“told you so” will not change minds. I like to point out how a certain party always likes to take more and more money (which always gets nods of agreement), and then I follow up with “yet, the people always vote for them.” has it made a difference, I do not know, but I keep trying.

Over the years – and with Republican complicity – we’ve been gradually reducing the percentage of working age Americans paying taxes.

People vote their own interests. People who pay no taxes have no reason to concern themselves with those who do – arguing that taking more money away from their employer eventually hurts them won’t do it.

Years ago, as an April Fool’s Day gag, Limbaugh argued for taxing the poor. Though it WAS a gag, there was a kernel of truth in there – - – the only way to prevent people voting themselves largess from their neighbors’ wallet is to make everyone contribute something to the pot.

Either…
Because they live in America where they aren’t punished for their relative stupidity/views or robbed incessantly etc like in other less tolerant nations around the globe.
Or…
A very real culture of exclusive networking corruption on which they’ve fed for so long they don’t realize what real ethics are anymore…
etc.

Are there really conservatives in Detroit?

For having the wrong political views?

For having “too much money?”

That’s when they start the ‘mercy’ killing. Meaning they will be merciful to the people paying their health care bills.

Proper grammar saves lives.

Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Where the hell were you in October and November? If anything, he’s moved right since his inauguration.

Many people who voted for Obama didn’t get what they were voting for. Pointing this out is excellent.

I believe that Laffer called it the “great destroyer of wealth”. If 70s style inflation hits (not to mention hyper inflation) then the Republicans will be back in power for decades because all will see that the dems can’t manage the economy. I for one consider this to be too steep a price to pay so I hope it doesn’t happen, then again our party isn’t writing and approving the federal budget so we don’t have much of a say.

In the meantime I have been encouraging all my friends to buy the now steeply discounted housing in CA to take advantage of low interest rates. We may never see such low rates in our lives again

To beat a dead horse.
—
The
American Form of Goverment

Or capitalist hatin’, for that matter. I have a Lefty Loon friend who e-mailed me Lefty jokes and propaganda all through “08, which I ignored. My wife made the mistake of forwarding her an old joke about the boss who has to lay off some employees and goes thought the parkng lot firing all the ones with Obama bumper stickers. This is the reply my wife received:

“I hope you are aware that I voted for Obama. Why is our national deficit so large that we now have to pay higher taxes to lower it? (could it be because our previous government decided to borrow money from other countries to pay for an unnecessary war so that he wouldn’t have to raise our taxes and become “unpopular”?) In other words, how did Geroge Bush raise the money for a 10 billion a month war? Did he take it out of our pockets or borrow it from China? And who is paying it back now? What costs this country more? Corporate crime or welfare? Look it up!! it’s not the poor who are robbing you blind. It’s a war that we can’t afford, and the corporate crimininals on Wall Street!!”

I would LOL if it wasn’t so pathetic. She and her ilk will still be railing against Bush and the Tophats four years from now, completely oblivious to Obama/Pelosi/Reid depredations.

in Obama’s plans for their principal.

You’re right smagar. In an interview, writer, speaker, Mark Victor Hansen described the “Goldman Sachs” supporters of Obama in this way. They don’t care about higher taxes on the rich because they make millions. If they lose 15 million in taxes and keep 5 million, they are okay. It gives them a sense of relieving their guilty conscience in a kind of “remote control” giving fashion. It’s the 250,000 dollar a year guy who makes the most sacrifice, but stands to lose the most. But you’re thoughts on this are good to keep in mind.

Democrat capitalists now see that they do not fit in Obama’s tent. Cut them some slack and remind them which party actually wants them to succeed. Right now there is a war raging over capitalism vs The State. Obama has ticked off most of the multinationals pharmaceuticals, loan providers, banks, silicon valley, manufacturers, and energy companies. We need capitalism to win and to realize that an attack on one is an attack on all.

http://www.inquisitr.com/23742/obama-prepares-ground-for-newspaper-bailout-at-white-house-correspondents-dinner/

More donations from wall street versus more votes in the middle class

It’s about time the majority of Americans woke up and realized that the Wall Street has more Democrats than Republicans. Jeez, how many Americans realize that it’s in NYC?

Being nice and pussy footing around the point is not a good technique for persuading somebody. You have to read Cialdini on Influence or Greene, 48 Laws of Power. The strong ways to convince someone are things like,

1. directly speaking to someone with their name and asking them for something very specific they can do right now.
2. telling them that everybody is doing it, it being whatever you want them to do.
3. giving them an emotional reason to do what you want to do.
4. do the negative takeaway, where you offer something and quickly take it away, then let them try to talk you into giving it to them. tell them they have to do what you want first.
5. subtle hints just don’t work. for one thing does anyone know of a man who ever got a hint from his wife? I don’t. hints simply don’t work, certainly not with men and I doubt they work very well with women either. Not compared to more powerful techniques.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

Also this fallacy that people who are poor are lazy or just didn’t work hard enough. The poor work ten times harder than the rich. If you ever set foot in the ghetto or the boonies you will see hard working people who are kept below a poverty line and the even less fortunate who work two jobs just so the welfare check will be enough to stay alive off of.

The sad thing is that there are plenty of people who grew up poor and became rich and then forgot where they came from. Forgot how they pay $700 a month just to have a leaky room which they never actually live under because they work 3 jobs. God forbid this person have any children because they will have to be their own mother and father at a young age or a sibling will have to step in.

Also I am tired of people(there are a lot here) biting their thumb at the poor when most likely you only have the job you do because of a “hook up” Legacy System. that they weren’t welcome in.
Think about it…with affirmative action a majority of Ethnic individuals and Women are over qualified for the job they currently are employed while almost nearly the same majority
of whites males are under qualified for their curret employment Also how stupid do you have to be to protest taxes and take public transportation to the rally???? Makes no sense. Most people use tons of public services and then don’t want to pay taxes…you want street signs, lamps, posts, telephone lines, power lines metro buses, subway…..you know how to lower taxes……
GET RID OF THE TAX LOOPHOLES FOR EVERYONE ESPECIALLY CORPORATIONS.

When did a Democrat or LIberal do that?
.

understand the gist of your post, but you seem to be saying that “fighting the rich” is somehow laudable and eventually a benefit to “the poor.” If that premise is correct, I can only say that “the rich” is not a monolithic block of people, but is constantly changing. Usually, the top fifth drops down to be replaced by the next fifth, the next fifth moves up and so on.

And usually we are talking about an AGE difference, rather than a class or color difference. It only makes common sense — older folks have been in the work world longer, have more trainning, experience, skills and credentials and therefore make more money.

And the old stereotype of a bunch of rich white guys smoking cigars on yachts is not refective of reality. People like the John Kerry and Ed Kennedy, who simply married or inherited money are the exception, not the rule. Most of the so called “rich” have been struggling, saving and delaying gratification for decades, not to mention risking everything they have and working a hundred hours a week to make their businesses grow.

Also, you said something about needing a tax write off for donations. Well, leaving aside for the nonce the fact that conservative Christians are BY FAR more generous with personal charitable donations than the Clinton-Obama crowd, the giant welfare state has made deductions necessary for anyone to survive. You may not realize it, but private donations and charities took care of the poor, however defined, in this country for 150 years before the modern concepts of public asistance took hold. No tax deductions were expected or necessary — it was considered one’s Christian duty to help the poor and since most people were in fact Christians, the poor were cared for, albeit not in the style to which they may have wished…

And the whole notion of “class warfare” was a Dem political invention whereby poor people were made to feel envious of so-called “fat cats” who were supposedly stealing someone else’s “fair share” of the pie. Of course this politically expedient scam is based on the nonsensical premise that wealth is a zero sum game, i.e. that if I gain “wealth,” that some how “takes” money out of someone else’s pocket. The economy simply doesn’t work that way.

Indeed, the whole idea that wealth is somehow “distributed” is a gross misrepresentation of reality. A “distrubution” in its’ quotidian sense is a statistical abstract used to describe a set of numbers. Numbers, representing car ownership, salaries, or cows jumping over the moon, can be shown to follow a discrete pattern, or distribution, usually on a graph, as a way to analyze and discuss trends, percentages and so forth. However, to describe wealth in general as being “distributed” implies that some great supernatural, or in this case, malevolent, force both possesses all the wealth and distributes it as well. Such an implication is nonesense with regards the free market (although Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” could be said to do just this,) but not concerning the government, which indeed does control (but not produce) money (as opposed to wealth) and does in fact distribute it, based on, usually, crass political considerations. The unenlightened therefore believe that ALL wealth is somehow “distributed” and that they, in turn, are not receiving their “fair share.” Such a belief system is likely the reason the lamestream media are constantly declaring that it is somehow “unfair” (if true at all, which I doubt) that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

Having been poor most of my adult life, I will address the second half of your post momentarily (probably after lunch, Central Daylight Time.)

Now shoo. And remember: you’re on the side of the people who like to throw minority kids out of rich-white-people schools!

Blam.