Should Democratic Party merge with the Communist Party?

[King Ritchie]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461994/posts
August 12, 2005 | Devvy Kidd


This article is about 3 years old, however, one of the links provides a list of the goals of the Communist party and most of it has already happened!

Part of the article states:

"Unless and until one understands exactly how communists go about recruiting by duping uninformed Americans, they will continue to gain ground in their quest to destroy this republic and enslave all of us under an iron fist. The goal for world communist domination and how it is being implemented is right in the face of Americans if they would just get out of denial and take a good look at their party's platform."

[46zilzal]

J Edgar and old Tail Gunner Joe gave up this baloney years ago after ruining many peoples' lives and found ZERO.

[jballscalls]

You've started 3 threads recently KR and they are all anti-democrat party, whats the matter?? are you that scared of Obama?

[Dave Schwartz]

You've started 3 threads recently KR and they are all anti-democrat party, whats the matter?? are you that scared of Obama?

Yes.

[boxcar]

J Edgar and old Tail Gunner Joe gave up this baloney years ago after ruining many peoples' lives and found ZERO.

There are none so blind who will not see.

Boxcar

[jcrabboy]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461994/posts
August 12, 2005 | Devvy Kidd


This article is about 3 years old, however, one of the links provides a list of the goals of the Communist party and most of it has already happened!

Part of the article states:

"Unless and until one understands exactly how communists go about recruiting by duping uninformed Americans, they will continue to gain ground in their quest to destroy this republic and enslave all of us under an iron fist. The goal for world communist domination and how it is being implemented is right in the face of Americans if they would just get out of denial and take a good look at their party's platform."

King Ritchie:

If duping uninformed Americans is your criteria for Creating a Communist party from one of the parties in our two party system I would take a peek At Chairman Mao Bush. The web of fear, mis-direction and outright lies that took us to Iraq suggests a very Communist-like propaganda campaign.

Had the uninformed Americans and congress (Dem and Rep) bothered to read or listen to the weapons inspector reports prior to going into Iraq, they would have recognized the elaborate shell game being perpetrated and given George and Dick the well deserved finger.

Wake up man! There is not enough difference between the two parties to merit getting steamed either way.

Consider the last time you really believed Republicans were fiscally conservative. The only difference is the Republicans now believe government can spend extravagantly without taxes and the Democrats realize the money has to come from somewhere.

Neither party can resist a pork sandwich at the taxpayers expense.

As for the coming election - Hold your nose and pull the lever. I'm voting Dem simply because I can't envision them trumping the ineptitude of the current crop of Republicans.

Jimmie

[wonatthewire1]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461994/posts
August 12, 2005 | Devvy Kidd


This article is about 3 years old, however, one of the links provides a list of the goals of the Communist party and most of it has already happened!

Part of the article states:

"Unless and until one understands exactly how communists go about recruiting by duping uninformed Americans, they will continue to gain ground in their quest to destroy this republic and enslave all of us under an iron fist. The goal for world communist domination and how it is being implemented is right in the face of Americans if they would just get out of denial and take a good look at their party's platform."


>>>Did you donate to the cause? If not, you can use this link - I'm sending her $3,000 as she needs a new wardrobe.

http://www.devvy.com/

Ooops...looks like somebody doesn't like her...

http://www.quatlosers.com/devvy_kidd.htm

And she don't like the Prez

http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Devvy+Kidd&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.bigspringfreedom.com/files/dvkidd_ccc_0801.pdf&w=devvy+kidd&d=SKTl5pzfQ32X&icp=1&.intl=us

[Lefty]

crabboy, try to get informed. Clinton's Admin blv'd there wre weapons of mass destruction and went on and on about it. There are many quotes by these people. Just some are: Bill and Hillary, Madelyn Albright, ALGORE, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry etc etc.

[jcrabboy]

crabboy, try to get informed. Clinton's Admin blv'd there wre weapons of mass destruction and went on and on about it. There are many quotes by these people. Just some are: Bill and Hillary, Madelyn Albright, ALGORE, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry etc etc.

Hi Lefty:
Not sure how Clinton plays into the Iraq ClusterF***, but you will note my comment encompassed both sides of the aisle. Had they performed their due diligence and actually read the reports from weapons inspectors in Iraq and listened to what they were saying they would have realized WMD was bullshit.

How often are you guys going to keep using quotes and crap from Clinton's Presidency. Past Presidential Bufoonery doesn't obviate holding the current Commander in Cheese accountable for what occurred on his watch.

At this point that is Quite a lot. From Iraq, to Katrina, To not capturing Osama Bin Laden, etc., etc. For sheer ineptitude it would be hard to even dream up someone on a par with George Bush.

And hell, I didn't even have to be informed to figure that out.

Jimmie

[jonnielu]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461994/posts
August 12, 2005 | Devvy Kidd


This article is about 3 years old, however, one of the links provides a list of the goals of the Communist party and most of it has already happened!

Part of the article states:

"Unless and until one understands exactly how communists go about recruiting by duping uninformed Americans, they will continue to gain ground in their quest to destroy this republic and enslave all of us under an iron fist. The goal for world communist domination and how it is being implemented is right in the face of Americans if they would just get out of denial and take a good look at their party's platform."


The parties merged in the 30's already, the republicans jumped on in the 90's

[boxcar]

J Edgar and old Tail Gunner Joe gave up this baloney years ago after ruining many peoples' lives and found ZERO.

So, let me see if I understand you: You're implying that the freedom-hating, Commie regimes in this world are above having any evil, global political agenda? Only freedom-loving nations like the U.S. are capable of having any? Is this the deal?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

So, let me see if I understand you: You're implying that the freedom-hating, Commie regimes in this world are above having any evil, global political agenda? Only freedom-loving nations like the U.S. are capable of having any? Is this the deal?

IF I wrote the color blue you wouldn't understand it so why I not surprised here.

[NJ Stinks]

Unless the conservatives here have made a bundle from the Bush tax cuts over the last 7 years, this constant babble about how America needs another Republican in the White House must be a joke! :)


So are you are joking or just better off than you have ever been? :confused:

[PaceAdvantage]

You've started 3 threads recently KR and they are all anti-democrat party, whats the matter?? are you that scared of Obama?At least it's a change of pace from all the anti-right threads.....

[boxcar]

IF I wrote the color blue you wouldn't understand it so why I not surprised here.

And I'm surprised even less that you feigned an answer to my very simple, direct question with the above six-year old age level drivel. I suppose if I wrote that your favorite color is red, you wouldn't get my drift either, would you?

Boxcar

[riskman]

Should Democratic Party merge with the Communist Party?
Let me state this as plainly as possible. The enemy is the state. There are other enemies too, but none so fearsome, destructive, dangerous, or culturally and economically debilitating. No matter what other proximate enemy you can name – big business, unions, victim lobbies, foreign lobbies, medical cartels, religious groups, classes, city dwellers, farmers, left-wing professors, right-wing blue-collar workers, or even bankers and arms merchants – none are as horrible as the leviathan state. If you understand this point – and only this point – you can understand the core of real conservative strategy.

[ljb]

Should Democratic Party merge with the Communist Party?
Let me state this as plainly as possible. The enemy is the state. There are other enemies too, but none so fearsome, destructive, dangerous, or culturally and economically debilitating. No matter what other proximate enemy you can name – big business, unions, victim lobbies, foreign lobbies, medical cartels, religious groups, classes, city dwellers, farmers, left-wing professors, right-wing blue-collar workers, or even bankers and arms merchants – none are as horrible as the leviathan state. If you understand this point – and only this point – you can understand the core of real conservative strategy.
So, does this mean you are voting for Bob Barr ?

[Tom]

A rising new conservative star is currently fixing Louisiana.
Whoever wins this election will be a one term prez.

I look for great things to come from the Big Easy over the next four years. The future is bright - conservatives will re-take the party.

[boxcar]

Should Democratic Party merge with the Communist Party?
Let me state this as plainly as possible. The enemy is the state. There are other enemies too, but none so fearsome, destructive, dangerous, or culturally and economically debilitating. No matter what other proximate enemy you can name – big business, unions, victim lobbies, foreign lobbies, medical cartels, religious groups, classes, city dwellers, farmers, left-wing professors, right-wing blue-collar workers, or even bankers and arms merchants – none are as horrible as the leviathan state. If you understand this point – and only this point – you can understand the core of real conservative strategy.

Well stated! Glad to see someone around here gets it!

Boxcar

[ddog]

crabboy, try to get informed. Clinton's Admin blv'd there wre weapons of mass destruction and went on and on about it. There are many quotes by these people. Just some are: Bill and Hillary, Madelyn Albright, ALGORE, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry etc etc.

why not stay in your foolish little wayback machine just a little longer and go back to Bush41, he KNEW there were WMD there and had 500,000 massed against a defeated force and STILL did not go in.

Of course , he was correct as has been proven over and over in the recent past.

remake the ME for democracy, what rubbish, what utter stupidity, what utter contempt for the lessons of history.

After we finish up IRAQ and IRAN and Syria and Eqypt and
AFG and Pakistan and Jordan and and , wow, why not invade all the African "states" and "do" them too.


After all , since Iraq had WMD for sure , they must be somewhere, if we just keep invading we are sure to stumble on them somewhere.

Where in the world are my WMD, where or where did they go.
The chances of WMD of a nuke or bio kind is and always has been much greater via the old Soviet collapsed block supplies.
We gave lip service to making sure those were all rounded up , would have been a much better use of our force.

[ddog]

Well stated! Glad to see someone around here gets it!

Boxcar


sad to say the gvt"state" has increased faster and faster in the last several years and you seem to have championed the growth based on the tenor of your posts.

No matter which DIM, commie , whatever , that doesn't get it , none are more blind than you to exactly what you SAY you are against.

[ddog]

A rising new conservative star is currently fixing Louisiana.
Whoever wins this election will be a one term prez.

I look for great things to come from the Big Easy over the next four years. The future is bright - conservatives will re-take the party.


I'll take that bet if you want.

He will be out of there before you now it.

That state makes DC look like Mary Poppins.

very little will change.

[wonatthewire1]

Well stated! Glad to see someone around here gets it!

Boxcar


So Boxie, where are all the real conservatives?

Or is that a phrase that will be relegated to the dust pan of history?

[wonatthewire1]

why not stay in your foolish little wayback machine just a little longer and go back to Bush41, he KNEW there were WMD there and had 500,000 massed against a defeated force and STILL did not go in.

Of course , he was correct as has been proven over and over in the recent past.



ddog, ddog, ddog....but 41 didn't have God talking to him - letting him know the course to take. But then again, God could be working for the other side - duping the USA in and taking all the gold - classic trap and no way out without losing face
:(

[jcrabboy]

why not stay in your foolish little wayback machine just a little longer and go back to Bush41, he KNEW there were WMD there and had 500,000 massed against a defeated force and STILL did not go in.

Of course , he was correct as has been proven over and over in the recent past.

remake the ME for democracy, what rubbish, what utter stupidity, what utter contempt for the lessons of history.

After we finish up IRAQ and IRAN and Syria and Eqypt and
AFG and Pakistan and Jordan and and , wow, why not invade all the African "states" and "do" them too.


After all , since Iraq had WMD for sure , they must be somewhere, if we just keep invading we are sure to stumble on them somewhere.

Where in the world are my WMD, where or where did they go.
The chances of WMD of a nuke or bio kind is and always has been much greater via the old Soviet collapsed block supplies.
We gave lip service to making sure those were all rounded up , would have been a much better use of our force.

Hi ddog:

Slavish devotion to ideology keeps the blinders on for guys like lefty. It is why they post incredibly old news stories or quotes from previous administrations rather than face the current untenable truths.

This 'Badministration' decided early on to implement a kind of bastardized colonization of the middle east and viewed Iraq as an easy starting point. 9/11 allowed them to fast track the idea around a campaign of fear.

Saddam-Bad. WMD-Scary. Mushroom cloud. Slam Dunk. History be damned.

Big ideas-small mind implementation doomed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. Ego and stupidity keep us there now.

Jimmie

[Tom]

I'll take Lefty'w ideas over those wack-o ones any day. :rolleyes:
We would all be better off with more Lefty's running around.

[boxcar]

sad to say the gvt"state" has increased faster and faster in the last several years and you seem to have championed the growth based on the tenor of your posts.

No matter which DIM, commie , whatever , that doesn't get it , none are more blind than you to exactly what you SAY you are against.

You know, ddog, if you learned how to intelligently construct sentences into coherent thoughts someone may actually pay you some mind. What's obvious to me from the "tenor"+ of your posts is that you're a prime example of a "gvt'state'" waste by-product.

Boxcar

[ddog]

You know, ddog, if you learned how to intelligently construct sentences into coherent thoughts someone may actually pay you some mind. What's obvious to me from the "tenor"+ of your posts is that you're a prime example of a "gvt'state'" waste by-product.

Boxcar


so , as usual , you did get it enough to use it , but not to reply, since you can't seem to come up with anything rational on the subject.

If you are confused by these constructs then try remedial ed, they say everyone can learn.

go fer it...

[ddog]

I'll take Lefty'w ideas over those wack-o ones any day. :rolleyes:
We would all be better off with more Lefty's running around.


that's your choice.

You do seem to make a nice couple, of what, i am not sure....

[Lefty]

I'll take Lefty'w ideas over those wack-o ones any day. :rolleyes:
We would all be better off with more Lefty's running around.
Thanks, Tom. Appreciate it.

[Lefty]

crabboy, I know you just hate those old dem quotes that continued past the Clinton Adminand continued to at least 2002. You hate em because the putthe lie to lib fairytale that GW was the only one that blved Saddam had WMD's.
And I am not ashamed of an ideology that blves in protecting this country from all invaders and blves in individual rights and private property rights, and the right to life.
Things that a lot of dems no longer embrace.

[wonatthewire1]

And I am not ashamed of an ideology that blves in protecting this country from all invaders and blves in individual rights and private property rights, and the right to life.
Things that a lot of dems no longer embrace.

Lefty...we are invaded everyday by the Mexicans - this admin welcomes them as does McCain.

If Bush put one ounce into fiscal conservatism he would have had a great outcome but he's a guy that can't say no to spending every last (and many years worth of our country's future) dime when the R's had control of congress. He's only wiggling a bit now because the dimwits control congress - otherwise - no limit to the spending.

[Lefty]

MCain's the one calling for spending cuts. Do you really think obama will cut spending?
as far as the illegals; didn't this admin call for thefence? Sadly it's not getting the funding and it's going slowly. Once again, think obama will do any better or worse?

[wonatthewire1]

MCain's the one calling for spending cuts. Do you really think obama will cut spending?
as far as the illegals; didn't this admin call for thefence? Sadly it's not getting the funding and it's going slowly. Once again, think obama will do any better or worse?


Lefty, calling for the fence is nice after Bush allowed millions to come in and then say that they should have amnesty - what it is only a one-way fence? That is called, in the old days, letting the fox into the hen house then wondering why the fox is eating the hens. Not gonna work with people who actually think about it for a minute.

I don't think either candidate will cut spending - they are both spenders - McCain in the spirit of the borrow and continue to spend; Barry for the tax and continue to spend. I asked Boxie where are all the real fiscal conservatives - they can't get elected. If you cut one freaking program in the USA you're finished - so spend we will until they come and get the rest of the money to keep spending or the Chinese call in their chips.

Better learn Chinese and save all the gold you can.

:ThmbDown:

[Tom]

MCain's the one calling for spending cuts. Do you really think obama will cut spending?
as far as the illegals; didn't this admin call for the fence? Sadly it's not getting the funding and it's going slowly. Once again, think obama will do any better or worse?

Obama will instutute the largest tax increase in history.
McCain will cave in and go for amnesty - I have no doubt he is lying about it right now. For sure, elect McCain, start learning Spainish.
I see only one postive for McCain - he is the only one qualiifed to be CNC.
I have already conceded will have a horrible president. At least one can salvage something. Lesser of evil election once again.:mad::(

[JustRalph]

Obama will instutute the largest tax increase in history. (

I was listening to a radio show today that interviewed a lady from Forbes Magazine who has done an article on how much our taxes are getting ready to go up. see it here

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0602/102.html

One comment I thought was interesting was a caller who made the comment where he said he will not work for 35 cents on the dollar. He would go offshore or move etc..........and begin to find a way to hide his money. Another said that he would move from California to Nevada to change his tax liability and then start moving money around to keep the government from it. He said he wasn't going to do anything illegal.......but he would make it much harder for the governement to get it......without a full blown audit and fight.

Basically the numbers under Obama will be back to about a top marginal rate of 68 percent.....after all is said and done under Barry .....if you add in all the things that Barry wants to do. McCain's plan isn't much better. There are pitfalls with McCain too. This isn't an article that reasons for either side, but explains what is likely to happen.........no matter what...........we are beyond the point of no return on higher taxes, basically.

from the article:
What about income taxes? A Democratic President is likely to return the top stated rate on ordinary income—salary and interest— to the 39.6% that Bill Clinton’s presidency ended with, says Mark Weinberger, the Treasury’s top tax official when the Bush tax cuts went through and now head of Ernst & Young’s Americas’ tax practice.

That would put the real salary tax bite at around 50% if, as Obama has suggested, the 6.2% Social Security tax is applied to wages above the current $102,000 cap and two sneaky provisions make a comeback— the phaseout of personal exemptions and a haircut to itemized deductions. Under a Democrat, the top capital gains tax rate, now a historically low 15%, will likely rise to 20% or higher. Given the budget gap, even Republican McCain may well resort to closing loopholes and curbing deductions.


Estate tax
McCain: $10 million exemption, 15% top rate.
Obama: $3.5 million exemption, 45% top rate.
Clinton: $3.5 million exemption, 45% top rate.

Ordinary income tax rates
McCain: top rate of 35%.
Obama: top rate of 39.6%.
Clinton: top rate of 39.6%.

Long-term capital gains and dividends
McCain: permanent rate of 15% for both.
Obama: around 25% for both gains and dividends.
Clinton: top rates of 20% for gains and 39.6% for dividends

~much more at the link~

[wonatthewire1]

I was listening to a radio show today that interviewed a lady from Forbes Magazine who has done an article on how much our taxes are getting ready to go up. see it here

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0602/102.html

One comment I thought was interesting was a caller who made the comment where he said he will not work for 35 cents on the dollar. He would go offshore or move etc..........and begin to find a way to hide his money. Another said that he would move from California to Nevada to change his tax liability and then start moving money around to keep the government from it. He said he wasn't going to do anything illegal.......but he would make it much harder for the governement to get it......without a full blown audit and fight.

Basically the numbers under Obama will be back to about a top marginal rate of 68 percent.....after all is said and done under Barry .....if you add in all the things that Barry wants to do. McCain's plan isn't much better. There are pitfalls with McCain too. This isn't an article that reasons for either side, but explains what is likely to happen.........no matter what...........we are beyond the point of no return on higher taxes, basically.

from the article:
What about income taxes? A Democratic President is likely to return the top stated rate on ordinary income—salary and interest— to the 39.6% that Bill Clinton’s presidency ended with, says Mark Weinberger, the Treasury’s top tax official when the Bush tax cuts went through and now head of Ernst & Young’s Americas’ tax practice.

That would put the real salary tax bite at around 50% if, as Obama has suggested, the 6.2% Social Security tax is applied to wages above the current $102,000 cap and two sneaky provisions make a comeback— the phaseout of personal exemptions and a haircut to itemized deductions. Under a Democrat, the top capital gains tax rate, now a historically low 15%, will likely rise to 20% or higher. Given the budget gap, even Republican McCain may well resort to closing loopholes and curbing deductions.


Estate tax
McCain: $10 million exemption, 15% top rate.
Obama: $3.5 million exemption, 45% top rate.
Clinton: $3.5 million exemption, 45% top rate.

Ordinary income tax rates
McCain: top rate of 35%.
Obama: top rate of 39.6%.
Clinton: top rate of 39.6%.

Long-term capital gains and dividends
McCain: permanent rate of 15% for both.
Obama: around 25% for both gains and dividends.
Clinton: top rates of 20% for gains and 39.6% for dividends

~much more at the link~


JR,

I don't think that the next Pres is going to have a choice - taxes have to go up to pay for everything that we've borrowed, the interest on that money and the obligations that have been made to Fed workers. The current admin has been spending like a drunk ship-full of sailors. With no end in sight...the growth in the size and cost of the Federal Government under these group of conservatives went nowhere up up.

Sorry to say it - but the bills are coming due - Bush is lucky to be getting out of town now and be off the hook, except for that pesky "legacy" thing, which is completely overrated anyway.

I think that Medicare will be the thing that will be most affected in the future. Instead of a free-ride for seniors (and their doctor who are getting paid), there will be big deductibles - perhaps even up to $5,000 per year for many - and those amounts will be tied to the earnings that you've made throughout the course of your lifetime - both the IRS and SS admin knows those amounts.

They would still have to get all that stuff through Congress - fortunately, no one has said "Read my lips" yet - so we're dodging the bullet for another day.

And all those people (me included) who have been stocking money away in Roth IRA's - there is no way that the govt doesn't come after that money down the road via the tax person...

Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the govt was looking to make mortgage interest no longer deductible - floated that one out there and it died...but they will float things to see how the public will react.

:ThmbDown:

[Lefty]

won, Medicare is just one of the big money prms that has went way way over projections at the time. And newsflash for you, seniors do not get a free ride with this bad prgm.

[wonatthewire1]

won, Medicare is just one of the big money prms that has went way way over projections at the time. And newsflash for you, seniors do not get a free ride with this bad prgm.

...but all the millionares that I know that use Medicare love it cuz buying insurance would cost them more of their $$$...

Very little regulation - and if you have the govt form of it (instead of the HMO form) you're doin' well

[wonatthewire1]

won, Medicare is just one of the big money prms that has went way way over projections at the time. And newsflash for you, seniors do not get a free ride with this bad prgm.


...oh, and Drs. absolutely love Medicare

Been there - done that

[Lefty]

Too much fraud in a terrible prgm. The govt can't run Medicare and now the dims want the govt to run the whole healthcare system. OMG!

[wonatthewire1]

Too much fraud in a terrible prgm. The govt can't run Medicare and now the dims want the govt to run the whole healthcare system. OMG!


---just a lot of unnecessary stuff passed off as being necessary...but I know what you mean

[NJ Stinks]

The way I see it.

1. The top stated federal rate on ordinary income—salary and interest— in the 1970's was 50%. That was back in the day when we barely had a deficit. And we were fighting in Vietnam at the time. Reagan and the Bushes kept chipping away and now we are down to a 35% top rate. The capital gains tax has been reduced to the current 15% from as high as 39% in the late 1970's.

Forgetting capital gains tax for now, generally speaking, let's see how this has worked out:

a. A married couple earning $20,000 in 1973 was subject to a 32% marginal tax rate. Adjusted for inflation that $20,000 in 1973 is now approximately $96,000. The margnal tax rate on $96,000 in 2007 for a married couple was 25%.

b. A married couple earning $50,000 in 1973 was subject to a 50% marginal tax rate. Adjusted for inflation that $50,000 in 1973 is now approximately $241,000. The margnal tax rate on $241,000 in 2007 for a married couple was 33%.

Forgetting that this is a big reason why the rich are getting richer while the rest are not, it is also a big reason why we have run up such a big deficit. No matter what you believe about progressive tax rates, the fact is the tax burden has lessoned substantially for the wealthiest Americans. As a nation we cannot afford this "luxury" bestowed on our most affluent. (So that third house in Naples that you rarely go to is gonna have to go! :p ) I know Reagan thought money was going to trinkle down to the poor, entrepeneurs were going to invest even more money in America that they got to keep due the tax cuts, and everyone would make more than enough taxable income to keep government out of debt. It worked for a while. It doesn't work anymore as evidenced by the size of the deficit. A tax increase on the highest earners is long overdue.

2. Let's take a look at Social Security taxes.

In 1973, the ceiling on wages subject to SS was $10,800. A very generous ceiling by today's standards since $10,800 adjusted to inflation is approximately $52,000 and today's ceiling is $102,000. Unfortunately, the number of people reaching SS elgibility is rising faster than a speeding bullet nowadays. So what do we do? If we want to keep SS as an entitlement we have no choice. We must raise the ceiling and raise the minimum age for elgibility. Of course, if you don't need SS or don't think you will ever need SS, you may want to dump the whole damn thing. Or you can do what has been done historically - adjust the ceiling on wages when necessary. (I'm one of those nutty liberals who doesn't really need it but still believes strongly in it's value.)

I'll take a look at the estate tax when I have more time. Meanwhile, I'll brace myself for avalanche that's coming since I obviously agree with Barack that certain tax increases are necessary.

[JustRalph]

so you are in favor of adding a 12% tax to everyone who makes over 102k in a year? That's what you are signing off on when endorsing Barack Obama's tax scheme. He wants to pull the cap on social security wages. That is a 12% tax instantly enacted on anybody who makes over 102k.............. you just took 6 thousand dollars out of that persons pocket. You took another 6k out of their employers pocket. That is on top of the 32% you talked about earlier. We haven't even discussed local taxes........States with 8% and such. People are growing tired of working for 50 cents on the dollar. Some Americans will be in the 65% bracket when Barack is done. Entrepreneurs aren't going to work for .35 cents on a dollar. And they sure aren't going to spread that .35 cents around to new employees etc.

You think 200k is rich? You are full of it. Nobody who makes 200k has a third house anywhere. You are talking about taking money from one group and giving it to another. It is re-distribution of wealth. That is un-American and I don't care what you think of the numbers it is wrong. Whatever you think the tax rates should be, you are wrong and counter to what is productive and good for people on the lowest rung of the ladder. There is no way taking money from the wealthier of Americans makes things better for those in the lower income brackets. Who do you think provides the jobs in this country? Do you think a person who just absorbed a 12% tax increase is going to be more likely to hire that next employee or maybe give more to charity? How about make that crucial decision on having to pony up an extra 2% next year for employee medical benefits? Have you ever run a business? I doubt it.

I have never heard of one poor person who has received a job or a leg up from another poor person. You are advocating confiscation of a persons wealth for the greater good...........when in fact you just make it worse on people in the low end of the tax brackets. Government has never met a damn dime they can't spend in the wrong way. Taking the money and washing it through the Government grindstone does nothing but hurt all of us.

[Tom]

hpw many of those 100-200K a year people are small business owners, putting in 18 hours days 6,7 days a week, and prividing jobs for others?
Only a foollike Barry Hussein would drive them out of business. Dem do think. that is why they are dangerous. Frigging jealous bunch of lazy thieves.

You want to have the same income as the so called rich.....WORK FOR IT.

[NJ Stinks]

so you are in favor of adding a 12% tax to everyone who makes over 102k in a year? That's what you are signing off on when endorsing Barack Obama's tax scheme. He wants to pull the cap on social security wages. That is a 12% tax instantly enacted on anybody who makes over 102k.............. you just took 6 thousand dollars out of that persons pocket. You took another 6k out of their employers pocket. That is on top of the 32% you talked about earlier. We haven't even discussed local taxes........States with 8% and such. People are growing tired of working for 50 cents on the dollar. Some Americans will be in the 65% bracket when Barack is done. Entrepreneurs aren't going to work for .35 cents on a dollar. And they sure aren't going to spread that .35 cents around to new employees etc.

You think 200k is rich? You are full of it. Nobody who makes 200k has a third house anywhere. You are talking about taking money from one group and giving it to another. It is re-distribution of wealth. That is un-American and I don't care what you think of the numbers it is wrong. Whatever you think the tax rates should be, you are wrong and counter to what is productive and good for people on the lowest rung of the ladder. There is no way taking money from the wealthier of Americans makes things better for those in the lower income brackets. Who do you think provides the jobs in this country? Do you think a person who just absorbed a 12% tax increase is going to be more likely to hire that next employee or maybe give more to charity? How about make that crucial decision on having to pony up an extra 2% next year for employee medical benefits? Have you ever run a business? I doubt it.

I have never heard of one poor person who has received a job or a leg up from another poor person. You are advocating confiscation of a persons wealth for the greater good...........when in fact you just make it worse on people in the low end of the tax brackets. Government has never met a damn dime they can't spend in the wrong way. Taking the money and washing it through the Government grindstone does nothing but hurt all of us.

First off, I never said $200G's is well off today. The $241,000 in my example in no way was meant imply that. $50,000 in 1973 is $241,000 in today's dollars. That's all. The significance is that a couple making $241,000 today pays at a tax rate of 33% - down from 50% in 1973.

Secondly, the employer pays 6.2% and the employee pays the other 6.2%. (Medicare costs the employee another 1.45%) I want to raise the cap. What's the alternative? Leave SS underfunded for somebody else to deal with later on ? Now that sounds like a "tax scheme" to me.

And lastly, your main point misses my main point entirely. I'm simply saying our country cannot afford today's income tax rates. And since the wealthy got the biggest tax cuts, they need to pay more now. I didn't say take from the rich and give to the poor. I said take from the rich and pay our country's bills - the biggest by far being our military.

Let me try to put another perspective on this. If somebody wants to buy the biggest house in town, that person is going to pay more money on that house than he would on any other house in the town. Is this unfair?

Using the same logic, if somebody is benefiting the most financially from living in the USA, shouldn't that person pay more for the priviledge? Pre-Reagan America said yes and the country didn't owe anybody. Now it's supposedly un-American and we owe everybody.

[Lefty]

njstinks, perhaps you might want to elaborate why you agree and what tax increases you deem necessary. And you just can't simply shrug off his wanting to dble the capital gains tax cause that certainly affects a lot of people not making big bucks, seniors included.

[BlueShoe]

It has been said many times by others,but once again;The Democratic Party of today is not the party of Harry Truman or even of John Kennedy.If JFK were running today for office,he would considered A "Blue Dog" or moderate Democrat.At best,the Democratic Party is now the party of Norman Thomas,at worst,it has become the party of Gus Hall.If old Gus were with us today he would be overjoyed at the way the Dems have embraced Marxist/Lenisist ideology.He would be very proud of virtually ever leader of that party.In positions of leadership posts are men and women that can be called the New Communists;Neo-Coms.It has been said that America is undergoing a Culture War.It is much more serious than that;it is a Bolshevik Revolution.Unless moderate and conservative Democrats retake control of their party,this nation is in for a grim future.Remember this-Adolph Hitler was elected to office,he did not come to power violently,he only started murdering people after he was elected.

[Lefty]

njstinks, Your argument that we need to raise taxes to pay the bill makes no sense. That's because MORE MONEY came into the IRS coffers because of the tax cuts not less. If it was less you'd have an argument but facts do not support your position.

[wonatthewire1]

njstinks, Your argument that we need to raise taxes to pay the bill makes no sense. That's because MORE MONEY came into the IRS coffers because of the tax cuts not less. If it was less you'd have an argument but facts do not support your position.


...not linking to anything but supposing...based on the context of your post - then where why is the deficit continuing to rise - and going through the roof - this admin cannot stop spending and growing govt. - they had a great opportunity when they controlled the WH and Congress, but got the checkbook out, pulled out the credit cards and fired up the printing money press) instead.

If we want to continue to police the world and have the armed forces that we have (or bigger), where is that money going to come from? So far it is coming from the Europeans and the Chinese - that ain't gonna last forever. And we're going to have to do a better job taking care of our wounded soldiers - I can't tell you how many solicitations I get a week from veterans groups looking for money for soldiers injured in battle - sometimes injured forever - it is a disgrace.

We're going to be paying for these non-fiscal conservatives for a long, long time...that is what has been so disappointing about the last 8 years - nothing but red ink - when we believed that the opposite would be the case.

:faint:

[NJ Stinks]

The capital gains is something I will look into Lefty and get back to you. My idea of fair tax increases include raising the top income tax rates and the SS ceiling. Going back to 50% on anyone making a million or more sounds fair. After deductions, credits and the like they will be down to an actual tax rate of around 37% anyway. Smaller increases for anyone (including married couples) making $150,000 or more sounds fair to me too.

As far as tax revenue increasing, in 1980 we had a population of 236M. Now we are over 300M. If tax revenue did not go up at least 500-600% since 1980 (factoring in inflation and the population increase), we have a problem. Now that's a simplistic answer but it may be the most telling. I have to check tax revenue figures then and now to really to offer anything more.

BlueShoe, I was citing income tax rates from the early 1970's in the U.S. - not Russia. The top income tax rates in Truman's era were over 80%; in Kennedy's it was 91%. Even Ike's was over 90%. But don't let these facts get in your way. It was one heckofa rant!

Either we want to pay down the national debt or we don't. It's not gonna go away by just saying to increase taxes is un-American.

[JustRalph]

The capital gains is something I will look into Lefty and get back to you. My idea of fair tax increases include raising the top income tax rates and the SS ceiling. Going back to 50% on anyone making a million or more sounds fair. After deductions, credits and the like they will be down to an actual tax rate of around 37% anyway. Smaller increases for anyone (including married couples) making $150,000 or more sounds fair to me too.


Why is a 50% tax rate fair? You are in effect saying that because somebody is successful they must pay twice as much tax as anybody else. How in the hell can that be fair??? working for .50 cents on the dollar just because you are successful is not fair in any way shape or form? You are providing a dis-incentive to succeed.

Everyone should pay the same rate. Across the board.

[Lefty]

njstinks, If MORE money comes in by lowering taxes and not raising them, then why is raising them a good idea?

won, you're talking about spending. Sure we need to cut spending, not raise taxes. You can't tax the country into prosperity. So cutting spending a good idea. Since I see many so called homeless people in the racebook i attend getting food stamps and then selling them for fifty cents on the dollar, i say let's start there. Let's get rid of the wasteful social prgms that the govt isn't supposed to be into in the first place.

[Lefty]

I'm with JR. Why is raising the rate on someone who makes a million a good idea? Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. I'm for a flat tax across the board. Now that's fair.

[boxcar]

I'm with JR. Why is raising the rate on someone who makes a million a good idea? Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. I'm for a flat tax across the board. Now that's fair.

It's a good idea and fair to people with small minds who also envy those who have more than they have.

Boxcar