Ummmm…. look again at the tax table…the wealthier ARE paying more tax! They always have paid more tax, therefore their tax cut is more- but they still pay more tax. Way more- maybe Jimmy knows the exact figure, but I believe the top 10% earners pay something like 75% of the total tax (sorry, don’t have time to look it up, but I know it’s something like that). Besides, fairness aside, a cut is a cut, and beats no cut at all.
Archives For Our lives
ummmmm … I never stated that they weren’t paying more tax, just that they should pay more.
If 10% are paying 75% it shows the disparity between the have’s and have-nots.
I’m stating that the cuts for the wealthy are 20% while lower earners only get 10%. Why do the wealthier get bigger cuts?
Just because they are paying more doesn’t mean that should be cut a greater amount (especially when the additional dollars mean less as you get more of them
Well in reality the lowest 40% of earners pay $0- federal taxes.
Recently my neice graduated high school with a 4.0 GPA, she had worked very hard, studying, completing assignments, extra credit, never cut classes. She also scored a 1520 on her SAT. As a result she was accepted to Harvard Unsiversity. Her best friend was a bit of a goof off, didn’t complete assignments, cut classes, generally did not work hard in school. She finished with a 2.0 GPA and scored a 980 on her SAT. As a result, the only school she was able to get in to was a local community college.
But the new rules of fair and equitable distribution. You know the haves & have nots results in my neice having 1.0 of her GPA given to her friend so they both end up with a 3.0 and get accepted to the University of Illinois.
Now that is how redistribution of wealth should be explained.
LOL! good analogy — however ….
However MY niece went to private high school at Exeter while her friend was from the bronx and went to P.S. 93.
Both girls were equally bright, tried very hard, diligently did their homework, studied every night and listened to their teachers wisdom.
My niece at Exeter had a lovely live-in facility, 10 kids to a class and a lovely campus to work in. She was not distracted by the state of her neighborhood, neighbors or family. Her brain and body were stimulated daily and she flowered into a 4.0 GPA student and went on to harvard.
Her friend had to travel through the NY subway to get to school, was constantly harangued by thugs, her techer was overworked/underpaid and she had to worry about getting home in time to feed her sister as her mother worked late and she had no father. The combined stresses of school, home & environment eventually broke her down until she could not be successful in all three arenas. Family came first and she took a job to help feed her sister. While she was bright enough to have gone onto a better position in life, she was stuck working at the (insert crappy job here) to help pay the bills; and though she climbed the ladder at work to manager, that ladder only goes so high for someone of her socio-economic-educational background.
Once you flesh out the story, the plot-line gets a little bumpier :-)
And who’s talking about wealth distribution anyways? Get ready for this analogy ok — it’s a doozy, barely works and relies on the fact that you know that whole milk has 3% cream, Low-Fat 1.5% and skim 0% :-)
I’m saying if you take 1oz of cream from the whole milk it still has 2ozs left — If you take it from the Low-Fat it’s got .5% and the skim doesn’t even have enough to give. Even if you cut the amount you ask across the board — all your doing is giving the Whole & Low-Fat more cream to enjoy — the skim still doesn’t have any to give!
1 name is all I need
But I will continue
I could go on and on.
I love ya Bro and we forever disagree on these things one thing I will say without a doubt in my mind.
Anyone who sets out the hope that Government is the answer to their problems is in for a lifetime of unanswered problems.
You made one other point that was of great interest to me in your first reply, it was something along the lines of
“While Bush’s cronies made millions”
What company received more Government contracts from 1992 through 2000?
You guessed it, Haliburton, who was President? Clinton.
Point of this whole e-mail is and has been that Bush is an easy target but people refuse to look at certain facts b/c they get in the way of the argument.
Since GWB was elected, India & China have tripled their oil demand. Since the 1970’s when Hollywood was screaming no nukes, France has gone 85% Nuclear.
We could go on forever and you know what, we would both be right and we would both be wrong. In the end, until “We the people” decide that Government is not the answer, this great republic will flounder.
don’t know — yeah Chris Gardner et al may be role models — but judging the millions by the couple isn’t really fair. It’s like saying well John Washington should be in the MBL because Manny Ramirez is. It doesn’t work like that.
I don’t think we’re thinking that the government is the answer to the problems via handout — the government is the answer to the problems by way of curbing runaway corperate & banking mentality and providing quality infrastructure for ALL citizens.
Look at the nordic countries — highest taxes in the world AND highest quality of life. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html)
And yes — Clinton is a crook too — that also isn’t the debate :-)
I’m not arguing Republican v Democrat
just watched this on your boy … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
pretty funny stuff ..
and I was thinking about this argument that you put forth below — the Chris Gardner arguement —
I would refute that with the name “Michael Jordan”
citing 1 or 2 exceptional people has nothing to do with the masses. You might have well have said — we don’t need to do anything because if they really wanted to, and tried hard enough those people could make the NBA.
Not everyone is smart enough, has enough inner drive, have the environment, have the competition to drive them, etc … life for the average person doesn’t work like that.
ou must be mistaken, that is NOT my boy.
Oh I may just vote for him, but he is surely NOT my boy and certainly does not resemble in many ways my views.
pretty much agreed on that — except IMO the biggest elephant is the environment and that we are all super fucked if we don’t do anything about that – makes no difference what you believe in if the earth turns on you.
not sure if you read the New Yorker — but here is a very good piece on how Conservatives have used the politics of division (starting with Nixon) to rule for the past 40 years and are now floundering because their ideas haven’t progressed (with an aside for McCain as a break from the party which gives him a chance)
I guess you didn’t read Fred Thompson’s reply.