Then we saw as Obama completely attacked Ryan, saying he wanted old people to be put on the streets, and disabled children to "fend for themselves" under the Ryan plan.

 

Unreal. Exactly the stuff that Obama promised he wouldn't do if elected.

 

He has so poisoned the well that there is no way the two parties will work together after that showing...

 

And Standard and Poors agrees. As yesterday they sent the stock market reeling by downgrading the US credit worthiness.

 

They said they only hold a one in three chance that the US will keep its AAA credit rating.

 

And what is Obama's plan to fix his massive spending...

 

By taxing the "rich" of course, good old class warefare. So typical of the left. We have seen what an utter failure keynesian economics are, and yet, every chance the democrats get, they just want to spend more on social programs and more "investments" in our future... When it clearly hasn't worked. Typcially in a recession they are over quickly, but with the government spending more than any government in the history of the world, as they are convinced this will work. Instead of recovery we get further problems.

 

And the sad thing is, many people will probably still vote for the democrats again... As the media and our higher learning are totally in the tank for these failed policies, and help to demagogue anyone who speaks out against them.

 

While blaming bush for the failed "everyone deserves home ownership" Democratic ideal that actually caused this mess to begin with.

 

Just keep spending, just keep spending...

Yeah, exactly.  There is absolutely no place in politics for that kind of extreme exaggeration to the point were it is no more than a lie just to scare people.  Here are a few more examples of this "unreal" tactic. 

FE wrote:   One question. If there is a government body that rations healthcare, would that group or individual be considered a death panel?

fe wrote: . Sounds like a death panel to me. Remember, the government knows better than you...

Those poor, poor 1%. 

Just look how victimized they are with all the class warfare! 

 

Why don't you work for what you get and instead of begrudging success, achieve some for yourself?

 

 

The problem with the idiology of "soak the rich" is that even if the government took 100% of the income from the top 1% of earners it wouldn't even cover ONE year of what the current demcrats are spending...

 

But, that gets ignored, while the shrieks of "tax the rich" are heard.

 

Whale are people making $250,000 a year rich? You know like the small business owner who is just trying to run a business and manage the risks from this "kill business" democratic political enviroment we live in today.

 

I had a meeting today with a guy who started a buisness 4 years ago. He decided to start manufacturing a product that is used all over the country, but is only manufactured out of the country.

 

When he started, the government was taxing his product 5 cents per box.

 

Today, FOUR years later, the democrats have increased his tax to 25 cents per box. After he has spend a fortune on new equipment, bought a building and is only now starting to get inroads on the foreign produced competition who sell based on price...

 

Oh and the sister product that is used with this product had a tax of $1 per bag. But the democrats didn't like that either, so they raised it to $25 per bag now...

 

The democrats only want to "soak" every business owner and demonize them for trying to be successful in this country that was founded on Free Enterprise.

 

And our media follows along just like whale... He will be a good little journalist, doing his masters bidding without ever questioning the false ideals it proposes.

 

"Hate the rich, those greedy, sorry, unpatriotic people."

 

That is a disgustingly arrogant world view, but clearly the democratic party loves to play that card. And even worse, the media follows along and parrots it at every opportunity.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_on_re_us/us_no_taxes - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_on_re_us/us_no_taxes

 

Good old liberal bias flooding our "free" press.

 

 

 

I always laugh when you guys quote me, and it proves me right yet again... But, because you don't pay attention, you think you "got" me in some way.

 

Over time, Truth always wins...

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/major-democrat-signs-on-plans-to-repeal-real-death-panel/ - http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/major-democrat-signs-on-plans-to-repeal-real-death-panel/

 

"Rep. Allyson Schwartz, Pennsylvania Democrat and vice-chair of the New Democrat Coalition, has asked her colleagues to support legislation that would repeal Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

I'm not suggesting theft. I'm suggesting that those with the most wealth and income pay a comparable fair-share of taxes. 

\

Corporate taxes are at an all-time low, yet businesses are still complaining about how they are apparently taxed enough. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml - A significant amount of American companies are not paying any tax. 

Not only that, but people are working for what they get. It's just that what they get has been stagnent for decades, as you can see from my previous chart. All the while the top have been making more as their taxes continue to drop: 

And I agree with you. Spending needs to be cut. But it's silly to think that cutting spending will somehow fix everything. It's a problem of revenue as well. 

I figure I would contrast this quote with some of FE's previous statements:

FreeEnterprise wrote: Aaand the personal attacks start.

FreeEnterprise wrote:  You only have attack, and belittle your opponent.

FreeEnterprise wrote: course that didn't fit your attack narrative

FreeEnterprise wrote: You attack me So typical, and predictable.

FreeEnterprise wrote: That ^ is a personal attack.

FreeEnterprise wrote: wow... nice personal attack there... Guess you can go back to talking to yourself again...

 

It is misdirection, at best, and yet it is the push of democrats and the media all over. When it is class warfare plain and simple.

 

Again, if you took 100% of the top 1% it wouldn't even cover one year of the runaway spending, and has Obama gotten serious about cutting spending?... Nope, the only thing he has said is to cut the militiary...  and raise taxes on those making 200 or 250 and more.

 

While we are now in 3 wars...

 

Brilliant.

 

And the media talks about how he is the only adult in the room... Really?

 

We have to cut spending. YOU guys are currently putting all of your future earnings into this pile of garbage coming out of Washington, and you pretend like it won't affect you, and worse, doesn't matter. When you will be paying for Obamanomics for the rest of your lives... How many of us know people who can't get jobs now because of the mess politicians have created. But, don't worry, we will pay them anyway, even though those jobs have gone overseas until we get back into the business of supporting small business in America.

 

Course since many of you get your news from Comedy central, and ignore the issues at hand it is no wonder they take advantage of you. They know seniors wouldn't put up with it. But, the youth... They are playing you for fools. And you guys support it...

 

 

They earned the right not to have to pay taxes? 

Nobody is seriously suggesting to tax them for all they have. Nobody is seriously saying they don't "deserve" their earnings. 

They are asking them to actually pay their fair share of taxes, considering they have the majority of the wealth: 

And statistically pay one of the lowest levels of tax, if any at all. 

 

But, you never talk about how the same guys you champion are the ones that cause the mess?... Why?

 

This book would help you understand why the progressive democratic viewpoint is so flawed.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159797417X?ie=UTF8&tag=breakpoint-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=159797417X - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159797417X?ie=UTF8&tag=breakpoint-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=159797417X

 

"The progressive tax system is based on envy, the “resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage.” … the modern U.S. tax code was imposed in response to so-called progressives agitating against the natural inequality in wealth distribution. Basing public policy on envy teaches people to nurture their natural tendency toward this vice, instead of to resist and rise above it. It encourages everyone to think himself a victim and perpetuates resentment because there will always be something to envy."

 

And the real kicker is if that is what you're using as the definition of "death panels," private insurance companies have been http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/11/denial_of_care - operating death panels for years. 

And pretty much every other big business that doesn't pay their own fair share. Yep. 

If it's Democrats doing it, I don't like it. If it's Republicans, I don't like it either. 

Getting some incentive to produce green technology, to a point, is fine. But them paying next to nothing is unacceptable, no matter who they support, Democrat or Republican. Especially when they continue to move jobs elsewhere and stagnate worker pay. 

The top earners are able to game the system, though, on both sides of the party spectrum. That chart of businesses who don't pay their taxes showcases that. And I bet that most of those companies heavily fund both Democrats and Republicans. 

Yet somehow the only one you bring up is GE. 

Like other issues and threads, I suspect the reasoning is "Because, Democrats." 

 

Why? All you bring is comedy central links...

 

Do you want to enter the adult conversation? Then ask a question based on what is going on instead of what John tells you is going on.

 

Did you even watch the speech by Obama?

 

The problem I have is that Presidents are suppost to be different than typical politicians. Look at the way Bush hasn't ever said ONE WORD of criticism towards Obama, And then look at how Obama blames Bush for everything.

 

See the difference?

 

Oh wait, John didn't do a newscast on that yet, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about, huh?...

 

Come on, dude, if it is on COMEDY CENTRAL, it probably isn't a good source for "unbiased" news coverage...

 

 

I bolded the obvious problem with your viewpoint.

 

Government should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers. And the progressives entire ideology is based on doing exactly that.

 

When the government "provides incentives" they are taking from one guy and giving it to another. Why is it OK for the government to give you a break to buy a washing machine, but not give me a break because I bought mine a week before they issued the "incentive".

 

By choosing winners and losers they are by definition making the playing field unfair. Something you pretend to be against, except you advocate for it all the time.

 

Then why exactly during the Wisconsin teachers situation were you so supportive of WalMart getting hefty tax cuts? 

Like, remember when you said this: 

FreeEnterprise wrote:   Because unlike the public unions, a new wal-mart brings in TAX REVENUE to the state. And that is the goal of government to increase their tax base by helping to bring in business.

 

 

Unions are tax exempt.

 

Wal-mart is not.

 

 

Why are unions tax exempt? Oh yeah, because the Democrats want them to be winners, so they get an unfair advantage.

 

Should wal-mart get an unfair advantage over the small business who could never get that kind of tax break?... Not in a perfect world. But, sadly we live with a government full of corruption where they choose winners and losers daily.

 

Small businesses are too small to get the influence to get the deals. Does that mean I wish they didn't get the deals that other companies who are larger get?... Of course not, I wish we could get them too. But that doesn't mean I think they are the right thing for the government to do.

 

Like I said, government should not be choosing winners and losers, and yet, today it seems like that is all that they do now.

 

Freddie and fannie, chose to reward the poor with loans they knew they could never repay. (democrat idea) Al Gore got the government to give billions in incentives to help the green movement "win". (democrat idea)

Come January you won't be able to buy 100 watt bulbs in the US anymore (democrat idea) and the only light bulb manufacturers will be run out of business by the democrats.

Chrysler failed, but the democrats didn't want them to fail, so they bailed them out and GAVE the company to the union...

 

Now with Obamacare, the government will tell you what healthcare you can have, and how much they will pay. Again choosing winners and losers...

 

Worst part is, the media doesn't even look into issues like the ones brought up in this video concerning Obama and his laws and the way the unions are gaming the system.

Ohh, so that's what you meant, when on Feb 23 you said: 

So is the government "selecting a winner" a good thing or a bad thing? 

Freddie and fannie, chose to reward the poor with loans they knew they could never repay. (democrat idea) Al Gore got the government to give billions in incentives to help the green movement "win". (democrat idea)

And let's see how those things compare to the Bush tax cuts when looking at the projected deficit: 

Come January you won't be able to buy 100 watt bulbs in the US anymore (democrat idea) and the only light bulb manufacturers will be run out of business by the democrats.

 

It's an update of environmental regulation. Did oil companies get run out of business when unleaded gasoline was mandated? 

Most every bulb company has already begun putting out incandescent bulbs that meet the new requirements. Not to mention, the light bulb companies make the compact fluorescents people will be buying as replacements when their existing incandescents run out. 

I've got one of the updated incandescent bulbs in my bathroom.  

I guess I'm just confused when you say both this:

And this:

FreeEnterprise wrote:  The tax break is just a partnership with the business showing good faith for long term success of both parties involved.

 

 

impulse418 wrote: I'm truly grateful to be alive. I get to watch our economy, the house of cards, crumble in my life time. You guys think Katrina was bad......

 

Again, by picking winners and losers they make the playing field uneven, and by definition ruin the system. But, that is what absolute power does, it corrupts absolutely.

 

Again, the government has NO business picking winners and losers.

 

We don't have a taxing problem in the country, we have a SPENDING problem. And a government too busy picking winners and losers to realize they are destroying what made our country great.

 

And since the democrats didn't even pass a budget when they were in control of the house, senate, and Presidency, they have zero credibility to bash on Ryans plan, since it is the ONLY plan that is being discussed. They didn't even do their job and pass a budget, and was the media calling for them to pass a budget...

 

Nope.

 

 

Back to the light bulbs, GE closed their last incandescent plant last fall, they now make their bulbs overseas. winners and losers indeed.

http://www.thetandd.com/business/article_3a7049d4-5cc1-11e0-8ded-001cc4c03286.html - http://www.thetandd.com/business/article_3a7049d4-5cc1-11e0-8ded-001cc4c03286.html

 

Wrong. 

Not compact fluorescent. Updated incandescent bulbs using halogen to meet the requirements. 

Again, I'll ask: Did oil companies go out of business when unleaded gasoline became a mandate? 

Why are you confused? Today the government clearly picks winners and losers. So as a business, you must learn to conform to the massive regulations, and restrictions, and taxes and do your best to still succeed.

 

Would you suggest that I don't donate to charity and collect the tax incentive? Or maybe not collect the tax break for the interest I pay on my home?

 

You work within the constraints of the system you are involved in, even when you don't agree.

 

You are making it sound like I should just stop paying taxes because my tax dollars fund abortion...

 

Clearly you can't do that...

So if the government will give you a tax break (make you a winner) then you take it, because that is the system in place. That is why I think giving wal-mart a break is a good thing, even when it conflicts with my views on the proper place for government.

 

A system that by its nature is flawed and unjust.

 

FE wrote: Did you even watch the speech by Obama?

Yes and I nearly fell asleep like Biden did.

 

FE wrote: The problem I have is that Presidents are suppost to be different than typical politicians.

I can agree with that, but if you're honestly suggesting Obama is the first to be like this then you're intentionally deluding yourself.

FE wrote: Look at the way Bush hasn't ever said ONE WORD of criticism towards Obama, And then look at how Obama blames Bush for everything. See the difference?

Yeah, the difference is that's not what you were originally talking about at all. In the OP you started crying about Obama being mean to those poor republican congressmen. Now it's suddenly about blaming Bush.

I feel Bush isn't commenting on anyone's performance because it will bring increasing scrutiny on the job he did. Bush deserves blame for issue he had a hand in, nothing more. Maybe if you've got examples of Obama wrongfully blaming Bush we could delve into that topic later on.

 

FE wrote: Oh wait, John didn't do a newscast on that yet, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about, huh?...

This is why nobody likes you on this forum. Well, one of the reasons nobody likes you.

 

FE wrote: Come on, dude, if it is on COMEDY CENTRAL, it probably isn't a good source for "unbiased" news coverage...

I turn to real news outlets for my news, not Jon Stewart's fake news. I turn to Jon and his fake news show for a little comedic relief because total immersion in the 24-hour news cycle will make a person go insane. Just look at how it has affected Glenn Beck.

Does Jon present bias? Yes. Is that bias on par with 24 hour news channel bias? Not hardly. You should check out his sketches on media bias some time. You'll notice I said sketch, not report.

I do look forward to your on-topic, non-direction-changing response. Good luck.


-------------

So doing something that you see as fundamentally wrong is fine as long as you are in a position where it will benefit you?

Sounds a lot like something you rally against: 

 

FreeEnterprise wrote: instead of bashing the majority of Americans who don't have a "relative" morality problem.

 

I just hold the President to a different standard than typical politicians. As they are the commander in chief, and suppost to be leaders.

 

Obama clearly has never led, and like I said before he was elected, he would be a lousy leader...

 

And I was right. He has no clue how to make a deal, or even how to command respect. His leadership qualities are inept, and lack credibility.

 

He has never taken responsibility for anything he has done, and is always ready to lay the blame at the feet of anyone else. While always ready to take accolades even when others are the ones deserving.

(like when he claimed victory for the "largest spending cut in history"... that he was against...)

 

 

 

 

Whale, working within the system of law and regulations isn't "relative morality".

So abortions are fine? 

I thought it sounded very familiar based on a recent thread.

Since I'm getting exasperated I will follow that advice shortly as I feel these debates are getting pretty repetitive. Let's flash back 20 years. 

Act I-The Cold War ended, Al-Queda was being formed, and George HW Bush raised taxes, giving Clinton the win in 1992. Thanks to that partially to that, Clinton and congress balanced the budget (I'll give credit where it is due since I believe in co-equal branches of gov't unlike FE) paid off WWII, and ended up with a surplus. 

Act II-The DotCom bubble burst, we had a minor recession. George W. Bush was elected(notice how I'm not repeating a discredited rumor that he stole an election, which makes me less of a moral relativist than FE and others) and decided to cut taxes across the board(temporarily) to help boost the economy, which was good timing since our economy took a huge hit with 9/11 even before the war spending and exploding gas prices. Some democrats derided extending these cuts to the wealthy, which may or may not have made financial/ ideological sense and largely relied on class warfare rhetoric to make their point and didn't gain much of an audience. In the meantime, companies like GM were not adapting to rising gas prices, Bush-era market deregulation and computerized trading removed a lot of market fail-safes, and Fanni and Freddy were being horribly mismanaged. In addition to this, we were fighting two wars more expensive than WWII while keeping taxes low. Mainly lefty moon bats are freaking out, nobody pays much attention. Jon Stewart ridicules Code Pink.

Act III- Katrina, near economic collapse, bank bailouts and TARP. Russia invades Georgia, Israel cracks down in Gaza, the US launches raids in Syria. Ammo prices and weapons sales skyrocket in the US. Obama is elected, the world isn't fixed overnight, and the tax cuts are extended for every income bracket. Plenty of people on either side of the aisle are justifiably freaked out and looking for scapegoats and demagogues. Enter Glenn Beck and the birthers. Continued bailouts, health-care reform nobody likes, and a continuing recession combine with a new party concerned with the long-term consequences of unprecedented debt spending cost Democrats the House. The new party attracts some wingnuts, the media focuses on them. People in the movement deny them, then once they accept their existence, pander to them when the election cycle starts back up(Most recently Trump). 

There's your quick history lesson of the last 20 years, going light on the war details and foreign policy in general. I think it nicely explains the crazy state of politics that extends to this forum. We clearly need to balance the budget, and we have to do this with tax reform and cuts. Even those on all but the lunatic fringe of the right (FE) are saying we need to raise additional revenues, everybody (including military brass) thinks we should cut some spending. FE is proposing we cut investments in our future to include education and infrastructure since this is somehow going to help the economy, which by his definition is measured by how much the richest 2% make. According to him the rich should pay no more, if not less than they do now and the difference should be made up by some combination of taxing the lower classes more and cutting the benefits they've been paying for. Apparently to fix the country all we need to do is roll back government structure to the early 1929 since the Great Depression would have played out anyways (If not the 1830's Jacksonian era so all white men can vote and we won't have income taxes in our constitution) and our war debt will somehow disappear(After we nuke China). 

Please FE, propose how you would fix the debt without turning us into a 3rd World nation or trying to out-China China. You propose intentionally causing wages and standards of living to plummet to remain competitive and completely ignoring paying off the debt already created by wars and bailouts because you wish the spending didn't happen.  You claim to be a business expert, explain why businesses (actually private individuals since they're claiming profits as raw income)  need the money to invest in their future but the government can't invest in building an educated, healthy, populace that will have to work into their 70's in a variety of high-skilled jobs to keep us afloat and pay down the debt even in the best scenarios? Or are you betting that the world will just end so you can be carried away by your invisible sky-daddy to play a harp on a cloud before any of that becomes a reality?

 

A couple of things you said that bug the hell out of me-

 

FreeEnterprise wrote: Yeah, steal from anyone who has "more" than you...

 

Since when is taxation "stealing"? Are you arguing against tax brackets, or just taxation in general? I realize you love to make wise ass comments, but seriously, if you took more time to break down your argument instead of trying to be sarcastic, this whole process would go alot smoother.

 

FreeEnterprise wrote: I defend the top earners because THEY EARNED IT...

There's the other thing he usually implies, that people always have a choice.

I get paid about $1200 a month, working full time to teach people how to fly. Taxes will grab about $200 of it. The rest goes to repay my loans. Rent and food come from outside help, and It may well be from the government if I can't get into the military any time in the next year. I work my ass off to be poor.

I can't get better paying jobs because I don't have the experience. I can't work a second job because my ability to fly safely goes down with fatigue. You can always tell me to do some other 40 hour per week job that pays more.. but don't expect to fly anywhere with that attitude, considering most US airline pilots started in similar situations to mine.

I can however guide 12 aeroplanes through thunderstorms and squall lines from 16 000' to 3 000' for a CAT IIIb ILS in 10 minutes. KBK

With adequate separation?! Have a talk with the controllers where I fly, please. KISM tower confuses tail numbers, gives ambiguous commands, and will routinely put me in between a bonehead in a Cirrus and a P-51 on overhead while I'm on final. We're told to go around for the warbirds and business jets all the time. Ground is no better. This one lady that works here just butchers the shift. Quote of the month (after 5 minutes of trying to call the freq) is "Oh, sorry. I wasn't paying attention." Another controller once told to turn into the path of a jet on final.

It's a small airport outside Orlando, which is our approach control for operations to the North. They're a welcome break from the madness we experience daily.

The rest of the problems come from the bajillion students answering to the wrong tail number. It's bad enough the tower gets confused when students don't mess up. It's a drunken party when the pilots get involved. Combined with the varied distance of downwind legs (people fly a mile or more away, a proper pattern is 1/2 for small aircraft), it's a wonder our controllers just don't quit.

 

I come from a very wealthy family... If I put down the names of the companies that my family has started or financed, you would all recognize them. Cities and towns are named after my family, as they helped found the US. We have many elected officials, and I even have a relative who signed the declaration of independence.  I don't talk about it for a reason. But, it is time for you to learn what I have learned from my personal experience growing up in a family that has always had a "silver spoon" if you will.

 

Family money can be a curse, not a blessing. I know you are rolling your eyes. But, it is true. Go back 3 generations and you have my great grandfather who's family wanted his money so bad that when he died, his cousins come and BURNED his will and documents. They took what "they deserved" and left his widow (my grandfathers mom) with the house and any assets she was able to keep when the state came to collect. (still a very sizeable amount)

 

The state of PA ended up with their estate. It is now a state park.

 

My Grandfathers brothers and sisters fought over the considerable money left when his mother died. One sibling took the majority of the family heirlooms, and the others just went at it on their own, and never spoke to her again, she died alone with her stuff. My mom got in good with her (just to get said stuff) before she died, and became executor of her will and ended up getting sued because of the way she manipulated the estate for her own personal gain. The rest of the family just took the money they got, started their own businesses, invested, and grew that fortune. Because of their family name, many married other wealthy families. As money typically marries money.

 

Most of them were very successful. In fact, at family gatherings, it looks like a mercedes dealership, with signature models all over the place. Or jaguars, or BMW's. My cousin got a brand new 7 series for her 16th birthday. Her mom is extremely famous in NYC fashion scene. Their house on long island is worth hundreds of millions.

 

Her husband committed suicide. Her personal life is in ruins. But, hey, she has lots of money!...

 

Money never buys happiness. Family money is even worse, as some family members fight, steal and cheat each other out of anything they can because they don't want to work or learn from others, they just want to get it by any means necessary.

 

It is all based on greed, as people want what other people have by nature. This focus will destroy your life. And your world view helps shape this greedy viewpoint.

 

Take my parents for example. My mom was brought up in this very wealthy family, my grandmother (her mom) passed away a couple of years ago.

 

My grandmother was an amazing influence in my life. She always had time to spend with me, and would talk to me about the many issues she had seen in her life. My faith and committment to help others came from her massive contributions to society. She was kind, honest, and had integrity. I care about you guys, even though I have never met most of you. Because you are young and have a chance to be successful in life, if you make the right choices.

 

But, her daughter (my mom) went the other direction. She let greed control her life, and was never satisfied with what she had earned. She always felt she deserved more. So every chance she got, she manipulated, and stole whatever she could. Her husband (my dad) went to some of the best schools, and had a great job, but it wasn't enough, as my mom always felt she deserved the kind of lifestyle that my grandparents had... (cause life can't be good unless you have maids, cooks, and groundskeepers!)

 

 

When my grandparents on my dads side died last year, she and my dad cut me out of the will so that they could keep all of my grandparents money... And within a month of my grandmother being buried they purchased a million dollar house in NC.

 

They didn't even go to the gravesite to watch my grandmother being put in the ground next to my grandfather... All she cared about was their money. I was very close to my grandmother and grandfather and the pain is great at their loss as they were like parents to me, I am tearing up writing this. My sister and brother used them and their money while badmouthing them as they weren't from family money and "beneath" them socially, but my grandparents actually earned every dime they had. My grandfather worked his tail off for his entire life 9-5 in a steel mill, renting and saving until he could pay cash for his first house. He saved every dime he could and sent my dad to the best schools, where he met my mom...

 

He lived a modest life, worked for Huntington Alloys in WVa, and saved millions in his life. Millions that my parents will now blow in a matter of years, based on their previous history whenever they get family money.

 

My grandfather had an idea that his son would end up stealing his money, and not taking care of his wife, so he told me how much was in his will for my family, as he was very close to me and my family for the right reasons. I made sure my grandmother was taken care of until she passed away last year.

 

I know I will never see a dime of that money.

 

And you know what, I have every right to be bitter, and greedy and sue them for MY FAIR SHARE... right?

 

 

Nope, I want to earn my own way. Not because it wouldn't help having a large inheritance, but because I don't want to be part of my parents lives. Greed will destroy you, and being jealous of others just destroys your heart. I haven't talked to my parents in years. I saw them at the funeral last year, but I didn't say a word, as they have made their choices in life, and they will have to face their maker and explain why they did what they have done.

 

They never see my kids, (their grandkids) and we never visit. All because of their greed, manipulation and lies.

 

But, hey, they live in a million dollar house... So it is worth it, right?....

 

I lay my head down at night and sleep like a baby, because I don't have guilt over my head from trying to "get" stuff from others.

 

We all get to chose in life, and we can all be successful, but it takes us deciding that we will go after what we want, and keep trying until we succeed. I know this is true, as I have seen countless members of my family make something of themselves. (Now many would say it was because of their "name" but, I don't have the family name, and I have been successful...)

 

Success is what we chose to do with our lives, and what goals we make. Every single one of us has the same opportunities once we get out of school to do what we want. But, most people don't make a plan for their lives. They just let life happen to them. Then they complain about their choices, as if someone should have given them success on a silver platter...

 

Life isn't fair. If you want to get anything in life you have to go out and earn it yourself.

 

If you want to have happiness in your life, your first step is to realize that you are a sinner, and you on your own will make bad choices. You need a relationship with Christ as the foundation of your life. Personally, that foundation makes me who I am, as I realize that I am doing all that I do for the glory of God. I realize that I am a sinner, and I have to remind myself that my families money isn't "mine"... I put my trust in God to help me make the right choices in life, instead of putting my trust in my family fortune.

 

Putting your trust in government is the same thing as trusting a family fortune. It will never satisfy you.

 

But, what does satisy you is a hard days work. Building something, or creating a product, those things are satisfying, and have rewards. You may work for someone else your entire life, there is nothing wrong with that. Just live within your means and enjoy life. I have made over a million dollars not because of my family, but because of what I have learned in life, and used that life education to have fun, and work hard. All achieved with NO family money! (well, I got $1,500 inheritance from an uncle at 16)

 

And I'm not "special" anyone could do the same things I have done and achieve the same success. No matter their education (I have a degree in TV and Film production... seriously, what is that good for?) But, I really enjoyed getting my degree, I met some great people and worked hard. And that is the key, we have to do what we enjoy, and then we have to focus on being the best we can be, and teaching our children and others what we learned in our lives.

 

Just like there are thousands of people from family money, there are just as many who have made a life for themselves from nothing. That is why the abortion thing bothers me so much. Sure my family was wealthy, but my parents weren't. Our house was foreclosed on when I was 14. My grandfather (the "poor" one according to my mom) purchased it at the auction, and let my parents live there for free...  But, my grandfathers father came over from Germany to make a better life for his family. He built some of the massive bridges in New York with his bare hands. (I even have some of his huge planes that he used during that process, as they built them out of wood first, then had the beams made from metal to fit the dimensions) But, he had $50 in his pocket when he got off the boat. And his son was worth millions when he died. So don't tell me that poor people can't make it in America. Neither him, nor his son ever owned their own business. They just worked hard and moved up into management and reaped the rewards for their hard work. And the government has no ownership of that money they EARNED.

 

I don't have millions of dollars. But, I am very successful, and every single thing I have I earned for myself. I have failed many times, and I always get back up and learn from my mistakes. And I am proof that anyone can do it, if they set their mind to it.

 

I could easily have gone the other direction and let my family take care of me like many of my family has done over the years. But, they only hurt themselves with this mentality, and they never feel the satisfaction of earning their own way. But, those type of people will vote to elect people to "take care of them"...

 

And it is the exact same mentality that says, "tax the rich".

 

Trust me, YOU won't see a dime of it, if the government taxes the rich... It is all based on greed, and wanting someone elses fruits of their labor. And the ones in power will do everything they can to keep the power, not share it with you. 

 

Apparantly they do since they contributed close to $500,000 to Obama's 2008 campaign. 

 

It will take a little reading... But, it is worth it.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/where_the_budget_deficit_actua_1.html - http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/where_the_budget_deficit_actua_1.html

 

Of course this type of information used to be presented in newspapers, but today, what charlie sheen is doing is much more important "news"...

Which is unacceptable. 

A wall of text when you could have saved yourself the typing and just said "bootstraps," while ignoring almost every socio-economic study ever produced. 

FreeEnterprise wrote:  It is all based on greed, and wanting someone elses fruits of their labor.

That greedy, selfish small blue circle wanting the big yellow circle to pay a fair share in society. When, often times, the big circle pays a far smaller percentage of taxes than the smaller circle. 

I cannot believe their greed. 

 

So you have your progressive utopia... Oh wait, you want MORE from the rich.

 

How much can the rich keep of their income per year? What percentage should the government take to make you happy? We already know that even if they took 100% of income from the top group in your chart it wouldn't cover the massive spending the government is doing...

 

And what to do about the government picking winners and losers by giving tax breaks to certain people or business. Do we get rid of all of that?

 

 

Oh, btw, back to the OP. Obama tried to keep S&P from making that change about the governments debt.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama_administration_officials_tried_to_keep_sandp_rating_at_stable/2011/04/19/AFfAeO8D_story.html - http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama_administration_officials_tried_to_keep_sandp_rating_at_stable/2011/04/19/AFfAeO8D_story.html

 

I don't know of anyone asking for a system that guarantees perfect equality. Except for mutualist anarchists. And when is the last time you heard from them?  

I do believe that the other circles would also appreciate a tax contribution from that small blue circle, who by design can actually recieve an income off tax credits and actually recieve a check for far more than any tax if any, they pay in.

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382 - Only at the federal level, and only in some instances. 

From then link: 

The link wrote:  In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more.

 

Why do I pay tax on my annual Social Security income (one that I contributed into) and a welfare reciepiant pays nothing on his/her income, is that 'fair' in the desired equation.

For one, the Social Security is taxed so that the poor carry the majority of the burden for its financial support: 

The Link wrote: Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That's because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.

http://Social%20Security,%20Medicare%20and%20unemployment%20insurance%20taxes%20%28known%20as%20payroll%20taxes%29%20are%20paid%20mostly%20by%20the%20bottom%2090%20percent%20of%20wage%20earners.%20Thats%20because,%20once%20you%20reach%20$106,800%20of%20income,%20you%20pay%20no%20more%20for%20Social%20Security,%20though%20the%20much%20smaller%20Medicare%20tax%20applies%20to%20all%20wages.%20Warren%20Buffett%20pays%20the%20exact%20same%20amount%20of%20Social%20Security%20taxes%20as%20someone%20who%20earns%20$106,800.%20 - If by "more" you mean "not zero," then yes. 

I'm not suggesting that the rich, meaning the top 1% to 5%, be taxed so that they earn nothing. Again, I don't know anyone suggesting such a thing. 

But as has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread, corporations are paying extremely low tax percentages. Corporate tax has decreased steadily over time. 

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382 - And in the same way, tax loopholes have opened up so that those in hedge funds, large real estate, and corporate ownership, can pay next to nothing in taxes. 

To suggest that the tax system for the top 1% has been progressively increasing goes against almost all statistics on the matter. 

This "progressive structure"  you speak of, demonstrated: 

And this progressive system that we apparently have that is already causing such apparent strife to the top incomes in the country is also part of a two-pronged problem with our current deficit. 

As Nekk and others have said: We cannot keep spending on things we cannot afford. We cannot keep elongating revenue losses we cannot afford. 

Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with tax increases. 

 

Or the way they are the ones that are so apt at giving "tax breaks" by choosing winners and losers with their enviromental pushes?

 

Did you even read the article I linked here?

 

FreeEnterprise wrote: Let us look at the current government mess, this will give you an accurate view of the mess we are in, and how it is clearly of great importance and needs to be resolved instead of politicized.   It will take a little reading... But, it is worth it.   http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/where_the_budget_deficit_actua_1.html - http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/where_the_budget_deficit_actua_1.html   Of course this type of information used to be presented in newspapers, but today, what charlie sheen is doing is much more important "news"...

For someone as "non" partisan as you are whale, you sure post a lot of liberal democratic ideals. (think progress... lol)

Would you like me to hold a sandwich board on the side of the road? I don't think they did enough. I've said that before. 

I think that they need to seriously consider cuts to the defense budget. We're no longer in the Cold War. There is no reason for us to be outspending nearly every other country combined on a defense budget. 

And nobody from either side is going to even consider doing that. Nor will they consider raising taxes for Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. 

There needs to be serious cuts on things. And tax increases. And neither side has done that. 

Instead, you've got Democrats ho-humming at maybe cutting the defense budget, and Republicans looking to cut subsidy to Planned Parenthood and NPR, which doesn't even make a whole percent of the budget. 

By the way: 

agentwhale007 wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: Whale, working within the system of law and regulations isn't "relative morality". So abortions are fine?

This has yet to be explained. 

If I've caused this thought to be inferred I apologize. I have nothing against the wealthy. I have something against the wealthy not paying taxes.  

Again, I don't think anyone should be taxed out of the majority of their earnings. Nobody should be taxed 100%. Nobody should be taxed 50%. 

We need a close examination of the loopholes being used, is what I'm saying. Taxes are not a punishment and shouldn't be used as such. It's a way of assuring  the betterment of society and paying for public goods. I'm not saying that these loopholes being used need to be examined because the rich somehow "deserve it" for being rich. 

If this is what you're going with, that's fine. No tax increases. At the very least, enforce the system on the books and take a serious look at the loopholes being used. 

 

What we need are politicians that only "serve" for a term or two. Period. No going from this job to that, and staying in politics for generations. The power of the position has left the concept of "public servant" in the wind. We need less regulations, and less restrictions.

 

WE the people are not being served, but being abused at every level as the elites in power use our money like it http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_re_us/us_capes_for_the_unemployed - is funny money .

 

But, they won't do anything to change unless the public and more importantly the youth start getting vocal about the issues that are driving their future into the gutter.

 

You guys would be shocked if I showed you just how anti business our government is today. I give you little pieces here and there, but the government is like the mob, with their hand out all the time for more of my money... Money that keeps us in business in bad months. Of which there are a lot with the way the government keeps pretending they don't have to cut spending and can keep going like they do forcing the economy to stay in the doldrums.

 

My business is dependent on business owners optimism about the future. Today, just like a year ago, and two years ago, they are very nervous about how costs will increase from further added regulations, taxes and Obamacare.

 

Businesses need stability. There is no stability in business today, as at any time, government can significantly increase your costs, or oil prices will skyrocket your utility bills (mine was over $11,000 last month) and unlike the government I can't just print more money (well, not legally of course, Lol) So businesses are scared to make any moves until they see stability. I thought the election would make the President move toward the center.

 

Then we had the speech last Wednesday, and the phones have been silent since... I have never seen a speech make a difference in purchasing decisions like that... It is shocking, but that is the difference in "real" world vs political world.

 

It all matters downstream, and when the small business owners hear "tax the rich" we know they mean us... And most of us are NOT rich, we have more money than many, but it takes massive amounts of money to run businesses. And unlike our employee's if the company goes under, I lose everything. They just lose a job...

 

Agreed. One place where I can agree with you is that it's hard out there for a new business. The various "empires" and their deep pocket lawyers have a lovely way of bullying the competition out of business, and the legalities and loopholes that allow this are so deep and complex it's ridiculous. It's REALLY tough to fight the competition.

 

FreeEnterprise wrote:   What we need are politicians that only "serve" for a term or two. Period. No going from this job to that, and staying in politics for generations. The power of the position has left the concept of "public servant" in the wind.

 

This is very arguable. The problem with your theory is that studies done in the 60's and 70's (I wish I could remember the name of the book I wrote the essay on in business class) showed that representatives that were able to serve lifetimes in political service tended to show more responsibility. The reasoning is pretty simple-with term limits, you get in and you spend your entire term trying to set up a profitable retirement for yourself. You have two-six years to set up your future. Whereas somewhere in the sixties graduates began looking at careers in politics, and to do maintain electability you have to actually work for reelection.

 

I think that conservatives from other states tend to look at the liberal lifetime politicians in others and think that it's a glitch in the system, rather than the reality that those people are reelected because they do what the people want. 

 

Also-you do realize that your biggest threat to small business is other small businesses right? The problem is much deeper than the government or Obamacare. Refer back to the earlier part of this post-the issues are deep. The fact is money speaks in this economy, and the bigger you get the more powerful you become. Eventually the economic growth that you so proudly flaunt from the multi-billion dollar operations in this company turns to economic power, and they buy their way into monopolies. They do so because the law allows them.

 

That's why you have massive companies like GE not paying taxes, and other companies doing their taxes in Scotland so they get dirt cheap rates. You ever wonder why some of the biggest businesses in the US are HQ'd in other countries? BUSINESSES IN AMERICA AREN'T PAYING THEIR DUES IN TAXES. They're pinching pennies to make those millions into hundred millions, and those into billions.

 

So the government has to do something? And unfortunately, massive businesses can still be classified as small businesses, and owners such as yourself are held by the same standards as the big, big boys. Regulation is the result of corruption my friend.

 

My point? Funnel your anger to the system, not the administration. Demanding change is fine, but you need to first realize who the enemy is.

But we do still need a tax overhaul. Bush-era tax cuts should go away, at least for the top earners. We should also consider closing loopholes or adopting a value-added tax, and going back to placing a fee on every transaction on the stock market. These were removed during the Bush era, but considering how rapid computerized algorithms for stock trading can work, this would be a goldmine as well as put some brakes on trading programs running amok like they have recently. I'm all for reform and spending cuts, but it's realistic to expect that to balance the books we are going to need to tax in higher than pre-war revenue, probably at least comparable to post-WWII era rates. 

 

Wow...

 

I'm shocked, you should know better.

 

Fact time. "rich" people who put their company in as personal income pay much, much more than 50% of their income in taxes. Maybe you are thinking of just federal income taxes?

 

When you figure in state, local, federal, fica, ss, property, income, levies, sales tax, fuel tax, phone tax, road tax, and the many other taxes (including the new Obamacare 'taxes') most "rich" people pay in excess of 60% of their income in taxes today.

 

60%.

 

And Obama wants to raise taxes on them. Now you see why I have a problem with that, and clearly you do too, you probably just didn't know that figure, as it would never be put on thinkprogress's site.

 

Another little tidbit, that your "steal from those greedy people that inherited money" viewpoint that you probably have no clue about...

 

89% of the wealth in this country was EARNED wealth, NOT inherited. Only 11% is inherited, because of the way the government steals from the rich.

 

https://www.pnc.com/webapp/unsec/Requester?resource=/wps/wcm/connect/a1d7f9004f4a90719ec39f267cb633c4/Earned_Inherited_Wealth_Highlights.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=a1d7f9004f4a90719ec39f267cb633c4 - https://www.pnc.com/webapp/unsec/Requester?resource=/wps/wcm/connect/a1d7f9004f4a90719ec39f267cb633c4/Earned_Inherited_Wealth_Highlights.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=a1d7f9004f4a90719ec39f267cb633c4

pg 3

 

It is obvious that the government is inept at being effecient with our tax dollars, polling suggests that the public thinks over 70% of the government "investments AKA spending" are actually waste. (looking at the way the government can't run anything, but the military, and it is no wonder.)

 

 

But, what is intellectually dishonest is that even if you were only talking about the federal tax rate, and today it is 35% and you would not want it to go over 50%. To increase it from 35% to 50% for the rich wouldn't even make a dent in ONE MONTH of what the current Obama administration is spending... They didn't pass a budget for the past two years! Because they have been spending like crazy thinking it would help the economy.

 

 

Is the economy better?

 

Check out home prices in your area to see the answer to that...

 

A friend of mine put out a little video about this specific issue a few weeks ago.

 

 

Increasing taxes like Obama wants will cost each of you significantly. (but, you think it won't because you aren't those evil, greedy "rich" people that Obama always talks about...)

 

Except it will totally affect you just like this recession has affected you.

 

and the recession was the result of progressive ideology, and now that the public is used to not paying taxes, while collecting money from the government for nothing, and "spreading the wealth around".

 

Seriously, read this article.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/11/Obamas-Tax-Hikes-on-High-Income-Earners-Will-Hurt-the-Poor-and-Everyone-Else - http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/11/Obamas-Tax-Hikes-on-High-Income-Earners-Will-Hurt-the-Poor-and-Everyone-Else

 

"This analysis shows that the economic harm of raising taxes on investment, small businesses, and upper-income filers affects households of all types. An economy with fewer employment opportunities results in lower wages and lost consumption and savings. Households across the income spectrum are left with lower disposable income. The attempt to raise additional revenues by raising taxes on the productive sectors of the economy, particularly dur­ing a period of recovery, harms the very citizens the revenue would be used to aid with social welfare programs."

 

 

The democrats have made it abundently clear that the only way out of this economic way is by "investing" in our future... AKA KEEP SPENDING.

 

A vote for any democrat in the next election is a vote for increased spending. And ignorance of the issue YOU will be paying interest on for the rest of your life.

Yes,  I was referring simply about Federal, as that is what Mack and I were discussing. 

With state taxes, small businesses and lower earners http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382 - are also getting the shaft so that the top earners get special treatment. 

Link wrote: In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more.

FreeEnterprise wrote: But, what is intellectually dishonest is that even if you were only talking about the federal tax rate, and today it is 35%

FreeEnterprise wrote: Is the economy better?

 

Because the government (democrats are famous for this btw) pick winners and losers.

 

GE just posted their profits...

 

MASSIVE profits, because the democrats gave them a bunch of write offs. Why do you not rail against these special treatments to certain groups?...

 

Look at the amount of waivers that have been given to unions so they don't have to do Obamacare... AND they already don't pay taxes as they are tax exempt.

 

We are both on the same page, you just don't realize it yet. The government has no business picking winners and losers. And the democratic party is built on that premis... One that was discussed during the founding of our country as something that would destroy it...

 

James Madison wrote http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm - in Federalist Paper, No. 10 , “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

 

The democratic party exerts its will to force abortion, class warfare, and regulations that hurt the rights of the minor party. While benefitting the Democrats with more power, and control (using their tax free henchmen the unions and media as their muscle and mouthpiece).

 

A good review of the progressive control of our society and its manipulation on the rights of freedom can be found here.

 

http://uvpatriots.org/?p=561 - http://uvpatriots.org/?p=561

 

under the guise of "social justice".

 

 

Exactly... Well put GroupB.

 

 

Incorrect. I support tax increases and the closing of tax loopholes. I can almost guarantee that we are not on the same side. 

I can agree to disagree with Mack, on the idea of raising taxes vs. closing existing loopholes. 

But I still think taxes are too low. The Bush tax cuts should have never been extended. 

The government has no business picking winners and losers.

 

The government, I believe, has a right to fund innovation projects. 

Things like the government's support and funding of the USA. The things produced and innovated there benefit society as a whole. At least while it existed. However, I think there aught be a careful consideration on money allotted for innovation purposes as to who also will be eligible for support. 

And again, I'd support this in the form of specific innovation investment. Specific money for a specific project, and open to any company who wants to help push this product forward for the betterment of society. Not tax cuts or general funding. 

 

The democratic party exerts its will to force abortion,

That's of course assuming that the numbers will plateau at dead even, which, thankfully, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/business/economy/05jobs.html - is looking like that's not happening.  At least for now. 

I agree though, job loss/creation isn't a total reflection of economic growth. But it'll play a role. 

And summing up economic growth in one chart would probably break MS Word. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/shutdown-budget-policy-riders-major-sticking-points-democrats/story?id=13317598 - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/shutdown-budget-policy-riders-major-sticking-points-democrats/story?id=13317598

 

So clearly the focus of abortion and the use of federal dollars to fund said abortions is critical to the Democratic platform...

 

 

Unless you want to use that same family plannin canard of "mammograms" being provided by planned parenthood as was a talking point you used a while back that is completely false. Their business is Abortion, plain and simple. That is where they make their money, and they are funded by democrats and our tax dollars.

 

And as has been said a dozen times now, Planned Parenthood cannot use their federal funding for abortions. 

I'm also confused, even if this were true, how funding Planned Parenthood is forcing anyone to have an abortion? 

 

Only someone wanting to mislead would say that you can fund a company and NOT fund the major part of their business.

 

That doesn't pass the logic test.

 

Guess, state tax dollars paying for a website for kids that downplays the dangers of abortion is fine too?... that doesn't "support" abortions either, AMIRITE!1!

 

http://mariatalks.com/pregnancy/abortion - http://mariatalks.com/pregnancy/abortion

 

The Giddeons fund putting bibles into the hands of those that cannot afford them and into hotels. It doesnt force them to be Christians.

I'm going to have to ask you to point out where I ever said they provided mammograms? 

I've said they provide affordable contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, and STD testing. Which is true, it makes up a majority of their interactions. 

Dodge. 

You said they force abortions. Please showcase where Planned Parenthood has forced someone against their will to get an abortion. 

All these groups do this on a daily basis. Governments and businesses do it to. They allot money to a specific portion, and that money cannot be randomly transferred to be spent on other things. 

It would be illegal, in the case of government, or get you fired, in the case of business. 

Also, abortions are legal, so: 

 

agentwhale007 wrote: You're missing the entire concept of their funding. They offer reproductive health services - not counting abortions, but services like screenings, advice, contraceptives, etc. - at a discounted rate as a public service because they receive federal funding to do so. The funding comes not from an idea of the "free market," but rather the idea that affordable reproductive health care is a public good.  They receive private donations to fund their abortion services.

 

One of the major media arguments is that Planned parenthood provides mammogram screenings. So when you threw out the "screenings" term, I assumed you meant that as that was by far the most public usage of "screenings" in the media to date.

 

oldpbnoob wrote: Funding/suppporting =/= forcing.

 

Forcing = Forcing. (good intentions I'm sure...) 

 

http://www.christianlawjournal.com/news/planned-parenthood-tries-to-force-abortion-on-teenager-against-father%E2%80%99s-will/ - http://www.christianlawjournal.com/news/planned-parenthood-tries-to-force-abortion-on-teenager-against-father%E2%80%99s-will/

 

"While the young girl’s father was trying to obtain his daughter, the man who had impregnated her was en route to the Planned Parenthood clinic to encourage the abortion. Smasne refused the father and did not allow the girl to leave. When the police arrived on the scene, Smasne defied the officer’s order to return the minor to her father."

 

 

 

Kayback wrote: FE, out of curiosity, what is your opinions on DNC's? And have you ever know anyone who needed an abortion? KBK

 

DNC's, totally depends... Way to broad of a question to answer easily as it depends on the circumstances and if life exists or not.

 

I have a problem when life is terminated, as I don't think it fair to murder someone based on the size, or location of the human.

 

 

Yes, I have known many people including someone VERY close to me that had an abortion. I have watched this person deal with the inability to have children because of it, and the pain and suffering that she has gone through in life, including the three attempts at suicide that she directly blames on the abortion in her youth. She has now adopted 4 kids, and is trying to put that behind her, but she still has dreams of the daughter that she killed because of convenience.

Abortion kills one human and maims the other, the emotional scars are ignored by the media and abortion activists.

 

I also grew up hanging out with a kid that was the product of a violent rape. His mother did the hard thing and instead of killing him, had him and actually kept him. He looked like her attacker, but she always said, how does killing my son cover up the horrible action of the rapist? It wasn't his fault, and she is so thrilled to have her son, and be able to enjoy her life with him.

 

A life that wouldn't exist if he had been aborted.

 

 

 

 

So it is even more disturbing that the democrats were willing to stop paying the military and shut down the government so they could continue the black holocaust in America. Funded by tax dollars, and developed by progressives and the KKK.

 

Many in your party understand the history of your progressive movement, and their goals. I hope that "you" (in general, no one specifically) just didn't know since you have supported this behavior with your voting.

 

 

But did I say mammograms? 

They do screenings for cancer, particularly HPV tests to detect and prevent cervical cancer. 

Breast cancer, believe it or not, is only one type of cancer that exists in this world. 

Also, I miss the portion of your link where Planned Parenthood forced anyone to get an abortion against their will. According to the link, the girl wanted the abortion that eventually was not performed. The abortion was against her father's will. 

So, where exactly is Planned Parenthood forcing anyone to get an abortion against their will?  

Also, 

FreeEnterprise wrote: So it is even more disturbing that the democrats were willing to stop paying the military and shut down the government so they could continue the black holocaust in America. Funded by tax dollars, and developed by progressives and the KKK.

Like a snake eating its tail.