Or, will ever be. How do I get one of those blue and yellow cards so I can spend my money on booze and lottery tickets instead of food?
you cant be that naive:hihi: the guy hasnt even taken office yet, but he is the reason you arent rich. Also, you do think he is going to win.:grin:
No, but if he wins I'll have no chance to increase my wealth based upon what I do. I'll be forced to share. Pelosi, Reid and their marionette Obama will ruin the middle class.
how by cutting your taxes, thats how they will ruin you? I will go out on a limb and say you are included in the 95% of the middle class he wants to cut taxes for. Or I could be wrong, I dont know your financial position.
id guess not if SF will retire soon and make most $$ off of cap gains, although obama will only increase those taxes from 15 to 20 %
I suggest to you that ANY group endeavor--be it the Lions Club, a small town, a political party or a national government-- has an element of collectivism. It can only work that way, it is inherent. Democracy itself is a collective of the majority. That is a far cry from socialism, in which everything is collectively owned. Occurrences of group collectivity simply does not constitute socialism.
The point you make is a very moderate one. I disagree -- I believe that this country did not become as strong as it is by being as 'collective' as it has become. We did not become this strong by -- advocating looser lending standards so that "Everyone can buy a house". This has simply become "Let people buy houses they can't afford". See that slippery slope of the CRA? It was originally intended to keep credit institutions from targeting the wealthy and now look what it's become thanks to the efforts of Barack Obama and his party. Credit scores and standards do not have a skin color. Capitalism is a merit-based economy. I would even argue that these efforts are enablers. -- giving everyone free health care. The reason why "health care has become more expensive" is that more and more people are obtaining and utilizing services for which they cannot pay. My premiums go up as Earl K. Long provides free emergency and critical care services to people who don't pay for them. (Care providers demand higher reimbursement from payors as their utilization goes up and client pay ability goes down -- therefore my premiums go UP). Giving more services (especially primary care) to people who cannot and will not pay will drive the prices even higher. We already are "owning" health care, in a universal fashion. Taxing the rich heavily is an extension of that concept. To use an analogy ... what if LSU hired 200 research scientists who didn't produce a lick of research and paid them a high salary? Your salary range would go down as a result.
