Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[DiamondDave]

Obviously the best reform is the cost-plus patriotism on display in the Pentagon.

The Pentagon doesn't have $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
I wonder how high that would be if we added a few hundred million new recipients?

I read somewhere... I can't remember where... so go ahead, call me a liar in advance... I'm used to it.

That the Pentagon's share of those "unfunded liabilities" is somewhere between 20-25T.

Eisenhower warned us about the military Industrial Complex... and he was right on.

Well.. since you have been caught lying constantly, why should we stop now??

 

[Steelplate]

The Pentagon doesn't have $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
I wonder how high that would be if we added a few hundred million new recipients?

I read somewhere... I can't remember where... so go ahead, call me a liar in advance... I'm used to it.

That the Pentagon's share of those "unfunded liabilities" is somewhere between 20-25T.

Eisenhower warned us about the military Industrial Complex... and he was right on.

Well.. since you have been caught lying constantly, why should we stop now??

Wow... you are a mouthbreather, aren't you? Show me where I was caught lying... back it up dickhead. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean I was lying.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2011: "These two entities—Medicare and Social Security—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously the best reform is the cost-plus patriotism on display in the Pentagon.

The Pentagon doesn't have $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
I wonder how high that would be if we added a few hundred million new recipients?

Let's ask Bernie

"The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as right to its people. Meanwhile, we spend about twice as much per capita on health care with worse results than others that spend far less,' Sanders explained Tuesday, as he announced plans to introduce the American Health Security Act of 2011, would provide federal guidelines and strong minimum standards for states to administer single-payer health care programs.

"'It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system.

"'It is time for us to end private, for-profit participation in delivering basic coverage.

"'It is time for the United States to provide a Medicare-for-all single-payer health coverage program.'

"Sanders' plan is the right response to America's health-care crisis -- and any country where tens of millions of citizens lack health-care coverage, where tends of millions more lack adequate coverage and where costs are skyrocketing because of insurance-company profiteering has a crisis."

The answer to your question depends on how much effective health care depends on private profit.

Cut Medicare? No Way! Make It "Medicare for All"! | Common Dreams

If you're counting on a socialist for an honest answer, I think I see where you went wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously the best reform is the cost-plus patriotism on display in the Pentagon.

The Pentagon doesn't have $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
I wonder how high that would be if we added a few hundred million new recipients?

I read somewhere... I can't remember where... so go ahead, call me a liar in advance... I'm used to it.

That the Pentagon's share of those "unfunded liabilities" is somewhere between 20-25T.

Eisenhower warned us about the military Industrial Complex... and he was right on.

The Pentagon's share of the $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities is $20-$25 trillion?
I find that hard to believe but if you have anything that shows military and ex-military will use that much medical care, I'd be happy to look it over.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tax everybody and get rid of useless liberal programs.

Which useless liberal programs would you like to see gotten rid of? Social Security... a Program that people have been paying into all their lives? Medicare? Much the same.

Welfare? with a $14T deficit, you are going to axe a program that allows our most helpless people live a bare bones existence... to save $22B?

Unemployment? Ok... this one I might be able to agree with... Bring the jobs back and bring those Real wages with them. Then we'll talk about that one.

Health Care Reform? Once again... I might be able to agree... IF.... we go to a single payer system.... or at least add a Public Option to the current system. Imagine if small businesses wouldn't have to insure their employees anymore and the cost was spread across every taxpayer in America.... That would stimulate growth and Competition... But Big Business doesn't REALLY want Competition... so they fight against it with a bunch of flag waving and cries of Socialism.

You're all about keeping the status quo for social spending.
Ya know what? Me too. How our views differ is you want the programs to remain the same. You believe slapping more taxes on everyone will do the trick.
This is the same as putting a band aid on a laceration.
The facts are clear, Social Security and Medicare will be non functional in about 25 years. Social entitlements gobble up 55% of the federal budget.
Now, the goal is to fix these programs. Not wreck them.
First with AFDC WIC Medicare and Medicaid, enforcement of fraud statues MUST be paramount. Eliminate the waste and fraud. Arrest and convict those who are gaming the system. Get rid of the bureaucratic red tape and other nightmares that are associated with obtaining. Dramatically reduce the number of federal employees associated with the above mentioned programs and hire enforcement people to weed out the cheaters.
Cut adminstrative costs to no more than 20%. Currently the federal government spends nearly 50 cents of every dollar to administer welfare and WIC.
Fewer people will receive benefits. As it should be. The goal is to ensure that only the truly needy receive. Those gaming the system will be found out and made to pay back every dime they have taken.
Social Security is JUNK. The whole program is in need of TNT to blow it up and build another one in it's place.
My idea is to start a fund similar to the Canadian pension system. Once a person begins working, they and their employer each contribute 4% of their wages. The money is held be a government controlled non partisan "bank". The money is to be untouched for ANY reason. Once the person retires, he is issued checks over the course of the rest of his life. Should the pensioner die, his heirs receive the money. Should the worker become disabled , he begins receiving benefits after it is determined he is medically unfit to work.
There is no income ceiling as there is with Social Security. If one earns a million per year, they pay 4%...Limitless.
Since there is an account set up for each person, there is no need to be concerned about the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security. Oh, administrative costs would be a 1% charge to each account.

 

[MikeK]

Wealth is not a national resource.[...]

Wealth is the sum of your efforts and endeavors translated into a medium of exchange. Saying that wealth should be stolen from one person to be given to another is no different than stating that one person should be 'compelled' into servitude for another. Taxes are a necessity to pay for those things that we share. In order for a road to be built you need to pay taxes or we would all need to go out and build that road. That is not a case of stealing from one and giving to another. These wealth redistribution wishes on the left are another thing entirely.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The income tax rates shown above existed in proportion with the state of the U.S. economy during the same periods. The Nation was in excellent economic health from the 50s through to the 80s. Unemployment was very low, the poverty rate was negligible, business and industry were thriving, there were lots of millionaires (but very few billionaires), the middle class was happy and comfortable and the future seemed bright.

Then came Reaganomics, a major component of which was tax reduction, and the economy declined in perfect harmony with the above figures. Today, while the official tax rate is 35%, the loopholes effected by the Bush Administration has enabled the highest income levels to pay an average of just 7% in taxes, which is the lowest rate in our history. And look at the state of our economy.

Reaganomics brought about the most significant redistribution of wealth in our history. The wealth of middle and lower class Americans has steadily declined since the 80s while the wealth of the upper economic class has steadily, and massively, increased. What Reagan deceptively referred to as "trickle-down" economics is in fact a highly successful trickle-up scheme which is pushing the U.S. into third world status.

In addition to that, what would you call the bailout of the banking and finance industries with taxpayer money if not the most massive redistribution of wealth in our history?

So just what redistribution are you talking about?

 

[editec]

Taxes are a small part of the problem, folks.

We're not going to solve the economic mess by JUST taxing the wealthy more OR BY taxing them less, either.

IF (and I say IF because I don't think the leadership really gives a rat's ass) we truly want to fix our economy, we've got to put Americans to work.

International corporations have no financial incentive to put Americans to work.

Fix that problem and THEN American's fincal woes will slowly and steadily get better AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP THE GOVERNMENT FROM SPENDING THE NEW REVENUE MONEY (New $ MADE FROM MORE AMERICANS WORKING AGAIN) FOOLISHLY.

Doing both those things is a mighty tall order.

It would requirte major rethinks in what the purpose of having a government even is.

And since so many people believe that the only point of government is protect private property, I'd say that this nation is going down.

Domestic corps don't have much incentive to put more americans to work either.

NOt in this economy, I agree. But if you look at the top 500 corporation in America what you discover is they are international corporations, too.

If anything, we're incentivizing companies to move offshore and create jobs elsewhere.

We incentivized then by allowing them to manufacutre offshore and still sell into the somestic economy. That incentive is ALL a matter of TRADE POLICIES.

I mean come on, who knows how the ObamaCare thing is going to work out and what HC costs will be going forward.

That problem is going to remain regardless of our trade policies

Who knows what the EPA and NLRB will do if Obama gets re-elected, or how many more regulations will be created.

The same question can be asked regardless of who is elected POTUS

I think Editec is right, taxes are only one factor in a list of considerations, until we change the business climate here we're just going to muddle along at best. Let's not talk about at worst, things could get seriously hard.

Our government abandoned its responsiblity to the NATION in favor of laws and policies that benefitted CAPITAL.

Capital knows no national interest.

Capital has no loyalty to this nation.

Capital knows no national boundaries.

Now the above in and of themseves is NOT a bad thing.

But it is up to the nation to protect its own economy.

And this nation has not only failed to do that, but has encouraged the destruction of its own economy, and by extention its own middle class by passing laws and policies that only support the SUPPLY SIDE of the conomic equasion.

And the vast majority of damange done was done by TRADE POLCIES that put Amnerican out if work by encouraging industry to lmove OFF SHORE.

I think collectively these policies (that we've been passing for 50 years, folks) have cost this nation 30,000,000 decent paying industrial jobs.

And is isn't JUST factory workers, not just blue collar workers who ultimately get screwed.

We all get screwqed when our neighbors jobs are shipped offshore.

ALL of us EXCEPT those who have the CAPITAL to be part of the destruction of the American economy, of course.

Those people actually do much better BECAUSE of these ANTI-AMERICAN policies.

This is how that cult of the individual that some of you sign onto is REALLY working out.

Because really the only individuals that matter to our government are those with CAPITAL.

And now that CORPORATIONS are people, too?

Its THOSE so called individuals that have the power that formerly belonged ONLY to citizens.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Comrades,

It is times like these, we must pull out our old songs
to help fight for the cause

Class warfare NOW- Class Warfare Forever!

Yes we must go after the rich! (never mind the gov't spending)
Please do not pay any attention to our performance or "ignore the man behind the curtain "


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg]YouTube - ‪Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik‬‏[/ame]




As for the actual policies of Papa Obama and the Left just,,,,,


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE[/ame]

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wealth is not a national resource.[...]

Wealth is the sum of your efforts and endeavors translated into a medium of exchange. Saying that wealth should be stolen from one person to be given to another is no different than stating that one person should be 'compelled' into servitude for another. Taxes are a necessity to pay for those things that we share. In order for a road to be built you need to pay taxes or we would all need to go out and build that road. That is not a case of stealing from one and giving to another. These wealth redistribution wishes on the left are another thing entirely.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The income tax rates shown above existed in proportion with the state of the U.S. economy during the same periods. The Nation was in excellent economic health from the 50s through to the 80s. Unemployment was very low, the poverty rate was negligible, business and industry were thriving, there were lots of millionaires (but very few billionaires), the middle class was happy and comfortable and the future seemed bright.

Then came Reaganomics, a major component of which was tax reduction, and the economy declined in perfect harmony with the above figures. Today, while the official tax rate is 35%, the loopholes effected by the Bush Administration has enabled the highest income levels to pay an average of just 7% in taxes, which is the lowest rate in our history. And look at the state of our economy.

Reaganomics brought about the most significant redistribution of wealth in our history. The wealth of middle and lower class Americans has steadily declined since the 80s while the wealth of the upper economic class has steadily, and massively, increased. What Reagan deceptively referred to as "trickle-down" economics is in fact a highly successful trickle-up scheme which is pushing the U.S. into third world status.

In addition to that, what would you call the bailout of the banking and finance industries with taxpayer money if not the most massive redistribution of wealth in our history?

So just what redistribution are you talking about?

It is a good thing Kennedy never cut taxes

 

[Neotrotsky]

Class warfare from the Left?

Why doesn't Papa Obama just run on his record
After all, we see how "well" his policies are working for the middle class




2/3 of families cut back on vacations

Well almost all families

President Obama, for the third straight year, is planning to return to Martha’s Vineyard for vacation this summer, according to a White House official.

The Obamas are scheduled to spend seven to 10 days on the island in mid- to late August, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns.​

 

[bripat9643]

Other countries don't have innovation in drugs because they have socialized medicine.Liberals are too ******* stupid to put two and two together, however. They're always proposing one correlation is causation idiocy after another, but they can't figure out that their socialist schemes for medicine are the end of innovation in the industry.

I know one of the gripes about it is innovation. But maybe it's time that our Med/Tech and Pharma people start getting other countries to help pay for that innovation... not just us. A new drug comes out and we pay for all that R&D, while people across the border and across the globe get the name brand or generics for that same new med at a small fraction of the cost.

If you really want to say "why should I have to pay?" Like so many people do because there is some of our population that will always be low income workers. Ask it in that regard. Now... do I want a 3rd world country like Ethiopia to pay the exact same amount? No. But just about every country in Europe can...China Can... Japan Can... Russia Can... and a host of other countries.

We can't afford this shit anymore.

 

[editec]

All this talk of class welfare is sort of silly.

Almost every policy that I can think of comes down differently one people depending on what socio-economc class they are in.

It isn't POSSIBLE to change most laws and policies of the nation that will not effect different socio-economic classes differently.

This is the nature of governance in a society that has wildly different socio-economic classes, folks.

 

[Too Tall]

Wealth is not a national resource.[...]

Wealth is the sum of your efforts and endeavors translated into a medium of exchange. Saying that wealth should be stolen from one person to be given to another is no different than stating that one person should be 'compelled' into servitude for another. Taxes are a necessity to pay for those things that we share. In order for a road to be built you need to pay taxes or we would all need to go out and build that road. That is not a case of stealing from one and giving to another. These wealth redistribution wishes on the left are another thing entirely.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The income tax rates shown above existed in proportion with the state of the U.S. economy during the same periods. The Nation was in excellent economic health from the 50s through to the 80s. Unemployment was very low, the poverty rate was negligible, business and industry were thriving, there were lots of millionaires (but very few billionaires), the middle class was happy and comfortable and the future seemed bright.

Then came Reaganomics, a major component of which was tax reduction, and the economy declined in perfect harmony with the above figures. Today, while the official tax rate is 35%, the loopholes effected by the Bush Administration has enabled the highest income levels to pay an average of just 7% in taxes, which is the lowest rate in our history. And look at the state of our economy.

Reaganomics brought about the most significant redistribution of wealth in our history. The wealth of middle and lower class Americans has steadily declined since the 80s while the wealth of the upper economic class has steadily, and massively, increased. What Reagan deceptively referred to as "trickle-down" economics is in fact a highly successful trickle-up scheme which is pushing the U.S. into third world status.

In addition to that, what would you call the bailout of the banking and finance industries with taxpayer money if not the most massive redistribution of wealth in our history?

So just what redistribution are you talking about?

This is the biggest rewrite of history I have ever seen on this board. The first paragraph doesn't mention two major wars and the disaster of Jimmy Carter.

The second paragraph is a complete lie about the Reagan years. The demise of the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union was Reagan's legacy and, while the top 1% has increased their income, they now pay 40% of all federal income taxes leaving 60% to the bottom 99%.

The third paragraph asks a question and I call a bail out of banks and the finance industry a bail out. I was opposed to it, but according to the present administration, the taxpayer money has been paid back with interest.

 

[editec]

My solution?

As in tens words or less?

I certainly agree that this nation has given far too many breaks to the supply side (tx breaks being part of that process) and that does need to be addressed.

But if ALL we do is tax the rich, then seriously, FA....things will only get WORSE, not better.

Why?

Because the rich will simply channel their cash to foreign shores even faster than they've been doing that.

Where have I said anything about simply taxing the rich? I don't think that anyone other than the democrats have said that at all and I have argued against that exact thing. That is why I would rather see the tax system fundamentally changed NOT simply raising taxes. The system is broken in its current state. I believe that the actual tax rate should be far lower but that exemptions and credits should not exist. That WOULD create a tax increase for the uber rich that do not care what the rate is, reduce tax rates for the middle and upper middle class, slightly increase taxes for the lower middle class and would not affect the poor.

I agree that our trade policies need a serious hard look and that it may cause very rough times in the short run but would massively improve things in the long run to create a trade environment that encouraged local production over off shoring.

Very true but I thing that you and I have extremely different views on what that statement means.

We seem to have forgotten why people form governments to begin with.

We are as a people out of balance economically, and merely tinkering with the tax codes will NOT solve the problem.

We need to change the social contract.

Change the social contract? That is a statement without meaning in its current form. I ask you to expound in what you mean by that.

Editec?

Specially I think the change in social contract would entail the basic premise that the PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT is to serve ALL the citizens, not just those who have the money to buy our politicians

It would have to accept the fact that corporations are NOT citizens.

It would have to start out with the premise that ECONOMIC rights are no less important to maintaining a democractic republic than political rights.

So as a nation we would have to accept that developments like massively unequal distribution of wealth and income between the classes are antithetical to maintaining a democratic republic.

Basically we'd have to conclude about the growing CORPORATE FACISM, that it is the same damned problem that our founding fathers understood about the MONARCHICAL FASCISM that they were dealing with.

Democractic Republics HAVE a middle class or no real democracy is possible.

Where we are headed is more akin to a BANANA republic, much thanks to government policies that constantly give aid and comfort to the SUPPLY side (read big capital) without protecting the demand side (read the citizens) from the INSECT LOGIC of PURE capitalism.

We CAN have honest capitalism that serves us all, or we can continue to allow the NEW PEERAGE, the mega-capitalists to become our NEW MASTERS.

Look, sport...the END GAME of pure capitalism is MONARCHISM, not freedom.


Think I'm wrong?

The underpinning of MONACHISM is the basic premise that the KING OWNS the nation, and that everybody else is merely a TENANT on HIS LAND.

You see the basic premise of monarchies is REALLY private property.

Now that is exactly where CORPORATISM is also leading us.

The elevation of private property from a good idea to a RELIGIOUS devotion is why I often note that the REAL religion of this nation is MAMMON.

 

[bripat9643]

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Ever notice how libturds like to publish tax rates from the 1950s, but they never talk about tax rates during the 1920s and 1930s?

1918 - 73%
1919 - 73%
1920 - 73%
1921 - 73%
1922 - 58%
1923 - 43%
1924 - 25%
1925 - 25%
1926 - 25%
1927 - 25%
1928 - 25%
1929 - 25%
1930 - 25%
1931 - 25%
1932 - 63%
1933 - 63%
1934 - 63%
1935 - 63%
1936 - 79%
1937 - 79%
1938 - 79%
1939 - 79%
1940 - 79%
1941 - 81%
1942 - 88%
1943 - 88%
1944 - 94%
1945 - 94%
1946 - 91%
1947 - 91%
1946 - 91%

Yeah, those high tax rates sure did wonders for the economy during the depression, didn't they? And notice the period when we had low tax rates. What did they call that? Oh yeah . . . . I think they called it

THE ROARING 20s!

 

[editec]

The thing about economic history is that one has to include it all to make sense of it.

Note how the top tax rates dropping ended up giving us a depression?

Note how the top tax rates dropped and once again we found ourselves in something approaching a depression in 2008?

Note how in order to prevent the BANSTERS" solvency crises from turning into a real depression the BUSH II administration had to come to the rescue, and the Obma Admin had to follow up with still more TARP responses?

Apparently our friend Bripat doesn't quite understand the connection between income and wealth distribution, monetarism and its effects on the macro-economy.

That's really not his fault.

Macro-economics is a damned hard thing to get one's head around.

Even the people who have devoted their lives to the study of macro cannot arrive at a consensus for how it works, or how we can control things when it (the macro-economy) stops working.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The thing about economic history is that one has to include it all to make sense of it.

Note how the top tax rates dropping ended up giving us a depression?

Note how the top tax rates dropped and once again we found ourselves in something approaching a depression in 2008?

Note how in order to prevent the BANSTERS" solvency crises from turning into a real depression the BUSH II administration had to come to the rescue, and the Obma Admin had to follow up with still more TARP responses?

Apparently our friend Bripat doesn't quite understand the connection between income and wealth distribution, monetarism and its effects on the macro-economy.

That's really not his fault.

Macro-economics is a damned hard thing to get one's head around.

Even the people who have devoted their lives to the study of macro cannot arrive at a consensus for how it works, or how we can control things when it (the macro-economy) stops working.

It sure is my friend.... during these same "cycles' gov't spending increased as well
Dropping tax rates caused a depression- I hope you really don't believe that,,,

Our gov't's main problem is one of spending too much NOT taxing too little
and creating more of a Crony capitalist state


In a Keynesian World tax cuts and increased gov't spending are for the same effect

Remember, gov't can not create wealth; it can only move it around
If not so then places like Cuba and the former Soviet Union would/ should be the richest places in the world

 

[editec]

The thing about economic history is that one has to include it all to make sense of it.

Note how the top tax rates dropping ended up giving us a depression?

Note how the top tax rates dropped and once again we found ourselves in something approaching a depression in 2008?

Note how in order to prevent the BANSTERS" solvency crises from turning into a real depression the BUSH II administration had to come to the rescue, and the Obma Admin had to follow up with still more TARP responses?

Apparently our friend Bripat doesn't quite understand the connection between income and wealth distribution, monetarism and its effects on the macro-economy.

That's really not his fault.

Macro-economics is a damned hard thing to get one's head around.

Even the people who have devoted their lives to the study of macro cannot arrive at a consensus for how it works, or how we can control things when it (the macro-economy) stops working.

It sure is my friend....

In a Keynesian World tax cuts and increased gov't spending are for the same effect

Remember, gov't can not create wealth; it can only move it around
If not so then places like Cuba and the former Soviet Union would/ should be the richest places in the world

People talk about Kenesian and Austrian economcs as though they were opposing POVs about how the economy works. They are not at all! In fact they are both right and both probably wrong depending on the situation at the moment.

They apparently ALSO think that there are hard and fast rules about how to make an economy works that can be set in stone for ALL time.

Now these people totally understand that the world changes, but for some reason they seem to think that economies (hence the rules of economies) don't change.

So we have some people who imagine that Keyneian economic responses are evil, but most of those people have absolutely no problem when the government creates SUPPLY SIDE responses that are no less dramatically changing the macro-economy.

I think they basically really just don't understand any of the principles of MACRO, and imagine that the same rules apply that they use in their personal micro-economies.

Again, this is generally not their fault.

We are not taught economics in school.

AT BEST we are are taught MYTHs about economics -- myths that every economist in the world knows don't REMOTELY describe the economic world as it truly exists.

For example...the myth of the economically rational man.

Now every economist knows perfectly well that the market is not entirely rational.

But the underlying principle of 8th grade understanding of ECON is that mankind makes rational decisions when they buy and sell stuff and nothing will make them do irrational things economically.

Well if that were really true, there'd never EVER EVER be a bubble in the world of investments.

MACRO-economists are just now trying to figure out how to deal with the fact that the HERD WILL STAMPEDE irrationally.

Putting that social psychogical event into METRICS ECON MODELS is pretty much impossible because each event is UNIQUE!.

AS the economy changes, so too do players change what they were doing. (that's why ECON is a SOCIAL SCIENCE and not a HARD science).

Such a moving target as that (one where changes in events change behaviors of the players) makes hard and fast RULES about macro a fool's errand.

 

[daveman]

Left wing idiots driving business away? Yeah.. that's it. I guess Reagan/Bush I had nothing to do with it.. giving China "most favored nation" status against many protests, huh? And boy your corporate boyfriends loved that... What a way to bust Unions and force lower wages to our people than to get slave labor.

YOUR boys created this mess.

Sissy bedwetter? you're the one collecting unemployment and at the same time pissing and moaning about deadbeats. hypocrite.

Do you, or do you not, support policies that punish success and are hostile to business?

Hint: Yes, you do. But you'll never admit it. Blaming others for your actions is far easier.

Kind of like you with government? No... not even close to your hatred.

I have no problem with people making money. I have no problem with success. I just have a problem when they take moneymaking to the point where they are hurting our citizens and the country. I have a problem when our economy can be taken down by a few mega-banks playing Casino with their investors' money and losing it all for them. I have a problem with them THEN asking for the government they hate so much(not to mention us "little folk") to bail them out, ONLY to give their higher ups record bonuses... but have no sense of guilt foreclosing on the same people that helped to bail them out.... but you wouldn't get that.

Yep... it's real easy for you to blame government for your woes. It's a little tougher to blame those that you seem to worship. You won't even give an inch, will you. You won't even say... Yeah... government is part of the problem, but so is our Banking monopolies and Corporations. You won't do that... Because you have such blinders on that the ONLY thing you see is Government.

Government? You can change... We have elections all the time. Greed and the quest for more power from you Heroes... You can't.

There's something you dumbass leftists need to understand right now:

I worship only my Savior, Jesus Christ, His Father God, and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing of this world worthy of worship. That you claim the right worships the rich says far more about you than it does us -- but you're too stupid to understand that.

Oh, and the liberals you put in power to "save you" from the evil KKKorporations are rich as well, and they thank you for your gullibility in perpetuating the class war.

But you're too stupid to understand that, too.