From: assimilate on 19 Dec 2009 21:43
On 18-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> So, you don't see a problem with forcing working people to
> subsidize the Paris Hiltons of the world?
> Next time I'll just name a random Kennedy, because working
> people subsidize them, too, when there is no estate tax.
subsidize? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think
it means. ...
From: assimilate on 19 Dec 2009 21:48
On 18-Dec-2009, David Laville <dglaville(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater
> >percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than
> >do the wealthy. Period.
> Do you even know what a progressive tax is?
it seems to be his key to utopia, when in reality it kills jobs and opens up
more avenues for graft. If we taxed spending instead of creating our economy
would be more robust.
From: assimilate on 19 Dec 2009 21:50
On 19-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> > So if hoarded money isn't saved/invested/etc... then where is it?
> Let me put it this way. All the money that was lost in the
> real estate crash... that was "invested."
> Do it do anybody a damned bit of good?
Hopefully it taught some lessons. Looking @ Congress, I'm not so sure
From: assimilate on 19 Dec 2009 21:55
On 18-Dec-2009, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > These are the ultra-elite I'm talking about here. We're talking
> > wealth that no one in this group can imagine *seeing*, much
> > less making in one year. In case you haven't been paying
> > attention, they run the country, and have been running it
> > for awhile now.
> You're talking about the politics of envy.
and, like most destructive emotions, envy harms the one who envys more than
the object of his envy.
From: assimilate on 19 Dec 2009 21:57
On 18-Dec-2009, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > It's moot anyway, because the administration lied repeatedly.
> > It's in the history books now.
> Who wrote the history books?