Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
No spending cuts, huh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernar...b_1819355.htmlOver the next ten years, President Obama's proposed budget, which includes $1.1 trillion in spending cuts, is projected to cut the deficit by nearly half, reducing it by $626 billion, from $1.33 trillion to $704 billion. Obama's budget includes more than $4 trillion in balanced deficit reduction so that, by 2018, the deficit will be less than 3 percent of GDP. For every $1 in new revenue generated from the new taxes on those making over $250,000 per year, and from closing corporate loopholes, the budget has $2.50 in spending cuts, including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
The liberals are pretending that the rich are not taxed which is patently untrue. Then they try to pretend they aren't paying their fair share. There is no definition of fair share and for the liberals it seems to be all of what "the rich" have. The concept of pulling your own weight and contributing to the general welfare doesn't exist for liberals. For the liberals, if you make a free-will choice to not work then those working have an obligation to support you in a style that of which those who don't pay taxes approve.
This, conservatives don't think the rich should pay taxes is a lie and incredibly stupid. It is quite legitimate for someone to ask of the liberals, when you get your wish and take everything the rich have and piss it away, what then?
Mainecoons (12-03-2012)
corrocamino (12-03-2012)
"There is no definition of fair share...."
I think there is a commonsense definition of distribution of wealth within a society that is commensurate both with the overall health of the society in its totality and with the disparities in personal wealth that arise from the bell-shaped curve, to which Jefferson alluded with his "natural aristocracy". And I think that the Reagan-onwards distribution of wealth in the USA is far from such definition. And I think Jefferson, among others of his era, would be appalled by our present condition.
"There is no such thing as knowledge, just belief."
truthmatters (12-03-2012)
He would certainly be dismayed about the professional political class and what has happened to the Constitution. As far as the distribution of wealth, I doubt it.
corrocamino (12-03-2012)
What has that to do with a video exposing the extreme liberal view that all we have to do is tax the rich?Let's take the most extreme scenario that suits the GOP and make it policy.
This is being discussed here: Raise Taxes or Cut Spending. Join us if you think you have an argument to contribute.I assume a balanced approach of higher taxes and spending cuts (that are already happening) are far too reasonable a proposition for doomsayers.
Lib definition of a spending cut. A very small, almost imperceptible, decrease in projected over-spending increases. In the same manner they refer to not raising taxes as a, "tax cut for the rich". And just as anyone making $250,000+ is a "millionaire and billionaire".
Oy vey.
Peter1469 (12-03-2012)