Then you my good sir, missed this part of her post. Am I the only one here reading everything everyone posts? Or are all of you just glancing over things?
I can tell that Radiant obviously is getting words mixed up. What I got from that statement was that taking money by imposing new and higher taxes would not necessarily be to benefit this country's people. True, the government having more money may have some positive impact but taking it away from peoples' paychecks doesn't mean they'll be happy I don't think Radiant would be foolish enough to state that blatantly, anyone who knows what governments are knows that they always take money!
The United States has only prospered economically when its middle class has prospered. That's why Obama will repair this country.
By making higher class people lose money, right? I don't think so, if people work hard for something, why should it be taken away and given to lower-class citizens? If you agree with sharing the wealth, then you must be selfish. Not caring about 'taking' something away from someone that's not yours means you have serious issues.
You think the taxes would be that extreme as to turn people making over $250,000 a year in to middle class citizens? Get your **** straight.
Not necessarily true. The Democratic party (after January 20th) will control the Senate, the House, and the presidency. Unless his own party turns on him, there isn't much stopping Obama if he requests a bill of sorts. No, but when you're making more than $250K a year, wouldn't you have an assistant or others working for you? You've got to pay them, more taxes doesn't help, and then you've got your own personal financial affairs to deal with like the payments on your car(s) and house.
even if you have an annual income of over a million, it shouldnt matter. A set tax price for everybody.
I over exaggerated. But hey, you should be used to it if you've been following Obama's campaign, right?
Everyone in the Senate and House got there because they deserved it, and they wouldn't let someone **** up our country (not saying Obama would) just because they are in the same political party.
No... by helping the middleclass support themselves. Right now the majority of middleclass families are in a crisis right now. They are below the debt margin, they are in danger of losing their savings, their jobs, their homes.... The rich people are getting a 3% tax raise after 8 years of having tax breaks. Let me say that again: 3% tax raise. To make up for 8 years of tax cuts. This is not going to bankrupt the rich people. sheesh.
I'm not saying they won't disagree with things within their party, but that because they are in the same party, he has more influence than most presidents normally have. That's one of the main reasons why the winning candidate's vice president is of his own party. You wouldn't get much done when the two top people can't agree on anything. The problem is not within the fact that the "rich" are getting a tax raise, it's the fact that they already pay the middle class citizens their paycheck. It's natural for a group of people to feel "robbed" of their money when they pay the salaries, and then the heavier taxes.
Yeah, because the VP does so much, right? The VP is usually just to balance the ticket in order to help win the election.
From what you should have learned in US History, it nearly drove America to the brink of war with Britain (eventually did), then France (pretty much did). It also led to inability to hold control over the states especially when one was telling the other half to secede. Yes, it doesn't make much of a difference today from the front scenes, but back then, having both the Vice President and the President from the same party was a government saving idea. Also, whenever the president is removed/ dies/ etc..., you don't want the Vice President to have radically different ideals from the original president when he takes their place as president.
History is known to repeat itself unless you avoid historical repeats... which we've done a bad job doing... Also, as I've also said in my edit: Whenever the president is removed/ dies/ etc..., you don't want the Vice President to have radically different ideals from the original president when he takes their place as president.
Ah yes, because lord knows every penny that their business makes belongs to them. Who cares about the middleclass? They didn't earn those paychecks. Naturally, all that money belongs to the rich since they own the business. And how dare the governement try to make them pay taxes like every other citizen. /sarcasm (if you couldn't already tell)
Sounds like words from McCain on the debate when Obama was discussing about how he would have done things differently than Bush. McCain:
Talking about a former president and talking about the ****ing 1800s are very, very different, wouldn't you say?