Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, in free country, he's as much right to his ###### up ideas as you have. The US is a fluid, not a fixed state so give over telling people to move because they want something different to you.

The US is fluid but there are a few things it should NEVER be. That is becoming a socialist country. I have the right to tell him what I think just as much as he has the right to spout his insane ideas.

In your opinion, and it's your opinion that what he wants is some version of socialism. Of course, tell him to leave the country all you like, but it makes you look a little crazy.

[SteveLaura 0]

At some point you will not have any rich because you remove all incentive to become rich.

I find this hard to believe.

Besides, the richer you are, the more money you have to hire very clever accountants to bypass tax laws, eg. 'Tax free: Rupert Murdoch's zero status.'

[Heracles 417]

Translated for you- nobody is disagreeing that illegals have NO impact on the society. Yet tying that in to your suggestively racist comment just a moment ago is well... not a surprising turn of a tangent in your playbook. Much like your adamant attitude problem as well as your typical and non-innovative nutjob labeling of people that disagree with your attitude problems.

Hey, I am not the one who thinks blaming others or falling back on historical events equates to being a solution.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Aficionado

[HAL 9000 96]

Just because they pay a large chunk of taxes doesn't mean its a fair share.

Correct my "twisted logic" that defines that you pay more tax if you make more.

All the while continuing to be rich. GO figure.

So in essence, you FAIL.

If the rich were the government's piggy bank for social engineering... there'd BE NO RICH.

Listen to yourself. The more the rich makes the more they pay already. But that isn't good enough for you, you want them to pay ever increacing tribute to the social engineers of this country. At some point you will not have any rich because you remove all incentive to become rich. Then where will you get your money for all your social engeneering? In reality YOU FAIL. It is taking real restraint to keep from telling you what I really think of you right now. People like you are trying to reshape America into something I want no part of. I suggest if you don't like living in a free market society you should go somewhere else. Don't try and bring us down with your fukced up ideas.

Gary, I listen to myself everyday.

AS to what you are somehow inferring from a simple, logical increase in tax liability for a rise in income that is most absolutely exponential when compared to the rest of the population's earning capacity, is completely up to you but perhaps for your benefit it can be better explained: the opposite of not taxing proportionally to salary and market structure is essentially ensuring a social structure that benefits all but those that do not earn an inordinate amount of wealth.

Like I've stated- quite clearly- is that these supposedly socialist ideas you label incorrectly, have very little impact on the rich in this country.

Conclusion, someone is not paying attention to the writing on the wall. And it ain't those that are proposing leveling the ball field so that we don't have market collapses on whims.

As for what you may or may not think of me- perhaps its better left to be stated after reading posts a little bit more carefully. But if you want no part in an America where *surprise* upward mobility is much more realistic than the lip service it gets now... then go anywhere you like. That is not to say that I claim upward mobility doesn't exist... since we all know it does.

Now where people have screwed up ideas is beyond me- unless such kind of thinking includes metaphorically being a lackey for the rich, then yes... that is pretty screwed up. What is hilarious is that once again, for the second time in this very reply- Obama is not advocating making the rich somehow not rich.

Nor am I, am I?

[GaryC 7]

Gary, in free country, he's as much right to his ###### up ideas as you have. The US is a fluid, not a fixed state so give over telling people to move because they want something different to you.

The US is fluid but there are a few things it should NEVER be. That is becoming a socialist country. I have the right to tell him what I think just as much as he has the right to spout his insane ideas.

In your opinion, and it's your opinion that what he wants is some version of socialism. Of course, tell him to leave the country all you like, but it makes you look a little crazy.

It's not my opinion that he wants socialism, he is saying it himself. Redistrobution of wealth IS a socialist idea. And I really don't care if you think it makes me sound a little crazy. If he doesn't like the way things are then change it, but don't try to reform the government into socialism. If he wants to live in a socialized country there are plenty to choose from.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, in free country, he's as much right to his ###### up ideas as you have. The US is a fluid, not a fixed state so give over telling people to move because they want something different to you.

The US is fluid but there are a few things it should NEVER be. That is becoming a socialist country. I have the right to tell him what I think just as much as he has the right to spout his insane ideas.

Read previous post.

It is no surprise that fascism is socioeconomically classified on the 'right wing' side of the spectrum.

[anya-D 8]

Bolshevik!!!

Now now I have to google that one

Vote Republican. Avoid the Bolsheviks.

Oh p-lease!

[HAL 9000 96]

At some point you will not have any rich because you remove all incentive to become rich.

I find this hard to believe.

Besides, the richer you are, the more money you have to hire very clever accountants to bypass tax laws, eg. 'Tax free: Rupert Murdoch's zero status.'

Shhhh... the rich are afraid socialists (aka Democrats) will make their profits go from $10,000,000,000 to $8,000,000,000.

Translated for you- nobody is disagreeing that illegals have NO impact on the society. Yet tying that in to your suggestively racist comment just a moment ago is well... not a surprising turn of a tangent in your playbook. Much like your adamant attitude problem as well as your typical and non-innovative nutjob labeling of people that disagree with your attitude problems.

Hey, I am not the one who thinks blaming others or falling back on historical events equates to being a solution.

Neither am I, so who dunnit?

Gary, in free country, he's as much right to his ###### up ideas as you have. The US is a fluid, not a fixed state so give over telling people to move because they want something different to you.

The US is fluid but there are a few things it should NEVER be. That is becoming a socialist country. I have the right to tell him what I think just as much as he has the right to spout his insane ideas.

In your opinion, and it's your opinion that what he wants is some version of socialism. Of course, tell him to leave the country all you like, but it makes you look a little crazy.

It's not my opinion that he wants socialism, he is saying it himself. Redistrobution of wealth IS a socialist idea. And I really don't care if you think it makes me sound a little crazy. If he doesn't like the way things are then change it, but don't try to reform the government into socialism. If he wants to live in a socialized country there are plenty to choose from.

Slippery slope there.

Nevertheless, even in so-called socialized nations, there are plenty of rich people. GO figure with these "socialist" ideals like if they were the plague.

[GaryC 7]

Just because they pay a large chunk of taxes doesn't mean its a fair share.

Correct my "twisted logic" that defines that you pay more tax if you make more.

All the while continuing to be rich. GO figure.

So in essence, you FAIL.

If the rich were the government's piggy bank for social engineering... there'd BE NO RICH.

Listen to yourself. The more the rich makes the more they pay already. But that isn't good enough for you, you want them to pay ever increacing tribute to the social engineers of this country. At some point you will not have any rich because you remove all incentive to become rich. Then where will you get your money for all your social engeneering? In reality YOU FAIL. It is taking real restraint to keep from telling you what I really think of you right now. People like you are trying to reshape America into something I want no part of. I suggest if you don't like living in a free market society you should go somewhere else. Don't try and bring us down with your fukced up ideas.

Gary, I listen to myself everyday.

AS to what you are somehow inferring from a simple, logical increase in tax liability for a rise in income that is most absolutely exponential when compared to the rest of the population's earning capacity, is completely up to you but perhaps for your benefit it can be better explained: the opposite of not taxing proportionally to salary and market structure is essentially ensuring a social structure that benefits all but those that do not earn an inordinate amount of wealth.

Like I've stated- quite clearly- is that these supposedly socialist ideas you label incorrectly, have very little impact on the rich in this country.

Conclusion, someone is not paying attention to the writing on the wall. And it ain't those that are proposing leveling the ball field so that we don't have market collapses on whims.

As for what you may or may not think of me- perhaps its better left to be stated after reading posts a little bit more carefully. But if you want no part in an America where *surprise* upward mobility is much more realistic than the lip service it gets now... then go anywhere you like. That is not to say that I claim upward mobility doesn't exist... since we all know it does.

Now where people have screwed up ideas is beyond me- unless such kind of thinking includes metaphorically being a lackey for the rich, then yes... that is pretty screwed up. What is hilarious is that once again, for the second time in this very reply- Obama is not advocating making the rich somehow not rich.

Nor am I, am I?

Yes you are, and so is Obama. Punishing the rich with punitive taxes isn't the America I want. I want an America where a persons station in life is dictated by the choices they make and the work the provide. Taking from the rich to support everyone else is wrong. You say your leveling the playing field with your ideas. That isn't leveling anything, it's cheating. The rich (with the exception of the trust fund babies) got that way because of hard work, taking risks and making good choices. I say they earned what they have and we have no right to look at them as an endless pile of cash to fund social re-engineering.

[HAL 9000 96]

Bolshevik!!!

Now now I have to google that one

Vote Republican. Avoid the Bolsheviks.

Oh p-lease!

BTW... you brought that chart up at an excellent moment. Would you bump it to this page please?

Gary needs a reminder that Obama's 'socialist' ideals are going to keep the rich just that way- rich.

[HAL 9000 96]

Just because they pay a large chunk of taxes doesn't mean its a fair share.

Correct my "twisted logic" that defines that you pay more tax if you make more.

All the while continuing to be rich. GO figure.

So in essence, you FAIL.

If the rich were the government's piggy bank for social engineering... there'd BE NO RICH.

Listen to yourself. The more the rich makes the more they pay already. But that isn't good enough for you, you want them to pay ever increacing tribute to the social engineers of this country. At some point you will not have any rich because you remove all incentive to become rich. Then where will you get your money for all your social engeneering? In reality YOU FAIL. It is taking real restraint to keep from telling you what I really think of you right now. People like you are trying to reshape America into something I want no part of. I suggest if you don't like living in a free market society you should go somewhere else. Don't try and bring us down with your fukced up ideas.

Gary, I listen to myself everyday.

AS to what you are somehow inferring from a simple, logical increase in tax liability for a rise in income that is most absolutely exponential when compared to the rest of the population's earning capacity, is completely up to you but perhaps for your benefit it can be better explained: the opposite of not taxing proportionally to salary and market structure is essentially ensuring a social structure that benefits all but those that do not earn an inordinate amount of wealth.

Like I've stated- quite clearly- is that these supposedly socialist ideas you label incorrectly, have very little impact on the rich in this country.

Conclusion, someone is not paying attention to the writing on the wall. And it ain't those that are proposing leveling the ball field so that we don't have market collapses on whims.

As for what you may or may not think of me- perhaps its better left to be stated after reading posts a little bit more carefully. But if you want no part in an America where *surprise* upward mobility is much more realistic than the lip service it gets now... then go anywhere you like. That is not to say that I claim upward mobility doesn't exist... since we all know it does.

Now where people have screwed up ideas is beyond me- unless such kind of thinking includes metaphorically being a lackey for the rich, then yes... that is pretty screwed up. What is hilarious is that once again, for the second time in this very reply- Obama is not advocating making the rich somehow not rich.

Nor am I, am I?

Yes you are, and so is Obama. Punishing the rich with punitive taxes isn't the America I want. I want an America where a persons station in life is dictated by the choices they make and the work the provide. Taking from the rich to support everyone else is wrong. You say your leveling the playing field with your ideas. That isn't leveling anything, it's cheating. The rich (with the exception of the trust fund babies) got that way because of hard work, taking risks and making good choices. I say they earned what they have and we have no right to look at them as an endless pile of cash to fund social re-engineering.

And that's where we differ on opinion and in definition. Punitive means punishment. And punishment would suggest that they no longer stay rich. Far from the truth.

Trust fund babies or not, 1.1% of the US population far outearns the rest of us and can continue to do so under Obama's tax proposal- all the while helping the nation out.

Being a tax code, um... it can even be a temporary thing since laws and tax codes change. So the hysteria with socialism and punitive tax structures is a bit silly.

[SteveLaura 0]

I fail to see how detrimental it would be for a rich person that didn't need the money to have to pay a pittance on what already makes them financially apical to the rest of the nation... while the absolute majority end up paying more proportionally for cost of living and market items than the rich.

Who are you to say they don't need it? Who died and made you god?

What is it like to be extraordinarily wealthy, I wonder? At some point, money must become meaningless. The aquisition of money must be the desire rather than the actual money itself. The need to get it rather than have it. Perhaps it's an addiction. Maybe it is simply greed.

Perhaps no two people would agree on the amount, but I'd be surprised if we couldn't agree that at some point you don't 'need' any more money. It's also interesting, I find, that some of the very rich have since looked beyond their wealth to find a sense of well-being: Bill Gates, for example. Ending malaria would be such a greater legacy to the world than the epitaph "he had a lot of nice houses".

[rocks 494]

I want an America where a persons station in life is dictated by the choices they make and the work the provide.

that would be possible if we all started with the same privilages, but we don't

[anya-D 8]

Here you go

[Heracles 417]

Bolshevik!!!

Now now I have to google that one

Vote Republican. Avoid the Bolsheviks.

Oh p-lease!

What is interesting is that when you look at the majority of cities in America that are the money hungry capitalism capitals of America, of the world in many cases, the majority are democrat strong holds. Like Chicago where maviwaro lives.

Seems to be quite an interesting coincidence.

But hey, the republicans are the money hungry capitalist elitists. Anyone ever stop to think about how many mouths the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted spent in America colleges each year, the heart of liberalism, would feed.

Clearly rich white republicans are the sole culprits here. Unlike those battler, for the people, democrat typess. After all Biden takes a train. Therefore he knows how to be a commoner.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Aficionado