That just goes to show you libs really are Anti-America. Why do you hate women?

How’s that change working so far? Even stupid Powell has seen the light with obama.

The top earners already pay their fair share. If you don’t agree, you should put your money where you mouth is and pay what you think you should pay. Don’t just expect others to pay more, you better be first in line to pay more. You will also have your pay capped at a certain level. Remember, paying taxes is Patriotic, I guess that means the Dems really are Anti-American, given the number of obama nominees that did not pay taxes.

“The top 20 percent of earners saw their share of pre-tax income rise from 54.8 percent to 55.7 percent, from 2000 to 2006. During that same period, their share of federal income taxes increased from 81.2 percent to 86.3 percent.”

So that’s part of what’s going on.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we need to restore fairness and sanity to the tax system. NO ONE should be getting more back than they put in. And frankly if you ask me EVERYONE should be putting something in.

It’s a mistake we’ve fallen into to try to use the tax code to instill dignity in labor and enable to poor to make a liveable wage. The whole system is screwy. If we would enforce immigration law that would be a tremendous start in terms of providing wage equity.

“The top one or two percent of earners in this Country already pay something like 40% of all federal taxes in the Country. Drop that number to the top 20% and the taxes paid are close to 80% of the total.”

Do these top earners pay so much more in taxes primarily because they have so much more taxable income? Isn’t that part of the equation here? Surely they shouldn’t be paying LESS, right? We need a better statistical breakdown to speak about this meaningfully.

The risks the wealthy took have been implicitly backed up by the Federal Government, who have had to hand out bailouts galore just to keep the stock market from tanking further. We haven’t been borrowing all this money from our descendants and from our country’s future to keep entitlements going ro to give the poor tax breaks. We’ve been doing it mostly to protect the wealth that our top earners posess.

There’s a simplistic storyline that the bailout is to protect jobs and stimulate job growth, to stave off massive unemployment. It seems to me it’s really threefold :

1. To try to prevent massive unemployment
2. To try to prop the stock market up past its natural value
3. To prevent China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, et al from buying up even more of the united States

Sorry michael, once confirmed, she’ll teach US all about “equal justice” under the law…at least her perception of it.

This should be a surprise to no one; it was clearly one of the most proiminent issues during the last election.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102710

Empathy!

This is a classic case ruling against the popular concept of “diversity” and “exclusion” that so many people today think is fair equitable and legal, when in reality it is not.

Diversity, and inclusion is a racial numerical balancing policy that alleges that because minority numbers are not equally represented in any organization, they are being discrimminated against. In reality, any numerical balancing concept, affirmative action, diversity or inclusion concept based on total population distribution between any two “groups” preferences and priviliges the group that has the lowest numerical population, while disadvantaging and discrimmnating against the group that has the highest population distribution.

The only way to be “equal under the law” is to outlaw any form of numerical balancing policy (such as that pursued by the challengers of the tests to provide greater numbers of minority test takers regardless of grades) and to only look at a person’s ability, performance, talent, and grades regardless of what race, gender, religion or ethnicity they belong to.

Because Sonia SotaMayer, has grown up believing that certain ethnicities deserve something more than “other ethnicities” ,because of the PAST and not because of the fairness to all individuals TODAY under the law, she failed to rule correctly on this one and got overturned by the Supreme court.

Only individual to individual talent, ability, performance and grades can be used to make decision between two individuals to determine who deserves somnething more, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or religion.

The supreme court previously ruled correctly when students were being discrimminated against as individuals by admissions officers giving preference to “groups” based on their ethnicity, that THIS WAS ILLEGAL and harmed one individual for every individual it benefitted, by the use of “diversity” and exclusion discrimmination.

THe court correctly ruled in this case that “equal opportunity is guaranteed to ALL INDIVIDUALS (NOT GROUPS), but NO EQUAL outcomes.

This ruling rights a lot of wrongs done to a lot of innocent people, denied promotion because of their race and ethnicity, and not because of their ability and skill. That is also what is still wrong with 8A and small business protected class laws. They are thye next supreme court challenge that will be corrected and made illegal, because it discrimminates against individuals in favor of ethnic groups.

I’m very glad to see this ruling and it should teach Sonia a hard lesson in “equal justice under the law”.

Affirmative action by the way today is illegal. Only “equal opportunity is legal

The top one or two percent of earners in this Country already pay something like 40% of all federal taxes in the Country. Drop that number to the top 20% and the taxes paid are close to 80% of the total. Exactly why do you think it is fair to tax them more? It seems they already pay more then their fair share of taxes.

Two hundred thousand seems like a lot but, toss in a few kids, college, mortgage, etc and it does not seem to be so much after all.

America became a great Nation because Capitalism allowed people to earn as much money as they wanted or take as many risks as they wanted. That fueled growth and the idea that hard work would pay off. Kill that desire to take risks and earn, and you kill the Country.

I guess I’ll say something around 200K a year for an individual, 300K for a couple.

They are referring to FAIR. And who decided that FAIR was a hate group - none other than then Morris Dees of the SPLC.

Please read:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html

Google (Morris Dees) to find and discover more interesting facts about him. Like enter “Morris Dees and divorce” or “Morris Dees and wife” for starters.

President Bush never had a majority that obama is enjoying in Congress. What does that mean? It means that he and the GOP had to work with the Dems to get bills passed. The Dems have controlled Congress since 2006. Which means he really had to work with Dems to get bills passed. Congress sets spending in this Country, not the President.

What do you consider to be rich?

We need to tax the wealthy at higher rates. Their wealth is and has been subsidized by those loans we’ve been forced to give out. The stock market was kept from further free-fall only by borrowing from our children.

They’re distracting some of you with the same old nonsense. Having removed the horses from the barn, they’re now pretending that someone else stole the horses.

Yes we need less entitlements, more controls on welfare, etc. etc. but that’s not really what these tea parties are about. This is about distracting people from what has gone on and continues to go on.

That said, I find some new taxation initiatives offensive:
1. I don’t want to pay for other people’s mortgages on houses they shouldn’t even be living in
2. I don’t want to bail out banks and rich bankers which goes way beyond maintenance of currency liquidity
3. I don’t want to pay subsidies so illegal aliens can get in-state college tuition
4. I don’t want to pay for everyone else’s health care; my own is expensive enough
5. I don’t want to own General Motors or Chrysler, particularly when they are going to write off the debt they owe me
6. I don’t want the value of my retirement savings degraded by the upcoming inflation which is inevitable when we just print paper money.
7. I don’t want a cap-and-trade environmental pollution auction until it is worldwide and everyone bears their share

That’s why I’m going.

Jonathan Way