gsrunyan Loc: Aurora, CO

How soon they forget or don't bother to look up the facts. 1) Adlai Stevenson was a governor of Illinois who lost to Eisenhower TWICE (1952 and 1956)-his biggest competitor for the Democratic nomination in 1952 was Estes Kefauver, who made a name for himself with hearings into organized crime, but couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for a guy in a coon skin hat (he was from Tennessee, land of Daniel Boone). 2) During the Cuban missile crisis, during a debate in the Security Council, Stevenson demanded that the Soviet delegate give him an answer to his question about missiles headed to Cuba and that he was prepared to wait "until hell freezes over" for an answer.

Quickflash Loc: Loganville, Ga

I think if the voters would have elected Stevenson instead of Eisenhower, Stevenson might have saved us from Viet Nam and many other huge mistakes that followed. We will never know.

LARRYR. Loc: Saint Martinville, La.

Some what puzzled on what is taken from someone who
hasn't any thing to be taken. I was wondering on the idea
that Obama has that the rich aren't paying their fair share
of taxes. I'm 65 years old, i've been working ever sense
I was 16. Every one of whom I've worked for were always
richer then me and I was told that the rich will always hire
some one for less then what he him self makes.
Now back to the idea that the rich ought to pay more, let
me put out this question and ask for a honest answer, if
the rich 1% of this country where to give every thing that
they own to our goverment come Monday, would you honestly
said that by the end of this year or the next 5 years that there
still wouldn't be some one complaining that some one else isn't
paying their fair share. HONESTLY

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Larry,

Not really. Remember the time period. There's a saying "If JFK were alive today, his own party wouldn't acknowledge him". One of his most famous quotes was "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This totally flies in the face of the current entitlement mentality propagated by the liberals in this country (mostly DNC).

I collect, therefore I am. Apparently, there's some appeal to this government sponsored cradle-to-the-grave lifestyle.

It doesn't help that we continually "dumb-down" future generations through great ideas like Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) and teaching to the test or a media machine that literally lets these politicians get away with murder.

It's no wonder we've got increasing numbers of people in this country whose greatest accomplishment is walking upright just long enough to get into the voting booth to pull the blue levers.

Archy Loc: Lake Hamilton, Florida

Come Monday there would be those still complaining about the rich not paying their fair share…Imagine that………..

davejann Loc: Portland Oregon

I think that argument is a bit overstretched. I agree, there will always be complainers but to pay for the 1%ers tax cuts by decreasing moneys to feed, educate and provide police and fire protection for our future, is equally unjust and even if we only remove the tax cuts bringing things back to where they were, there would still be wealthy persons complaining that they were paying too much tax.

Remember, making things difficult for the poor has historically been a prelude to strife.

Dave

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Twice

liebgard

We are always being threatened that, if we don't pay more taxes, essential services will be cut. It's an extortion ploy to mask the massive waste and bureaucratic trough feeding that more taxes REALLY pay for. Oh, there may be a token scrap thrown to the services with new taxes and bonds, but the system needs a whole revamping and that will never happen because those who benefit from the money are the ones who decide who gets what and they are not going to cut their own little feifdoms or cushy benefits. So, a year down the line, there woluld be a new cry for MORE taxes for essential services.

Artsmith Loc: Grayson, Georgia

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

This is pitiful. You're trying to rewrite history to suit your own prejudices. One party in particular is well known for this: are you sure you're not a closet communist?

Cheers,

R.

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Dave,

It may be overstretched but let's take a couple of steps back & ask why are the poor, poor? Usually, it's because they're out of work. We've been at double-digit unemployment now for a number of years. Trust me. I know. It hasn't been this bad since the Great Depression and in fact, on a per capita basis it's worse.

This is simple supply side economics. When Carter, Reagan & Bush all cut the capital gains tax, the money in the federal coffers increased. Reagan literally double the numbers during his tenure. When he took office, there was ~$400 trillion in federal monies. When he left, it was ~$900, yet he's blamed for one of the worst deficits in history.

A lot of people seem to forget that we had a democratically controlled congress that was spending money faster than it was being collected.

This is simple math which is lost on people that can't balance their own checkbooks. If the goverment has to raise $100 in tax from 100 people, each pays $1.00. Cut the jobs in half & now the remaining 50 pay $2.00. Keep doing this until there's one person left with a job & that individual pays the whole $100 in taxes to support the remaining 99.

What's ironic is that with all the "rich-don't-pay-their-fair-share" rhetoric, the remaining 99 aren't resentful that they no longer have jobs. They're resentful the the one person who can pay does!

Suppose I'm a 1%er who has millions to spend on business expansion that could create jobs. These new employees will pay taxes on their wages which will help offset the capital gains cuts. More importantly, it will give them disposable income to spend on goods & services from other companies who in turn, will need to hire more employees, etc, etc.

Now if I have this money to spend during an administration that imposes stifling tax restrictions on me (literally penalizing me for growth), what do I do? Should I go ahead & make the expansion and cross my fingers? Or, should I ship the money to the Caymen Islands waiting either to retire or be able to turn around without finding Big Brother's hand in my back pocket YET AGAIN?

LARRYR. Loc: Saint Martinville, La.

A CLOSET COMMUNIST, sorry, you must have me confused
with some one in the current administration.I vote
conservetive at voting time.

gsrunyan Loc: Aurora, CO

Even if you can't spell conservative?

davejann Loc: Portland Oregon

If this "trickle down" system were really efective, then there should be millions of jobs created over the last 10 years or so. Most of the rich don't create jobs, they create personal wealth aided by the capital gains loop hole. I pay about 30% and so should Mr. Romney. What small amount od capitol gains I earn are mostly found in my IRA and are taxed as income when I am forced to take them out each year.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Photodog if your analysis is valid then Where are the Jobs?

The 1% has had the lions share since GW Bush. On the other hand when Clinton was in office he raised taxes to pay for the 189% increase in debt created by Reagan and 55.6% increase created by Bush. Remember the surplus?

I seem to recall the Republican's saying the increase would throw the nation into Depression.

Guess what, it didn't but GW's redistribution of wealth after the surplus to the 1% sure did!

There will be no job growth until there is demand and with most of the wealth now held by the 1% there will be little middle class demand. That is unless, the nation does some wise things such as:

1. Rebuild the infrastructure - this takes government money
2. Train our youth for the future - this takes government money
3. Provide health care for our citizens - will give business more money to invest instead of paying insurance companies - another kind of transfer of wealth.

Those are good starters.

The only trickle down I seem to have experienced is the warm water coming from the bladder of a misguided TParty dominated GOP Congress hitting my pant leg!

Also, if the 100 is reduced to 50 each does not pay twice as much but rather the Treasury gets $50 instead of $100. It is really simple math.