The electorate has short memories. If this gets resolved in January, then by November election time, nobody will remember much at all. And if the elections are a year or two from now, it won't matter at all.
|
Agreed.
Just look how we've completely forgotten Wecanseerussia ??? and Anyonebut ??? (whatever their names) |
Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup.
But that's MISTER Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup to you. |
:D
Thx to M. Doubleentendre PS: that Knock knock Sundae was the best pun of the month |
Thanks, buddy. :)
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
It makes more sense as a progressive proposal.
|
Here is a side-by-side view of Bowles-Simpon's, Obama's, and Republican's plan.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...charts/265901/ Note: I would just post the image but I would have to reduce the size and I don't feel like doing that now... |
Quote:
:D |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Attachment 41971 |
Quote:
If the latter, what would constitute a more reasonable compromise? Just curious. |
No, I think if they do tax the value of an employer health plan it must be a progressive tax because a lot of folks work shit jobs just for the coverage.
|
Thank you for clearing that up for me. And I have to agree.
|
"The truth is that everybody has to pay more taxes, not just the rich."
Howard Dean "Beating up on "the rich" is a politically-convenient ploy for the moment, but the math doesn't lie: Taxing only the upper echelons of income earners and small businesses would reap an insufficient pittance in the final analysis. The government's unsustainable spending will soon require many more people to pay their "fair share" to the federal government. Some voters who are currently on board with the Left's soak-the-rich crusade will one day (perhaps soon) discover that they themselves are the new "rich," with of their livelihood and income suddenly in Big Government's crosshairs. Dean is at least doing everyone a favor by serving notice early. He is very enthusiastic about middle class tax increases and deep defense cuts, but very protective of all other spending." |
Yep. I actually agree. We need to rethink how we constitute "rich" in America. +250,000 is far too high a top bracket, we need to spend HALF of what we are on defense, and we need to spend MORE on infrastructure and social safety nets.
I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all on the left. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.