[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Obama

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Who does this guy think he is? Thank you, oh wonderful overlord, for enabling me to bust my ass to make a decent living. Without you letting me do so, where would I be!?

Thankfully the government invented the internet so I'm able to post this rant online for others to see.

He missed one key point about Business Owners. They were willing to take a risk that no one else was that not only enriched themselves but our society as well. That risk is what defines a business owner from an employee. That risk is what pushes our standard of living up. That risk is why you and I enjoy the comforts and luxuries that we do today. It certainly isn't the dependency class that his policies are enabling.

[subego]

I think he meant you didn't build the roads and bridges.

[Waragainstsleep]

Its a perfectly fair point. Its funny how many people think that making one good decision or even getting one bit of luck entitles them to so much for so long.

[andi*pandi]

That's what I read also.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its a perfectly fair point. Its funny how many people think that making one good decision or even getting one bit of luck entitles them to so much for so long.

Would not the better question be what entitles the government to confiscate that (excess) wealth for its own purposes?

What is stopping the dependency class from taking the risk of becoming a business owner?

[The Final Dakar]

Request: please define dependency class. I'm not sure you and I are on the same wavelength.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Would not the better question be what entitles the government to confiscate that (excess) wealth for its own purposes?
What is stopping the dependency class from taking the risk of becoming a business owner?

The excess wealth you refer to is what pays for the supporting systems and structures that allows you to conduct business. Shoppers would have a pretty hard time getting to your store if there was no road. Or worse if every road was private and each had its own toll rates or access limitations or restrictions you might find yourself with no customers the same. Your business wouldn't be doing so hot either if a invading military was occupying the city. Taxes pay for services, protection and the building blocks of society that allow you to conduct business.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The excess wealth you refer to is what pays for the supporting systems and structures that allows you to conduct business. Shoppers would have a pretty hard time getting to your store if there was no road. Or worse if every road was private and each had its own toll rates or access limitations or restrictions you might find yourself with no customers the same. Your business wouldn't be doing so hot either if a invading military was occupying the city. Taxes pay for services, protection and the building blocks of society that allow you to conduct business.

I'm not advocating the abolishment of taxes, Athens. I'm railing against a mindset from our President that seeks to strip our economic engine (small and medium business owners) of the incentives and tools that keep them successful.

Obama's comments today sound like he believes the government is doing everyone a favor by taxing us and spending on whatever they feel like spending on. It simply seems to elude him that his job is to perform the duties set forth in the constitution (which includes taxation) to support these very SMBs. IMO, He views the private sector and government as two warring entities, and that we'd all be better off with government providing any and all services.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Request: please define dependency class. I'm not sure you and I are on the same wavelength.

I'll define it as the 47% of the population paying absolutely 0 Federal income tax. They are dependent on the rest of us to pick up the tab yet reap the benefits provided thereby.

But hey, Free healthcare.

[stupendousman]

Day in, day out, Obama proves he doesn't have the slightest inkling about job creation and expanding the economy in the private sector.

...and (some) people wonder why the economy remains in the toilet without much relief. HERE is your answer

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think he meant you didn't build the roads and bridges.

Seems pretty apparent to me that's what he was saying. And of course, it's true. But something tells me the "faux outrage" will spew forth nevertheless.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Remember, Owe-bama has never even run a lemon aid stand, and his explanation of business "People making stuff and people shipping stuff" is a prime example of his stupidity.

Who's tax dollars paid for those roads?
The owners of those companies and the owners personally.

Who made those first dirt roads?
When did they get paved?
For what reason? Cars.

No Government money to Ford in creating that car factory either. FedGov got the taxes to pave the roads etc.

The whole argument is BS! The only people who believe that BS is the ignorant types who don't know how anything works.(Liberal Stooges)

[Waragainstsleep]

These opinions are so depressing.

What happens when you let all the rich people get richer and richer is basically the exact reason why the world economy collapsed. All those pioneering super-duper risk takers you admire so much are sitting on their massive piles of cash, not taking any risks that involve employing people.

[Athens]

The one thing I find troubling about economic debates between the left and right is the concept that it all revolves around the businesses. Both sides make that the focus, for more taxes or for less taxes. The missing element is disposable income of the consumer and consumer confidence. It really all comes down to that and the catch 22 is businesses are responsible for that not government. There is nothing the government can really do to spark higher wages and secure jobs, and that includes tax cuts. At the end of the day its the business that offers the pay and security. Some will argue that the government can lower taxes so businesses have more money to pay higher wages. Sorry don't work that way either. If they can meet the demand from the public with what they have now they won't move the extra money to employees they will pocket it. This is why tax cuts do little for most markets. Some can argue then cut taxes on consumers to give them a break. Well sadly this wont work either. Consumers will either be paying off debt or catching up and because of the lack of confidence in there jobs will still hold off on spending. The power to make or break the economy rests in the hands of businesses. What has been lost over the decades is competition. This is one area government could repair things by making new rules about mergers and buy outs. When we had real competition companies battled for a good work force from each other (higher pay, free market at its best) and when companies are seeking employees vs holding what they have and trimming that sparks consumer confidence. When you feel needed and you see a trend that does not mean losing jobs and cut backs people feel safe to spend.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think he meant you didn't build the roads and bridges.

He probably does, but it's disingenuous to imply that tax increases at this point are going to support infrastructure. What percentage of the current or proposed budgets go towards infrastructure, rather than entitlements, bail-outs, unnecessary wars, and other things that don't contribute to the economy other than robbing peter to pay paul ("picking winners and losers")?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

These opinions are so depressing.
What happens when you let all the rich people get richer and richer is basically the exact reason why the world economy collapsed. All those pioneering super-duper risk takers you admire so much are sitting on their massive piles of cash, not taking any risks that involve employing people.

For Small and Medium Business? You're referencing Big Business which is government supported in almost every regard. "Too Big to Fail" means state sponsored. There's no risk and virtually no incentive. Whats the worst that could happen? Cut and run with a few million while the taxpayers clean up the mess? I'm sorry, but this doesn't fit the small and medium business definition. Nor does "rich people."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

For Small and Medium Business? You're referencing Big Business which is government supported in almost every regard. "Too Big to Fail" means state sponsored. There's no risk and virtually no incentive. Whats the worst that could happen? Cut and run with a few million while the taxpayers clean up the mess? I'm sorry, but this doesn't fit the small and medium business definition. Nor does "rich people."

But your stand is that it should be easier for those small and medium businesses to get big by not paying taxes. And rich is a relative term.

[stupendousman]

What did government do to create the bridges? They taxed the 53% who where high producers and likely either entrepreneurs, managers, or people with high-end degrees and paid someone to build them.

So, yes - the people who risk and work hard to create businesses are also paying for the infrastructure that makes it all possible, via their own taxes and creating employed people who wages are taxed as well. It's cycle - one that Obama clearly doesn't understand.

Obama really isn't that smart. I really do think we need to see his transcripts.

[hyteckit]

Gov. Chris Christie knows how to create jobs. Oh wait, he doesn't.

He cut taxs in NJ. Unemployment remain virtually unchanged since he took office in 2010.

NJ is rank #5 in unemployment.

[hyteckit]

Illinois tax hike vs. NJ tax cuts/budget cuts

Who wins? Illinois
Who's the biggest loser? New Jersey and Chris Christie

Jan 2010
---------
Illinois: 11.4% unemployment
New Jersey: 9.7% unemployment

May 2012
----------
Illinois: 8.6% unemployment (Down 2.8%)
New Jersey: 9.2% unemployment (Down 0.5%)

[hyteckit]

Jan 2010
---------
US: 9.7% unemployment
New Jersey: 9.7% unemployment

May 2012
----------
US: 8.2% unemployment (Down 1.5%)
New Jersey: 9.2% unemployment (Down 0.5%)

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But your stand is that it should be easier for those small and medium businesses to get big by not paying taxes. And rich is a relative term.

I never advocated anyone notpaying taxes. Specifically: "I'm not advocating abolishing taxes" Its like 5 posts up. Should I quote it for you? I pointed out that half the country doesn't pay federal taxes. Small and Medium business owners will not invest as heavily in expanding their businesses and bringing on more employees with an uncertain economy and high tax levels. You cited examples of big government sponsored big business. IMO they are one in the same.


Rich is a relative term indeed. What's your point? Things aren't getting better. They are getting worse. Market's are not recovering. Jobs are not being created. 4 years later, the recession continues. The engine that created our society continues to sputter and it won't be long before it stalls altogether. Why would you continue to restrict the fuel (i.e. the incentive to create or further a business)? The middle class is suffering and your aim is to bring them down a notch because of some misguided attempt at fairness or sour grapes that some are rich and didn't work for it. Why destroy everyone else's chance at it?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

These opinions are so depressing.
What happens when you let all the rich people get richer and richer is basically the exact reason why the world economy collapsed. All those pioneering super-duper risk takers you admire so much are sitting on their massive piles of cash, not taking any risks that involve employing people.

I'm not talking about the current rich. I'm talking about those that are willing to create or further a small or medium business. People that have made their nest egg aren't risk takers. People that want a better life than they have now are, but need a few things.

a) investors
b) favorable tax situations
c) a working economy
d) Hard work and intelligent decision making

The Obama administration wishes to remove all of those from the equation and replace them with his idea of institutional decision making.. At the very least, he ignores them with his policies. half the country pays no federal income tax Who's paying their fair share when half of us are paying nothing.

The current rich will not part with their nest eggs. If you try to regulate them, they will make powerful friends or pay someone obscene amounts of money to move their money around and/or find a loophole. Just like the war on drugs, you won't win when the stakes are so high. Why even try to take them down a peg? Why not try to create a situation that provides an equal opportunity for everyone? Anything else is just reducing the current middle and lower classes to the lowest common denominator while removing all potential for a better life for us or our children. Not to mention all the value you're removing from the economy. With no incentive, no one will strive to create value (non money wealth).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

He probably does, but it's disingenuous to imply that tax increases at this point are going to support infrastructure. What percentage of the current or proposed budgets go towards infrastructure, rather than entitlements, bail-outs, unnecessary wars, and other things that don't contribute to the economy other than robbing peter to pay paul ("picking winners and losers")?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Gov. Chris Christie knows how to create jobs. Oh wait, he doesn't.
He cut taxs in NJ. Unemployment remain virtually unchanged since he took office in 2010.
NJ is rank #5 in unemployment.

Um.. there are a lot of factors other than just taxe rates that help spur job creation.

Apparently you and Obama where taught economics by the same people.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Who does this guy think he is? Thank you, oh wonderful overlord, for enabling me to bust my ass to make a decent living. Without you letting me do so, where would I be!?
Thankfully the government invented the internet so I'm able to post this rant online for others to see.
He missed one key point about Business Owners. They were willing to take a risk that no one else was that not only enriched themselves but our society as well. That risk is what defines a business owner from an employee. That risk is what pushes our standard of living up. That risk is why you and I enjoy the comforts and luxuries that we do today. It certainly isn't the dependency class that his policies are enabling.

Well first off, the government DID invent the Internet, or more specifically the Defense Department's Advanced Projects Agency invented the technology upon which the Internet is based...

The thing about a "business owner" is that however great their ideas, THEY are not the ones physically building their products, THEY are not the ones who physically sell their products, etc. The business guy comes up with an idea about a product to fill a need (or more recently an idea about a so-called service that may or may not be useful to anyone, or a product that requires a "need" to be created), and he makes the decisions, while lots of people working for him provide the technical expertise to create, produce, market and sell that product.

Andrew Carnegie didn't "build" anything; he used thousands of employees' sweat to create an enormous industrial empire. Sure he "worked his way up" from messenger boy, but HE did not do the physical labor. Today, as then, it is not the executive but the laborer who does the real work. If the idea goes bust, does the executive go hungry? Most likely not. But the poor schmuck who works for him had better find a refrigerator box in good condition pretty quickly, or he'll be sleeping in the rain.

The point is that, no matter how world changing some entrepreneur's ideas may be, they depend on society and the economic system to work. That's you and me, and the people who work for the entrepreneur, his suppliers, the companies who ship his stuff, etc. There is no such thing as an individual whose ideas wind up getting him rich who has done so by himself.

I think the tax code is borked. There should not be a way for anyone to hide, exclude, or recharacterize their income so that they pay (as a group) substantially less in taxes than a working schmoe whose entire income is wages. Whether or not anyone agrees with Obama's ideas on specific tax rules, America is built on the idea that fairness is important. Fairly taxing rich people is a good idea, but so is fairly taxing poor people, and neither is part of our current tax system. Further, it would seem that these rich "job creators" have been reticent as a group to take advantage of the generous tax breaks put in place by the Bush administration and actually add jobs... If those breaks were going to work, wouldn't we see some results by now? On a big scale?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Well first off, the government DID invent the Internet, or more specifically the Defense Department's Advanced Projects Agency invented the technology upon which the Internet is based...
The thing about a "business owner" is that however great their ideas, THEY are not the ones physically building their products, THEY are not the ones who physically sell their products, etc. The business guy comes up with an idea about a product to fill a need (or more recently an idea about a so-called service that may or may not be useful to anyone, or a product that requires a "need" to be created), and he makes the decisions, while lots of people working for him provide the technical expertise to create, produce, market and sell that product.

All of whom get paid an agreed upon wage to do what it is that the "business owner" decides needs to be done which will make a profit.

No "business owner" with an idea, no business. If Americans don't want the jobs in question, he can probably find someone in China who will.

Andrew Carnegie didn't "build" anything; he used thousands of employees' sweat to create an enormous industrial empire.

So that "industrial empire" would have built itself by those people without Carnegie? Not likely. There are people who get things done, and people who do what others tell them to. Nothing gets created without the former even if it requires the latter to see it through. The former is much rarer in the world than the latter, which is why it's the former who gets more of the value.

Why aren't all the out of work people NOW, creating empires and building businesses? Because the "doers" in the world are scared by the fact that the guy in charge of things that effect their ability to create doesn't know what he's doing. Otherwise, there would be no unemployment. "Thousands of employees" would just create the jobs. Some people really do put the "cart before the horse" it seems.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

He probably does, but it's disingenuous to imply that tax increases at this point are going to support infrastructure. What percentage of the current or proposed budgets go towards infrastructure, rather than entitlements, bail-outs, unnecessary wars, and other things that don't contribute to the economy other than robbing peter to pay paul ("picking winners and losers")?

KABOOM! This is the point right here.

Look, I have no problem paying taxes and have grown, as most, quite accustomed to them. It's an investment in America as Obama frames the issue. I get that. The problem I have with paying them and/or increasing them now is the shoddy investment they've proven to be. Obama discussed education; we spend more and get less. He mentioned roads; okay already they've been built by tax dollars gone by. Now what? Studies for jello wrestling in Antarctica? Fisheries in California? Bridges to nowhere? At least it seems Obama has found his patriotism; his US flag lapel pin as it were.

Small businesses represent 99% of all employer firms in the US. They are greater than 50% of GDP. Those @ $250k+ often file their S-corps, LLCs, and partnerships as individual tax liabilities and an increase at this income level will hurt them. This is why Obama's tax plan has been shunned twice by Senate Democrats who believe the cutoff should be much higher. As others have noted, people are sitting on their cash, businesses and consumers alike. This is what happens when you have an Administration that repeatedly utters rhetoric hostile to the business community while proposing to tax wealth and success as if it were tobacco and alcohol.

Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed tax increases have not been nor will they ever be blocked for use on the deficit and all this new revenue will run the country for approximately 10 days at current spending levels.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

KABOOM! This is the point right here ...

This. It would be very difficult to argue against taxes, *if* the government (and, we're talking both sides of the fence here) exhibited some sense of responsibility in spending other people's money and wasn't so obviously wasteful.

[stupendousman]

One needs to only look at Apple for evidence that Obama is wrong.

Apple was near bankrupt and not doing so hot with "thousands of workers" all employed to make what the business sold.

Steve Jobs comes along with a vision and business capabilities others did not have, and turned everything around and made Apple the biggest company in the world. Apple already had "workers" and people who could build things. What they didn't have was a "doer" who worked his butt off to see to it that HIS VISION was achieved and was successful. Steve Jobs built Apple as it is today. Sure, he had help from the people he paid to do the jobs he did not have the time or experience to do, but all the other tech companies have people who work for them as well. The difference between Apple in 1996 and Apple in 2012 is Steve Jobs. To suggest otherwise, I think, is insane.

So, clearly people who build businesses DO build them and are responsible for them even if they paid people to help them. The people who helped got their benefit - they got paid and probably benefits. The business owner gets their benefit as well, LOTS OF MONEY, since it was their vision and ability that put things into place.

Seriously - people who try to argue that the people who succeed in this world are beholden to people who never even have strived for greater success baffles me. It makes little logical sense.

[Dork.]

I think there's a parsing error here.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen

Obama is not saying that the Government makes successful businesses. He is saying that Government builds the infrastructure that makes businesses like this possible. Some folks are parsing it wrong because they ignore that first sentence, including the original poster. Which makes most of the arguments in this thread irrelevant.

There are plenty of counter-arguments to Obama's statement that don't involve intentionally misreading it to fit a pre-conceived narrative.

[subego]

I don't think the OP intentionally misread it. Not their style.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

One needs to only look at Apple for evidence that Obama is wrong.
Apple was near bankrupt and not doing so hot with "thousands of workers" all employed to make what the business sold.
Steve Jobs comes along with a vision and business capabilities others did not have, and turned everything around and made Apple the biggest company in the world. Apple already had "workers" and people who could build things. What they didn't have was a "doer" who worked his butt off to see to it that HIS VISION was achieved and was successful. Steve Jobs built Apple as it is today. Sure, he had help from the people he paid to do the jobs he did not have the time or experience to do, but all the other tech companies have people who work for them as well. The difference between Apple in 1996 and Apple in 2012 is Steve Jobs. To suggest otherwise, I think, is insane.
So, clearly people who build businesses DO build them and are responsible for them even if they paid people to help them. The people who helped got their benefit - they got paid and probably benefits. The business owner gets their benefit as well, LOTS OF MONEY, since it was their vision and ability that put things into place.
Seriously - people who try to argue that the people who succeed in this world are beholden to people who never even have strived for greater success baffles me. It makes little logical sense.

How does Apple's supply chain work without a transportation infrastructure?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does Apple's supply chain work without a transportation infrastructure?

How does it work without China?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does Apple's supply chain work without a transportation infrastructure?

A bucket brigade of starving Chinese pesantry.



Edit: dammit, scooped!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

A bucket brigade of starving Chinese pesantry.
Edit: dammit, scooped!

Eh, I'd rather have the consensus.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does Apple's supply chain work without a transportation infrastructure?

If new taxes were for roads and bridges, this wouldn't be an issue. But roads and bridges will make up an insignificantly small fraction of the stuff today's taxes will be spent on. And even if we were still building roads and bridges like we used to, there still wouldn't be a need to raise taxes. Roads and bridges haven't become more expensive over the years (adjusted for inflation).

The modern equivalent to the interstate highway system could be the development of self-driving cars. There would be a productivity increase for most businesses if we could decrease the cost of shipping using self-driving delivery trucks. It would also alleviate the medical costs incurred by the thousands of car accidents caused by human error, drunk driving, texting, etc, thereby reducing the costs of medical (and auto/liability) insurance, which is a burden on employers.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Eh, I'd rather have the consensus.

Just acknowledging you speed on the uptake.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

These opinions are so depressing.
What happens when you let all the rich people get richer and richer is basically the exact reason why the world economy collapsed. All those pioneering super-duper risk takers you admire so much are sitting on their massive piles of cash, not taking any risks that involve employing people.

Fairy tails rom the left?

[andi*pandi]

Roads and bridges do need to be rebuilt. They do wear out, become unsafe, need widening, etc. And they are more complex to change now with all the traffic dependencies, so you have to create an alternate route before you can even start fixing the original road.

In the old days you just let your cows wander all over until they found the easy route, then you paved the cowpaths.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Fairy tails rom the left?

Time to go down to the gay bar and get me sum fairy tail.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Roads and bridges do need to be rebuilt. They do wear out, become unsafe, need widening, etc. And they are more complex to change now with all the traffic dependencies, so you have to create an alternate route before you can even start fixing the original road.

In the old days you just let your cows wander all over until they found the easy route, then you paved the cowpaths.

However, (1) the cost of these projects is still a tiny fraction of the federal budget, and (2) these projects still won't manage to get done regardless of the tax rate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does Apple's supply chain work without a transportation infrastructure?

It doesn't. Steve Jobs and all the other millionaires (and billionaire) who have equity in Apple had paid for their share of the infrastructure via the huge amount of taxes that they pay. Also, they generate incomes for hundreds of thousands of workers which is taxed and goes to the government as well. Being the biggest company in the world, they are responsible for probably the largest outpay of taxes as well when you figure in Apple's money that is taken before it ever gets to it's employees and shareholders.

Successful business people already bear a huge responsibility for paying for infrastructure with the taxes they already pay. To suggest otherwise is silly.

[Athens]

Besides most of the stuff every day people use come out of the City budgets from property taxes or state resources that come of State taxes. How many actual roads and bridges does the Federal government pay for beyond interstate freeways. The ports are pretty much a private business, the freight companies are too. 90 % of what I use on a day to day basis and what I benefit from on a day to day basis came from City taxes. (I'm assuming the taxing and infrastructure are similar between Canada and the US)

Does not seem like a lot of federal money really comes back down in a meaningful way to the average citizen. Got the protection of the military, search and rescue services on the coast and lakes. Its hard to say DEA and FBI resources in the drug war are actually serving the people. As for physical infrastructure it seems not much comes from Feds at all. Most of the feds money goes to social services, pay outs as money like social security and medical.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't. Steve Jobs and all the other millionaires (and billionaire) who have equity in Apple had paid for their share of the infrastructure via the huge amount of taxes that they pay. Also, they generate incomes for hundreds of thousands of workers which is taxed and goes to the government as well. Being the biggest company in the world, they are responsible for probably the largest outpay of taxes as well when you figure in Apple's money that is taken before it ever gets to it's employees and shareholders.
Successful business people already bear a huge responsibility for paying for infrastructure with the taxes they already pay. To suggest otherwise is silly.

So what is your point as far as this thread topic goes?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Roads and bridges do need to be rebuilt. They do wear out, become unsafe, need widening, etc. And they are more complex to change now with all the traffic dependencies, so you have to create an alternate route before you can even start fixing the original road.
In the old days you just let your cows wander all over until they found the easy route, then you paved the cowpaths.

We're already being taxed for these. We're talking about a steady increase in the amount needed to cover the new provisions, not maintaining the old ones because again; we've paid for and continue to pay for those already. The fact is, there would be NO GOVERNMENT if not for WE THE PEOPLE.

You're no more beholden to the government for these provisions than you are to the rich people that paid for most of it.

[hyteckit]

We need more taxes to pay for the stupid wars Bush started.
We need more taxes to pay for the health benefits and education benefits for all the men and women who fought in the Afghan and Iraq War.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

He probably does, but it's disingenuous to imply that tax increases at this point are going to support infrastructure. What percentage of the current or proposed budgets go towards infrastructure, rather than entitlements, bail-outs, unnecessary wars, and other things that don't contribute to the economy other than robbing peter to pay paul ("picking winners and losers")?

Yes, we need more taxes to pay for the stupid and unnecessary wars started by Pres. Bush.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How does it work without China?

They wouldn't have done it if it weren't mutually beneficial. My question is, in what scenario is it good for us to give them more be it China or the government?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Fairy tails rom the left?

"Someone said something sensible, quick call him a leftist!"