The Party of Takers

America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance — and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.

-Ayn Rand

Capitalism is the moral system through which we as citizens are able to improve our lives and the lives of those we care about. It is the greatest of equalizers and the greatest system of rewarding ingenuity and long hours. Government can equalize but it does so in a way that forces equalization onto a market in a manner which does not coincide with reality. It happens around us constantly. We watch subsidies create false prices, we watch lending practices create false value and we watch citizens act as if they don’t need to be responsible, the government will cover their risks.

Capitalism is the great equalizer which puts your risk squarely on you. If you want to go out on a limb, so to speak, be prepared to catch yourself. As a result, fewer people who are ill-prepared to catch themselves will venture out on the limb. However, when statism commands that we all support the limb of the masses, it inevitably breaks and those occupying it care not that they were the ones responsible so long as someone else is holding the net.

In the world of capitalist limbs, you may venture onto it and you may be rewarded for your risk which moves you up the tree. You probably spent more time carefully planning your risk in a way which wouldn’t cripple you should it fail. The government will not be there to catch you so you should probably only risk what you can afford and not expect society to make up for your shortcomings.

Capitalism is the moral system which does not force my risk onto your wallet. It is the system which encourages independence, not dependence. It is the system which gives you an ability to better yourself by your own hand at your own ability.

Can the same be said for a “compassionate” government which attempts to provide opportunities? Does increasing dependence on subsidized living encourage innovation? Should I bother to improve my skills, expand my knowledge or be concerned that the risk I’m engaged in is too great for me to bare should I fail when I know I will not be responsible in the end? Is it moral for a government to demonize aspects of society for the so-called improvement of the collective? We take and take as if the pile is endless.

The concept of moving forward is often distorted today. For too many, the concept of forward equates to a larger statist role in the economy and in everyday life. We move forward, allegedly, to improve our lives by deteriorating the lives of those we envy. Hopefully we don’t deteriorate it too much or we won’t have a pile to keep taking from.

We used to have a mindset which enabled us to rise above the pettiness of class warfare. We used to believe that one class shouldn’t demonize another, we should simply work to move up in life if we so choose. If we choose not to or our circumstances don’t allow us to, it didn’t used to be someone else’s fault.

Government is a force for equalization, that is true. At some point, we will have succeeded in equally lowering standards for everyone as to ensure not a single person enjoys one advantage or luxury over another. If for some unknown reason, success still lingers, we can simply outlaw it.

  • Bob

    We were out spent in this election.NO by out spent I don’t mean in regards to ads and television spots I mean in buying the electorate with promises. President Obama leading up to the election promised immigration deals,college loan deals,deals with same sex marriages and abortion and birth control coverage in his Obamacare. No wonder he got the young female vote. Lets face it we have become a nation of Julia’s and this election was pre determined.

    Another fact that slapped us in the face is we aren’t a right center nation politically as we thought we were.When 60% of the country says we are heading in the wrong direction and Congress is at an 8% approval rating yet nothing changes in either the Executive or Legislative branch makeup something tells you there are other factors to consider.When unemployment stays at 8%,46 million Americans are on food stamps,the debt doubles down over 4 years and the makeup of our political parties stay the same something tells you other factors are to be considered.When the incumbent bases his re-election not on his record or a vision of where he wants to take us but bases his re-election on tearing the caracter of his opponents tax returns and Bain Capital AND WINS something tells you other factors are to be considered.If moderates vote 57% Democratic there is nothing moderate about them……they are to the left politically and we are heading the way of western Europe fast.

    Now what caused this and what needs to be done by the Republican party? First off I think we give the American public to much credit for being objective and studying the candidates records.This proved out not only in 2008 presidential election but again yesterday.If people don’t care about “Fast and Furious” or our botched security of the Embassy in Libya they aren’t going to look into a candidates record.This isn’t the America we grew up with where character and principles counts.We are ideologically split and no longer have the same idea of where we are heading but with different paths of how to get there.We have different ideas of where we as a nation we want to head.Image and perception play the major role in selling a candidate today.The president was dead even in many polls up until his “October Surprise”……..hurricane Sandy. A week before the election he went to New Jersey and toured the damaged ares while Gov. Romney suspended his campaign in respect of not appearing to take advantage of the situation.Image and perception of leadership!

    How can the Republicans change to win? They can’t without promising entitlements on the scale the Democrats are doing. This would result in who could dig the biggest financial hole the fastest not to mention the Republicans losing their base.Voting for this is “Like having sex for the first time”. Doing it with THE WRONG MAN FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

  • Personally I’m still in shock unable to ‘sort out’ what to say or do next. You guys hit a lot of the numbers and it’s hard to line up some of these numbers with the result.

    We let a exceptionally good and talented man fall by the way side.

    Let us just hope that the tipping point is still far enough out for us to do something about it.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Republicans believe people should work for their money without government over their shoulders.
    Democrats believe in taking the money from the people who work to give it to those in their voting block who completely work the system over. Why do you think democrats created ghettos, they lumped all the minorities together saying they would be prosperous for them to be together, turns out they are mostly hoods. Educated minorities who see through liberals lies very strongly adhere to conservative principles when they finally see they are being used as minions and sheep of the democratic party. Democrats are ruining this country and want us like Europe, I thought the American public would realize that, but now I remember I learned all about this before, and how terrifyingly dumb the voting public is in this country.

    When it comes down to it maybe not only were people voting for free stuff like handouts, and free Obama phones, maybe they voted for the guy because guess what the rest of the world likes him and he is just so damn “cool” and like a “celebrity”, look at America people worship a whore like Kim Kardashian who made a sextape to get rich and famous, no wonder people drool and have tingles up their legs for a guy like Obama, HE’S THE ONE THEY WOULD ALL RATHER HAVE A BEER WITH!

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Bob great analysis, Obama’s whole election campaign (which started in 2004 and went until this yesterday, literally) was in the past two years to make Romney bad because he is rich, its one thing to be a rich celebrity like Bruce Springsteen or some dumb Hollywood star but no, if you are a businessman and get rich well you are a definite scumbag, and guess what it worked, Obama still was more favorable, unreal, I still can not fathom what happened this election, its truly saddening.

  • PatH

    :p

  • JD McAfoose

    The republican party has to change its party lines. We are a nation of the internet, gay acceptance, immagrant herritage, and at the bare minimum the right for women’s access to birth control and equal pay.

    The longer it takes for the republican party to realize this change and that America is not the America of our 65 year old parents or grandparents…then the more elections they will loose.

    If capitalism wants to thrive then it requires that companies and the ultra wealthy act with morality on their own. Government simply fills the vacuum of space the greed of the powerful few have left.

    Andrew Carnegie talks extensively about the responsibility of the winners of an open market have to the other players in the game.

    It isn’t a nation at takers but a nation of people taken from and their voice is now loud enough to be paid attention to.

  • Bill Hedges

    Guess you forgot Nov. 2, 2010. Voters VERY UNHAPPY with demos. We gained MORE CONTROL of House yesterday.

    We need to point out the LIES spread by demos. Like rich tax cuts cost revenue for government & must be paid for, that rich do not pay their fair share, & demos push class envy:

    “Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? ”

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government. Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.”

    “What about those dastardly one percenters? Back in the days of Jimmy Carter, Americans in the top one percent of earners paid an effective tax rate of .8%. The effective tax rate fell all the way to … wait for it … %.”

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    “The tax code has also become more progressive. As indicated above, the top 1% of earners now pay an effective income tax rate of 19%, nearly six times the percent paid by middle income earners (3.3%). In 1979, the differential between the rate paid by the top one percent was less than three times that of middle class earners.”

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping %, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    “The wealthy also pay more than their representative income would dictate. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, the top 1% earned 17% of the total income in 2009. Meanwhile, they paid 37% of all the taxes paid. The bottom half of earners took in 13% of the 2009 total taxable income, yet paid just 2.25% of the total tax revenue.”

    “But haven’t all these tax cuts blown a hole in our budget? The answer is no. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues remained at or near historic levels as a percentage of GDP until the financial collapse in 2007. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: .5%. With the recession, tax revenue has dipped to 14.9% of GDP, while spending has risen to 25%, which accounts for our widening deficit.”

    “If current tax rates are left in place, the CBO projects that tax revenue will return to historic levels by 2021, while spending will remain well above historic levels, 26% of GDP. The picture gets even worse with time. The CBO predicts spending to reach % of GDP by 2035. It would be impossible to collect 34% of GDP in revenue without steep tax increases on all Americans; including the poor and middle class. There simply aren’t enough rich people to pay the bill. To put this in perspective, in order to close the budget gap in 2010 solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000, the two highest tax brackets would have to rise to percent and 142 percent. Of course, it’s impossible to tax individuals more than 100%; even if it were desirable.”

    “In sum, the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and Bush have benefited the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Their taxes have been cut more drastically than wealthy Americans, and many have been taken off the tax rolls altogether. In 2009, a majority of Americans paid no federal income tax. The poor and middle class also pay a far lower percentage of the total revenue pie now. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues have remained essentially constant. Unfortunately, our spending has ballooned, and is only projected to increase with time”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

  • Bob

    I always get a chuckle out of hearing the left making their suggestions of how the Republican party needs to reform to current times. Like so many times in the past they suggest they are willing to be bipartistan……..as long as we bend our views to their policies.Yes I’m sure they care deeply about the Republican party and we would be lost without their advice and guidance.

    There is no need for me to explain our beliefs and principles and why we have them here…..it’s all been covered a thousand times before.In fact Nate stated many of them quite eloquently above.What they don’t understand is the necessarity to have these beliefs and principles and to stick steadfast to them.We could just as well nominate someone who had moderate views just to win an election.But as I stated above when moderates vote 57% Democrat you really don’t have an opposition party then.The reason we have opposition parties to make sure one party doesn’t control the government.Countries like Russia,China and Cuba didn’t or don’t have any opposition parties.Our Bill of Rights and checks and balances in our Constitution also are weights against this happening.

    No……Conservatism has been declared dead many times before and it came back.I stuck with it after the 1964 election when it seemed doomed and the left waved it off as dead.I stuck with it when there were a lot less people who believed it and I’ll stick with it again.

    Buying votes isn’t winning the hearts and minds with your views.Especially when you do it on the cheap with campaign promises you can’t keep with a split Congress. As Russell Kirk said “You are never finished fighting a battle”.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Conservatism is not dead, it is the fact that many Republicans act like dems in congress and as a president that it doesn’t help. I just hope a conservative gets elected and passes a conservative agenda, to shrink this damn government back, and to stick to principles. Liberals do not care about republicans, the republican party has been dead numerous times, the problems republicans have is like George W they appease the damn liberals,what does that do? It backfires and the libs use it against Republicans nonstop.

    JD you talk about womens equal pay, your man Obama had 4 years of a presidency 2.5 of them with a democratic congress yet he never passed Equal pay, how odd?…

  • Mike R

    Nate

    Capitalism isn’t a moral system; it’s an economic system. A free market is the most effecient way to distribute goods and services. Other ways have been tried, and they failed. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there aren’t enough communists or socialists left in the world to fill a good sized room.

    I’m amazed by the agonized despair on the right since the election. A liberal president gets reelected and a curtain of doom falls across our future. The tipping point has been reached. Capitalism is doomed. We’re sinking into a serfdom imposed by a Big Brother government. Our children are handed over to a drab gray future where ambition is unrewarded and progress grinds to a halt.

    Where is the evidence? What are the specific policies that are to bring on this dark age? Obamacare? The Europeans have had nationalized health care for generations and capitalists still own and control their firms;ambitious people still start and grow new businesses; the fundamentals of democracy—universal suffrage, free speech press and assembly — are not threatened.

    Is it the proposed four point increase in the top marginal tax rate that’s going to bring capitalism to its knees? Is regulating the financial markets, like we did for sixty years after the great depression, going to strangle free enterprise to death?

    Perhaps it’s the president’s proposal to put more resources into industrial and technological education when we have three and a half million jobs going begging for lack of skilled workers. Is that a cog in the machine of socialist doom?

    Maybe it’s the national debt, a debt which was accumulated and ignored for a quarter century by a series of Republican administrations. But it seems that if we ask the super-rich to throw in a little extra to help retire it, we will destroy their will to work, Atlas will shrug, and the dark age will be upon us.

    Give us some specifics.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike R you need a lesson on tax cuts for rich. All numbers are from CBO with links included:

    “Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? ”

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government. Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.”

    “What about those dastardly one percenters? Back in the days of Jimmy Carter, Americans in the top one percent of earners paid an effective tax rate of .8%. The effective tax rate fell all the way to … wait for it … %.”

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    “The tax code has also become more progressive. As indicated above, the top 1% of earners now pay an effective income tax rate of 19%, nearly six times the percent paid by middle income earners (3.3%). In 1979, the differential between the rate paid by the top one percent was less than three times that of middle class earners.”

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping %, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    “The wealthy also pay more than their representative income would dictate. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, the top 1% earned 17% of the total income in 2009. Meanwhile, they paid 37% of all the taxes paid. The bottom half of earners took in 13% of the 2009 total taxable income, yet paid just 2.25% of the total tax revenue.”

    “But haven’t all these tax cuts blown a hole in our budget? The answer is no. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues remained at or near historic levels as a percentage of GDP until the financial collapse in 2007. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: .5%. With the recession, tax revenue has dipped to 14.9% of GDP, while spending has risen to 25%, which accounts for our widening deficit.”

    “If current tax rates are left in place, the CBO projects that tax revenue will return to historic levels by 2021, while spending will remain well above historic levels, 26% of GDP. The picture gets even worse with time. The CBO predicts spending to reach % of GDP by 2035. It would be impossible to collect 34% of GDP in revenue without steep tax increases on all Americans; including the poor and middle class. There simply aren’t enough rich people to pay the bill. To put this in perspective, in order to close the budget gap in 2010 solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000, the two highest tax brackets would have to rise to percent and 142 percent. Of course, it’s impossible to tax individuals more than 100%; even if it were desirable.”

    “In sum, the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and Bush have benefited the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Their taxes have been cut more drastically than wealthy Americans, and many have been taken off the tax rolls altogether. In 2009, a majority of Americans paid no federal income tax. The poor and middle class also pay a far lower percentage of the total revenue pie now. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues have remained essentially constant. Unfortunately, our spending has ballooned, and is only projected to increase with time”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

  • Mike R

    I only take lessons from rational people.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Top 1 percent pays 70 percent of all income taxes in this country, if liberals want to tax the rich some more, and all the rich pundits who like to say they would pay more like Chris Matthews, go ahead and do it! You can tax yourself more if you wish, the only problem is, those same people still use all the loopholes everyone else does.

  • Bill Hedges

    OBAMA_SUCKS

    CBO real numbers are taken from the books of IRS records. A more BIAS source you can not find if numbers smears bum.
    __

    Mike R _ I have been ONE LINED…

    Faced with ALL CBO DATA (can’t SCREAM bias legitimately with a straight face ) THAT makes bum look bad & goes against the CORE beliefs of liberals. All you can come up with is:

    “I only take lessons from rational people” !!!

    You had a bad hair day, go call OBAMA_SUCKS a racist without a shred of evidence. AFTERALL when bum’s fatal flaws burns liberal skin NASTY REARS ITS ugly head…

  • JD McAfoose

    Obama_Sucks – I always get a bit of a chuckle when people use the whole 1% pays 70%… If anything that proves the economic disparity in our population.

    If the middle class made more money (Not saying a handout) then the percentage would be lower. Needless to say 30% of 50 million is more then 30% of 50 thousand. It is the disparity between the two you should be concerned about.

    And again, closing loopholes is a different conversation then paying percentage taxes. Also, keep in mind most of the 1% do not pay income tax but rather Capital gains tax which is much lower than the income tax rate.

    Finally, I would like to add that the first bill Obama signed into law was Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which dealt with the pay equality with women. In all fairness, Obama does not write law nor does any other president so credit is only given in the fact that he signed it into law.

  • Bill Hedges

    JD McAfoose *** when did raising taxes on rich INCREASE IRS revenue from rich outstripping that increased by lowering % rate for rich *** ? Link proof. CBO numbers best source for such proof as I used.

    1. “I always get a bit of a chuckle when people use the whole 1% pays 70%… If anything that proves the economic disparity in our population.”.

    NO. WRONG.

    “economic disparity ” ? Proves tax cuts to rich places LARGER BURDEN OF government revenue ON THE SHOULDERS OF RICH. LOWERING RESPONSIBLITY OF MIDDLE CLASS, AND GIVE MORE non-rich no tax bill. A very unsettling liberal reality but THRUTH. But bum wants to raise taxes on rich (even with less revenue) for FAIRNESS ??? The logic is mind altering. Expected only in intensive LSD use.

    JFK said if you want rich to pay, cut their income tax rate. The tax cuts are not only for rich. More pay NO TAX & MANY OF THEM receive money. Middle class tax rate went down. Rich made up the loss of revenue from non-rich. FLYING in the face of demos statements of needing to make up for loss of revenue when giving tax cuts to rich.

    Rich pay more tax because they invest creating jobs. Article uses ONLY CBO real numbers

    “Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? ”

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government. Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.”

    “What about those dastardly one percenters? Back in the days of Jimmy Carter, Americans in the top one percent of earners paid an effective tax rate of .8%. The effective tax rate fell all the way to … wait for it … %.”

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    “The tax code has also become more progressive. As indicated above, the top 1% of earners now pay an effective income tax rate of 19%, nearly six times the percent paid by middle income earners (3.3%). In 1979, the differential between the rate paid by the top one percent was less than three times that of middle class earners.”

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping %, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    “The wealthy also pay more than their representative income would dictate. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, the top 1% earned 17% of the total income in 2009. Meanwhile, they paid 37% of all the taxes paid. The bottom half of earners took in 13% of the 2009 total taxable income, yet paid just 2.25% of the total tax revenue.”

    “But haven’t all these tax cuts blown a hole in our budget? The answer is no. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues remained at or near historic levels as a percentage of GDP until the financial collapse in 2007. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: .5%. With the recession, tax revenue has dipped to 14.9% of GDP, while spending has risen to 25%, which accounts for our widening deficit.”

    “If current tax rates are left in place, the CBO projects that tax revenue will return to historic levels by 2021, while spending will remain well above historic levels, 26% of GDP. The picture gets even worse with time. The CBO predicts spending to reach % of GDP by 2035. It would be impossible to collect 34% of GDP in revenue without steep tax increases on all Americans; including the poor and middle class. There simply aren’t enough rich people to pay the bill. To put this in perspective, in order to close the budget gap in 2010 solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000, the two highest tax brackets would have to rise to percent and 142 percent. Of course, it’s impossible to tax individuals more than 100%; even if it were desirable.”

    “In sum, the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and Bush have benefited the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Their taxes have been cut more drastically than wealthy Americans, and many have been taken off the tax rolls altogether. In 2009, a majority of Americans paid no federal income tax. The poor and middle class also pay a far lower percentage of the total revenue pie now. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues have remained essentially constant. Unfortunately, our spending has ballooned, and is only projected to increase with time”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

    2. “If the middle class made more money (Not saying a handout) then the percentage would be lower”

    Too many variables to say with certainty. Republican lower rates AT ALL LEVELS. Is not JUST FOR RICH. The reality is in 20‘s, JFK, RR, Newt (he got tax cuts not Bill C. who raised), & Bush rich paid more tax share to government revenue.

    When rich do well so do middle class income on down. Rich receive a reward for risking their money. The worker WILL BE PAID WITH NEXT TO NO RISK. THE RISK TAKER MY PUT up his savings, his property, etc.. A premium is expected & rightly so.

    3. “1% do not pay income tax but rather Capital gains tax which is much lower than the income tax rate.”

    SO ? Their % of revenue paid to IRS is entrance % of revenue generated + creation of jobs. More pay NO TAXES thanks to rich. Raise rich % and see land dry without rain. Historically proven.

    4. “Obama does not write law ”

    bum’s budget was VOTED DOWN by both sides of the isle:

    “House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets — Or Do They?”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Smack down by Bill!

    If Obama was smart he would do what Clinton did and keep his social issues to appease Dems but become much more fiscally conservative, not only did the congress work together, approval for Clinton soared, and the country benefitted.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bullseye by OBAMA_SUCKS…