Quoted from bumblethru

YUP.....that is correct....NASCAR got a sweet bail out deal with our tax dollar. Funny how they will spend tax dollar to an organization such as NASCAR and yet will turn around and tax the hell out of any one of them who makes anything over $250,000. AND that is if that's the real amount to be taxed!!!

Let me just say #$#^@#%^%&^&*$^%&@#$@%^#%^&%^($%^!@#$!@#$

would that be considered a 'bailout' for the car companies that give them their cars?????? and all the companies with the stickers
all over the cars.....oh, and the (how many tires per race) petroleum based tires and roadway??????

grease this you monkeys....... >

BTW---stop buying the crap with the numbers, jackets, shirts bumber stickers etc........maybe they will go away???? ha ha ha ha ha ha

Quoted from Shadow

The rich are the CEO's that run most of our businesses, if you raise their tax rates all that's going to happen is that we the people will be paying more for our goods and services. We'll be paying more for food, gas, electricity, and a whole lot more things. Trickle down in reverse.

So it would be better to raise taxes on the middle income people, working families, perhaps even the seniors on fixed incomes.  Maybe we won't pay increased prices, but paying higher taxes will prevent many from being being able to buy food, gas, electricity and a whole lot more things (even if the prices don't increase for those things).

The rich CEO's don't need to increase prices if they are taxed more.  They just need to learn to live more modestly.  Let them live in a modest ranch house or cape or bungalow, they don't need a plush mansion (I mean WHY did Wade Lupe need gold fixtures in the bathroom---the mansion on Balltown Rd).  They can go to Walmart and buy a suit just like the working people do.  They should drive a compact car instead of a limo.  Let them ride coach class and give up their company jets.  People are working two jobs just to pay for necessicties and still have to make time for household chores while the rich CEO's spend money on servants while the CEO's are out at the country clubs eating filet mignon and sipping martinis -- they can well afford to pay more taxes without raising prices

The point MC is have the government cut all the wasteful spending out of the budget and there will be no reason to raise anyones taxes which are too high already.

Quoted from Shadow

The point MC is have the government cut all the wasteful spending out of the budget and there will be no reason to raise anyones taxes which are too high already.

You took the words right out of my mouth!!
And I find it somewhat amusing, that our government wants to punish the rich and give  to the 'so called poor'. And yet we have China and India getting richer and richer as each day goes on. So is the tax system that is set up in China and India set up to take more from the wealthy as proposed in this country? If that is true, than I would be lead to believe that this great country of ours will be following in the footsteps of foreign countries instead of leading.

Quoted from mikechristine1

So it would be better to raise taxes on the middle income people, working families, perhaps even the seniors on fixed incomes.  Maybe we won't pay increased prices, but paying higher taxes will prevent many from being being able to buy food, gas, electricity and a whole lot more things (even if the prices don't increase for those things).

The rich CEO's don't need to increase prices if they are taxed more.  They just need to learn to live more modestly.  Let them live in a modest ranch house or cape or bungalow, they don't need a plush mansion (I mean WHY did Wade Lupe need gold fixtures in the bathroom---the mansion on Balltown Rd).  They can go to Walmart and buy a suit just like the working people do.  They should drive a compact car instead of a limo.  Let them ride coach class and give up their company jets.  People are working two jobs just to pay for necessicties and still have to make time for household chores while the rich CEO's spend money on servants while the CEO's are out at the country clubs eating filet mignon and sipping martinis -- they can well afford to pay more taxes without raising prices

MC, don't you see the swing of the pendulum? The extra tax monies the government can siphon from the wealthiest, will go to those poor middle class, working family and seniors to help support them. And of course let us not forget the chronically employed!!! The poor people that you refer to live better than people in third world countries. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT POOR IS!!

And you want the wealthy to drive compact cars instead of limos? Ok...than we will stop building limos and lay off another few thousand people. Let them give up their corp. jets and lay off thousands more. And how dare they eat filet mignon and sip martinis at country clubs. Let's stop that too so they can close down all of these country clubs and put even MORE people out of work! You have a problem with gold bathroom fixtures? Bet the people who manufacture them don't, cause they have a job making them.Ya...that's the ticket!

I know people who own businesses and if it weren't for the wealthy...they would be out of business!!! There are many non-profits who exist because of the wealthy. Shadow hit the nail on the head....the government needs to stop spending! And the lazy's of this world need to get off their a**es and get a job.  And for those on welfare, from lack of ambition, need to start using birth control, and stop having babies. That my friend is where the problem originates. Give me a break!

cleaning houses 'under the table' for the 'rich' is good money and you dont have to be an illegal immigrant to do it.....just ready willing and able....
AND---you get to make your own hours.......

and there are alot more jobs out there like that.....but envy/greed etc gets in the way of just plain old work.......picking lettuce 'under the table' is more
per hour than I make too.......

so, some of the problem is the system and some is just plain old fashioned human issues......

Quoted Text

Tax the rich to give others a break

First published in print: Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Peter Lavenia's proposal, to restore the progressive income tax (Nov. 18, letter), seems like an excellent idea, and I don't know why Gov. David Paterson and some of our other state officials have not also recognized that raising taxes on those who can pay would be far and away the best solution for the state's financial woes.
     
The Republicans from President Bush on down have insisted that raising taxes is the absolute worst thing you can do, and their panacea for all our financial problems is always to "cut taxes." For the life of me I can't see why the rank and file of those who have supported the Republican agenda over all these years does not realize that this policy has never helped those who need it most, and that the only people it really helps are those who are already rich and powerful.

Mr. Lavenia argues that restoring the progressive tax policy that existed until the 1970s would raise nearly $7.7 billion a year and allow us to lower income taxes on nearly 95 percent of taxpayers. This is similar to Barack Obama's proposal to raise the taxes of those who earn more than $250,000 to the same level that existed during the Clinton administration, which would allow us to lower taxes for most of the other 95 percent of taxpayers who earn less.

..........................http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=743862&category=OPINION

Quoted Text

Sharing wealth is the American way

By CHARLES MOORE
First published: Tuesday, December 2, 2008

The phrase "share the wealth" continues to draw a lot of negative attention. A few things should be remembered when disparaging this concept. Essential public services such as transportation infrastructure, Medicare, education, social security, military, police, fire, and emergency medical services are all forms of "sharing the wealth." It is interesting to note which are condoned and which are acknowledged.
According to 2006 census figures, if we took away Social Security benefits, 47 percent of all people in the U.S. age 65 and older would fall below the poverty line. When referring to families in poverty, some self-righteously say "get to work." However, 55 percent of children living in poverty have at least one parent working full time and the numbers are growing.

It takes the CEOs of the 350 largest public companies an average of one hour and 55 minutes to earn the annual pay of a full-time minimum wage worker. Ask seniors what they would do if Medicare was repealed. Millions of Americans are just one layoff, one health crisis or one family emergency from poverty's door.

A truthful evaluation of "share the wealth" needs to be debated. We've had an unprecedented period of accumulating wealth in recent years, very far from our historic pattern of sharing the wealth. Not since the gilded age have we had such income disparity. A productive society is an educated one and a disciplined one. This is not something our growing underclass knows intuitively. It must be taught and nurtured.

During the five years from 2000 to 2005, productivity — the measure of output of the economy per worker employed — grew by 16.6 percent. Over the same period, the median family's income slid by 2.9 percent.

While productivity increased steadily during the last third of a century, median wages were stagnant or grew very little. Workers did not share fully in the economic gains produced by increases in productivity.

From 1992 to 2005, the pay of CEOs of major companies rose by 186 percent. The equivalent figure for median hourly wages was 7.2 percent, leaving the ratio of CEO's pay to that of the average worker at 262. In the 1960s, the comparable figure was 24.

Until recently, America has had a long history of "share the wealth." Our history includes Thomas Jefferson's first national plan in 1808, and Theodore Roosevelt's second national growth and development strategy in 1908, which was built around natural resource development.

Our canals, farming tracts and railroads were the result of sharing wealth from the first national planning effort. In 1862 the Homestead Act promised 160 free acres of federal land to any family that would farm it. Massive land grants were made to the railroads to finance the national rail system. One of the 20th century's most renowned economists, John Kenneth Galbraith said, "No longer can economic stability, growth, employment and the prevention of inflation be left to God and laissez faire."

Clearly, many are not satisfied with the handling of our current economic crisis, but many also accept "sharing the wealth" to support failing businesses and industries. The objective is to stabilize markets and get back to productive competence.

With a productive, growing economy more people are employed and participating in the American dream of independence, self-reliance and homeownership.

In recent years, we've favored private wealth accumulation at the expense of our parks, schools, infrastructure, and environment. Robert Kennedy pointed out that many of the things that make us healthier and happier are excluded from our measure of well being: the safety of our children in the streets; the quality of their education; the integrity of our politicians; the strength of our relationships.

The idea of sharing wealth has directed our government to regulate and prevent the discharge of harmful pollutants. Essential elements of a healthy, productive life are clean air, land and water. No one entity has a right to spoil, pillage or pollute these at the expense of others.......................http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=745759&category=OPINION

What the government does with our tax money is fine with me but when the government starts to raid your private savings/retirement funds to give to those who have chosen not to get an education or work for their future that's when the concept of share the wealth is going to run into problems. Those who have worked hard, lived within their means, and saved some money for their retirement shouldn't be punished for what they have. People living here illegally shouldn't be able to drain our welfare system or draw a Social Security check until they've paid into the system as the citizens of this country have.

Quoted from Shadow

What the government does with our tax money is fine with me but when the government starts to raid your private savings/retirement funds to give to those who have chosen not to get an education or work for their future that's when the concept of share the wealth is going to run into problems. Those who have worked hard, lived within their means, and saved some money for their retirement shouldn't be punished for what they have. People living here illegally shouldn't be able to drain our welfare system or draw a Social Security check until they've paid into the system as the citizens of this country have.

We are a gambling country....we like risk and we take risk....whether it be at the casino, race track or stock market......no one is
'raiding' my 401k except for the fact that I 'gambled' it in the capitalist system......there can be no controls ever.....
EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS A GAMBLE AND NOTHING IS A GUARANTEE......(unless you work in the public sector or for the 'Big 3, with unions
to 'feed you' like a leech).......what do we think insurance is.....yup, a gamble, health insurance/car insurance/house insurance/life
insurance etc.......Mr.Obama, Mr.Bush and the rest of 'the posse' cant guarantee our retirement and neither can the
wallstreet or mainstreet CEO's.......

here's the deal....even if no one actually touch our retirement, by the time we retired a loaf of bread would be more than that
$1.50 we saved for it for our retirement......

anyone see the crystal ball used to project this crap?????.....yeah, me neither.......

and dont forget,,, more than 1/2 the US markets problem is the boomers taking their piece out.........

you cant afford me and I cant afford you.......