"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

>> ^chilaxe:

Did the researchers consider the counter-argument to their speculation before publishing it? Did they bother to ask rich people for their perspective?
Poor factory workers don't interact with a lot of people in their job, but many well-off careerists' jobs are almost entirely managing relationships... managing team members, managing advisers and mentors, selling clients, making a good impression at industry events, etc.
I'd say more likely than that the well-off are 'not dependent on relationships with others' would be that they have trained their minds to focus on solving problems, closing deals, and ignoring extraneous stimuli.


How many of the poor actually work in factories? Low-end jobs tend to be service jobs- retail, restaurant, beauty industry, sales etc. These are all jobs where you need to learn to read/please strangers, or you're going to have a crappy day.


While I think that most managers would fall more into the middle class category than super rich, delegating to the same group of people all of the time, and selling to other well off/management types doesn't offer the same skill set. You're just simply not going to encounter the same variety of people, and have to try to make them all happy.

Dude, Denmark isn't the US. Your government provides many goods and services to your people that we must pay for out of our own pocket, most notably health care. Wealth in Denmark is also far more evenly distributed in the US because your economy is far more mixed/socialist than the US's is.

In the US, you have thousands of people who were upper-middle class, bought an upper class priced home, then lost their jobs, or had to take massive pay cuts just to stay employed. Many of these people already lost their houses.

Our economy would collapse if we put a min 37-40% flat tax on everyone. No prayer that it would work.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:
You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:

You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

That is really not the function of the taxes. We aren't buying services, we are paying for how much we benefit from society.

If you are super rich you are benefiting more, ergo you pay more.

So the fundamental flaw in your analogy is that your analogy applies a false logical equivalence between buying a product and receiving a benefit. A better analogy is investing in a company. I think that is how Buffet looks at America. We are his favorite investment, and he's saying he wants to double down.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Much is said about a "fair share." By whose measure is a "fair share?" If 3 people are in a room, not knowing their individual assets and they want to buy a $30 item, isn't a fair share $10 a piece? Then 2 of them find that the 3rd is worth 5 times as much as they are, so suddenly a "fair share" is different. They tell the 3rd "your fair share is 5 times what we should pay. No, on second thought, a fair share would be...we pay nothing and you should buy the item and give us some."
A "fair share" would be everybody paying the same amount. Since that's not possible a "fair share" turns into an appropriation that has nothing to do with being "fair." "Each according to his means," was a suggestion, not a mandate.

It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out.

Every time taxes are cut, it results in an increase in tax revenues because it increases personal wealth, which creates more tax payers, and establishes an environment that gives the private sector confidence. Carter’s 70% top marginal tax rates and leftist liberal policies brought the nation to fiscal collapse. Buffett has it 100% backwards. Taxes cut. Tax revenues up. It works every time. That’s why even OBAMA didn’t want to end the Bush tax cuts – because he himself admitted it would hurt the economy in December 2010. Neolibs like to ignore that particular bit of Obama rhetoric - but I do not forget such things...

Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

The problem is not that there isn’t a bigger tax category at the top. We’ve had a rate as high as 94% back in 1944. It was 70% under Carter. The problem is a labyrinthine tax code that people can game by moving money & assets around. We just need to simplify the code to eliminate the exemptions for businesses and the ‘money’ rich. There’s no need for a new, higher top marginal tax rate. The ‘rich’ already pay the bulk of our taxes.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity.

No. Clinton was nothing a serviceable – but barnacle-covered – rudder. He didn’t screw up what was already going well. That isn’t great praise, but it still makes him a better CiC than Bush2 or Obama. Bush1 was the guy that raised the taxes. Clinton merely coasted along on the dot-com bubble. Oh, and also the Republican “Contact with America” was forced down Clinton’s throat. And he had a few impeachable offenses that prevented him from pushing more spending. The GOP cut spending, which created an environment friendly for the business community to create prosperity. You can thank fiscal conservatives for the 90s and early 00s – not Clinton.

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

Yes – cutting big-government social spending in favor of small-government freedom-oriented systems is seen as unpleasant, but it is the right thing to do.

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80% … Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy?

I wryly notice that the actual QUESTION I posed remains stubbornly ignored. What would happen IF (!IF!) the tax rate at the top went to 70% ala Carter? Or 94% ala Roosevelt? Would the problems be solved? I think even the most dyed-in-the-wool neolib knows deep down in their reluctant-to-admit souls that high top marginal tax rates do not solve anything. Even a 100% tax rate does not come within 16.9 trillion (heh) miles of the real problem. Every thin dime of the new taxes would just vanish into a black hole, and the debt/deficit would not be touched except in name. We have precedence for this conclusion.

Tax hikes take place immediately, but the spending cuts are always pushed 10 years into the future where they disappear. Our tax rates are already high enough. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. The issue is the huge amount of SPENDING taking place.

I hope this simple explanation helps all the neolibs out… Our current debt is 16.9 trillion dollars.

1. A simple federal budget freeze on spending to current 2011 levels would cut our debt by 10 trillion in 10 years.
2. Increasing the top marginal tax rate to 100% would cut the debt by 2 trillion in 10 years

Simple freeze? 10 trillion. A ridiculous 100% tax rate? Only 2 trillion. Where does that tell you the real problem lies? Fussing with tax rates at the top is nothing but rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg is spending.

Warren Buffet is saying that people who make more than a $1000K a year need to pay more than 15%. He advocates returning to the Clinton tax rates. And he thinks that job creation occurs when the rich are taxed and the middle class is supported by a lower tax rate.

You should read his NY Times article. It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out. The truth is the economy grows more when the middle class (incomes less than $500K) are taxed at a lower rate than the upper class (greater than $500K). Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity. We need to tax the rich. It is our only hope along with leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Two wars were never economically sustainable. Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

You're not the only one.

>> ^albrite30:

Seeing this video invigorates my desire to see millionaires taxed at 1960's levels so we can get more police services on the streets tazing millionaires.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Democrats and Republicans are both to blame. They both spend like it not their money. ( Oh wait it not.) Both parties have to go.

The only different group that has any chance of breaking up the monopoly that makes sense is the TEA Party. Unfortunately they are a small group and need to wear the republican jersey to get past the front door.


Again, My question stands how much dept can each of us take on?
>> ^KnivesOut:

At least until we have another republican president, house, and senate.
Then we can just spend like there's no tomorrow, right?>> ^bobknight33:
How much debt can Americans absorb?
As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )
My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.
Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.
Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.

>> ^bobknight33:

How much debt can Americans absorb?
As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )
My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.
Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.
Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.


Hey bob, could you fill this thing out:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

And then report back with the link to your plan to correct the budget?

I'll go first, here's mine:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4mt20bqv

I also think you should look at the whole picture. Cuts in spending are more likely to directly impact you and your children than increased taxes on high-income individuals.

At least until we have another republican president, house, and senate.

Then we can just spend like there's no tomorrow, right?>> ^bobknight33:

How much debt can Americans absorb?
As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )
My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.
Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.
Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.

How much debt can Americans absorb?

As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )

My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.

Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.

Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.

Purrty good, my friend. Purrrty, purrty good. I'll have to tell you about the party I went to on Sunday. My best friend invited me. His older brother is a wealthy high-powered lawyer who knows all these super rich people. We were picked up by a paid driver in a big black SUV to go to this richy-rich persons home up in the hills of Palos Verdes, and then driven back at the end. It was insane. Of course, I forgot my fricken phone so I couldn't get any pictures to post to facebook. It was a fun and interesting event. Very nice people. Oh, and I got hit on. Don't tell DFT. LOL

In reply to this comment by berticus:
other than some mild jetlag, i'm just purrfect and how are you, your majesty?

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Hi. How are you, berti dear?