama's stimulus spent more in a matter of months, then Bush Iraq war spending did IN SEVEN YEARS!

What changed between the Bush years and Obama years? SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the revenues in the world are not going to help you, IF YOU SPEND MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN!

Obama TRIPLED spending IN MONTHS, what took Bush EIGHT YEARS TO SPEND!

There is no comparison.

Yet, the mantra from liberals is, Bush caused the ecomic problem. It's a repeated mantra to try and give Obama cover for his obvious culpability.

The facts are, we had full employment under Bush, and a deficit that was troubling, but managable with moderate budget cuts.

Obama has pushed us into CRISIS MODE, where it will require TRILLIONS IN BUDGET CUTS to get us out of this mess.

You can't argue your way around the FACTS to give Obaama cover!

So who needs to suck it up?