OK...Finally we get the truth from Obama and his agenda.
 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

Do you want the Government to set a Limit on what we can make as individual United States Citizens? This could even include your company. After-all there is a point where they make "enough money".

Wealth Redistribution plain and simple.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ugh_money.html

When it involves an individual (or organization, for that matter) cheating or committing a crime to make the money, yes. Though I take it that you think he has something else in mind, or at least want others to get a different impression, which seems to be the point of the article.

In context "We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned".
Sounds to me like he's not against companies or individuals earning money based on their success.

On the second part "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money"
IMO it doesn't sound like he's advocating a limit on what anyone can earn.

What I get from it is this.
Anyone with a degree of understanding knows that greed
can't be a good thing weather it's greed by an individual or greed from
a corporation. Honestly it's a moral issue which was and still is the
basis for the financial issues we face.

Ask anyone who's made more money than they can spend and
they will tell you that there's a point when making money is no longer
the issue. The most important thing when you get to that point
is what you can do to help other people.

Call it "Wealth Redistribution plain and simple." if you like but
that's the reality, plain and simple.

At some point I do think that people have made "enough money" and I have no problems with tax laws that ask people who can easily afford it to bear more of the burden. People don't make money in a vacuum and they don't live in a vacuum.

With that said, I do think a lot of people do take advantage and sit on their asses instead of trying. If there is no reason you can't work, then you should not be able to eat at the public table for an unlimited amount of time.

There are low income people who get money back from the tax system and they can use that money to buy a few more meals a year and to make life less of a struggle; and at the same time there are billionairs who pay less than the middle class in actual taxes. I have no sympathy for them. And for the rich who do have relatively high tax rates (compared to the poor) this means that maybe they can't afford to have an additional luxury house, car, AND/or boat - again this does not stress me as mush as starving children and families.

Maybe u should start pointing ur finger at the people who steal money on Wall Street. I'm not sure what are u complaining about in this reform...

Please do say how is it stopping u from making more money?? If u back the people who build business 'to' fail and they get to keep all the money then there is really nothing more to argue about...

You as well as others here missed the entire point. My comment had nothing to do with wall street reforms and allowing wall street firms or anyone for that matter to make money stealing or breaking the laws.

My focus was on Obama's comment about a point at which we've made "enough" money. I don't want a government deciding how much a person or company can profit before stepping into their bank account to siphon the funds they deem EXTRA to pay for their projects in Washington.

Imo, it's a comment made by a sitting prez, and in these times, everything
is scrutinized, dissected, spun and used for fodder by "both sides" of the
political spectrum.

Whether one likes O, or thinks he is Marx's 2nd coming, is not the point.
He, or any prez doesn't write the "laws"; our genius elected officials do.

I have no dog in this fight, as most of you know I have utter disregard for
most politicians/bureaucrats, et al.

My question to my Obama beating geezer buds is "who do you want as prez"
and, "other than emotions involved, why would your 'pick' be better in terms
of real world situations and direction?"

I seldom hear much response to my question...
GL, mD

If you think that is what the President's comment means, then I respectfully say that you have missed his point.

At the risk of repeating myself, we know what your focus was.
Here's another view that perhaps you should consider.

On the second part "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money"
IMO it doesn't sound like he's advocating a limit on what anyone can earn.

What I get from his comment is this.
Anyone with a degree of understanding knows that greed
can't be a good thing weather it's greed by an individual or greed from
a corporation. Honestly it's a moral issue which was and still is the
basis for the financial issues we face.

Ask anyone who's made more money than they can spend and
they will tell you that there's a point when making money is no longer
the issue. The most important thing when you get to that point
is what you can do to help other people. No where is his comment
did he say or imply anything regarding government deciding
how much a person or company can profit before stepping into their
bank account to siphon the funds they deem EXTRA to pay for their projects in Washington.

MD;

:iagree:

U can't just pick sentences out of context and criticize them without looking at what is being criticized. Obviously Obama was referring to these investment companies...

You know what Barry, for someone who disavows and even denies being a Obama supporter, you sure to defend him A LOT.

Just sayin'.....

Hey whats right is right. If you use a quote out of context
which is what happen in this thread then a correction is called for.
I would even support you if you said something that's balanced and correct.
In any event, glad to see you still stalking.:rolleyes:

Out of context? :rofl: wow.

Anyway, not stalking, I simply read the thread, and your hypocrisy stood out so I commented.

Carry on.

It must be slow at work Huh......:dunno:
Nothing else to do except find someone
to call names. Very mature......:popcorn:

Your right about one thing though.

Carry on

A stalker isn't exactly complimentary.

have a good night.

Now you know how it feels.
Let's stay on topic and dispense
with the name calling. Agreed???

Liberal Democrats have demonstrated enough through the years with their eagerness to redistribute wealth.

"Social Justice"
"Economic Justice"

Hardly a stretch to attribute his words in this speech to his agenda and that of Congress. How do you think they are going to pay for all these programs. Do you really believe the projected cost of a Health Plan which starts in 4 years will be what they claim? You can't be that naive. You've been around long enough to see how these programs explode in cost overruns and budget shortfalls. Who is going to pay for all this? Democrats and the Obama administration have already laid out a clear path. Those who make more than $150,000 which in the Northern California Bay Area is HARDLY rich better watch their pocket books.

Billionaires can afford to hire law-firms to do their taxes. I can't so I'll end up paying as well as many of you in this bracket.

Well, I would agree with MD.

But back to the link, MLG, which is about financial reforms. Your link states "What was working for them (the banks) wasn't working for ordinary Americans" before it carries on to your highlighted quote about firms that profited at the expense of the country, so it does appear to be about greed on Wall Street more than it is about wage caps on the middle class. It is a suggestion that poor regulatory practices made the crisis worse. So the real agenda of Obama that you are challenging with this thread appears to include bringing financial reforms in.

Question for you: Are you suggesting that you are against these financial reforms? Do regulators have a role in the economy? That may be worth debating more than the Obama is great/Obama is evil proposition.

I'm actually in favor of Financial Reforms and was against the level and scope of the Bank Bailouts. The Banks were responsible for the fiasco and should have been allowed to fail.

At a minimum there should have been some terms to the bailouts which spelled out a payback plan and limits on executive compensation and bonuses. The CFO's and CEO's should have been fired but thanks to Lobbyist and Washington politicians the American taxpayers got hosed again.

My philosophy of personal responsibility extends to business and corporations as well.

Let's see your "through the years" proof!!!
Where's the proof of the socialist agenda
resulting in goose stepping troops in the streets.

Republicans over the years have been in as much control
as Democrats. So whatever the results we see today they
can without a doubt take as much responsibility for the mess
we are in as anyone.

Speaking of taxes? it cost me $79.00 for Turbo Tax
to do may taxes. (No law firms needed).
What I paid in taxes (where ever it went)
aint worth blaming Obama for so I have no
cause to defend him or rake him over the
coals regarding the present state of affairs.
I know for sure the republicans were just as
responsible for the tax code as the democrats.

The political machine of this country is run by
many things and you can be sure much of it
has nothing to do with one's political party.

That being said i'm certainly not going to cry in
my beer about something I cannot change.

Just to point to a comment made earlier, Obama doesn't make the laws..Congress does. In turn, no matter what his point of view it doesn't mean the legislature must follow suite. Ask Carter about that. Obama campaigned on a pseudo-socialist platform so it really shouldn't be a shock that is what he wants. He wants a larger government involvement because in his eyes, that makes for a better America. Sadly, most Americans prefer big brothers help than not.

OK, total tangent:

Like most Presidents he rode in with a great deal of fan-fair which has passed and he now has an approval rating in keeping with almost any sitting President near the half point of their term. Nothing exceptional. He followed in step, whether he said so or not, with what Bush did before him. Continuing the execution of TARP and wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. Both things he railed against in his campaign pitch. His only distinguishing push was health care reform which became an utter debacle, which is now coming home to roost. I actually applaud the effort to at least get Congress to do something on Health Care even though I believe his track is incredibly wrong. He takes a hard stance against 'corrupt' big business but doesn't fault the government for creating the problem (see his finance reform agenda which did not discuss Fannie/Freddie which was core to the mortgage fall out, nor does it address the Federal Reserve which created and exacerbated the condition). This strikes a cord with honest workers who believe that you SHOULD get a bonus for doing your job well, and that 250K is not rich.

I believe Obama painted himself in a corner with his debt commission. The first items they are looking at is Social Security and Obama-Care. Probably not what Obama intended, however this could be a GREAT point for him. If they do declare Obama-Care to be cut and he follows through, to some extent on that, he will go up a few points in my eyes for really wanting to solve the problem.

Does Obama have socialist or Marxist tenancies? Absolutely, read the book "Stalin, Lenin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe (Amazon.com: Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe (9781400040056): Robert Gellately: Books) and you can draw exact parallels in practice. Does that make him a complete Socialist determined to completely undermine the US Constitution? No. However, some of his actions like running up a 14+T dollar debt make you wonder what he intends for the future of America. If anything at all. IMO, Obama believes that Unionized labor is best and that working in mass is much more efficient than the individual (just look at his biggest supporters).

IMO, he very much fits the persona of someone you'd probably like to hang with (more so that Bush did, at least to me). I believe he genuinely feels larger government helps. However, the United States of America is not built that way. He would have some serious changes to make to make his vision possible, and that isn't going to happen.

So MD, who would I suggest as Pres? Hard to say. I'd most likely pick Ron Paul. I've read every book he has written and a lot about him as a person. He seems genuine in his love of the US Constitution and rules of the land. Problem is he isn't a game playing politician. He doesn't tend to tow a line for a party, what that means is he stands no shot of getting on the ticket for President at the end of the game.

I would HIGHLY encourage everyone to read any of Ron Paul's books. I believe the Rep party will pick Mitt Romney in 2012. In my fantasy world I'd hope that Ron Paul, pushed by Tea Party support, would get the Rep nomination. However, I doubt that would ever be allowed by the GOP and DEMS would rail against Ron Paul for wanting to remove most social programs from the US Government, no matter how much common sense it makes.

Good to see you back in the mix.
I enjoy your opinion.

NewsDaily: Odierno "confident" U.S. Iraq drawdown on schedule

"We are ... on target to be at 50,000 (troops) by August," General Raymond Odierno told the "Fox News Sunday" program.


Don't see people can say he is continuing Bush's wars. Bush had no intention of getting out of Iraq ("on his watch") because (a) he couldn't admit how much cash and life he had wasted and (b) he had no idea how to stop this mess he started.

Obama may not have brought all the troops home immediately (never the plan) but they are working on closing out the war that should never have been started.

Let me know when "we are on target" becomes "we have brought"

Thanks man.

BigR,
I am also glad to see you cruise back in here, occasionally...

My comment about my continual "question" to my GeezerBuds is somewhat rhetorical, as I know most of them get their entire "news" from ~10 mins of Fox or Rush, et al.
Doesn't mean those sources suck, but a couple snippets of that stuff is not exactly "fair and balanced", or fully informative imo.

Thus, other than the usual right/conservative suspects, they can offer no real good ideas on "who" and "why".

(I always wonder what "conservative values" really means, even after reading some blogs/definitions/position papers on that toss around term.)

Back on point, sort of, Paul would be interesting and about a 180 from standard party machine politics in the US, but I suspect he has less chance than me breaking 75.
I have read considerably on he and his positions and ideas, but he may be too "smart" and tenuous for the typical TeaParty or RepublicanDem stuffed suits.

No polit xpert here, as I find myself ranting at all most all of them, and there are few I would hire to help me pick up yard debris, let alone "guide" me in any serious life task.

Things and, politics, and the Noise in this country is as loud and obnoxious and inane, and non-constructive, as I can recall in my 6+ decades here. I have no answer(s)...
it will probably not get better.

Good to read you again Ryan, and very good to read your back is on the heal.
BR, mD

So, in your mind, these two presidents have the same goals, attitudes, and objectives in war because one started the war, but the other has not yet completed achieved its ending?

No, No and No. But quotes are nothing, there were tons of quotes during Bush's tenure about bringing troops home. Point of fact, Obama campaigned on bringing troops home, he hasn't. Simple as that. No need to attempt to 'read' things into it. Obama promised to bring home most of the 140,000+ troops home this summer, leaving only 50K or so left to come home next year. Isn't happening. And he said it would be done by August 2010 (the large troop removal).

Obama 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/wa.../28troops.html

Bush 2007
Bush to Bring 5,700 Troops Home by Christmas : NPR

Thanks MD :)

Will be very interesting to see how Obama handles current times, lots of drama in the world right now. My feeling is, like yours, no matter what he does Rep will say he sucks, Dems will say he rocks and the lowly intelligent minority will be left collectively saying WTF :)

:iagree: Politics as usual, and nothing will ever change.

:iagree: Again.:thumbup:

Yup. The problem is people, in their dismay, stop questioning and thinking and start simply picking their side. Liberal...or Conservative...and move out from there. For every person thats post cracking a joke on FoxNews, the same could be done for a CNN or HuffingtonPost. You just look dumb when you prance around making proclamations about opinion persons of 'news' channels. People miss the markets that new agencies compete for, some are international in nature, some are focused on America which confuses people more as they attempt to lob all the fruit in one basket. And in classic fashion, right off the real news because there is also opinion.

The truth is it is very hard and tiring to attempt to really follow an issue. The game is setup that way intentionally. The less you know the more moves they can make. Even the Tea Party, which I am a proud member of, has its nut jobs. Pushing Palin as some 'leader' is just dumb. I would far more attribute Tea Party concepts to Ron Paul than any other talking head. I'll keep fighting the logic battle for my side, as fruitless as it may be, but hey..I can so I will :)

Just curious wagner, as a proud tea party member what exactly do you think this movement stands for? Whenever I see tea party activists on tv I see a bunch of silly morons with signs that don't make much sense at all. Are all tea party members making more than $250,000/year and as a result concerned about tax increases? I don't mean to come off rude just looking for an educated opinion from the other side of the fence. I often group these people into a category I like to call uneducated racists who "want their country back" whatever that means. I certainly wouldn't think you fit that bill, so what is your reasoning?

Certainly. And I appreciate you asking :)

First thing first, I'm a Libertarian which generally means I have a strong love for the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (in fact both these documents along with the Declaration of Independence are hanging in my office). I believe that the Federal government is controlled by these two documents, not the people being limited by these documents. I was not a fan of GW Bush and didn't vote for him once.

I make more than $250,000 (I can't speak for everyone else, but of the group I was talking to I was the only one making 6 figures), I have owned and sold businesses. I can get into the cons of owning a Type-S incorporation if you'd like, just ask. But federal laws and tax structure CRUSH small business.

Here is what I stand for as a Tea Party member:

- balanced budget
- non progressive tax system
- considerably less Federal Government interaction and involvement in private business and lives
- banishment of the Federal Reserve system, which greatly assisted in creating both the housing and financial crisis
- Health care reform that starts by knocking down the federal barrier to state competition
- No bailout for private industry
- No government push for unionization of labor
- Environmental standards that make sense in form and function
- No deficit spending, the logic behind running up trillions in debt with no plan to repay is staggering


Those are my primary feelings and my thoughts. I got involved over a year ago and have seen, as with many things that attempt to be labeled and grouped, the fringe elements get the most coverage. I would love for people who think the Tea Party people are a bunch of loons, to actually go to an event and simply walk around without bias. And generate an opinion. I fully understand why people get this view that they are lunatics, that is what you're being shown. At one Tea Party rally I actually watched a bus load of ACORN union activists come in (completely from out of town, so shipped in) and when they saw the size of the crowd they were competing with, they drove away. The point is, some new groups are doing everything they can to minimize or dramatize the Tea Party folks. Do the Tea Parties have nuts? Of course, just like any group. A lot of people think that Republicans started the Tea Party, absolutely not. It is just that Republicans are PRO Tea Party simply because, at this point in time, the Tea Party has a lot of complaint about the administration and legislature. What Republicans don't get is, we don't like them either :) Oh, and for the record..I'm not a Republican. The days of Republicans being conservatives are long gone.

Wagner, thanks for the detailed response. It is obvious you are passionate about the cause. I am familiar with corporate legal form and the tax structures that noose them. I must say I am one of those people who thinks/thought that a republican think tank shit out this tea party movement. Especially when I see morons like Palin showing up at the rallies. You make several excellent points about our country's transformation from what it once was to the semi-socialist republic we now live in. I will say I think some of your ideas are far fetched such as banishment of the federal reserve system. With that said, my undergraduate education was in finance and I can surely understand your quarrel with the fed. (I have no intentions of being a banker after spending the summer at Merrill lynch....so no witch hunt :rofl:) Additionally, I feel that it is extremely difficult if not irrational to live word for word off documents written over 200 years ago (aside from the bill of rights). I do not support the governments recent stomping on these documents, but I do not think our country could be run any better adhering to the principals outlined in the constitution and declaration alone. Last but not lease I do not yet make over 250,000. As someone who intends to own and operate a small business in our economy, I must say I have several concerns as you are well aware of. I sure as death intend to one day be in that higher tax bracket that's currently being progressively taxed and will acknowledge that my opinion may change when that day comes.

Great to see you back Wagner. This forum is heavily weighted toward the Government will save us crowd and really needs some balance.

MrLabGuy, Libertarian who believes in Personal Responsibility which includes corporations, government and individual citizens.

:iagree:

You've not seen silly morons with signs until you've been to San Francisco. Most of America gets their information from news reports and thus an opinion about the Tea Party Movement. The Liberal Media likes a story and focuses on the fringe element in their reporting.

Those in the movement who "want their country back" would like to see a move toward our founding principals. The founders purposely set limits on the government for good reason. America under the rule of Progressives is "progressing" toward the European model of government. The core message of the Tea Party movement is one where Government plays less of a role in the lives of Americans. Government and our taxes should focus on Defense and infrastructure. There was a time when local governments used taxes for Schools, Roads, Fire and Police. Taxes have increased and yet our roads crumble, schools are being closed while fire and police are scaled back due to lack of funds. Ask yourself why... Not for lack of funds but for lack of financial discipline.

What we need as I've said is personal responsibility. Not another political program or government committee to solve our problems.

Your last portion really points to the issue. "It is ok if it doesn't happen to me", not saying that is you but that is the mentality of many in the supposed middle-class. Essentially this spawns class warfare where anyone making more than "you" should be taxed higher, thanks 1913.

I tell you I wasn't aware till Obama that I was rich :) Woohoo, lucky me.

I minored in Economics, actually tutored in it in college, but not finance. What does that mean? Well that I understand financial curves, meaning you can't create fake money based on nothing tangible.

We left the constitution decades ago, started when we began printing money after the Civil War and got worse when we decided that we needed nothing tangible to back it up. Think about who invented the Fed...here is a hint: JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller. That right there should tell you the Feds agenda. The founding fathers attempted to adopt a central bank between 1790est-1802..it failed miserably.

I'm actually hoping we learn a lot from Greece and, my prediction, the down fall of the Euro.

Again, thanks for asking questions of an actual Tea Party person and not the clowns you see on TV :thumbup:

I consider myself a progressive, but that does not mean I expect any government institution, local, state, or federal, to "save us" (In fact, the only people I know who believe such don't have much to work with in the first place, mostly due to their own making, or are accustomed to having elected government officials do their bidding). What I do expect is that those we choose to run our government institutions to have a genuine and healthy respect for those institutions, for what they can do and cannot do, and to not treat them with contempt. Be competent and be reasonable about what can be done, but understand the role government should play. However, just as I respect the idea that government should not attempt to solve every problem, too often I see the other side of that coin being ignored, which is that the markets do not self-correct in a way that is always beneficial to society at large. Just look at the erosion of the manufacturing sector of our economy and the decades-lasting debilitating effects it has had on several communities across our country.

Considering that, what is often ignored is that the private sector, large corporations in particular, do not consistently act with the best interests of our communities in mind, if at all. That is not their collective mission, however, so no reason to expect it. But knowing that, we do need our government institutions to become involved on our behalf in areas where the private sector is not willing or able. Attempts to fix our health care system is a prime example. I will say that I see small businesses as being much more community-minded than larger businesses, which is one of the reasons why the Small Business Administration was established. I know many people have been disappointed with the SBA's performance over the years, but that seems to be more a matter of execution and administration than a flaw in the philosophy of having our government utilize our resources to actively support small business development.

It seems too often over the past 30 years that some who profess to be libertarian have been selective in advocating for limited government. For example, witness the lack of outcry from some "liberatarians" when the federal government became more aggressive in promoting religion in general, regardless of the fact that no particular religion was promoted. I do believe that the debate about the role of government should be perpetual, which is why I enjoy reading well-reasoned, sincere opposing viewpoints. I do question the sincerity of anyone, whether they call themselves progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or something else entirely, when I see inconsistencies in his/her approach to the issues. Too often, IMO, libertarians have allowed government activism on some issues without protest (official government promotion of religion) to preserve their right to be at the table on other issues (tax structive, the necessity of certain government programs). For many people who do not make the distinction (I do, by the way) between libertarians and "wackos" holding signs at Tea Party events shown on Fox News and CNN, this is one of the reasons why. Accusing the President of wanting to limit the amount of money an individual can legally make, when it is quite clear he meant no such thing, can also blur those lines for some people.

I'm a Christian & a Libertarian, I can't think of anything that grays the line of church and state more than having currency that reads "In God We Trust". I was in favor of the cancelling of a 50year tradition of 'National Day of Prayer', sometimes it is difficult to attempt to be fair. Until government becomes an unpaid service of working individuals, we will continue to have bought off politicians and thus, a corrupt government. Take a note from the Texas play book where the local legislature only serves 140 days every two years, what that means is that those folks actually have to work.

I still believe the concrete is laid by the US constitution for an amazing country, as we've enjoyed since 1776.

Wagner: Good to have you back, the debate needed elevating. I enjoyed your posts, above.

What does "a non-progressive tax system" mean? Regressive? Proportional? Flat tax?

Thanks man.

I would want a flat tax based system. I would advocate a standard, flat, 14% Federal tax at the end of the tax year replacing the entire income based tax system including Social Security and Medicare. A lot of people are advocating a VAT system similar to Europe, in my eyes you couldn't do something worse during a fragile economy.

Sounds lovely but how can we reasonably expect to pay off any of our 14,000,000,000,000 at such low tax rates? I'm sure you will suggest that you did not personally advocate or approve of such spending (nor did I) but that does not change the fact that we need to do something. Would you support a raise in the capital gains tax? How about taxing fat people who eat shit, or bimbo's who live at the tanning booth? I would rather they did not raise capital gains, but I wouldn't mind cranking up the price on unhealthy activities that costs us all money at the end of the road.

I'd say a good start would be stopping any politicians from having 6 digit salaries. You should run this country for the love of it and because you believe you can do better for it, and have a comfortable living during that period... not become a rich career politician.

We are no longer in the period of "of the people, for the people" but we would be better off if we were.

GOOOH | Get Out of Our House: A non-partisan plan to elect citizen representatives!

Research it, a flat tax for all gathers far more revenue than a progressive income tax system. In our current system 50% of taxable base doesn't pay taxes. You can't raise capital gains taxes. The very basis of capital gains is so businesses and smart individuals can reinvest the wealth. There are many articles on the use of capital gains tax *which by the way Obama is raising in 2011*. Raising capital gains is a sure fire way to stop economic growth not associated with the government. As for selective taxes, it isn't unprecedented and in fact is already done on tobacco and alcohol. I don't agree with that practice at all but apparently society does. It isn't my prerogative to tell you what is healthy and what isn't. And it isn't sciences either, just ask this question over the last decade: which part of the egg is good for you?

Our income tax system is entirely miss-guided and was established in 1913, nearly 100 years ago. Here is one part that boggles my mind, once I make over 106,000 for the year I no longer pay social security tax, how does that make sense? I mean, if we are going to be progressive, then be progressive. Why did I pay in every pay check when I worked in high school, but now when "I could afford to pay more" (according to Biden) I don't have to pay?


The problem is not a revenue one, it is a spending one. The soon to be 15T debt isn't a 'real' number, it is based on current spending rates. Heck, even the bulk of the original Stimulus deal has yet to be spent. How about we don't spend it?

You could raise the income tax rate to 100% on the top 10% earners and still couldn't pay the debt off. The point is, we need to stop pretending to focus on what we deem "rich" and start making all citizens pay their way if possible. A flat tax would do that. It is not popular at all because those 50% not paying taxes would get hit.

Oh and I'd actually be OK with raising the national gas tax as long as there was a yearly percentage cap and sector by which it could rise, not simply legislative rulings.

There is absolutely an issue with distribution of wealth. People do not need 10, 20, 50 billion dollars when a large plurality of American can not afford health insurance. And by the way I am well into the highest tax bracket.

And who are you to deem when/where a person should spend their earnings? Sorry you don't have a right to render 'need'. Maybe you need to do a little research on this topic of spreading wealth to those in 'need'.

A Nation of Givers — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

http://american.com/graphics/2008/ma...-%202006-2.jpg

A little background info on the source:

From site:

The American is a magazine of ideas published by the American Enterprise Institute and located online at American.com. To submit story ideas or for information about advertising on American.com, send an email to [email protected].


From wikipedia:

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative,[1][2][3][4] non-partisan[5] think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."[6] AEI is an independent non-profit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[7] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities; Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow; and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Radek Sikorski, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.[8]

Research and analysis go a long way indeed.

:iagree:

The Fair Tax is the way to go.

Americans For Fair Taxation:

There is a point at which you've made enough money... that isn't right. Maybe what he should've said is something like: "The CEO's of companies salaries should not be allowed to go up millions of dollars in a year that they have had to lay off any employees. Instead, freeze his salary and keep the employees who he laid off employed with the extra $2,000,000 he was paid this year.

(2,000,000/40,000=50 employees jobs saved.) What's the difference between 4 million or 6 million dollars? If I made 4,000,000 in one year, I'd be on vacation for the rest of my life.

Oh no! He just used math and logic! I agree with the above statements.