Print

[John Kopke]

My opinion is the direction we are headed is the wrong direction. It would be impossible for me to sit and write about my opinions of what has transpired to get us to the point where we currently are. I have problems with the way money was given to corporations to "fix" the country's problems. Banks were given bailouts, and then because they fixed their problems, they decided they would firm up their lending regulations, slowing any growth due to difficulty in securing loans.
The healthcare plan has too many regulations in place to further invade businesses, all the while providing for more government jobs to supervise and audit the new regulations. All will be simply another cost to taxpayers.
If you want to talk about the monetary system, all you have to do is look to the prices that precious metals have climbed due to the lack of faith there is in the dollar. The government simply prints up what, $600 million and this is to have no effect? Is there a reason that the Canadian dollar, which was worth less than half of the US dollar only seven or eight years ago, is now worth more? Did Canada all of a sudden surpass us or have we done something wrong?
We all have our ideas as to what is a bubble, and what is being manipulated or some big government conspiracy being put in place for whatever reasons our imaginations can come up with. The real truth as I see it lies with decisions by our government officials which have allowed our jobs to be sent out of our country, all the while allowing foreign products to be imported at record highs and with no realistic tariffs. Our country has been sold out. China owns nearly 2 trillion US dollars, and what are they doing? They are now allowing their people to own gold. Given enough time, they will no longer have this tie to the US and will have all of their US dollars converted to a worldly accepted monetary instrument, gold. What will we have? Useless paper, hyper inflation, no jobs, lack of credit, and not a lot in the future to look forward to. Until the boys in Washington decide to truly fix our economy by forcing industry back into our own country, we are headed further down the path of foreclosures.
Again this is my opinion, and everyone's opinions will vary. Hopefully no one will attack me for my opinion, and will offer theirs, since we are all in this together. It is unfortunate that our governors, congressmen, senators and representatives are not able to fight for our best interests. It is also unfortunate that regardless of what happens, due to our partisan politics, no one is able to look past what got us here and work towards a solution. Instead they want to point a finger at their predecessor. I have a finger to point back at em if they want finger pointing.

Well Brian, in spite of the lenth of your post, I'm of  the impression you've hardly got good started. I know your family business sells gold, but your ideas for what is best for the country doesn't necessarily   coincide with boosting your sales of gold. What's wrong with you?
Have you forgotten greed?
 

[The Fuzz]

My opinion is the direction we are headed is the wrong direction. It would be impossible for me to sit and write about my opinions of what has transpired to get us to the point where we currently are. I have problems with the way money was given to corporations to "fix" the country's problems. Banks were given bailouts, and then because they fixed their problems, they decided they would firm up their lending regulations, slowing any growth due to difficulty in securing loans.
The healthcare plan has too many regulations in place to further invade businesses, all the while providing for more government jobs to supervise and audit the new regulations. All will be simply another cost to taxpayers.
If you want to talk about the monetary system, all you have to do is look to the prices that precious metals have climbed due to the lack of faith there is in the dollar. The government simply prints up what, $600 million and this is to have no effect? Is there a reason that the Canadian dollar, which was worth less than half of the US dollar only seven or eight years ago, is now worth more? Did Canada all of a sudden surpass us or have we done something wrong?
We all have our ideas as to what is a bubble, and what is being manipulated or some big government conspiracy being put in place for whatever reasons our imaginations can come up with. The real truth as I see it lies with decisions by our government officials which have allowed our jobs to be sent out of our country, all the while allowing foreign products to be imported at record highs and with no realistic tariffs. Our country has been sold out. China owns nearly 2 trillion US dollars, and what are they doing? They are now allowing their people to own gold. Given enough time, they will no longer have this tie to the US and will have all of their US dollars converted to a worldly accepted monetary instrument, gold. What will we have? Useless paper, hyper inflation, no jobs, lack of credit, and not a lot in the future to look forward to. Until the boys in Washington decide to truly fix our economy by forcing industry back into our own country, we are headed further down the path of foreclosures.
Again this is my opinion, and everyone's opinions will vary. Hopefully no one will attack me for my opinion, and will offer theirs, since we are all in this together. It is unfortunate that our governors, congressmen, senators and representatives are not able to fight for our best interests. It is also unfortunate that regardless of what happens, due to our partisan politics, no one is able to look past what got us here and work towards a solution. Instead they want to point a finger at their predecessor. I have a finger to point back at em if they want finger pointing.

And many in this country laughed at H. Ross Perot!   

You are right, Brian......therein lies the true root cause of our mess!

[Brian Beneteau]

And many in this country laughed at H. Ross Perot!   

You are right, Brian......therein lies the true root cause of our mess!

I would be interested to see how many voted for Perot like I did. We don't need career politicians running the business which is the US, we need a person who will actually listen to proven business leaders who know how to do the right thing, not what their supporters expect them to do.
As for Kopke's question about greed and gold, I can only hear Gordon Gecko's speech ring loudly through my ears, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A."
But truthfully if gold continues to rise as our currency is devalued to a point of being worthless, the country is in bad shape. As I tell those who invest in gold and silver with me, I hope you do well for your sake, but I hope you lose money on your investment for the country's sake.

[The Fuzz]

I voted for him......twice if memory serves me correctly! 

[Baby Hitler]

I would be interested to see how many voted for Perot like I did. We don't need career politicians running the business which is the US, we need a person who will actually listen to proven business leaders who know how to do the right thing, not what their supporters expect them to do.
As for Kopke's question about greed and gold, I can only hear Gordon Gecko's speech ring loudly through my ears, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A."
But truthfully if gold continues to rise as our currency is devalued to a point of being worthless, the country is in bad shape. As I tell those who invest in gold and silver with me, I hope you do well for your sake, but I hope you lose money on your investment for the country's sake.

It seems that losing money would be the patriotic thing to do.

Unless it means paying taxes.

[ducksoup]

Well Duck sorry you're colossally ignorant. We could tax wealthy 100% and the country would still be on the path to insolvency.

Well, I am colossally sorry that you are colossally rude and insulting and have no clue after all this time what I actually say.

Duck:
Thought I brought this up before. You don't care about the kids. Spend, spend, spend don't worry about a thing. The kids will pick up the tab. Yet it is worse than that. Folks that have sacificed to put
money away for decades to secure their senior years could see their savings disappear when the dollar tanks. Duck doesn't care, spend spend spend .........

This is for the folks, not the Ducks or FB's. The trillion dollar plus deficits the government is running up are not ho hum we'll work through it, we're America. The math doesn't lie.  The time will come,
in the not too distant future, that the Chinese and others will no longer be willing to finance our debt. Already the Federal Reserve is
creating, out of thin air, dollars to finance the debt. This debases the
value of the dollar. China and Russia recently decided to conduct trade
between their countries based on the Chinese Yuan, not the dollar.
If the dollar collapes all hell will break loose. Riots in the streets type stuff. 

This is very, very, very serious. Educate yourself on monetary policy. No time to lose.

Well, John, your gods blackmailed the country into getting new tax cuts for the rich that are not paid for.  But, I guarantee your gods will make sure that they are in the near future.  They will take it from those that need it most.  They are going to make cuts to social security.  The very wealthy are sitting on several trillion dollars not doing anything other than paying themselves huge bonuses for making so much money.  The rest of the country is in a near depression, but hey, reward the rich by doing nothing for this country to help the workers.  Yes, they create job… in other countries. Gosh, they even get corporate welfare to ship our jobs to other countries.  Then to make it even worse you and your idols are going to take away what people paid their whole working lives in to.  To you they are lowlifes that don’t deserve to get back what they paid in.  But, it really doesn’t matter because the tax cut to the rich needs paid for, so the poorest are the ones to pick up the tab.  I do not advocate “spend, spend, spend”  I advocate the workers and that they don’t have to pay for the share the rich should be paying.  I am very much in favor of balanced budgets and paying down the national debt.  Unlike you I don’t want to punish the workers exclusively while rewarding the very wealthy.  I don’t advocate taking away things that benefit the workers in a depressed economic climate where they are having a difficult time surviving, let alone do well, while the very wealthy are reaping big rewards and getting corporate welfare and tax reductions.  Now, you know that already John.  Yet, you want to LIE that I think differently.  So, yeah, we need to get our fiscal house in order, but not on the backs of the poor and middle class alone while reducing the burden on the very rich.  You repeatedly attack the so-called entitlements and NEVER mention corporate welfare or the reduction in the SHARE that the wealthy pay. 

The reality, no matter how you hate it, is that there has to be a combined sacrifice.  Spending for the poor and middle class needs to be reduced, but those that are doing VERY well need to pay more too.  A good start to that would be to eliminate the corporate welfare that gives them nice tax reductions for shipping jobs overseas.  Take that out and put in a credit for creating jobs HERE.  And Brian had a fantastic idea.  One cent per trade would be a big help to equalizing the shortfall.  Bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and close a couple hundred bases in foreign countries and bring them home too.  When contracts come up, rework them so that public workers have to pay a greater share just as the rest of the population has had to do.  Those are just examples, not a complete list of what can be done, so please don’t try some lame thing like it isn’t enough or something.  The point is, it isn’t just the poor and the middle class that have to sacrifice.  Corporate welfare has to stop, or change to benefit a climate of a workforce IN THIS COUNTRY.  See, if we can get jobs back, ones that people can live on – or gosh – maybe do a little better than survive, and then revenue will increase.  Then, after the national debt is gone… THEN you can reward the rich.

Indeed it is very serious, but rewarding the rich for exporting a substantial part of the good jobs that we USED to have is not the answer.  That you want to bow down to raw greed isn’t going to solve the problem.  Eliminating all spending on the poor and middle class won’t fix it either.    Just as the stupidity of your statement of taxing the rich 100% is ludicrous, so is believing that cutting spending that helps the workers is going to fix it either.  It means tax increases and spending cuts together… Not spending cuts and then added tax reductions insuring that the spending cuts HAVE to be even deeper.

So, John, if you wish to call me “colossally ignorant” for believing that the rich have to do their share and work toward rebuilding viable businesses that employ workers at livable wages HERE instead of in other countries and doing their share of paying for the government operation while reducing spending too.  Fine.  At least I believe I live in reality.  A reality where the very wealthy are doing very, very well and are given a reward of tax cuts while the working classes are struggling to survive.  A reality where you advocate giving those very wealthy even less of a burden and hurting the workers even more than they are currently suffering.  Did you ever stop and think that if your gods did what they should and supply adequate paying jobs then the NEEDS would be reduced, spending would be reduced, and revenue would be up?  No, John, if the way to remove myself from being “colossally ignorant” in your eyes is to bow down to the rich and let them pay next to nothing while killing off the workers by starvation or sickness or starvation – then I will accept your rude insults as a compliment.

[SMASH]

Well, I am colossally sorry that you are colossally rude and insulting and have no clue after all this time what I actually say.



Well, John, your gods blackmailed the country into getting new tax cuts for the rich that are not paid for.  But, I guarantee your gods will make sure that they are in the near future.  They will take it from those that need it most.  They are going to make cuts to social security.  The very wealthy are sitting on several trillion dollars not doing anything other than paying themselves huge bonuses for making so much money.  The rest of the country is in a near depression, but hey, reward the rich by doing nothing for this country to help the workers.  Yes, they create job… in other countries. Gosh, they even get corporate welfare to ship our jobs to other countries.  Then to make it even worse you and your idols are going to take away what people paid their whole working lives in to.  To you they are lowlifes that don’t deserve to get back what they paid in.  But, it really doesn’t matter because the tax cut to the rich needs paid for, so the poorest are the ones to pick up the tab.  I do not advocate “spend, spend, spend”  I advocate the workers and that they don’t have to pay for the share the rich should be paying.  I am very much in favor of balanced budgets and paying down the national debt.  Unlike you I don’t want to punish the workers exclusively while rewarding the very wealthy.  I don’t advocate taking away things that benefit the workers in a depressed economic climate where they are having a difficult time surviving, let alone do well, while the very wealthy are reaping big rewards and getting corporate welfare and tax reductions.  Now, you know that already John.  Yet, you want to LIE that I think differently.  So, yeah, we need to get our fiscal house in order, but not on the backs of the poor and middle class alone while reducing the burden on the very rich.  You repeatedly attack the so-called entitlements and NEVER mention corporate welfare or the reduction in the SHARE that the wealthy pay. 

The reality, no matter how you hate it, is that there has to be a combined sacrifice.  Spending for the poor and middle class needs to be reduced, but those that are doing VERY well need to pay more too.  A good start to that would be to eliminate the corporate welfare that gives them nice tax reductions for shipping jobs overseas.  Take that out and put in a credit for creating jobs HERE.  And Brian had a fantastic idea.  One cent per trade would be a big help to equalizing the shortfall.  Bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and close a couple hundred bases in foreign countries and bring them home too.  When contracts come up, rework them so that public workers have to pay a greater share just as the rest of the population has had to do.  Those are just examples, not a complete list of what can be done, so please don’t try some lame thing like it isn’t enough or something.  The point is, it isn’t just the poor and the middle class that have to sacrifice.  Corporate welfare has to stop, or change to benefit a climate of a workforce IN THIS COUNTRY.  See, if we can get jobs back, ones that people can live on – or gosh – maybe do a little better than survive, and then revenue will increase.  Then, after the national debt is gone… THEN you can reward the rich.

Indeed it is very serious, but rewarding the rich for exporting a substantial part of the good jobs that we USED to have is not the answer.  That you want to bow down to raw greed isn’t going to solve the problem.  Eliminating all spending on the poor and middle class won’t fix it either.    Just as the stupidity of your statement of taxing the rich 100% is ludicrous, so is believing that cutting spending that helps the workers is going to fix it either.  It means tax increases and spending cuts together… Not spending cuts and then added tax reductions insuring that the spending cuts HAVE to be even deeper.

So, John, if you wish to call me “colossally ignorant” for believing that the rich have to do their share and work toward rebuilding viable businesses that employ workers at livable wages HERE instead of in other countries and doing their share of paying for the government operation while reducing spending too.  Fine.  At least I believe I live in reality.  A reality where the very wealthy are doing very, very well and are given a reward of tax cuts while the working classes are struggling to survive.  A reality where you advocate giving those very wealthy even less of a burden and hurting the workers even more than they are currently suffering.  Did you ever stop and think that if your gods did what they should and supply adequate paying jobs then the NEEDS would be reduced, spending would be reduced, and revenue would be up?  No, John, if the way to remove myself from being “colossally ignorant” in your eyes is to bow down to the rich and let them pay next to nothing while killing off the workers by starvation or sickness or starvation – then I will accept your rude insults as a compliment.

Well, John, your gods blackmailed the country into getting new tax cuts for the rich that are not paid for.

New tax cuts?

Not paid for?

Please explain how you pay for a tax cut.

There is a crossover line where taxation reaches a point where you actually lose revenue. Similar to the crossover line between torque and horsepower.

As Kopke stated we could tax everyone with a pulse 100% and you will not solve what is going to happen without corresponding cuts.

[ducksoup]

Well, John, your gods blackmailed the country into getting new tax cuts for the rich that are not paid for.

New tax cuts?

Not paid for?

Please explain how you pay for a tax cut.

There is a crossover line where taxation reaches a point where you actually lose revenue. Similar to the crossover line between torque and horsepower.

As Kopke stated we could tax everyone with a pulse 100% and you will not solve what is going to happen without corresponding cuts.

Yes, NEW tax cuts.  THE old ones expire on Dec 31 of this year.  A NEW one replaces it on Jan. 1.

Semantics… Fine… The cry is cut spending, and reduce revenue at the same time.  If you personally are spending more than you make are you going to ask your boss to lower YOUR income?  Why cry about spending when you are all in favor of reducing revenue with no offset to that loss of revenue?’

What is that crossover line EXACTLY.  I really would love to know what it is.  When Clinton was President the top rate was 39% and the economy was good, then the R’s and Bush lowered it to 35% and the economy stagnated until it made a near collapse.  So, by your reference, they are too low and should be at 39%?  Is that the magic crossover?

“As Kopke stated we could tax everyone with a pulse 100% and you will not solve what is going to happen without corresponding cuts.”

Can’t read?  Reducing revenue has not helped the economy in the last ten years and the extension will only necessitate further spending cuts with no gain from the revenue cuts.  The big argument is that the rich need the reduction to meet your unknown crossover and increase jobs.  Hmmm, yeah, it worked, now the jobs here are largely gone and they are still doing well, but the workers are starving for decent jobs.  So, reward the rich for selling out the country.  Nice advocation there Smash.

[jbs49238]

Duck,

I pesonally have taken the following stance:

The government uselessly spends an incredible amount of money.  Just wastes money every day with no regard to the future ramifications.  Without specifying a single program to cut/trim/eliminate I refuse to back highger taxes on ANYONE without the government figuring out how to do with less.

The government (current administration included) has no intnetion of cutting the spending or being fiscally responsible... NONE.  Obama and the Democrats do not want taxes raised to balance budgets or cut deficits, that is not in the works, not at all.  They want more money to spend, more ammunition to buy votes through new government programs and giveaways.  The voters told the Democrats NO in the mid term elections, the GOP is telling them NO through what you call obstruction (what I call listening to their constituents) and you know what... they push on, because they know what is better for us than we do.

I would rather the mess be fixed by the government spending and budgeting rationally and taxing EVERYONE appropriately.  You would rather isolate a small group of people, punish them for having more than you, and make them pay through the nose so that the government can push on as is.  Push the top rate through the roof duck, see what happens, the rich will take their money and stop spending it and then the governemnt will once again have to do what it has done before, change the definition of "rich"... $100K/year sound good?  Raise their taxes too, I think they can afford it.

[jbs49238]

PS:

Clinton economy = good.

Possibly... Spending done on credit was through the roof though, so even though the economy looked good and businesses were booming, the bills were not yet paid.  When folks ran out of credit (second half of the Bush Adminisration) the spending dried up and the economy started to turn, throw high fuel costs and the housing bubble on top and TA-DA... welcome to 2010.

Remember a long time ago when I said you cannot trick the economy?  What we have now is the economy's answer to Americans attempting to trick it during the Clinton years.  Actually the economy if nothing else is very very predictable.

[ducksoup]

Duck,

I pesonally have taken the following stance:

The government uselessly spends an incredible amount of money.  Just wastes money every day with no regard to the future ramifications.  Without specifying a single program to cut/trim/eliminate I refuse to back highger taxes on ANYONE without the government figuring out how to do with less.

The government (current administration included) has no intnetion of cutting the spending or being fiscally responsible... NONE.  Obama and the Democrats do not want taxes raised to balance budgets or cut deficits, that is not in the works, not at all.  They want more money to spend, more ammunition to buy votes through new government programs and giveaways.  The voters told the Democrats NO in the mid term elections, the GOP is telling them NO through what you call obstruction (what I call listening to their constituents) and you know what... they push on, because they know what is better for us than we do.

I would rather the mess be fixed by the government spending and budgeting rationally and taxing EVERYONE appropriately.  You would rather isolate a small group of people, punish them for having more than you, and make them pay through the nose so that the government can push on as is.  Push the top rate through the roof duck, see what happens, the rich will take their money and stop spending it and then the governemnt will once again have to do what it has done before, change the definition of "rich"... $100K/year sound good?  Raise their taxes too, I think they can afford it.

JBS, I actually do not disagree with your first paragraph.  I do not believe that spending does not need to be reduced.  I have not said that, and in fact, have said the opposite.  You may see the R’s as totally altruistic, however I do not.  I believe this is all about hurting Social Security as hard as they possibly can, and not some noble goal of reducing the national debt.  Sure, that might be a part of what eventually needs done, but why the Republican way always have to be on the backs of workers?

I don’t understand why you and the far right wingers persist to know what I think better than what I think and say.  I do not single out the rich as you accuse.  I say why can’t they be a part of the solution?  Why do they get preferential treatment and nice tidy little deals that ultimately are going to make the sacrifices of the workers even worse? 

I don’t know what the mid terms said.  Maybe your GUESS is right.  My guess is more in line with history and they voted that the economy sucks, jobs are gone, and they want it fixed. The exact same thing as when Obama won.  He failed to do what they wanted and fix the economy, so they voted AGAINST the party in power, not FOR any vague idea other than fix the economy NOW!

I don’t object to a party trying to stop or more favorably negotiate what needs done on many things, but gosh J, ALL things.  It is almost impossible to pass anything when you have to have 61 votes and the minority only needs 41.  You see it as a good thing to do nothing and let the economy drag down in the pit as long as possible.  If they are so dog eared about cutting spending and the D’s wanted to do something to encourage the economy... why didn’t they make a deal and do both instead?   You think the D’s would refuse to deal to get something passed?  I don’t.  It is just like this recent tax debacle.  The R’s agreed to a temporary reduction in the middle class tax rates as long as they were paid for out of SS,  Why out of SS?  TO cut into the fund so the cry to slash SS even further happens.  You see altruism in spending cuts and I see an ideology that wants to give the country away to the rich and leave the rest as peasants.

“I would rather the mess be fixed by the government spending and budgeting rationally and taxing EVERYONE appropriately. “  Exactly what I say…  Why do the rich get rewards and the workers get punishment?

“You would rather isolate a small group of people, punish them for having more than you, and make them pay through the nose so that the government can push on as is.  Push the top rate through the roof duck, see what happens, the rich will take their money and stop spending it and then the government will once again have to do what it has done before, change the definition of "rich"... $100K/year sound good?  Raise their taxes too, I think they can afford it.”

Again I ask, why do you misrepresent what I say?  Does it make your point seem valid then?  It seems to be a trend lately, tell others what they think and make pretend it helps your own spin.  Show me any quote that I made that says I want the rich to pay every penny they make to the government.  Frankly, saying that about anyone is rather silly.  I would be tickled to death to have an economy filled with well paying jobs that allowed the workers to live with respect, then the rich could pay less than the workers for all I care, as long as the working people didn’t have to carry the burden while the rich had far less of a burden. 

Far too many of the decent jobs were shipped out of the country because gosh, if they do that then they make more profit.  Doesn’t matter that THIS economy is crap because of it.  They are still raking in record profits.  The argument for lowering the highest marginal rate was so they can create more jobs and they did, just in other countries.  Why should I show any loyalty to that?  Why should I care if they pay more when they are making RECORD profits while the majority of the country wallows in a near depression?  Why does voiding this country of decent jobs deserve a reward?

AS I said, I am not “anti rich” I am anti down on your knees worshipping the rich like they are the gods.  Last I looked, they are a part of this country too, and do not deserve the preferential treatment that the right demands that they receive.  Why do we have to return to the feudal days of dirt poor peasants with an ultra rich aristocracy?  Because, sir, I suggest that the spending cuts and changes you believe the right demands will accomplish exactly that instead of creating decent jobs for the other 98%.

[ducksoup]

PS:

Clinton economy = good.

Possibly... Spending done on credit was through the roof though, so even though the economy looked good and businesses were booming, the bills were not yet paid.  When folks ran out of credit (second half of the Bush Adminisration) the spending dried up and the economy started to turn, throw high fuel costs and the housing bubble on top and TA-DA... welcome to 2010.

Remember a long time ago when I said you cannot trick the economy?  What we have now is the economy's answer to Americans attempting to trick it during the Clinton years.  Actually the economy if nothing else is very very predictable.

With that I agree.  The decline in incomes coupled with easy cheap credit was devastating.  Stupidly, too many people believed that the income disparity  would self correct  and it did not.  They really believed that someday the cost of living would go below their wages instead of surpassing it as income stagnated.  However, it isn't just the workers that did that, or the govt.  A big part is the borrowing of the big banks and wall street, which HAS NOT stopped.

[jbs49238]

JBS, I actually do not disagree with your first paragraph.  I do not believe that spending does not need to be reduced.  I have not said that, and in fact, have said the opposite.  You may see the R’s as totally altruistic, however I do not.  I believe this is all about hurting Social Security as hard as they possibly can, and not some noble goal of reducing the national debt.  Sure, that might be a part of what eventually needs done, but why the Republican way always have to be on the backs of workers?

I don’t understand why you and the far right wingers persist to know what I think better than what I think and say.  I do not single out the rich as you accuse.  I say why can’t they be a part of the solution?  Why do they get preferential treatment and nice tidy little deals that ultimately are going to make the sacrifices of the workers even worse? 

I don’t know what the mid terms said.  Maybe your GUESS is right.  My guess is more in line with history and they voted that the economy sucks, jobs are gone, and they want it fixed. The exact same thing as when Obama won.  He failed to do what they wanted and fix the economy, so they voted AGAINST the party in power, not FOR any vague idea other than fix the economy NOW!

I don’t object to a party trying to stop or more favorably negotiate what needs done on many things, but gosh J, ALL things.  It is almost impossible to pass anything when you have to have 61 votes and the minority only needs 41.  You see it as a good thing to do nothing and let the economy drag down in the pit as long as possible.  If they are so dog eared about cutting spending and the D’s wanted to do something to encourage the economy... why didn’t they make a deal and do both instead?   You think the D’s would refuse to deal to get something passed?  I don’t.  It is just like this recent tax debacle.  The R’s agreed to a temporary reduction in the middle class tax rates as long as they were paid for out of SS,  Why out of SS?  TO cut into the fund so the cry to slash SS even further happens.  You see altruism in spending cuts and I see an ideology that wants to give the country away to the rich and leave the rest as peasants.

“I would rather the mess be fixed by the government spending and budgeting rationally and taxing EVERYONE appropriately. “  Exactly what I say…  Why do the rich get rewards and the workers get punishment?

“You would rather isolate a small group of people, punish them for having more than you, and make them pay through the nose so that the government can push on as is.  Push the top rate through the roof duck, see what happens, the rich will take their money and stop spending it and then the government will once again have to do what it has done before, change the definition of "rich"... $100K/year sound good?  Raise their taxes too, I think they can afford it.”

Again I ask, why do you misrepresent what I say?  Does it make your point seem valid then?  It seems to be a trend lately, tell others what they think and make pretend it helps your own spin.  Show me any quote that I made that says I want the rich to pay every penny they make to the government.  Frankly, saying that about anyone is rather silly.  I would be tickled to death to have an economy filled with well paying jobs that allowed the workers to live with respect, then the rich could pay less than the workers for all I care, as long as the working people didn’t have to carry the burden while the rich had far less of a burden. 

Far too many of the decent jobs were shipped out of the country because gosh, if they do that then they make more profit.  Doesn’t matter that THIS economy is crap because of it.  They are still raking in record profits.  The argument for lowering the highest marginal rate was so they can create more jobs and they did, just in other countries.  Why should I show any loyalty to that?  Why should I care if they pay more when they are making RECORD profits while the majority of the country wallows in a near depression?  Why does voiding this country of decent jobs deserve a reward?

AS I said, I am not “anti rich” I am anti down on your knees worshipping the rich like they are the gods.  Last I looked, they are a part of this country too, and do not deserve the preferential treatment that the right demands that they receive.  Why do we have to return to the feudal days of dirt poor peasants with an ultra rich aristocracy?  Because, sir, I suggest that the spending cuts and changes you believe the right demands will accomplish exactly that instead of creating decent jobs for the other 98%.

You keep saying that the rich get a break somehow, and that I am suggesting that they should get even more....  I beg a question of you duck.... what breaks are you talking about?  And from what do you infer that I am in favor of them?  You spent a great many lines in your reply accusing me of telling you what you think, but yet you are the one employing the tactic.

We live in a system where persons making more than $X (more than those who make less than them) pay a higher percentage of their income.  If you make $100K and I make $88K you ALREADY PAY MORE than I do.  Now throw on that you have to pay an extra bit more because of the perception that hey you can afford it...

I am not standing here arguing with you that the rich should pay less %wise than those making fewer dollars than them, just pointing out that they already pay more $wise than those making less than them if everyone were created equal (a sneaky little quip from some founding document there). 

Why duck?  Why can't everyone pay the same % of their income over $35K?  That way everyone can share the burden of being a tax payer and those that make more $wise pay more $wise.

Until you can remove your view of Mr A has more than Mr B so Mr A should pay ALOT more from your field of vision, you will never be able to argue the topic objectively.

As far as the bold.  I used an example, and since you will never supply any numbers into your arguments I tossed a few around for you.  Set the parameters duck... WHAT IS FAIR?  You tell me, I have been very upfront about what I think is fair but you only dance around the topic and claim I misrepresent what you said.  How can I misrepresent something you won't say?  I never claimed you wanted anyone to pay their entire income to the government (using your trick... quote me where I did), but yet you inferred I did in your reply and then accused me of misrepresenting. 

Anyone who takes a stance that Person A should be taxed at a higher % than Person B because of level of income is a proponant of class warfare, and you are foot soldier. 

[Brian Beneteau]

You keep saying that the rich get a break somehow, and that I am suggesting that they should get even more....  I beg a question of you duck.... what breaks are you talking about?  And from what do you infer that I am in favor of them?  You spent a great many lines in your reply accusing me of telling you what you think, but yet you are the one employing the tactic.

We live in a system where persons making more than $X (more than those who make less than them) pay a higher percentage of their income.  If you make $100K and I make $88K you ALREADY PAY MORE than I do.  Now throw on that you have to pay an extra bit more because of the perception that hey you can afford it...

I am not standing here arguing with you that the rich should pay less %wise than those making fewer dollars than them, just pointing out that they already pay more $wise than those making less than them if everyone were created equal (a sneaky little quip from some founding document there). 

Why duck?  Why can't everyone pay the same % of their income over $35K?  That way everyone can share the burden of being a tax payer and those that make more $wise pay more $wise.

Until you can remove your view of Mr A has more than Mr B so Mr A should pay ALOT more from your field of vision, you will never be able to argue the topic objectively.

As far as the bold.  I used an example, and since you will never supply any numbers into your arguments I tossed a few around for you.  Set the parameters duck... WHAT IS FAIR?  You tell me, I have been very upfront about what I think is fair but you only dance around the topic and claim I misrepresent what you said.  How can I misrepresent something you won't say?  I never claimed you wanted anyone to pay their entire income to the government (using your trick... quote me where I did), but yet you inferred I did in your reply and then accused me of misrepresenting. 

Anyone who takes a stance that Person A should be taxed at a higher % than Person B because of level of income is a proponant of class warfare, and you are foot soldier.

You can't imagine the number of people in my precinct who always use the "my roads should be cleaned first, because I pay more taxes" story. I then have to remind them that they pay the same amount as everyone else, but they chose to purchase a more highly valued piece of property. Once they finally get that point, they realize that all is equal as far as percentages. Same with your point. Everyone should be taxed the same rate, as this is the only fair way.

[Professor H]

You can't imagine the number of people in my precinct who always use the "my roads should be cleaned first, because I pay more taxes" story. I then have to remind them that they pay the same amount as everyone else, but they chose to purchase a more highly valued piece of property. Once they finally get that point, they realize that all is equal as far as percentages. Same with your point. Everyone should be taxed the same rate, as this is the only fair way.

It works that way at the State and Local levels for the most part.  It's the write offs, and credits and all that other stuff that complicates Federal tax laws and makes it seem like the rich get breaks.   
At one end people get money they never worked for back, and at the other end their are tax breaks.   Simple flat rate adjusted to equal what we are paying now would probably be the best way.   But will never happen because of the lobbying power against it.