Wren wrote:

wrz wrote:

gopherus wrote:

wrz wrote:

gopherus wrote:


I think you've forgotten who the spenders are. Talk to mister 1 veto. You might wish to address the huge tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and the war in Iraq. If you are worried about inflation you might want to look at the same issues and the monstrous national debt that has resulted from those coinciding but counteractive policies. You might also wish to deal with those who've failed to lower prescription drug prices through price controls or an even more simple method, a ban on television marketing that eats up more money than research. I think you'll find that your boys are responsible for more than their share of the poverty issue. Good thing is they know they can keep you there and still get your vote by playing the fear card and the God card, thought they don't really believe in either.

Crossroad, you might want to try Communism which is what gopherus is suggesting.

Riiiiiiiiight, a few regulations = communism. So I assume all vegans are eco-terrorists. All boy scouts are knife wielding maniacs. Now that China has opened up a little they are a free-market democracy.
Next thing you know you'll suggest that the free-market works without any oversight.
Dream on WRZ.

"...tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans..." - Take from the rich and give to the poor = Communism.

"... lower prescription drug prices through price controls..." - Price controls = Communism.

"...a ban on television marketing that eats up more money than research." - Control speech = Communism.

Oh, my -- he turns tax break for the wealthy into taking from the rich and give to the poor.

Let's walk through this carefully since you're so mentally challenged...

The wealthy pay the lion's share of the taxes, in gross and as a percentage of income. That's taking from the rich. And where does most of our tax dollars go? For welfare... to the poor.

And since the wealthy pay the loin's share of taxes and a tax break is in the offing, the wealthy should have the right to participate. Would you deny them that?

PoetryNOcean wrote:

Wren wrote:


Oh, my -- he turns tax break for the wealthy into taking from the rich and give to the poor.

Podjo, you better read more carefully from now on.

There's an old story, Wren. A group of 10 people walk into a restaurant to have dinner. It was a wonderful affair. At the end, the maitre'd announced to the table that each member of the dinner party would receive a bill according to their income and tax status. 5 of the party got bills for $0 dollars. They were in the lower income groups. 1 got one for 4% of the bill, the next for 9% and the next for 12%. The final two split the remaining 75%. Funny, it's the same with the tax system of this country. The people who pay 75 percent of the tax revenues to the government comprise 25% of the population. 50% pay less than 3% of the total. Check the numbers if you wish, but when we "give to the rich" we, in actuality, stop taking as much from the engine that makes our economy run. You've never gotten a job from a poor man, and you never will.


Good example, poet.

Let's extend it a bit. Suppose the Maitre'd found that the group had been overcharged and was due a refund. So he suggested handing back the refund in the same ratio that was paid in.

The poor who paid nothing said, "you can't do that. We deserve a refund too. Our meal cost money. You should give the us a refund as well, perhaps in the ratio of the cost of the meals." So that's what the maitre'd did. Everybody got a refund.

Then, as they were leaving the restaurant, the poor who paid noting for the meal started mumbling under their breaths to each other "wait a minute, those rich people got a fund. They don't deserve a refund. They're rich." And they mumbled all the way home and on into the next day. And they're still mumbling. They were obsessed with the fact that the rich got a refund.

PoetryNOcean wrote:

Wren wrote:


Oh, my -- he turns tax break for the wealthy into taking from the rich and give to the poor.

Podjo, you better read more carefully from now on.


There's an old story, Wren. A group of 10 people walk into a restaurant to have dinner. It was a wonderful affair. At the end, the maitre'd announced to the table that each member of the dinner party would receive a bill according to their income and tax status. 5 of the party got bills for $0 dollars. They were in the lower income groups. 1 got one for 4% of the bill, the next for 9% and the next for 12%. The final two split the remaining 75%. Funny, it's the same with the tax system of this country. The people who pay 75 percent of the tax revenues to the government comprise 25% of the population. 50% pay less than 3% of the total. Check the numbers if you wish, but when we "give to the rich" we, in actuality, stop taking as much from the engine that makes our economy run. You've never gotten a job from a poor man, and you never will.

The story doesn't reflect the logic of the earlier comments.

However, I do believe where much has been given much is required.

wrz wrote:

Wren wrote:

wrz wrote:

gopherus wrote:

wrz wrote:

gopherus wrote:


I think you've forgotten who the spenders are. Talk to mister 1 veto. You might wish to address the huge tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and the war in Iraq. If you are worried about inflation you might want to look at the same issues and the monstrous national debt that has resulted from those coinciding but counteractive policies. You might also wish to deal with those who've failed to lower prescription drug prices through price controls or an even more simple method, a ban on television marketing that eats up more money than research. I think you'll find that your boys are responsible for more than their share of the poverty issue. Good thing is they know they can keep you there and still get your vote by playing the fear card and the God card, thought they don't really believe in either.

Crossroad, you might want to try Communism which is what gopherus is suggesting.

Riiiiiiiiight, a few regulations = communism. So I assume all vegans are eco-terrorists. All boy scouts are knife wielding maniacs. Now that China has opened up a little they are a free-market democracy.
Next thing you know you'll suggest that the free-market works without any oversight.
Dream on WRZ.

"...tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans..." - Take from the rich and give to the poor = Communism.

"... lower prescription drug prices through price controls..." - Price controls = Communism.

"...a ban on television marketing that eats up more money than research." - Control speech = Communism.

Oh, my -- he turns tax break for the wealthy into taking from the rich and give to the poor.

Let's walk through this carefully since you're so mentally challenged...

The wealthy pay the lion's share of the taxes, in gross and as a percentage of income. That's taking from the rich. And where does most of our tax dollars go? For welfare... to the poor.

And since the wealthy pay the loin's share of taxes and a tax break is in the offing, the wealthy should have the right to participate. Would you deny them that?


"...tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans..." - Take from the rich and give to the poor = Communism.

Let's try it one more time. How is a tax break for the wealthiest the same as communism>

Look at the statement in quotes, compare it to the comment immediately after it, think about it, then explain it to me: logically.

Wren wrote:


However, I do believe where much has been given much is required.


Much was not given. It was earned.

wrz wrote:

PoetryNOcean wrote:

Wren wrote:


Oh, my -- he turns tax break for the wealthy into taking from the rich and give to the poor.

Podjo, you better read more carefully from now on.

There's an old story, Wren. A group of 10 people walk into a restaurant to have dinner. It was a wonderful affair. At the end, the maitre'd announced to the table that each member of the dinner party would receive a bill according to their income and tax status. 5 of the party got bills for $0 dollars. They were in the lower income groups. 1 got one for 4% of the bill, the next for 9% and the next for 12%. The final two split the remaining 75%. Funny, it's the same with the tax system of this country. The people who pay 75 percent of the tax revenues to the government comprise 25% of the population. 50% pay less than 3% of the total. Check the numbers if you wish, but when we "give to the rich" we, in actuality, stop taking as much from the engine that makes our economy run. You've never gotten a job from a poor man, and you never will.


Good example, poet.

Let's extend it a bit. Suppose the Maitre'd found that the group had been overcharged and was due a refund. So he suggested handing back the refund in the same ratio that was paid in.

The poor who paid nothing said, "you can't do that. We deserve a refund too. Our meal cost money. You should give the us a refund as well, perhaps in the ratio of the cost of the meals." So that's what the maitre'd did. Everybody got a refund.

Then, as they were leaving the restaurant, the poor who paid noting for the meal started mumbling under their breaths to each other "wait a minute, those rich people got a fund. They don't deserve a refund. They're rich." And they mumbled all the way home and on into the next day. And they're still mumbling. They were obsessed with the fact that the rich got a refund.


Once again [Oh, my -- he turns tax break for the wealthy into taking from the rich and give to the poor.]

How is a tax break the same as communism?