I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today...barely 5 years later...fucking joke...shouldn't need anymore proof than that they these people would argue for the killing of their own mother if the other side was against it...
Well but no, you don't "find it funny" at all.
It's just the new sound byte that makes sense until you think about what it means.
"The Dems" didn't vote to lower taxes on ultra-rich and take away any social safety net from the poor in 2006. Just like Paul Revere didn't ride through the streets "firin' his guns" to warn the British." You can't revise history to suit your own needs until you open the Ministry Of Truth and Room 101.
I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today...barely 5 years later...fucking joke...shouldn't need anymore proof than that they these people would argue for the killing of their own mother if the other side was against it...
Well but no, you don't "find it funny" at all.
It's just the new sound byte that makes sense until you think about what it means.
"The Dems" didn't vote to lower taxes on ultra-rich and take away any social safety net from the poor in 2006. Just like Paul Revere didn't ride through the streets "firin' his guns" to warn the British." You can't revise history to suit your own needs until you open the Ministry Of Truth and Room 101.
Actually I do find it funny...so please don't fucking tell me or anyone else what they think or what there motivations are...seriously dude, you don't know the way everyone thinks...if you think I am one of the uneducated masses then you are wrong...
so I cannot find the politicization on the debt ceiling funny?
What can I laugh at? why don't you tell me...
it is like you stopped at the first sentence
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
so I cannot find the politicization on the debt ceiling funny?
Oh you could find THAT funny... but that's not what you said before.
What can I laugh at? why don't you tell me...
Well, how you think I can't scroll back to read what you wrote... that's kinda humorous.
"I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today"
seems like I was talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
seems like I was talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling
well no... you weren't talking about it... you were doing it. You were saying "It's funny that The Dems....."
Which isn't "talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling," it's "politicizing the debt ceiling."
You weren't talking about how people are trying to blame one side or the other (which would be talking about it)... you were blaming one side and not the other (which would be politicizing it).
seems like I was talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling
well no... you weren't talking about it... you were doing it. You were saying "It's funny that The Dems....."
Which isn't "talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling," it's "politicizing the debt ceiling."
You weren't talking about how people are trying to blame one side or the other (which would be talking about it)... you were blaming one side and not the other (which would be politicizing it).
Shall I draw you a diagram?
please please please read this sentence and tell me what it means
[referring to the debt ceiling in reponse to a post referencing the debt crisis]
"I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today"
tell me what that means...
seriously we should probably just argue on PM because we are all over the map...
we can take each topic and clear this up...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
seriously we should probably just argue on PM because we are all over the map...
we can take each topic and clear this up...
OK... we'll meet in the middle and see that we're probably not THAT far apart in ideology in a lot of ways.
Yes... I guess you did say "I find it funny that everyone has changed their position" which I don't personally think has happened but... ok... in the interest of getting in the shower and getting to work on time today... We can leave it at that.
seriously we should probably just argue on PM because we are all over the map...
we can take each topic and clear this up...
OK... we'll meet in the middle and see that we're probably not THAT far apart in ideology in a lot of ways.
Yes... I guess you did say "I find it funny that everyone has changed their position" which I don't personally think has happened but... ok... in the interest of getting in the shower and getting to work on time today... We can leave it at that.
lol, I guess maybe not everyone, but certainly the major players...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No, I think Boehner understands you can't end a debt crisis by piling on more debt.
Entitlements need rolled back, simple as that.
It's almost pathetic that you keep saying that when no... it's NOT simple and it's not "that" at all.
Boehner doesn't "understand" anything other than "if I want to keep my job with free health care and all these perks, I need to do what the billionaires who fund my campaign want me to do which is lower taxes on the people who need it the least, pour the burden on the people who need it the most and cut everything by giving it a cushy-sounding name like 'poor person rewards' or 'entitlements' so the gullible will stand up and cheer for me as I kick the chair out from under them."
Don't you have like a breast cancer clinic to close down in the name of stopping abortions (that aren't performed there)? I mean.. where are you priorities? You stop that innocent cancer tumor from being killed while Boehner takes away your grandmother's health care coverage like a good peasant.
That was the most sensationalist, non-sensical argument I've ever read. WTF?
what the hell are they doing appointing a 12 person supercommittee to cut spending???
they need an odd number because you know votes are going to be 6-6 and they need a tie breaker....
on second thought, it will probably mostly be votes of 7-5 or 8-4 because you know that the 6 republicans will vote together and at least 1 maybe 2 dems are going to compromise because they are wussies and appeasers...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
what the hell are they doing appointing a 12 person supercommittee to cut spending???
they need an odd number because you know votes are going to be 6-6 and they need a tie breaker....
on second thought, it will probably mostly be votes of 7-5 or 8-4 because you know that the 6 republicans will vote together and at least 1 maybe 2 dems are going to compromise because they are wussies and appeasers...
What if that rich person got rich through hard work?
Why should he pay more tax?
So the people who work minimum wage don't work hard too?
Obviously not.
Did they go to university and study hard enough so that they don't end up in some dead end minimum wage job? Nah didn't think so.
Too many jealous people out there, the rich people got to where they are though study and hard work.
you have a very narrow view. i know many people with university degrees who due to downturn in the economy are working at coffee shops making close to nothing. you also have to look at new comers who make less money due to other issues such as not having English as there first language.
another thing that most people fail to see is that in reality our system needs people making minimum wage. can you imagine if everyone was making a living wage, peopel would go crazy about the prices of things.
you have a very narrow view. i know many people with university degrees who due to downturn in the economy are working at coffee shops making close to nothing. you also have to look at new comers who make less money due to other issues such as not having English as there first language.
another thing that most people fail to see is that in reality our system needs people making minimum wage. can you imagine if everyone was making a living wage, peopel would go crazy about the prices of things.
There would me a lot more people employed if there was no minimum wage.
Define living wage...
you have a very narrow view. i know many people with university degrees who due to downturn in the economy are working at coffee shops making close to nothing. you also have to look at new comers who make less money due to other issues such as not having English as there first language.
another thing that most people fail to see is that in reality our system needs people making minimum wage. can you imagine if everyone was making a living wage, peopel would go crazy about the prices of things.
There would me a lot more people employed if there was no minimum wage.
Define living wage...
Your right more people would be employed, of course they would make alot less now than now but eh at least they have a job :roll:
a living wage is a wage in which people can afford the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing and health care. i believe that the state of Maryland has that.
you have a very narrow view. i know many people with university degrees who due to downturn in the economy are working at coffee shops making close to nothing. you also have to look at new comers who make less money due to other issues such as not having English as there first language.
another thing that most people fail to see is that in reality our system needs people making minimum wage. can you imagine if everyone was making a living wage, peopel would go crazy about the prices of things.
There would me a lot more people employed if there was no minimum wage.
Define living wage...
Your right more people would be employed, of course they would make alot less now than now but eh at least they have a job :roll:
a living wage is a wage in which people can afford the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing and health care. i believe that the state of Maryland has that.
are you saying that someone employed would make alot less than someone not employed??? Are you saying the only benefits to having a job is pay? What about healthcare?
Well your view on welfare and your definition of living wage are contradictory.
Your definition of of living wage (food/shelter/clothing/healthcare) are all given for free to people who don't work... So why are you complaing about people not making a living wage if everything you think people need is given for free to people who don't earn any wage...
[[/quote]
There would me a lot more people employed if there was no minimum wage.
Define living wage...[/quote]
Your right more people would be employed, of course they would make alot less now than now but eh at least they have a job :roll:
a living wage is a wage in which people can afford the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing and health care. i believe that the state of Maryland has that.[/quote]
are you saying that someone employed would make alot less than someone not employed??? Are you saying the only benefits to having a job is pay? What about healthcare?
Well your view on welfare and your definition of living wage are contradictory.
Your definition of of living wage (food/shelter/clothing/healthcare) are all given for free to people who don't work... So why are you complaing about people not making a living wage if everything you think people need is given for free to people who don't earn any wage...[/quote]
don't know where to start. you do know that there are people working low paying jobs who are not on welfare and if you gave the business the power to say "eh, remember that mim. wage thing screw it, pay what you want" how many of those business you think would still pay their people that mim. wage? i would say alot less. no money is not the only benefit of a job but it is a big and most important one. health care is important but if you don't have enough money to pay for things like housing and food your fucked.
There would me a lot more people employed if there was no minimum wage.
Define living wage...[/quote]
Your right more people would be employed, of course they would make alot less now than now but eh at least they have a job :roll:
a living wage is a wage in which people can afford the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing and health care. i believe that the state of Maryland has that.[/quote]
are you saying that someone employed would make alot less than someone not employed??? Are you saying the only benefits to having a job is pay? What about healthcare?
Well your view on welfare and your definition of living wage are contradictory.
Your definition of of living wage (food/shelter/clothing/healthcare) are all given for free to people who don't work... So why are you complaing about people not making a living wage if everything you think people need is given for free to people who don't earn any wage...[/quote]
don't know where to start. you do know that there are people working low paying jobs who are not on welfare and if you gave the business the power to say "eh, remember that mim. wage thing screw it, pay what you want" how many of those business you think would still pay their people that mim. wage? i would say alot less. no money is not the only benefit of a job but it is a big and most important one. health care is important but if you don't have enough money to pay for things like housing and food your fucked.[/quote]
Are we not able to choose which jobs we apply for/work at? No one is forced to work somewhere, especially if they think that they are being underpaid.
Why would a buisness get rid / underpay dependable workers. It would be a good thing, like a check & balances, people would be more motivated/competative/unique, isn't that what the free market it all about?
why do you need money for housing/food Isn't that whats the gov. for, providing housing, food?
from yesterday...
why is everyone so hell bent on protecting 3% of the population, or the top 2 tax brackets, from paying an increase of 3.6% and 2% respectively?
Tax hike on the rich would impact just 3% of taxpayers
By Blake Ellis August 11, 2011: 1:51 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- As the government looks for ways to climb out of its massive hole of debt, all eyes are on the rich.
President Obama and many of his fellow Democrats continue to call for higher taxes on the wealthy. And, according to results of a CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday, many Americans agree that it's the only way the country can dig itself out of its current economic mess.
In the survey, 63% of the 1,008 people interviewed over the phone said they think the new bipartisan committee in charge of deficit reduction (required under the recent debt ceiling agreement) should raise taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses.
But just how many rich people are there? And are there enough of them for a tax increase to really make a dent in the United States' trillions of dollars in debt?
President Obama has defined the nation's wealthy as those who make $200,000 or more a year.
According to a recent report from the Internal Revenue Service, that leaves out about 97% of the tax-paying population.
The report, which provides a complete breakdown and analysis of returns for the 2009 tax year, found that only a mere 3% of tax returns were filed by people earning a gross adjusted income of $200,000 or more.
Americans earning $1 million or more were even more rare, comprising just 0.2% of total tax filers and accounting for a mere 236,883 of the 140 million tax returns received in 2009.
The wealthiest taxpayers -- those earning $10 million or more in adjusted gross income -- are even less prevalent. There were only 8,274 people belonging to that elite club, according the IRS.
Out of the nearly 4 million "rich" people making more than $200,000 a year, 1,470 didn't pay any income tax whatsoever in 2009. But the people who did pay taxes earned a total of nearly $2 trillion in income -- about 26% of total taxpayer income in 2009.
President Obama's tax proposals -- which many Republican's call "job-killing" tax hikes -- include getting rid of some corporate tax breaks enjoyed by oil and gas companies and corporate jet buyers, and restoring some Bush-era tax rates for high-income households. If the Bush tax cuts expire as planned in 2012, the top two income tax rates will revert to 39.6% and 36% from 35% and 33%, respectively.
Yet, even though these high-income earners are a minority, Obama says the proposed tax increases would boost revenue by $750 billion over a decade.
It's not quite the multi-trillion figure the U.S. needs to pay off the deficit, but for many of those who responded to the CNN/ORC International poll it's evidently a good enough start.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
don't know where to start. you do know that there are people working low paying jobs who are not on welfare and if you gave the business the power to say "eh, remember that mim. wage thing screw it, pay what you want" how many of those business you think would still pay their people that mim. wage? i would say alot less. no money is not the only benefit of a job but it is a big and most important one. health care is important but if you don't have enough money to pay for things like housing and food your fucked.[/quote]
Are we not able to choose which jobs we apply for/work at? No one is forced to work somewhere, especially if they think that they are being underpaid.
Why would a buisness get rid / underpay dependable workers. It would be a good thing, like a check & balances, people would be more motivated/competative/unique, isn't that what the free market it all about?
why do you need money for housing/food Isn't that whats the gov. for, providing housing, food?[/quote]
yes everyone can pick their jobs but not every job is open. was it not you who wrote in another tread "where are the jobs Mr. President"? new comers who enter the united States face many barrier in the work force and then have to settle for the jobs that pay very little. these jobs tend to be low skill jobs that can be done easily by many people. we are talking about the poor not the middle class here.
now why would business drop workers or try to pay them less? i don't know lets ask those companies that fire people in America and send those jobs overseas.
as for your last point, again their are people who are poor not receiving welfare and don't get housing and food but i know it easier to pick on welfare people.
why is everyone so hell bent on protecting 3% of the population, or the top 2 tax brackets, from paying an increase of 3.6% and 2% respectively?
Two reasons come to mind:
1. they already pay over half of all the taxes already right?
2. When do the increases stop? 3.6% now, another 2% in 5 years...etc.
any thought on the article how the majority of those polled agree with the majority of us on here that they should pay more?
the top 2 tax rates are 36% and 33%. how can the number of wealthy pay over half of what is paid with those tax rates? they can afford to pay more to help dig us out of the hole, and they should.
why do you care so much about the bazillionires"
they are hoarding what they make. they are not spending it. they are not creating jobs. their free ride on the bush tax cuts is over.
we need revenue and spending cuts.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
they are not hoarding the cash, they are reserving it for a friendly climate to do business in. One with less uncertaintly and one where the risk reward ratio is better in balance. Without it, they take their toys away from the playground. Nobody get sheet.
Comments
Well but no, you don't "find it funny" at all.
It's just the new sound byte that makes sense until you think about what it means.
"The Dems" didn't vote to lower taxes on ultra-rich and take away any social safety net from the poor in 2006. Just like Paul Revere didn't ride through the streets "firin' his guns" to warn the British." You can't revise history to suit your own needs until you open the Ministry Of Truth and Room 101.
Actually I do find it funny...so please don't fucking tell me or anyone else what they think or what there motivations are...seriously dude, you don't know the way everyone thinks...if you think I am one of the uneducated masses then you are wrong...
so I cannot find the politicization on the debt ceiling funny?
What can I laugh at? why don't you tell me...
it is like you stopped at the first sentence
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Oh you could find THAT funny... but that's not what you said before.
Well, how you think I can't scroll back to read what you wrote... that's kinda humorous.
seems like I was talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
well no... you weren't talking about it... you were doing it. You were saying "It's funny that The Dems....."
Which isn't "talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling," it's "politicizing the debt ceiling."
You weren't talking about how people are trying to blame one side or the other (which would be talking about it)... you were blaming one side and not the other (which would be politicizing it).
Shall I draw you a diagram?
please please please read this sentence and tell me what it means
[referring to the debt ceiling in reponse to a post referencing the debt crisis]
"I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today"
tell me what that means...
seriously we should probably just argue on PM because we are all over the map...
we can take each topic and clear this up...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
OK... we'll meet in the middle and see that we're probably not THAT far apart in ideology in a lot of ways.
Yes... I guess you did say "I find it funny that everyone has changed their position" which I don't personally think has happened but... ok... in the interest of getting in the shower and getting to work on time today... We can leave it at that.
lol, I guess maybe not everyone, but certainly the major players...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I only support spending cuts.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That was the most sensationalist, non-sensical argument I've ever read. WTF?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t2
if the situation was as urgent as everyone says it is, they must raise revenues.
but people are unwilling to do that.
there can never ever be any sort of a balanced approach...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
But I'm guessing they will start taking money the first day they can instead of waiting for several years to start phasing the tax increases in.
Isn't it odd that cutting spending takes 10 years while taking money takes 1 day?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOckG5tNhc
YES!
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Leona Helmsley
how the rich people beat the irs...
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04 ... arts-graph
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
they need an odd number because you know votes are going to be 6-6 and they need a tie breaker....
on second thought, it will probably mostly be votes of 7-5 or 8-4 because you know that the 6 republicans will vote together and at least 1 maybe 2 dems are going to compromise because they are wussies and appeasers...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Here you go again cutting down compromise.
you have a very narrow view. i know many people with university degrees who due to downturn in the economy are working at coffee shops making close to nothing. you also have to look at new comers who make less money due to other issues such as not having English as there first language.
another thing that most people fail to see is that in reality our system needs people making minimum wage. can you imagine if everyone was making a living wage, peopel would go crazy about the prices of things.
Define living wage...
Your right more people would be employed, of course they would make alot less now than now but eh at least they have a job :roll:
a living wage is a wage in which people can afford the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing and health care. i believe that the state of Maryland has that.
Well your view on welfare and your definition of living wage are contradictory.
Your definition of of living wage (food/shelter/clothing/healthcare) are all given for free to people who don't work... So why are you complaing about people not making a living wage if everything you think people need is given for free to people who don't earn any wage...
There would me a lot more people employed if there was no minimum wage.
Define living wage...[/quote]
Your right more people would be employed, of course they would make alot less now than now but eh at least they have a job :roll:
a living wage is a wage in which people can afford the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing and health care. i believe that the state of Maryland has that.[/quote]
are you saying that someone employed would make alot less than someone not employed??? Are you saying the only benefits to having a job is pay? What about healthcare?
Well your view on welfare and your definition of living wage are contradictory.
Your definition of of living wage (food/shelter/clothing/healthcare) are all given for free to people who don't work... So why are you complaing about people not making a living wage if everything you think people need is given for free to people who don't earn any wage...[/quote]
don't know where to start. you do know that there are people working low paying jobs who are not on welfare and if you gave the business the power to say "eh, remember that mim. wage thing screw it, pay what you want" how many of those business you think would still pay their people that mim. wage? i would say alot less. no money is not the only benefit of a job but it is a big and most important one. health care is important but if you don't have enough money to pay for things like housing and food your fucked.
Define living wage...[/quote]
Your right more people would be employed, of course they would make alot less now than now but eh at least they have a job :roll:
a living wage is a wage in which people can afford the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing and health care. i believe that the state of Maryland has that.[/quote]
are you saying that someone employed would make alot less than someone not employed??? Are you saying the only benefits to having a job is pay? What about healthcare?
Well your view on welfare and your definition of living wage are contradictory.
Your definition of of living wage (food/shelter/clothing/healthcare) are all given for free to people who don't work... So why are you complaing about people not making a living wage if everything you think people need is given for free to people who don't earn any wage...[/quote]
don't know where to start. you do know that there are people working low paying jobs who are not on welfare and if you gave the business the power to say "eh, remember that mim. wage thing screw it, pay what you want" how many of those business you think would still pay their people that mim. wage? i would say alot less. no money is not the only benefit of a job but it is a big and most important one. health care is important but if you don't have enough money to pay for things like housing and food your fucked.[/quote]
Are we not able to choose which jobs we apply for/work at? No one is forced to work somewhere, especially if they think that they are being underpaid.
Why would a buisness get rid / underpay dependable workers. It would be a good thing, like a check & balances, people would be more motivated/competative/unique, isn't that what the free market it all about?
why do you need money for housing/food Isn't that whats the gov. for, providing housing, food?
why is everyone so hell bent on protecting 3% of the population, or the top 2 tax brackets, from paying an increase of 3.6% and 2% respectively?
Tax hike on the rich would impact just 3% of taxpayers
By Blake Ellis August 11, 2011: 1:51 PM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/11/pf/tax_ ... /index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- As the government looks for ways to climb out of its massive hole of debt, all eyes are on the rich.
President Obama and many of his fellow Democrats continue to call for higher taxes on the wealthy. And, according to results of a CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday, many Americans agree that it's the only way the country can dig itself out of its current economic mess.
In the survey, 63% of the 1,008 people interviewed over the phone said they think the new bipartisan committee in charge of deficit reduction (required under the recent debt ceiling agreement) should raise taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses.
But just how many rich people are there? And are there enough of them for a tax increase to really make a dent in the United States' trillions of dollars in debt?
President Obama has defined the nation's wealthy as those who make $200,000 or more a year.
According to a recent report from the Internal Revenue Service, that leaves out about 97% of the tax-paying population.
The report, which provides a complete breakdown and analysis of returns for the 2009 tax year, found that only a mere 3% of tax returns were filed by people earning a gross adjusted income of $200,000 or more.
Americans earning $1 million or more were even more rare, comprising just 0.2% of total tax filers and accounting for a mere 236,883 of the 140 million tax returns received in 2009.
The wealthiest taxpayers -- those earning $10 million or more in adjusted gross income -- are even less prevalent. There were only 8,274 people belonging to that elite club, according the IRS.
Out of the nearly 4 million "rich" people making more than $200,000 a year, 1,470 didn't pay any income tax whatsoever in 2009. But the people who did pay taxes earned a total of nearly $2 trillion in income -- about 26% of total taxpayer income in 2009.
President Obama's tax proposals -- which many Republican's call "job-killing" tax hikes -- include getting rid of some corporate tax breaks enjoyed by oil and gas companies and corporate jet buyers, and restoring some Bush-era tax rates for high-income households. If the Bush tax cuts expire as planned in 2012, the top two income tax rates will revert to 39.6% and 36% from 35% and 33%, respectively.
Yet, even though these high-income earners are a minority, Obama says the proposed tax increases would boost revenue by $750 billion over a decade.
It's not quite the multi-trillion figure the U.S. needs to pay off the deficit, but for many of those who responded to the CNN/ORC International poll it's evidently a good enough start.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
1. they already pay over half of all the taxes already right?
2. When do the increases stop? 3.6% now, another 2% in 5 years...etc.
Are we not able to choose which jobs we apply for/work at? No one is forced to work somewhere, especially if they think that they are being underpaid.
Why would a buisness get rid / underpay dependable workers. It would be a good thing, like a check & balances, people would be more motivated/competative/unique, isn't that what the free market it all about?
why do you need money for housing/food Isn't that whats the gov. for, providing housing, food?[/quote]
yes everyone can pick their jobs but not every job is open. was it not you who wrote in another tread "where are the jobs Mr. President"? new comers who enter the united States face many barrier in the work force and then have to settle for the jobs that pay very little. these jobs tend to be low skill jobs that can be done easily by many people. we are talking about the poor not the middle class here.
now why would business drop workers or try to pay them less? i don't know lets ask those companies that fire people in America and send those jobs overseas.
as for your last point, again their are people who are poor not receiving welfare and don't get housing and food but i know it easier to pick on welfare people.
the top 2 tax rates are 36% and 33%. how can the number of wealthy pay over half of what is paid with those tax rates? they can afford to pay more to help dig us out of the hole, and they should.
why do you care so much about the bazillionires"
they are hoarding what they make. they are not spending it. they are not creating jobs. their free ride on the bush tax cuts is over.
we need revenue and spending cuts.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."