Skip to comments.
It's The Economy, Stupid (Nation: Election Results Weren't Just Driven By Iraq War -huh???)
The Nation ^
| 11/21/06
| Christopher Hayes
Posted on 11/21/2006 12:14:53 PM PST by presidio9
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-275 next last
To: Vicomte13
They are not "taxed the same." The top 10% of earners pay virtually all of the income tax.
21
posted on
11/21/2006 12:37:41 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Tagline Censored)
To: rhombus
You wrote: "people seem to think the purpose of Government is to provide 'fairness'".
And "people" are right too, particularly when it comes to policies that are under the control of government itself. The government has a duty to be fair.
But that's abstract.
In a democracy, the government will be fair to the groups constituting the largest number of voters, or it will be rather soon replaced by one that will be.
22
posted on
11/21/2006 12:39:49 PM PST
by
Vicomte13
(Aure entuluva.)
To: KMAJ2
There was nothing Marxist or Communist about the article or Webb's view.
23
posted on
11/21/2006 12:40:34 PM PST
by
Vicomte13
(Aure entuluva.)
To: presidio9
The economy is hotter than Catherine Zeta Jones.
What are these people talking about?
24
posted on
11/21/2006 12:41:21 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(Fear the Sweater vest! Go Buckeyes)
To: presidio9
economic inequality.If he wants to talk about socialism, why doesn't he just come out and say it? That's what unionism is today. Maybe that isn't what it always was, maybe there was a need in the beginning of the industrial revolution, but unions have long since out lived their usefulness.
25
posted on
11/21/2006 12:41:45 PM PST
by
Eva
To: Vicomte13
As a practical matter, it means spending $5 for a pair of socks instead of $2. But when you impose tarriffs, the price of everything goes up, and pretty soon the poor people that you were trying to protect can't afford to buy anything. And "poor" is a pretty subjective word when 98% of the homes in this country have a television. We really have no poor in this country, we just have a political party that loves class warfare. That guy has more than you, so he must be evil.
26
posted on
11/21/2006 12:42:07 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Tagline Censored)
To: mr_hammer
You are correct about the Midwest.
Let Ohio, which is suffering, or Indiana, which is suffering, flip over to blue, and the Democrats will hold the White House long enough to get amnesty for 12 million illegals. After that, the Democrats will not lose power for a century, maybe forever.
27
posted on
11/21/2006 12:43:06 PM PST
by
Vicomte13
(Aure entuluva.)
To: NeoCaveman
The economy is hotter than Catherine Zeta Jones. There are rules regarding the use of that name here...
28
posted on
11/21/2006 12:43:30 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Tagline Censored)
To: presidio9
i'm not sure how the blacks, latinos and single women who lose their jobs at the wal-mart due to increased minimum wages will see any benefits.
29
posted on
11/21/2006 12:44:04 PM PST
by
mmmRamen
(i could use a clever tagline)
To: presidio9
But when you are competing against slave labor, you will loose in the end anyway.
30
posted on
11/21/2006 12:44:27 PM PST
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: ItsTheMediaStupid
It won't work to get rid of income tax unless you get rid of things like the USDA, the FDA and the military.
31
posted on
11/21/2006 12:44:31 PM PST
by
Vicomte13
(Aure entuluva.)
To: Vicomte13
"The government has a duty to be fair."
Being fair and providing fairness are two completely different things. I try to be fair in all my dealings but I cannot make life itself fair, nor should I try.
32
posted on
11/21/2006 12:45:21 PM PST
by
L98Fiero
(Terrorists, Communists and Liberals. All happy with a Democrat Congress)
To: L98Fiero
Why people cannot see the simple truth in that, I'll never know. Remember, these are the same class of people who can't get their pointy heads around "higer minimum wage = less jobs."
33
posted on
11/21/2006 12:45:26 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Tagline Censored)
To: presidio9
I won't comment on the article, but I will note that my brother, who used to work for the RNC, has been sending top Republicans emails for two years warning them that they were going to lose their majority over economic issues, not Iraq. They seriously expected to hold on to blue collar Republicans and Reagan Democrats who were having to work three jobs to keep from losing their homes because of $3.50 a gallon gas, skyrocketing mortgage rates and utility bills, doubled credit card minimum payments, and new laws designed to make it harder even to declare bankruptcy? How Bush could have appointed someone to head the Fed without getting an ironclad guarantee of no more interest rate hikes before the election is beyond me. I am a dyed-in-the-wool conservative whose late father founded our county's Republican party, but even I was furious about my ARM, which was the only thing I could get due to being self-employed. In the past four years, my mortgage payment rose by nearly $500 a month thanks to the Fed "helping" me by preventing inflation, defined by Alan Greenspan as his paranoia that anybody other than him might be earning a dime more than he did 10 years ago. Meanwhile, the GOP Congress was spending money like drunken sailors on a three-day shore leave.
I voted Republican, but only because I knew the alternative was even worse, not because the current Congress gave me any reason to reelect them. Unfortunately, other voters were harder to convince. If the Pubbies ever want to get back into power again, they'd better rediscover their principles, start acting like conservatives, and come up with policies that reward average Americans for working hard. Trying to convince someone that the economy is booming by pointing at the Dow when the person you're talking to is having his house foreclosed on is not a formula for winning elections.
34
posted on
11/21/2006 12:46:08 PM PST
by
HHFi
To: KMAJ2
I really cannot wait until the Dem policies drive the economy to the brink of recession, just so I can say "I TOLD you so!"....
You have to be in your 40's now to remember the Carter Yaers, and what it REALLY meant to "Look" for a job, in an environment where only the top 10% of college grads even got INTERVIEWED...
35
posted on
11/21/2006 12:47:03 PM PST
by
tcrlaf
(VOTE DEM! You'll Look GREAT In A Burqa!)
To: presidio9
The income tax is not the only tax.
Every wage earner pays a nearly 8% FLAT tax on his income: Social Security and Medicare.
But the Social Security tax stops on compensation above $90,000. Why?
And Medicare isn't imposed on the price uptick from executive stock options. Why not?
And capital gains are taxed at 20%, but wages are taxed at 35%. Why?
36
posted on
11/21/2006 12:47:11 PM PST
by
Vicomte13
(Aure entuluva.)
To: Muleteam1
>>"blood-and-soil conservative"<<
Is that like a "Gay-American"?
37
posted on
11/21/2006 12:48:40 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
To: redgolum
We actually have very few if any factories in this country that compete against slave labor. That hypothetical is a favorite among socialists, but things like textiles are not generally manufactured here. And since unemployment is at an historic low, I fail to see how its a problem. what you're talking about effectively equals taxing the lower class in this country to police injustices overseas.
38
posted on
11/21/2006 12:48:57 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Tagline Censored)
To: presidio9
IMO: If the federal minimum wage is raised above $6.00 I believe that rather than one person less per shift, and Ma and Pa working more weekends instead of the manger covering, that small businesses will close. I know in WA. some large franchises have cut the number of stores in an area due to higher state mandated minimum wages. (Example Wnedy's in Spokane.).
Finally I think the Congress currently in lame duck status should have increased the federal minimum wage to $5.50 or $5.75 (probably phased in over two jumps a couple of years apart) to take the issue off the table, but what do I know.?
To: presidio9
"Uh, how would you propose we legislate "job security?""
One could not legislate job security. But one could try to create, or promote, a business expanding climate - and it need not involve the tax breaks. Say, addressing the regulation overabundance, or legal climate [aka tort reform].
40
posted on
11/21/2006 12:50:13 PM PST
by
GSlob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-275 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson