I was rooting for McCain in 2000. It's a pity what lengths he had to go to in order to get nominated this year. I hope he admits it was all an act and goes back to being the real McCain.

What's to figure out when Obama says below 250k? Someone who makes more than that has every right to be mad. If you think it is fair to discriminate against the more financially fortunate, just because they have more, then you clearly desire socialism and redistribution of wealth. There is no gray line like I'm sure you "experts" will try to create. And if McCain thinks the same way as Obama, then good for him, he's wrong too.

^Again. The $250 thousand cut-off is for those people who make more than that AFTER the maximum number of tax deductions possible under the law (something like 86 or so?). As such, the person would be netting somewhere around half a million before having to pay a BIT more in taxes than they otherwise would. Such individuals are likely to employ more than a few people and so ought to pay a bit more. If you think that the roads, schools, and public works ought to be financed by those who make LESS than that, how would you expect folks to afford to remain Involved in such an economy? It just makes more sense!

>> ^Trancecoach:
^Again. The $250 thousand cut-off is for those people who make more than that AFTER the maximum number of tax deductions possible under the law (something like 86 or so?). As such, the person would be netting somewhere around half a million before having to pay a BIT more in taxes than they otherwise would. Such individuals are likely to employ more than a few people and so ought to pay a bit more. If you think that the roads, schools, and public works ought to be financed by those who make LESS than that, how would you expect folks to afford to remain Involved in such an economy? It just makes more sense!


Oh, just take a little bit. Ohhh, it's not socialism if it's just a little bit! You ignorantly used phrases like "ought to". Genius. It's pathetic arrogance to say you know who should pay more taxes. I don't think you want to get into a tax debate, not the best idea, son.

^And what do you advocate? That everyone pay the same percentage of their income? It ain't gonna happen. Thing is, the tax code is so poorly written that absurdity rules the day.. And if you think that bailing out the banks for $700 Billion isn't socialism, then you're too far gone to even have this debate.

>> ^Trancecoach:
^And what do you advocate? That everyone pay the same percentage of their income? It ain't gonna happen. Thing is, the tax code is so poorly written that absurdity rules the day.. And if you think that bailing out the banks for $700 Billion isn't socialism, then you're too far gone to even have this debate.


Problem is your third sentence. You can't understand fairness in the tax code because you won't allow yourself to. Sure, its absurd, but taking more from the rich and giving more to the poorer is socialism. Still not rocket science. I'm sure you can figure out the only solution if you try hard.

Are you consciously acting like a parody or is it something that comes naturally to you?

Changing the subject, typical of the losing side. Please stay on topic or just give up.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
If you think it is fair to discriminate against the more financially fortunate, just because they have more, then you clearly desire socialism and redistribution of wealth..


First of all, it's not discrimination on the basis of wealth. No economy can continue to grow if 95% of the wealth is held by less than 2% of its participants. I'm sure that even YOU can do the math on that one... if you really really try or ask someone to help you.

A little history lesson might help you too. One thing that the Great Depression revealed was that an economy of peers was significantly more prosperous and productive than an economy of peons. Money concentrated in the hands of the few cannot adequately function, as the resultant markets tend to be too small to remain viable. And even the wealthy suffer as a result of failed markets. Even an IDIOT's remedial understanding of the current economic situation would reveal that we're having to learn this painful lesson all over again.

Or HAVE we?

In any event, you're entitled to tow the GOP-line for as long as you willingly abdicate any semblance of cognitive resources to someone else's slogan. However, you may want to consider this message as an early WARNING that, you will, invariably and eventually, wind up acting against your own self-interests as a result, whether you pretend to act smug & intelligent about it or not.

>> ^Trancecoach:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
If you think it is fair to discriminate against the more financially fortunate, just because they have more, then you clearly desire socialism and redistribution of wealth..

First of all, it's not discrimination on the basis of wealth. No economy can continue to grow if 95% of the wealth is held by less than 2% of its participants. I'm sure that even YOU can do the math on that one... if you really really try or ask someone to help you.
A little history lesson might help you too. One thing that the Great Depression revealed was that an economy of peers was significantly more prosperous and productive than an economy of peons. Money concentrated in the hands of the few cannot adequately function, as the resultant markets tend to be too small to remain viable. And even the wealthy suffer as a result of failed markets. Even an IDIOT's remedial understanding of the current economic situation would reveal that we're having to learn this painful lesson all over again.
Or HAVE we?
In any event, you're entitled to tow the GOP-line for as long as you willingly abdicate any semblance of cognitive resources to someone else's slogan. However, you may want to consider this message as an early WARNING that, you will, invariably and eventually, wind up acting against your own self-interests as a result, whether you pretend to act smug & intelligent about it or not.


Spoken like someone who values money too highly.

"Spoken like someone who values money too highly."



WRONG. But what other level of discourse can be expected than such a typical response of a Loser?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by campionidelmondo.

Awarding dystopianfuturetoday with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.