democrats
 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope..._plan_elec.htm

yet another example of how neither side has your best interests at heart. two years ago they got elected offering the change obama is now promising and the change has been for the WORSE. fuck both parties. fuck em

"dignified retirement for all" basically translates into; if you and the guy working next to you earn the same in a life time but you invest in a home equity and retirement and he invests in speedboats and hookers, HE then gets access to social security while YOU get nothing. hes the one who needs it right? wheres my incentive to be financial responsible? why should i work at all when having 5 kids and no job will get me a big government check each month, guaranteed!

ps, i know the repubs hate porn. so what? they havent stopped it yet while dems each time elected ALWAYS take a bit more of my revenue.

Mccain gets in they will have motion already against porn, it will be felt. Taxes is part of life, you are going to pay one way or another. Someone has to pay for the wars.

sooner or later the porn debate will be moot when your hours of work and my hours of watching tv are balanced out by the socialists you keep electing. why sling porn when you can do nothing and the government will pay you anyways for your "effort"?

Ok so you'd rather have $800 a month instead of $8000, gotcha.

By the way the guy mostly likely to be investing in speedboats and hookers is the rich guy.

it's just like when millionaire's bitch about possibly taxes going from 35% ot 39%. I WISH I made enough to pay 39% in taxes. I mean WTF, how much do you need?

If you actually believe in that bullshit you just said please kill yourself now.

id rather have the $8000 I EARNED. unfortunately that $8000 is under constant attack by dems who want to subsidize the masses who dont save and will ultimately DEPEND on that $800 who they cry; "i deserve more". in the end, they want every paycheck you make to first go threw them, giving them the power to choose how much of the money you earned actually goes to you. its annoying that i sacrifice today so i dont have to rely on the government and im getting fucked for it. sooner or later people will wake up and realize that de-incentivising working hard and saving money will result in a majority depending on the government and a select few putting money into it.

btw, that how "much do you really need" argument is what lazy retards use to justify their expectation of getting something for nothing. why dont YOU write a check to a charity with the remaining balance you have after rent/food/clothes is paid for each month? what more do you really need beyond those three things anyways and shouldnt you sacrifice tv, cable, sports car, movie tickets, surround sound and all the other things you spend your money on? there are people who dont even have a consistent supply of food so why shouldnt you go without until the government has a chance to use the money you work hard for to bring them to your level. they deserve it right?

Which way to da bread lines comrade?

The greatest tax increases during peace time in the history of this country were during reagan.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

in one post you call it bullshit and another you justify it. interesting.

Before the new deal and the gi bill. There was no middle class just rich and poor. Most here would of been in the poor category.
Also those who make money on the net if it wasnt for the government there would be no net to make money on.
Marc Andreessen: Mosaic was built at the University of Illinois. I was an undergrad student, but I was also a staff member at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, which is basically a federally funded research institute. When Al Gore says that he created the Internet, he means that he funded these four national supercomputing centers. Federal funding was critical. I tease my libertarian friends—they all think the Internet is the greatest thing. And I’m like, Yeah, thanks to government funding.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/23319.html

how long until that top 1% move their money into tax shelters overseas bankrupting the government? with more and more socialized programs in the works, who will fund them? how about instead of democrats/republicans we consider a 3rd party candidate who is for responsible spending? someone who knows how to stretch a dollar instead of looking for ways to spend it to justify taking more. gatorb wishes he made enough to pay 39%. what about 50%? 75%? wheres the line that you would say "its no longer in my interests to get up each day and work at mcdonalds when i can get more in welfare and housing subsidies by telling the government "i just cant find a job". why dont we just send them 100% and let them decide who gets what? im sure in gatorb's lifetime he'll see a hint of this imposed on even his income range (under $25k/year) because those who the government had been milking moved out of country. i cant wait!

if it goes back to clinton rates no one was starving. In fact there was great prosperity. Also W cut taxes and went to war and look at the mess we are in now.

Also the tax foundation seems to have a history of misleading numbers
http://www.cbpp.org/5-10-99tax2.htm

Food for thought http://www.townhall.com/columnists/A...&Comments=true