dalegg

Couldn't we solve this by just executing more prisoners?

No wonder he fought until the bitter end.

I agree. I think there was something contradictory in that policy too. I seem to recall him stating something to the affect that "The rich have benefited disproportionately to the Bush tax cuts". Okay so if that's true why does he believe that the lower and middle class would collapse if the tax cuts were removed from them, and the wealthy would do just fine? If the low and middle class (us) are going to suffer more than the rich by going back to the pre-Bush era tax rates, then WE benefit more from the tax cuts don't we?
And what's with this "shared sacrifice" nonsense? Sure the middle class has suffered higher unemployment than the upper class, but you aren't going to be raising taxes to the people that lost their jobs! (well, at least not much). I don't suffer from higher taxes more now just because my neighbor who used to have a middle class income lost his job, do I? And he doesn't have a high enough income to tax much more because he is unemployed, so this notion that the middle class is all going to suffer hard doesn't work.

You only have to meet the 125% poverty level, and $33,000 is above that for just about everyone with up to 5 kids (really?, that's how we define poverty? $33,500 with 6 kids? I think you met poverty well before that!).

I was born after '64-- by the way, how did we choose that arbitrary date? Is that when the Op was born?
But I would say I don't really get it. So they are protesting that wealth is not equally distributed within companies, but how does that affect most of these protesters? I'm guessing they don't actually work for the companies they are complaining about, because how could they spend all of this time off work protesting if they did? So if the top brass at Wal Mart decides to spread its profits around to its employees are these guys going to go away even if they don't work for wal mart?

I was born after '64-- by the way, how did we choose that arbitrary date? Is that when the Op was born?
But I would say I don't really get it. So they are protesting that wealth is not equally distributed within companies, but how does that affect most of these protesters? I'm guessing they don't actually work for the companies they are complaining about, because how could they spend all of this time off work protesting if they did? So if the top brass at Wal Mart decides to spread its profits around to its employees are these guys going to go away even if they don't work for wal mart?

10 years ago we had Steve Jobs,Bob Hope,Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Jobs
No Hope
And no Cash....

10 years ago we had Steve Jobs,Bob Hope,Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Jobs
No Hope
And no Cash....

I think some people are getting confused in thinking that the protesters want the wealthy to be taxed more. That's not it. They actually want them to make less money, and then distribute that income more evenly across to all the workers.
..It's not Socialism though.

So, if the Government has made money on TARP, this poses a question. TARP bailout money was included in the calculations to total the 2008 and 2009 deficits. Shouldn't TARP repayments since then be included as income to offset existing deficits, or has it, and in fact our actual operation deficits are even worse than what we think?

I think Bush should come out and counter the blame-game and state that his deficits were all because he was preparing for Obama.

The op is not familiar with the book of Job.

I think Obama made an enormous mistake by concentrating on his health care plan when he did. That whole debate gave rise to the Tea Party and to the Republicans taking over the house.
The biggest problem the U.S was and is facing is not healthcare, it's the economy. Some will argue that they go hand in hand, but the immediate problem is revenue vs spending from the government.
Obama should have used the time he had free will, before the Republicans took over, to change the tax system to meet his economic plan. It's possible that so many people wouldn't have become radicalized if they saw that there own tax rates didn't get worse.

So, they don't like the debt ceiling being raised?

It's kind of funny, they are considered the winners in all of this, but I think they all actually voted against the final bill that passed.

I think they should sub-divide the politics and religion forum to weed out abortion and death penalty topics.

As usual I agree with you.

Congressman should have to answer questions like this, with those exact choices for answers.

Congressman should have to answer questions like this, with those exact choices for answers.

I feel like I've been in line waiting to ride a roller-coaster I'm really too scared to ride. I've been standing in line for 2 hours trying to decide how to get out of it, but couldn't come up with an excuse that wouldn't make me look like a coward, and now I'm actually sitting in the chair and the safety bar has actually come down, and pretty soon I'm going to need a change of underwear.

I don't want everyone to vote either. There are too many stupid people out there who have no idea about what they are doing and what impact their vote is going to have.

Just because they have doesn't mean they have to. What you are saying is that if the country becomes more prosperous, then automatically the size of government should increase. I don't think that was the vision this country was built on either.

Just because they have doesn't mean they have to. What you are saying is that if the country becomes more prosperous, then automatically the size of government should increase. I don't think that was the vision this country was built on either.

Just because they have doesn't mean they have to. What you are saying is that if the country becomes more prosperous, then automatically the size of government should increase. I don't think that was the vision this country was built on either.

I believe the chart is adjusted for 2010 dollars.
Why do expenditures have to go up because the GDP increases?