Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The Invincible Lie: Part II

PV Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 5:53 PM
Sorry wmou, Revenue increases following the respective marginal tax rate reductions: Kennedy - 30% increase in revenues Reagan - 60% increase in revenues Bush - almost 40% increase in revenues
In response to:

The Invincible Lie: Part II

PV Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 5:49 PM
The effective tax rate of middle class families in the 1950s was 5%. This enabled families to live very well on one income and have a full-time parent at home. I believe that the modern need for two-income families completely arises just from the need of paying all of the extra taxes that have been levied and increased, and the costs of day care because no one is still at home.
In response to:

The Invincible Lie

PV Wrote: Jul 12, 2012 12:52 PM
Go bark at the moon, doggy thing.
In response to:

Jobs Versus Net Jobs

PV Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 4:50 PM
And with the adverse selection bias built into the operational foundation of Obamacare (BOTax), health insurance companies will pay increasing claims against declining or stagnant premium receipts, and all the while with the government sending an non-ending stream of new mandated coverages and regulations their way. Adverse selection is an insurer's great nightmare where the risk holders increasingly are the ones requiring payment for treatments, and the healthy younger people who would subsidize the system are staying out. Premiums don't cover expenses. After full implementation, the insurance company-dominated system will collapse very quickly.
Democrats promote these irrational increases in the minimum wage because of two reasons: First, and most important, most union contracts are indexed against the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage provides all of these union employees automatic increases without any additional bargaining. Second, it provides an opportunity for their favorite past time - class warfare. Fortunately for them, most of us have been so dumbed-down regarding anything of an economic nature that they get a complete pass although they destroy the very people they claim to champion. They know this and couldn't care less if they benefit politically.
Whatever we want to say about it, I still can't understand this decision's circular logic. It is unconstitutional for the government to mandate an individual to buy insurance... but it's okay to make him pay a tax if he doesn't honor the mandate.
Pat, one of the ways they "capture" this money is by pretending to hire their children and other family members as campaign staff.
Dan, isn't it a shame that it seems most of the time we are in a position of voting "against" someone? Wouldn't it be great to have a candidate you were really for?
Ivan, I think you are exactly correct that the real issue he is trying to conceal is that he lied to get a scholarship by claiming foreign status (just like his father used to get his US education). It's ironic, but Obama is actually the original "birther" by claiming birth in Kenya on his literary bio sketch.
yankette, I agree but also think how they acquired their wealth is an important driver of their attitude. Those who built companies over many years and expended great effort are not probably going to feel guilty about their good fortune. However, those who come into a great deal of money quickly (ie actors, musicians, media types) realize that there was a great deal of luck in their good fortune and think that all others who become wealthy also are just life's lottery winners. I think these types are the ones who feel guilty.
Although Sanger set the stage and expressed all the attitudes you describe, she actually was an opponent of abortion. She preferred birth control. But there is no doubt that Planned Parenthood is her progeny.
Previous 11 - 20 Next