$9.99???? does he think he's still selling pizza?.......scary!!

flip it, you've got 666! :D Definitely a number for the current republican party.

Letting Bush's tax cuts sunset like the Bush administration originally intended is not "picking pockets." It's just asking self absorbed pinheads like Herman Cain to do their fair share to help solve a common problem that their party played no small part in creating in the first place. This idea apparently offends the idle rich greatly. It's interesting that the people who complain the most about taxes going up are the ones who can most easily handle it.

They can pick only what you are unwilling to give. Stop being so stingy.

He's conveniently forgetting how to do math at this point to get higher poll numbers. There is no way his 999 plan will work, it will only further bankrupt our government. Asking the rich to pay the same percentage amount as everyone else isn't an unfair thing to do. In fact to allow the rich to have a break while asking everyone else to sacrifice is class warfare.

Seeing that 92% of the workforce is employed in the private sector doesn’t it make sense that our elected officials have some experience in the private sector? Common sense says capitalism solves those business issues, I mean solved those issues:

Thank you Target for eliminating the outrageous mark-ups retailers used to charge.

Thank you used car dealers for competing with each other so that unscrupulous dealers eventually go out of business.

Thank you Apple (and others) for making beepers obsolete.

There is a difference in working in the private sector and "working the private sector". Upstanding business men and women are wonderful to have....Romney, Perry and Cain do not fit in that description. They were Legalized Crooks, just like i was. It helps to have private sector knowledge and experience, but just because you are a pro at loopholing and legalized scamming to become successful is not the kind of qualities we need in Goverment. We have enough of that already. It is a know fact that these guys will be interested only in giving contracts to their buddies...deregulated where it helps out a friend and cutting Social Programs that allow for more tax breaks for speical interests.....and the game continues

Vampire Press

Greed is a mental illness

What a thought. If it is then the US is experiancing a plague of massive proportions. The idea that experiance in business is a desirable trait for government officials is a symptom of that illness.

Capitalism is about exploiting others needs for your own benefit. Profit is the difference between the true cost of a product and the need for a product. Think about the word profiteering for instance. The only difference is the depth of need.

Governemnt is about balancing the our individual freedoms against the common good. I don't see a huge overlap in those two professions.

Quite the opposite in fact. Greed Vs Good.

Amen! A return to sane tax rates of Eisenhower and Johnson era--poof-no deficit.

I've seen John Lee Hooker...Years and years ago...great stuff!

While I like it as a catch phrase, I think billionaires by and large fit in the "millionaires" bracket that you gave. Most people work hard, have good ideas, and occasionally are given lucky breaks. Some just have better ideas and/or are given luckier breaks. I have yet to see evidence that millionaires or billionaires work harder than anyone else, however. They do different work, but in sum total do the same.

I doubt that millionaires or billionaires watch the 28 hours of television that the average American does. I've yet to see any proof that anyone works as hard as millionaires and billionaires.

I wouldn't disagree with you at all. In fact, I've often vehemently objected to the notion that rich people became rich by "working harder." That always implies that the diminutive nature of my bank account would be different if "I only worked harder" and that I just "didn't work hard enough." Now add to my hard work a ( an ever so) slightly better idea, some (or a whole lot of) happenstance and some (or a whole lot of) kismet... and I'm running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

And whining about being rich to boot.

How's that for an American dream?

Now, he doesn't go on to explain why a non-rich person like me should give a rat's tuchus that he's paying more taxes and upset about it. I must admit no one seems to explain this very well, either.

Because he has the power to arrange things his way, and you don't.

Bow your head and touch your cap to your betters, boy.

I've yet to see any proof that anyone works as hard as millionaires and billionaires.

LMAO thanks that was super funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ever seen one dig a ditch though not. lazy people they are.

ever seen one dig a ditch though not. lazy people they are.

So, Pilotshark, if you were just more lazy, then you could be a millionaire, too!

This whole thread is absent of knowledge or common sense. Granted, luck, timing, and other uncontrollable factors play a role, but great idea, good thinking, willingness to risk and hard work are the key component of business success, all things being equal.

"all things being equal"...yes, in theory, but out here in the real world all things are not equal. Try to start an new car company. Luck, timing and other uncontrollable factors are useless without hard work, a great idea and good thinking. You need all of this to be successful in business. And you need these things working together for a long time to make it to millionaire or billionaire. Unless you inherit the money, it takes a lifetime to build it, during which any ONE of the uncontrollable factors may wipe you out. Don't we read stories every day about boomers who lost a @!$%#-pile in the recession? How many businesses on the brink of "making it big" lost everything in the downturn? For god's sake, Lehman Brothers went under after 100+ years.

50% of small businesses fail in 5 years, 65% in 10 years (roughly). They fail for a variety of reasons (the internet is full of advice), but they basically boil down to those key areas:

timing, luck, idea, work. Missing any one of the 4 and your probably out of luck, and you're sure not going to become Bill Gates.

I really wish we could dispense with the cultural notion of "hard work = millionaire" because it doesn't, not all by itself. Usually the equation is "hard work = self sufficiency" and even that is a qualified.

John, I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. I did not intend "all things being equal" to imply a ideal situation. I was saying to attribute "millionaire success" to luck...sure you can find some examples but basically in revolves more around great idea, great thinking, willingness to risk, and hard work.

I especially agree with your statement that "hard work = self sufficiency" as a general rule, exceptions in everything always exisit.

All success is based in luck. That isn't to say a person doesn't earn their luck (which is what I think you're thinking); it's just to recognize that no one is ever handed success. You can work 80 hours a week from now till judgement day with the best idea in the world (dare I say Silly Bandz? hehe ;-)), but that will not make you famous in and of itself. You need a dumb luck factor in order to propel you forward. You need there to be a. no other product like yours and b. media/otherwise national attention of your product in order to be successful. Both accounts are dumb luck even if you schedule as such with your local media rep. Why? Because they were so unbusy that they actually made time for you. Even someone like Rachel Maddow can credit her success to dumb luck. It was dumb luck that she got accepted into Harvard (FTR thousands of kids work just as or harder than she worked at school, but are rejected yearly as applicants...her dumb luck is that she was not rejected), she then graduated in posci and then was accepted into Oxford (on the same type of scholarship that was rare and unbecoming of her age beforehand), and then she was dared into trying out for a radio broadcast (which she just happened to win because there wasn't a better talent auditioning at the time), which landed her career (because there wasn't existent another Rachel Maddow on radio/TV). Dumb luck is what paves the world. Pretending like the world fits into the narrow world of free will only demonizes those who haven't gained success by following the rules; it does not lead to enlightenment of the universe.

John

About starting new car company. Is the starter of this company making these cars by himself/herself or does he/she have the benefit of car making elves? No makes it alone John. Can't make a car company without the benefit of of people who actually make the cars. It's some luck and the work of many. Anyone who thinks they became successful solely and exclusively on their own is delusional.

Mouzer, I understand the position but I disagree with the role of luck in the equation. It is the least important (a large majority of the time, at least).

I think Ms. Maddow might very well be in the same place had she not been admitted to Harvard. People who are gifted, who have a great idea, who have determination, who work/and work/and work, find a way to take advantage of any luck. It is not the luck that is the determining factor. If she did not have the "luck" of getting into Harvard, she would have found another way to excel.

The value of the idea (invention, personality, talent, ability, whatever it is they are "selling") matters most. Some ideas (and by ideas I mean the unique value that the person brings to the table be it talent, invention, etc) are actually better than others and usually...usually, these rise to the top. There are always exceptions.

But this may be something we have different views about. Malcolm Gladwell (author of the Tipping Point) wrote a book on this in part called Outliers. He would probably agree more with you than with me.

Bad luck is what losers blame for their lack of success. Man this explains a lot.

Now I know why Obama is blaming his bad presidency on bad luck.

No no no. Rachel worked hard to get to the position of applying to Harvard. She controlled her hard work. What was the dumb luck was that her hard work was not overlooked- that she was given a chance to put her foot in the door. Once you get that chance you then win your success on your merit (which she did and that's how she graduated from college and later went on to get a doctorates). The dumb luck factor is whether or not you are given that chance. That's the part of the equation you don't have control over. The part you do control is that, once given that opportunity, you take advantage of it (by bringing forward your talent, your charisma, your ideas, etc). Now let's say Rachel hadn't been given the chance to go to Harvard. Well she probably would have had the ability to go somewhere else (because she had worked hard enough to give herself that ability). And she may still have ended up in the same place. But whether or not she was given that chance wasn't up to her and that is her luck that she got it. I just believe that people don't like accepting how little control over our own lives we actually have. Now don't get me wrong- Rachel could have never gotten the door to open if she didn't work hard in school. So I am not at all implying the Calvinist extreme that oh success comes to those who are adorned by magical powers or something. I am just saying that the X factor plays a bigger role than I think most people are comfortable dealing with.

Didn't she go to Stanford and Oxford?

Was it Stanford? Ack I fail!

Stanford...go THE Cardinal

well and to further your point about the republicans leading the country in a more selfish direction... the people in the crowds at those debates! the controversial crowd participation, which stirs up as much conversation as the candidates responses. the people clapping for executions and letting people without insurance die... those are some of the leading people voting in primary states, and influencing other! how are we supposed to even get a reasonable opposing candidate?

What the GOP and TP'ers propose is that, as individuals in this mighty nation, we become selfish and not give a damn if others in our society have less and need help.

On the contrary, they're absolutely in favor of us helping each other out. In fact, they're counting on it. Listen again to Ron Paul on the subject of people dying for lack of medical care: churches and bake sales are his answer.

It's not that we shouldn't look out for each other -- it's just that they're telling us to count them out.

Great combination John Lee Hooker and Carlos Santana, ahhhhhh…… I feel better now.

Gotta love the people that lick the boot that kick them...

Cain will be a Republican darling and on the ticket somehow. That is the only way they can disffuse and eliminate race from the election.

What is fairness? That sounds a little subjective to me.

Fairness in taxation is not solely determined by how many dollars one pays or even the percentage. The fairness is also based on ability to pay and on your right to accumulate vast sums of wealth. The more money you make, the greater your obligation. Fairness is subjective in part.

I disagree. Why is your obligation greater because you make more? Why isn't it the same as everyone else? Shouldn't we be promoting success instead of punishing it?

Also, something like 48% of people don't even pay federal income taxes. Is that fair? I'm all for taxing the rich more if every single working adult in the country has to share in the burden as well. I think that's fair don't you?

The 48% that don't pay income taxes is because they don't make enough to pay and/or the standard deduction per person in the family leaves no income to tax. That statistic does not reflect those facts because the big "secret" that Republicans use with this figure would tell people that there are people in this country that don't make a "living" wage.

I have already explained that the obligation is greater because of the ability to pay and the obligation is also measured by the right to accumulate large amounts of money. I can't explain it any simpler.

Mike, in this discussion. I take your side. I do think, however, there is a point that demanding more of those who are the most successful financial both is unfair and unproductive. It works to diminish the reward for risk.

I don't know exactly what that percent would be but if the government (federal, state, local) start taking 50% of earnings, I think you are at that limit.

Mike, that's just how we set up the tax system. I hear all this complaining bout loopholes but that sure sounds like a loophole to me. I really don't want to hear people (I'm not saying you) who don't pay any income tax saying that I should pay more. If anything's not fair, that is.

"Living wage" is also subjective. I've lived on a wide range of income, from practically nothing, to something much more substantial. It's really a meaningless term like "fair."

You say that you've explained that the obligation is greater. You didn't really explain anything, you just made a statement that you believe the obligation is greater. Everyone in this country has the right to accumulate large sums of money, so everyone falls under the same umbrella, so everyone should pay taxes for it.

All I'm saying is that 48% of the population have lost the respect that comes with actually paying federal income tax. They are not special because they don't make very much money. Unless they have some skin in this game, they shouldn't tell anyone that taxes should be higher.

Here is why the obligation of the rich is greater:

They could have gone to Somalia and started a business, but, jeez, no electricity in Somalia. But there is electric grid in America paid by all tax payers. Clean water...same thing. They need police to protect thei businesses and countless mansions...no problem in America. In Jemen...big problem. They want to park their corporate jets somewhere, yeah, try to do it in Lybian desert. They need more roads, more airports, more of everything the tax payers pay for.

Once they got rich thanks to the infrastructure, thanks to the government which has worked out laws to protect businesses and enterpreneurs throughout centuries, all paid for by the taxpayers at a given time, they should pay back to the society that gave them the opportunity to become rich.

As for this 48%, this is not always same people who make this 48%. It's constantly changing, sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are less lucky, but there are not many people who belong to this 48% all their life long. Maybe you have been one of this 48%, maybe I will be one of this 48% one day, but not forever, so I don't see why I would deserve to be hated for that.

The rich gain more from the same taxation limits (more so than the poor) which is why they should pay more. Ugh this wasn't a hard question to answer. Oy

Jexkitty, the average man has all of the same benefits. They get to live their lives the way they do because of our infrastructure. I don't see why the rich owe more than anyone else for the same benefits.

I mean, since they pay most of the taxes, the 48 percent that don't owe a debt of gratitude to the rich. If they didn't pay all of those taxes, we wouldn't have this infrastructure. And the rich do pay back into the system. They pay more in percentage than anyone does.

I mean you're saying the government protects businesses thanks to the tax payers right? They're the only one's paying taxes! They're protecting themselves!

Of course the government protects businesses and entrepreneurs. Our country would be third world if it wasn't for our free market economy. It's funny how so many people say how much they hate businesses but love their products so much.

I'm not saying I hate the 48 percent that don't pay taxes. I just don't think they should be able to tell me what to do with my money since they don't even pay taxes themselves. I mean what arrogance on their part. You won't pay taxes but you want more of my money?

Mouzer, thanks for adding nothing. I wish you were half as smart as you think you are, then you might have something to add to the conversation. Le troll.

Everyone pays plenty of taxes to the federal govt. in this country. payroll tax, gas tax, electricity tax, phone tax, internet tax, just to mention a few. Police, firefighters, schools, infrastructure is payed for with state and local taxes including property taxes. Everyone pays those taxes, too.

This "48% don't pay taxes" thing is getting a little tiresome.

eaps is kind of tiresome, and still has other threads to answer to for trolling and not backing up wildly off-base statements. Hey, eaps, where's your proof about muslim societies being waaaaaaaay more violent than christian ones? Still waiting for substantiation, and I'm playing whack-a-mole with you now.

Back to the topic:

Eaps, when you have all the money, all the taxes will be coming from you because no one else has anything to give.

Tracking the percentage of overall taxes we're collecting from the rich is useless unless you're comparing it to the amount they're making, and then comparing those figures to the amounts the poor are making, and the percentage of that they're paying.

The rapidly disappearing middle class pays a much larger percentage of their income than the rich do, which is why you keep getting the comparison of Warren Buffet and his secretary. She pays a MUCH larger percentage of her paycheck to taxes than he pays of his, and he's perfectly content putting it out there in public that his percentage is probably half hers. Yes, he pays more taxes than she does, but he pays a much smaller percentage of his income than she does. 30% of 60,000.00 is 18,000.00. 15% of 600,000,000.00 is 90,000,000.00. So yes, he paid more, but he should have paid 180,000,000.00, which is the same percentage that his secretary pays.

The poor have no money to give because all of their funds are generally already spoken for before the paycheck even comes in. Rent and groceries, and they're done. Doctors? Medicine? Those things will just have to wait because the republicans are happily dismantling those programs, too. Education? Screw you!

Yes, the rich pay most of the taxes. They ought to be paying a LOT more. They've legislated and maneuvered all of the money to the top, and the only way the country is going to get some back is through taxes. And those taxes should be coming from the pre-offshoring of money into tax-free and tax-deferred accounts in the Cayman Islands, or in Switzerland....

Here's a graduated flat tax that should be seriously considered:

single/married/kids-per year

less than 20,000/25,000/30,000 - nothing. You're in enough trouble already.

40,000/45,000/50,000 - 10%

60,000/65,000/70,000 - 15%

80,000/85,000/90,000 - 20%

150,000 - 25%

250,000 - 30%

1,000,000 - 35%

5,000,000 - 40%

10,000,000 or more - 50%

No deductions, no loopholes, no special consideration for any reason. Pay your damned tax, and then do as you please with the rest.

@ John, if you take the time to actually read what I said, I said "federal income taxes." Those are the taxes that Democrats want to raise right? So I guess that's pretty relevant isn't it?

@ nut, seriously just google vidoes on violence in the Middle East. You'll find thousands of videos of people being stoned to death and having their hands cut off. But then again, that happens every day in American doesn't it.

Secondly, Warren Buffet is being dishonest. He's talking about capital gains taxes. I thought you might be intelligent enough to understand that but I guess I was wrong.

Funny though. He's an evil business man who's done evil things and now all of you libs are grovelling at his feet like he's some kind of messiah. You guys are so cute in your blind worship.

Ha! Education? Take out a loan like the rest of us do! What a loser mentality.

Why not just a flat tax then? Or why not start with taxing everyone making more than $30k a year like you say?

I don't know how no one here seems to get this concept. If you don't have any skin in the game you don't care what happens to the people that do. If you don't pay taxes then you have no right to tell other people that they need to pay more. Everyone should have to pay taxes. Until everyone does, taxes should not be raised on the rich. Besides, I do remember a lot of people here saying how patriotic it is to pay taxes. If that's the case then those 48% are obligated to actually pay taxes.

Every single American pays taxes eap. The only tax we're talking about here is federal income tax and no those who do not have a percentage of income high enough to pay federal income taxes should not be required to do it. The federal government should not be allowed to burden people with taxes to the point that it crushes them. Asking someone to go from a remaining income of 400,000$ a year to 381,000$ a year will not cause that person to go bankrupt, to starve, or otherwise cause that person harm. But asking someone to go from making 18,000$ a year to 11,000$ a year quite possibly will make them starve, bankrupt, or otherwise cause them harm. Since the wealthiest Americans get their wealth by this country that all of us pay for in one fashion or another, they have (as you put it) more skin in the game than the rest of us. And because of that they need to pay more money. This is not rocket science. The wealthiest Americans own more of the wealth than the rest of the nation and they use more of the services provided to them by the nation so they pay more. They can do so without it causing them harm. This is why it is patriotic- they are giving up some of their income to take care of all the rest of their citizenry and to keep running the very society that allowed them to become millionaires or billionaires in the first place. Beyond that it actually hurts the top 10% to force the bottom 90% to pay more in taxes because the more money the bottom 90% spends son taxation the less money the bottom 90% has to purchase the goods and services the top 10% needs in order to stay in the top 10%. Again this is not rocket science. Everyone gives what everyone can.

*spends on taxation

eapers, you're a troll. Why on earth would you tell me to do your research for you? If you want to prove a point, it's incumbent on you to do the legwork to make your case. I already know you're wrong. I'm just asking you to attempt validation of your claims.

Education? I'm talking about K-12, you silly goof! No one should have to pay for basic, elementary education. Also, having sent my children to private school for a time, I can tell you that those schools aren't better educationally because they answer to a bunch of wealthy parents who expect good news about their children, so the content is severely dumbed down to accomplish this. When my kids transferred to public schools, they were way behind academically! In California...!

And Warren Buffet is trying to highlight the fact that people who earn money working a job should not be paying more taxes on their income than people who make money by having money and don't have to pay income taxes, but pay capital gains instead, at a much lower rate. He's saying there shouldn't be two different tax structures, you ignorant individual, you! That isn't lying, but it's certainly operating in a space in which you're uncomfortable!

Jeepers eapers, it would be so nice if you wanted to participate in a conversation instead of feeling the need to attack people who have researched and thought out their opinions. What is your point? Do you honestly feel it's appropriate to cause more financial pain to the poorest of us? Do you really think it's good to have an insurance company standing between you and your doctor? Are you happy paying oil companies to drill, ruin the planet, and then gouge you at the pump? Is it okay for Big Pharm to overcharge the elderly for their medications? Are you actually happy with the direction this country is going, or do you just like to argue?

Here's a statement you'll be hard pressed to argue with: "We're number one: at trailing behind every other developed nation on the planet in every measurable category!!"

Awesome!!

Actually, you said both "federal income taxes" and you said "48% don't pay taxes".

But as long as we are talking about who should pay, or rather CAN pay federal taxes, lets look at some actual Census Bureau figures: To begin, nearly everyone, when you look at total taxes (federal, state, exemptions, sales, use, property, etc.) pays about 20% of their income in taxes of one form or another. it's actually a fairly flat tax structure in from the "global" perspective.

15% of the population earns less than $22K per year. Taxes = ~$4400. This leaves $17600 (roughly).

The bottom quintile of the population earns less than $26K per year. Taxes ~5200. Leaving $20.8K.

The TOP quintile earns at LEAST $200K per year. Taxes ~40K. Leaving $160K

The TOP 1% earns earns at LEAST $500K per year. Taxes ~100K. Leaving $400K.

If taxes go up or down, they will from a real dollars perspective, affect the affluent more than those in poverty. The argument we (as a country) are having now is whether a 1% or 3% or 10% increase on the top 20% to generate additional revenue for the government does more economic harm (by removing that capitol from private investment) than good (by using it in government investment).

I think we know which side is which politically speaking.

If we assume for a moment that taxes need to be raised, there is only one group of people on which it can be raised with any measurable increase to government revenue...the top 20%. (This is why Obama Admin keeps sticking with the "over $250K" math)

Pointing out that the bottom 48% of income earners don't pay federal taxes is not a justification against raising taxes...it's stating the obvious, they don't pay federal taxes because they don't have any money with which to pay.

@ nut, I'm just asking you to google it. I'd rather not post the filthy things that Arabs do to each other on this post. It's the kind of thing that could get you banned for life. Don't be lazy.

As far as education goes, what in the hell are you blathering about. We spend more on education now than ever before and it's not getting any better. Obviously money isn't the answer.

As for your new messiah Buffet. It's nice to see an 80 year old businessman that's already done his life of fleecing people gets a reprieve from liberals as soon as he panders to you. You guys are ridiculous! All you say is how evil businessmen are until one of them comes out and starts speaking your gibberish and now he's the smartest man on earth.

News for you, he's full of it! He could pay more taxes if he wanted! He's not walking the walk. Speaking of, are you? If you can send your kids to private school I'm sure you could pay more taxes. Why don't you walk the walk?

Besides, you want more than one tax structure you ignorant individual you! How else could you get away without taxing half of the population? If we had this dreaded flat tax, everyone would have to pay their fair share. Oh...makes you shake in your boots to think that everyone might have to actually pay taxes.

Jeapers nut. You sure do attack me a lot for someone who complains about me attacking people. Typical liberal double standard.

Yes, if having to pay your fair share of taxes as a poor person will cause financial pain, then yes. Even the poorest in this country isn't that poor. We give massive amounts of aid to the poor and they squander it. All it's done it give them a sense of entitlement for government money. Not all the money in the world is going to fix their problems. Maybe it's time to try something else like pulling the rug out from under them and making them act like adults for once.

Blah, blah, blah. Big oil! Big pharm! Big insurance! You sound like a broken record. All you do is complain and still pay them money. Your messiah President hasn't done anything to help. You're still paying money to these companies. Once again, why don't you walk the walk and cancel your insurance! Stop buying gas! Quit buying prescriptions from these evil companies that spent billions researching a drug that keeps you alive. How dare they spend billions on research and have the audacity to try to get that money back! Pure evil!

Finally, once again, walk the walk and leave this country if it's so bad. No one is stopping you. You can go to Europe for that liberal paradise you're looking for. I suggest you start with Greece so you can see how well your ideas have worked out.

It's a contradiction to say the poorest have federal aid therefore they can afford to pay more in taxes.

Yet that's what we do. It's redistribution of wealth. Our government is full of contradiction.

.....Eap if you are taxing someone who is so poor that you have to pay for them it's a contradiction. It doesn't make any sense. And that's not the government's proposal, that's yours. Are you saying conservative policies are contradictory in nature? I don't think John or RD would appreciate your condescending tone towards conservatives. Of course this is a liberal blog and such liberal statements are usually welcomed. Oh wait eap just did it again! Darn.

Ok here's why it makes sense. When people have something on the line they treat it with respect. This has been proven over and over again in studies.

When you just give someone something they treat it like it has no value. It doesn't matter if financially it's a wash. If they have to pay taxes then they will start treating the system with respect. That's why people on social welfare programs abuse them.

Check out http://www.coeduc.org/

They learned that if they gave books to students in Guatemala they lost them or destroyed them. By charging them even a small amount, the students maintained their books. The students learned that what they had had value because they had to pay for it. Until everyone on entitlement programs actually have to contribute these programs will only grow. So sure, it sounds like a contradiction but I think it's a took to make people independent of the system.

By the way, I'm only fiscally conservative. I'm socially liberal. I know how much liberals hate libertarians.

To extrapolate from the behavior of school children in Guatemala a set of cultural norms, behaviors and beliefs of 48 million people in the United States is quite a leap and requires explanation.

Unless you actually think that poor people have the intellect and maturity of children, then you can skip it.

Eaps, I say again: I won't do your legwork for you. I'm not asking for a subjective video, I'm asking for objective statistics, and you can't produce any, so how about you just stop saying stupid stuff, like comparing poor adult americans to guatemalan children...?

And liberals are annoyed by libertarians because libertarians are so short-sighted. Just because you don't have a child, and don't feel the need to pay into someone else's kid's education doesn't mean you won't be affected by that child's education, or lack thereof.

If the child is uneducated, it may come rob or mug you. If it's well educated, it might save your life, or make political decisions that affect your life, etc. Hopefully, at the very least, it will become a happy tax-paying citizen and you won't have to worry about it.

Whether or not you use a road regularly, doesn't mean you won't need to use it some day, and wouldn't it be nice if that road were there, and in good working order?

There are lots of things that don't seem to benefit the individual libertarian on the surface of things, but they depend on all of us eventually, like it or not. So yeah, not fond of libertarians. They don't think clearly either, because they can't conceive of (and plan for) consequences.

And Jeepers, eapers, spell it right! Jeepers, not jeapers! I'm playing on your screen name and using a 50's pseudo slang. You can't do the same to 'nut and have it work out cleverly. For me you would need to say: "whut, nut", or "gee, pea", something along those lines. Do you see what I did there? I gave you 'ammunition'. I did your thinking for you.

And I'm the one who's been smoking pot for more than 30 years?? :D

BTW, makes no sense, but social security, unemployment, etc, these things are taxed. It's considered income, and is therefore subject to taxation! The government taketh, then the government giveth, and then the government taketh away!! Again...

Humans are humans. It's just an example. Nice to know I can add psychology to the long list of topics you're lacking understanding in.

I get it. No matter what I say you're just going to want people to get free stuff without having to put forward any effort.

@ nut, I could care less about why you don't like libertarians. You're close minded and don't like anyone that doesn't agree with you. It's not complicated.

kira_d, you quote good scripture but this applies to Christians and the church. Some of what has hurt the church has been their willingness to give up the command to provide for those in need to the government. These directives were for followers of Christ to actually do, not the government.

As a side note, there was actually a narrow gate in the wall around Jerusalem called "the eye of the needle." It was difficult to get a camel through this gate, not impossible. When one is completely self-sufficient (or thinks that he is), it is easy for him/her to think he/she does not need God.

Ugh Buffet actually donates the majority of his income to charities or to taxes....

Now that he is 80 years old he does. The Left forgets how he made his billions. They lso misphrase things, like saying he donates the "majority". Obviously, he keeps the majority. He has set up a trust for after his death. He does kick in to his daughters charity, etc.

Now- if I understand the Left's point- they say 2) he pays less a tax rrate than his Secretary, and b) he donates heavily- Is the Left proposing that we no longer allow deductions for donating to qualified charities? Sounds like that is the combination of a) + b)

I have never said I admired how Buffet made his billions, neither have I seen other progressives say anything like that. It is Rusty that came up with that distraction to take the focus off of what WAS said, that billionaires (all, not just him) should pay higher taxes. We are a nation that puts ideas on the table, debates merits and lets public petition Congress their opinions in various forms.

It is Buffet that has said he pays less income tax than his Secretary

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

We happen to agree that the rich should pay more taxes.

There are many ways to accomplish that, to be debated. To be honest, I seriously doubt they will allow tax deductions for qualified charitable donations. It would seem more likely they would restructure taxable income percentage and possibly remove some other deductions, or just increase the capital gains.

One thing about how Buffet made his money. In 1972 Charles Munger took his friend Warren Buffet to a See's Candy Store after dinner. Warren Buffet loved the candy he had at so much he and Charles Munger through their company Berkshire Hathaway bought it.

The quality of See's candy has never diminished since then. It is some of the best candy I have ever tasted. It is a good wholesome American candy. Whatever else Warren Buffet may have done he didn't sell out a truly great American product. And it's still manufactured in the good old U.S. of A.

That is admirable Maria! Love me some Sees … and made in the U.S.! I love the little stores where you can taste and select your favorites.

Thanks, who knew?

LATE correction to 23:3:

To be honest, I seriously doubt they will allow tax deductions for qualified charitable donations.

should be DIS- allow tax deductions for qualified charitable donations.

Wow, that was racist.

It's funny how hateful liberals get when women and minorities come out as Republicans. You're all for equal justice and women's lib...unless they're conservative...

Nah, Eisenhower. I LIKE IKE!! Talk about a republican who couldn't get elected by his party today...