And meanwhile, Chucky's buddies in Congress are talking about raising taxes on the Middle Class. Anything to avoid inconveniencing our Galtian overlords, I guess.
That page is nothing but aggregated articles from right-wing publications, and you'll forgive me if I don't automatically trust them. Given the Republican control of the House, it's not surprising. I even took the "You save the Post Office" test further into the website. It was slanted, too: I constantly felt like I was missing info, limited in my options, and being steered toward a particular agenda. I hardly felt like I was being given facts at all.
Interesting that no one's even trying to refute Rickaroo's central point about the Postal Service's needlessly stringent pension requirement. And before you go blaming unions, they're the ones trying to call attention to it and fight it. Remember that they aren't some elite cabal, they're ordinary working joes like you or me, who want to make sure they keep their jobs in a tough economy.
I mean, it's not as if unions invested our money in bad loans, then sold them to investors with the hopes of multimillion-dollar payouts.
Wow, so much to unpack, I don't know where to start.
We have the lowest taxes in fifty years and record profits for corporations, and it hasn't made businesses more willing to hire. Likewise, it's not as if higher taxes in the 50's and 60's stopped the existence of millionaires.
What really happens when corporate tax rates fall? The burden for our society falls on the rest of us. We have to pay bills, mortgages, car payments, plus taxes, all while left to fend for ourselves for healthcare. Meanwhile the rich have no obligations to anybody. Adam Smith recommended just the opposite in The Wealth of Nations.
Without short-term spending, I don't see how we get future revenue. Wealth is created, isn't it? If there's demand from the government to produce, they produce; people make money, that money can be taxed in moderate amounts, and the debt can be paid.
Don't believe me? Just look at what happened in World War II: one massive industrial stimulus. You think they cared about incurring debt?
Why do you think we had a record surplus before Bush's tax cuts?
"Is it "fair" for the bottom 50% to pay absolutely nothing? And at the same time get freebies left and right from normal people like myself?"
And you're the one telling me there's no class warfare? When you yourself show such resentment for the least among us? Where's your resentment for corporate tax shelters, and loopholes, or the massive subsidies and bailouts they get from the government? No, they'd rather turn you against the little guy.
Besides, it's a lie that 50% pay no taxes. No income taxes, true. It would be cruel to tax them. But there's also payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, as well as the basic cost of living.
I'm trying to make an honest living just like you, except that the cost of living keeps going up, and occasional emergencies take a bite out of the bank account. I don't even want to be wealthy, just comfortable, able to rely on myself. Why shouldn't I resent it when there are CEO's and Wall St. tycoons who've never done an honest day's work in their lives making record billions without an ounce of sacrifice? Why don't you?
Did a CEO grow your food? Did a millionaire build your house? Did Wall St. investors set up your electrical grid? How much work do you think the rich actually do? Inheritance isn't work, and I'm not sure gaming the stock market is, either. Do you think they've ever had to worry about bills?
Know what the real class warfare is? It's when the rich abuse their wealth by buying off politicians; docking pay and benefits; lowering wages while raising their bonuses; exploiting cheap foreign labor; leaving dangerous bacteria in our food; polluting our water and air; or funding networks that tell why you should resent those who have nothing.
Then there's the whole "Blow all our money on toxic mortgages, and let everybody else pay for it" thing.
Oh, but don't call it class warfare. Got it.
Because tax cuts for the uber-rich, deregulation, and spending cuts have done wonders for the economy already, haven't they? They just need another decade or two to kick in!
(By the way, nice little bigoted jab at the president's middle name. What are you, 9?)
I don't understand how this is so complicated. It's all a matter of supply and demand.
There is a high supply of workers, but a low demand from employers, because demand for their products is low, because people are out of work. Without new demand, entropy takes hold. If people are going to get hired, there needs to be demand. Isn't that what this is proposing? People get hired, they get money, they can buy stuff again, and more people can get hired.
Plus, as a side benefit, we fix our crumbling infrastructure, which frankly is worth a deficit increase. (Not that Republicans really care about the deficit as anything more than a weapon. Virtually everything they've opposed, from the health care law to getting the top 1% to pay their fair share, would have been good for the deficit, according to the CBO.)
Focusing exclusively on corporate profits only takes workers out of the equation. Why hire more people when you can make a profit without them? People are out of work all so they can make a few extra hundred million.
PROTIP: Blaming brown people for your problems and painting them as a threat to white Americans? That's pretty damn racist.
Just because we have these laws doesn't mean racism is over. One state has a governor who thinks the White Citizen's Councils were good guys. What these laws do is make sure racists have less power to disenfranchise minorities.
I park at Bluff View almost every time I go downtown, but now I guess I should rethink that. I've already been the victim of a home invasion and a carjacking; the last thing I need is to be stuffed in a trunk.
Also, maybe by now the Archbishop has heard of the black man accosted by anti-mosque protestors the other day. They took one look at him, assumed he was Muslim, and started harassing him.
Unfortunately, it makes too much sense. Once you make the automatic assumption that "Muslim = terrorist," it's not difficult to jump to similar conclusions, like "black guy = Muslim." And from there, you can go to "black guy = terrorist."
Which I guess is what's going on with this "Obama is a muslim" crap.
Here's a fun game: take any given anti-Islamic rant, say, from Pamela Gellar. Replace the words "Muslim," "terrorist" and "shariah" with "Jew," "Zionist," and "Talmudic," respectively. See how that sounds. Maybe read 1984, and shed some light on the Islamophobe's "We have always been at war with Islam" rhetoric. Maybe then you'll get why these protests are cause for concern.
Honestly, how many of these protesters even know the difference between Sunnis, Shi'ites, Sufis, and Wahabbis? If you can at least grasp that, then maybe we can have a real, adult discussion.
canaryinthecoalmine could do with better research. The reason St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has yet to be rebuilt is because repeated attempts have fallen through: either the buildings are unsafe, or they don't meet the church's specifications. It has nothing to do with religious bias.
Also, Rauf isn't just sponsored by Obama's state department. Bush has also sponsored him on trips to the Middle East--yes, THAT Bush--because he is a consistent and clear voice against violence and extremism. His main message is that Islam is compatible with American values. In fact, he often finds resistance because people there have been told for years that the US is an enemy of Islam. That's al Qaeda's #1 talking point, and for some reason conservatives are desperate to prove them right. It's not just Rauf; it's the mosques all over this country, including in Murfreesboro, that are facing protests right now.
He is also a Sufi, meaning he is part of a mystical sect of Islam that--like mystics of most religions--rejects violence and hatred. Sufis didn't blow up the WTC. For that matter, neither did Shi'ites, from which Sufism is an offshoot. His board of directors includes Christians and Jews. Christians and Jews didn't blow up the WTC, either. And the building itself is basically going to be a YMCA for Muslims. How "radical"! Why would al Qaeda want to recruit here? This is exactly the sort of thing they'd want to blow up!
And funny that you mention the Saudis. Maybe you've heard that the very same Saudi that Fox News accuses of supporting the Cordoba House is also part owner of News Corp. Why would they attack their own boss? Why did Glenn Beck appear on TV with him and name him a "good Muslim"? Why didn't Laura Ingraham raise any objections when this was announced and she interviewed Rauf's wife?
And I dare say that the friggin' archbishop knows his Bible better than most people. For one thing, he'd remember the commandment not to bear false witness against your neighbor. He'd also remember that Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and other religions have faced similar resistance with eerily similar rhetoric.
Do yourself a favor: take a deep breath, step away from Atlas Shrugs and WorldNetDaily, and maybe look for an author with a better grasp of history and theology than Chuck freakin' Norris. He may be able to cure cancer with his tears, but that doesn't mean he knows jack about what he's talking about.
Right now, people like you are sending a clear message to the world: "religious freedom" in the United States is a joke; Americans can't differentiate between moderate Muslims and terrorists; any effort we make to win hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan is a sham. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American. I do not say that lightly.