Barack wants your money

[Tarlam!]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.

That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

...u don't get out much do ya?

How are Americans supposed to know how much tax we pay, Michael? I think we need to be more willing to offer information and be less inclined to ridicule people who are as intelligent as most our Rats are, but have a strong focus on their home country.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's not how much tax you pay or even completely, how much income you have before or after taxes.

It's about the lifestyle you have--the prosperity and the freedom to enjoy that prosperity, and the relative security that all the good things won't go away--one way or another.

I'm not saying Europeans don't have a high degree of those things--I haven't been over there in well over a decade. I would strongly suggest, though, that the standard of living even in the most well off countries of Europe--based on the criteria I cited above--is still well below the U.S.

The thing I hate most about Obama and the Dem/libs is that they seemingly intentionally would drag America down. And since Europe is undoubtedly on the second highest perch, the same worldwide egalitarian policies and lax anti-terror policies that would be the hallmark of an Obama Administration would likely also drag down Europe.

Some in here protest so vehemently about Obama's redistribution of wealth scheme domestically--and I certainly am not in favor of that. The much greater problem than what he and his crowd would do to drag down the wealthy at home is what they would do to drag down ALL Americans--and presumably all western Europeans at the same time--in relation to the rest of the world.

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up--even though they never quite reach the level of the haves--who in the process, rise also. That is true both domestically and in a world perspective.

[Scott Campbell]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.

That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

...u don't get out much do ya?

How are Americans supposed to know how much tax we pay, Michael? I think we need to be more willing to offer information and be less inclined to ridicule people who are as intelligent as most our Rats are, but have a strong focus on their home country.

I wasn't offended.

I understand many Europeans pay much higher individual tax rates than here in the US. And thus the comment - that is seriously F'd up. And I think its part of the reason the US is such an economic powerhouse. We have that as a competitive advantage.

You can make a pretty convincing argument that other countries know far more about the US than we know about them - in general.

[Scott Campbell]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

[hoosier]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

[mraynrand]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

If you tax business too much, you lose business. It's been demonstrated again and again. "trickle down" is just another way of saying "supporting business" and "employment." every time a business hires someone, that is 'trickle down.' None of the 33% of people who currently pay no taxes will get 500-1000 bucks under Obama will be able to use that money to start a business to employ anyone. But many of them will likely lose a job because a business (one of the larger small businesses that are responsible for 50% of small business earnings) will lay people off. and the first people they will lay off are the lowest skilled, lowest earners (that 33% that pay no taxes because they don't earn much). So if you're in that group, spend your 500 to 1000 bucks carefully, it may have to last you till 2011 (If you even get it - Clinton promised the same thing, then turned around and raised taxes on almost everyone).

[HowardRoark]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

Really?

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

Really?

Abject failure was the liberal social programs, most notably, the vaunted "Great Society" in the decades before Reagan. Far more people ended up in poverty; Practically none of the poor got out of poverty; And the macro-economy in the country by the Jimmy Carter years was worse than it has EVER been--geometically WORSE than the trumped up "crisis" we have now.

Success was what followed--the Reagan tax cuts which on the macro-economic level, brought two decades of unprecedented prosperity--disrupted only by 9/11. On the micro-economic level, specifically regarding poor people, far MORE people got OUT of poverty, bootstrapping themselves due to the tax cuts in individual circumstances, and due to the growth and prosperity brought by the tax cuts that helped everybody.

This is a clear illustration of the contrast between the liberal Democrat way and the conservative Republican way.

On an international level, you have the equally stark contrast between the pre-Reagan policies of propping up socialist dictators like Robert Mugabe in as much of the world as the Dem/libs could, and the promoting of freedom and free enterprise capitalism by Republicans from Reagan through George W.Bush. The fruits of the former are the genocide, extreme poverty, tyranny, and depravity which we see in Africa. The fruits of the latter are the generally high standard of living, freedom, and normalcy which is prevalent in the great majority of Latin America and much of Asia.

[Scott Campbell]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

[mraynrand]

I want Barack's money.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

Categorically false. We do not have the highest standard of living.

We have a country that has wealth unevenly distributed as compared to other developed nations. The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow. Many prominent economists (Alan Greenspan, etc.) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.

We aren't in the top ten in the UN's Human Development Index.

In the Human Poverty Index we rank 16th.

In the Economist's quality of life we rank 13th.

Median wages have been in decline since 74. In 05 the median, adjusted for inflation was less than what it was in 74.

[retailguy]

I want Barack's money.

Well, if you make less than $250k you "might" get a bit of it.

If not, well, then, YOU ALREADY HAVE TOO MUCH DAMN MONEY.

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

Categorically false. We do not have the highest standard of living.

We have a country that has wealth unevenly distributed as compared to other developed nations. The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow. Many prominent economists (Alan Greenspan, etc.) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.

We aren't in the top ten in the UN's Human Development Index.

In the Human Poverty Index we rank 16th.

In the Economist's quality of life we rank 13th.

Median wages have been in decline since 74. In 05 the median, adjusted for inflation was less than what it was in 74.

Where do you come up with a line of total bullshit like that, Tyrone?

My previously stated criteria for "standard of living" are: prosperity, freedom to enjoy that prosperity, and security that the prosperity and freedom will not be disrupted. By that or any other rational criterion, how can you possibly claim the U.S. does NOT have the highest standard of living in the world?

Show me something other than leftist anti-American trash.

[hoosier]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

This also is simply NOT TRUE! It's merely a matter of leftists believing their own lies and quoting other leftists spewing those lies.

Our "poor" people are far better off than the middle classes of virtually any other country in the world, and more relevantly, our "poor" people are infinitely better off than people on a similar level relative to other people than 30 to 50 years ago--the pre-Reagan/liberal social program era. This is in terms of housing, transportation, food, entertainment, education, basically any criterion you can name.

The left can spew all the hate and negativity in this area they want, but it doesn't change the obvious facts on the ground.