My shared views of politics, religion, and life from the
typical to the extraordinary, the sacred to the profane, the real to the imagined, the right to the left, and the right to the wrong.
and Obama's solution is to increase government and Unions.Rush is rich but at least he doesn't make his money off the backs of the middle class.
Good topic, unacceptable source.lisa, Limbaugh, like the rest of the multimillionaire set, should be paying a marginal tax rate of 85 percent. The 60 percent or more he gets to pocket every year is made up largely by middle class and working-class taxpayers. And that's assuming he pays the 25 percent instead of using dodges, shelters and overseas tax havens -- things I wouldn't put past him.As George W. Bush pointed out, "The rich don't pay taxes." We're at a point where the country can't afford that any more.
Anderson, why the heck should anyone be paying a 85% marginal tax rate? It was this exact thing that crippled the economy under Carter. When Reagan came in and cut the marginal tax rates from that 80% range down to the 30% range is when the economy boomed and took off and provided one of the longest sustained economic growth periods in our nation's history.Had congress not spent more money than we took in, we would have been in grand shape. Why the left finds it necessary to punish the "rich" with counter-productive draconian taxes just doesn't make sense. When this is done, the rich invest their money elsewhere besides America and look for tax shelters, like Bush describes. When they can make more money from investing in R&D and expanding their own businesses without being punished with taxes for it, they do so. This creates jobs and expands the amount of people now paying income taxes and no longer needing federal assistance. It is a win-win situation. Further, considering the richest 5%of our country pay 50% of the federal tax burden. That seems more than fair to me.Further, Rush doesn't take money from the tax payers. The money he makes comes from advertisers of his show and publications. People can choose to listen or not as they see fit.Lastly, I would submit to you not to discount a good idea simply because you don't like the source... in this case, Rush.
The ultimate goal of conservatives is to dismantle public education. That is a fact. They want education to be only for those with lots of money who can afford private school. That is the agenda of folks like Limbaugh. Want to see what that would look like? Take a look at Pakistan. This is nothing more than typical anti-teacher and anti-union propaganda that comes from every wingnut in America. One cannot improve education by "starving the beast" or some other such rightie talking point. Our future is too important for blatantly political nonsense like this.
Dave, I don't know of any credible conservative that wants to abolish public education. I know a lot that want to get rid of the bureaucracy and move the education system decision making closer to the local or state level where parents and teachers can have greater sway in the process. The Department of Education is a waste of tax payers' money as it tries to dictate a national cookie cutter format for education. It should be eliminated accordingly.Your ridiculous statement about the rich only wanting those who can afford private school to get an education is so ludicrous, it doesn't deserve debating, frankly. It has been the conservatives that have championed school vouchers for the poor, which largely has been a huge boon for poor inner-city children, in order to improve the quality of their educations.Ironically it is the teacher unions and the left that have screamed about the success of these voucher programs since they remove kids from poor performing public schools and place them in charter or private schools where the kids have a chance to excel.You must be back living in the alternate reality universe.
SWA(sounds like a Union)If you don't think the middle class marginal rate is going to increase dramatically under Obama to the point of hurting us then you are kidding yourself. He voted to increase taxes on those making 40,000 in the senate. There's a larger pool of people there,he isn't going to meet his Utopian dream by making the rich pay more.
Paine, I respectfully disagree. Vouchers are an underhanded way of de-funding public schools. For the handful of kids it helps, it punishes the rest by depriving them of the funding they need for a decent education.National standards are nothing to be afraid of. Facts are facts. 2+2 = 4, and it doesn't matter what a local school board says, it's still 4. National standards are needed to avoid what is happening in Texas where kids are being bombarded with dishonest, right-wing dogma instead of things like history.And, Lisa...WTF? I would advise reading your comments before submitting to ensure you make a coherent point.
I wasn't directing that to you Dave so there's no need for you to comprehend it.
Splash, so let me get this straight... you are FOR national standards? Like Bush's "No Child Left Behind" standards? Further, throwing more money at the beast doesn't fix the problem either. I think it was New Jersey Governor Christie that reported that NJ public schools paid an average of $24K per student and yet have HORRIBLE results in the quality of their education.Siphoning money from these schools for vouchers will either make the administrators fix the problem at best, or continue their sub-standard education as the status quo. The bottom line is that SOME of the students will get a better education, while the rest will likely be no worse off, sir.
Or how about the teacher(one of many)who took a pay cut from 115k to 100k for a job so she can still collect her 100k pension and benefits paid for by us who are now looking at a big increase in helath care taxes in 2011 to pay for the 15% without and the unions with more than anyone can dream of or afford for themselves.This is what Obama wants more of.
Post a Comment