If there ever was a time or a place to fear your elected officials this is a perfect example of the blissfully ignorant at work, and using your tax dollars to do it. You should be very driven to remove these kind of people from elected positions in your areas. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49458564/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
Sorry for jumping to that conclusion Germ, I thought that was what you meant. While I'm still against taxing capital gains, I guess that's a better solution. I just strongly feel that more people need an incentive to invest in their futures. Doesn't matter to me if they make $30k a year or $20m.
One point I failed to touch on that really does deserve debunked, is the way success is victimized by some whom champion mediocrity. Another mans success should be a driving factor in improving your own standard of living. Achievement needs to be taken notice of and mimicked, not chided as a reason for your own short comings or failures. All to often we mock those who's achievements far out weigh our own instead of studying their paths of success and benefiting from this gained knowledge we to many times blame it for our failures and lack of achievements. This very mind set is responsible for more individual failures than any thing a politician can say or do.
You're income earned might be taxed at a higher rate(probably closer to 25% if you make between 35k & 85k) but say for example you made 50k and were taxed 12.5k on it at the 25% tax rate but then due to your filings(exemptions, credits, etc) you received a 5k tax return. Your effective tax is now 7.5k or closer to 14.9%. Many people pay less than that. All I'm saying is the income tax rate is already lower than it appears at face value. That being said I don't know if investment tax rates inlude exemtions, credits, etc.
We can talk about how people are taxed until we are blue in the face, but until we significantly decrease the amount of money our government is spending, we will still be spending more than we bring in. Meaning we are mortgaging our future to China. Not a wise choice in my opinion. There's no excuse for a government running for 4 years without an approved budget. That is a disgrace, and an indictment on this administration's ineptitude. Mr. Obama has proven over the last four years that he is a polarizing figure and cannot and will not compromise and work bipartisanly. The only way to get our country back on track is to have a leader that will work on both sides of the line. One that projects positive images of American, not one that is an apologist for our world status. Not a leader that would take a situation like Libya, tell the world that a stupid internet video was the reason for the killings of Americans, when EVERYONE knew better. Our country has absolutely no leadership today. Hopefully we will change that next month!
Yes, absolutely they do, but the buck stops at the Whitehouse. Right? It's the Presidents responsibility to manage/run this country. In my eyes, failure to approve the budget ultimately falls in the presidents lap. He proposes a budget, Congress then modifies it and attempts to pass it. Then the president signs it into law. His budgets have been so out of whack, that neither republicans nor democrats are willing to vote for it. So yes, I say ultimate responsibility falls on the President, while I also feel that our congress have been failing the American people for as long as I can remember. There should be no place for career politicians in government. That is why I am a firm supporter of term limits.
Wait, are people trying to say our government lied about an event that happened overseas? No, that can't be. This has never happened before! Next thing you know, a president will lie about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, start a war, cost american's thousands of lives and countless dollars, just to further his own agenda. Naaahhhh...that would never happen.
The enormous growth in government spending should be a concern for us all, unchecked we will drown in our own debt and our future growth will be stunted by the burden of debt that will be permanently removed from the GDP, neither side has shown a willingness to reduce deficit spending so a decrease in the rate of growth in combination with increased revenue stream that will come with a reduction of rates seems to be the only option that may be achievable. Even then I'm not sure either side has the stomach to admit that we can not continue of the path we have been on for far to many years.
A question I have pondered in the past and never found a satisfactory answer to, just exactly what was George Bush's agenda in starting the Iraq war?
If that was true, we would have been out of there the day Obama took over. Unless ofcourse, Obama is secretly in on the same conspiracy agenda. Since we are still there, I guess he must be. I laughed.
Then please consider me to be too simple to figure it out and explain it to me. I want to know all the details and any shreds of evidence to back up the obvious. Thanks.
If there was a conspiracy, wouldn't they have found the weapons? Surely he would have gone all the way with it. I'm sure it had to be a conspiracy, you know he never actually used any of those kinds of weapons in the past on his own people. Saddam was also very helpful and willing to let inspectors do their job. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I never said Bush did anything like this. Is there a reason I should? I was just hypothetically speaking. Why did you name Bush?
I say this headline earlier today,"Total federal and state 'welfare' spending tops $1 trillion — a nearly 30 percent increase since the start of the Obama administration" And I wonder if they counted the GM bail out or Solyndra give aways?
