Political Comic: Spread the Wealth [Archive]

iJon

Oct 30, 2008, 07:21 PM

I found this on another forum I browse. Don't know its original source but it made me chuckle a little bit.

"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again, I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more."

jon

detz

Oct 30, 2008, 07:21 PM

Amusing but not very accurate...

davidwarren

Oct 30, 2008, 07:22 PM

Love it.

it5five

Oct 30, 2008, 07:23 PM

Congratulations, you still don't understand Obama's tax policy.

Queso

Oct 30, 2008, 07:26 PM

>$250,000 a year!!!

How many times? Are you all brainwashed?

NT1440

Oct 30, 2008, 07:27 PM

Heh, very well done.

Of course, it's very rare you see any comics printed that come from a non-liberal viewpoint.

yup, everyones out to get conservatives.:rolleyes:

And I realize to make the point they have to exaggerate, but no ones going to take ALL YOUR MONEY over $250,000

Aranince

Oct 30, 2008, 07:28 PM

>$250,000 a year!!!

How many times? Are you all brainwashed?

Actually, Obama's tax plan is an illusion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

rdowns

Oct 30, 2008, 07:31 PM

Actually, Obama's tax plan is an illusion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

No matter how many times you post this partisan crap, it's still not true.

Much Ado

Oct 30, 2008, 07:34 PM

Congratulations, you still don't understand Obama's tax policy.

They don't want to understand. They don't want to look deeply at each candidate's proposals. Your politics are contaminated to the core by ultra-partisanship that makes any sort of debate meaningless as people are too busy defending their 'team' to make any effort to understand or accept the other side's message.

This forum is a prime example. It's no longer about learning through debate, or about exploring ideas. It's sport, pure and simple; an incessant smear-fest that gets us all nowhere and makes a mockery of what should be the most important democratic event of this century so far.

I would point to this as coming mainly from GOP-supporters, but that may be my own bias taking over. I won't push the point.

skunk

Oct 30, 2008, 07:34 PM

Surprise, surprise! It's a quote from the same Rupert Murdoch organisation which brought you Faux "News". Not idiotic, shameless propaganda. Oh no, definitely not. Perish the thought.

Aranince

Oct 30, 2008, 07:35 PM

No matter how many times you post this partisan crap, it's still not true.

Kind of like the extremely left media? CNN? CBS? DailyKos?

it5five

Oct 30, 2008, 07:36 PM

Name some "extreme left" media in the US.

EDIT: Saw you edited some in. Thanks for the laughs. CNN, "extreme left"?

Aranince

Oct 30, 2008, 07:37 PM

Yes, CNN is as left as Fox is right.

Queso

Oct 30, 2008, 07:38 PM

Kind of like the extremely left media? CNN? CBS? DailyKos?
From my perspective CNN and CBS are right-wing, just like the entire mainstream USA political scene. Just because your personal politics would paint Margaret Thatcher as a Socialist doesn't move the definitions as to what left and right actually are.

The Democrats are a centre-right party by global standards. Your brain is addled by propaganda if you believe differently.

it5five

Oct 30, 2008, 07:39 PM

Yes, CNN is as left as Fox is right.

Sure. In whatever alternate reality you're living in.

As someone who considers themselves to be on the "extreme left", let me tell you that I find CNN to be rather right-wing. They certainly don't represent my views.

Much Ado

Oct 30, 2008, 07:40 PM

Kind of like the extremely left media? CNN? CBS? DailyKos?

Here we go again. "I know I'm wrong, but everyone else is doing it (*ahem*) so it doesn't count."
"Oh yeah, well you're just as bad."
"That fact may be fabricated, but the media do that all the time."

Sport. Infantile sport. Why not just get Obama and McCain in a ring and settle this through a boxing match.

EDIT: CNN are not left-wing.

Peterkro

Oct 30, 2008, 07:40 PM

Name some "extreme left" media in the US.

EDIT: Saw you edited some in. Thanks for the laughs. CNN, "extreme left"?

But but but CBS is run by revolutionary socialists and anarchists trying to steal our freedoms and make us all give our money to the world government.Quick get the wagons in a circle, call up the NRa.

bobber205

Oct 30, 2008, 07:40 PM

Name some "extreme left" media in the US.

EDIT: Saw you edited some in. Thanks for the laughs. CNN, "extreme left"?

He has to be this. He's too consistent.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn142/torasap/obvious_troll.jpg

skunk

Oct 30, 2008, 07:41 PM

Kind of like the extremely left media? CNN? CBS? DailyKos?Please learn to talk sense. There is no "extremely left" or even "left" mainstream media in the USA. Don't you understand? There is extreme right, far right, right, right of centre, and centre. Just like US politics. You obviously have no idea of the political spectrum in the real world and you simply continue to make a fool of yourself by posting this arrant and ignorant nonsense over and over again.

iJohnHenry

Oct 30, 2008, 07:44 PM

No matter how many times you post this partisan crap, it's still not true.

Repetition is the sincerest form of desperation.

bobber205

Oct 30, 2008, 07:46 PM

Maybe "extremely left" means "does not agree wtih me 100% of the time".

Hell, Fox News is left then. They have, recently especially, been calling McCain on his idiotic moves.

geese

Oct 30, 2008, 08:02 PM

Heres one from b3ta (http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/election/)

http://heady.co.uk/b3ta/mccain_parade_bright.jpg

NT1440

Oct 30, 2008, 08:05 PM

Heres one from b3ta (http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/election/)

http://heady.co.uk/b3ta/mccain_parade_bright.jpg

uh oh, your gonna get flamed with that.

(i thought it was funny)

Aranince

Oct 30, 2008, 08:06 PM

Peterkro

Oct 30, 2008, 08:07 PM

ROFL. That is how you view it because you are a democrat. That is hilarious.

Very loud WHOOSH!

Blue Velvet

Oct 30, 2008, 08:07 PM

ROFL. That is how you view it because you are a democrat. That is hilarious.

skunk is not a democrat. Your assumption is hilarious.

Aranince

Oct 30, 2008, 08:08 PM

Sport. Infantile sport. Why not just get Obama and McCain in a ring and settle this through a boxing match.

Hehe..I've always wanted to see a fight break out during the debates. Watch Obama running away saying "can't we just talk this out?"

geese

Oct 30, 2008, 08:08 PM

uh oh, your gonna get flamed with that.

(i thought it was funny)

At least it was funny.

NT1440

Oct 30, 2008, 08:09 PM

ROFL. That is how you view it because you are a democrat. That is hilarious.

If you had any clue about how the world works, youd see he was 100% correct.

But by all means keep living wrapped up in your flag and ignore the rest of the world, its of no concern to you guys any way, until oil or economics come into it.

We should we care to at least see how the rest of the world works, after all were number one right?!:rolleyes:

USA! USA! USA!:rolleyes:

Much Ado

Oct 30, 2008, 08:09 PM

Hehe..I've always wanted to see a fight break out during the debates. Watch Obama running away saying "can't we just talk this out?"

You were my inspiration (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6530610#post6530610) :)

NT1440

Oct 30, 2008, 08:11 PM

Hehe..I've always wanted to see a fight break out during the debates. Watch Obama running away saying "can't we just talk this out?"

WOW, this shows GOP thinking very nicely. While the rest of the world thinks things can and should be worked out diplomatically through talks and negotiations, our GOP thinks brute force is best.

After all, who cares about human life, when you could win titles like "winner" and "honor" right?

Absolutly disgusting.

kavika411

Oct 30, 2008, 08:13 PM

uh oh, your gonna get flamed with that.

I respectfully disagree. I doubt he/she will get flamed here with that picture.

megfilmworks

Oct 30, 2008, 08:14 PM

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

jon

Too bad he didn't tell the server when he first sat down so the he could
"redistribute" the food to the homeless man instead of his cheap customer.

NT1440

Oct 30, 2008, 08:15 PM

I respectfully disagree. I doubt he/she will get flamed here with that picture.

i meant by the occasional mccain supporter that happens by. I realize most of us here are more liberal. (seems to be a trend among the educated and those who are technologically aware.....just sayin)

Blue Velvet

Oct 30, 2008, 08:15 PM

Kind of like the extremely left media? CNN? CBS

For many people, anything to the left of Rush and Hannity is socialist.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, except to troll, to be honest. Tell me why that isn't so.

NT1440

Oct 30, 2008, 08:17 PM

For many people, anything to the left of Rush and Hannity is socialist.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, except to troll, to be honest. Tell me why that isn't so.

Well it did have a purpose at one point, but now its laughably trollish behavior, its probably best if it gets closed before accusations of "attacking" certain viewpoints come up.

Much Ado

Oct 30, 2008, 08:19 PM

ROFL. That is how you view it because you are a democrat. That is hilarious.

A scale has two extremes. If you think CNN is ultra-lefty, then explain to me where more liberal European news stations are? Ultra-ultra left? And where's Communism? US politics are broadly centre to right, because, surprise surprise, there is a lot to the left of Obama that in your scale doesn't exist.

Cleverboy

Oct 30, 2008, 10:09 PM

Heh, very well done. Of course, it's very rare you see any comics printed that come from a non-liberal viewpoint. Nah, you see them all the time, but unfortunately reality has a liberal bias. Conservatives are by definition very insular and resistant to change and outside influence. The more society "globalizes", the more we understand about other cultures, the more "change" we experience... and thus the conservative viewpoint is undermined by reality.

Hey, I think this is a humorous one though:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n4/RobertOak/ObamaDir_562.jpg

Hehe..I've always wanted to see a fight break out during the debates. Watch Obama running away saying "can't we just talk this out?" I think this is the video you're looking for. A genuine Barack Obama "constructive criticism ad".
Obama Runs Constructive Criticism Ad Against McCain
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_runs_constructive_criticism?utm_source=videomrss_74800

Here's another funny one. I love The Onion:
Obama Warns He May Cease To Exist
Unless America Believes In Him
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/obama_warns_he_may_cease_to

...And cause its just too damn funny:
Scott Bakula Jumps Into McCain's
Body Just Before Election
http://origin.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/scott_bakula_jumps_into

~ CB

Iscariot

Oct 30, 2008, 10:32 PM

Actually, Obama's tax plan is an illusion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

The true illusion: Obama is David Blaine.

Unexpected? Maybe. But M. Night Shaymalan is directing the election.

Cleverboy

Oct 30, 2008, 10:48 PM

The true illusion: Obama is David Blaine.
Unexpected? Maybe. But M. Night Shaymalan is directing the election. Crap. That means the endings gonna SUCK. Can I get my money back?

~ CB

glocke12

Oct 31, 2008, 06:19 AM

>$250,000 a year!!!

How many times? Are you all brainwashed?

>250k isnt that much money, and I do not consider those people wealthy who earn that much. Make it >500k and your on to something.

és:

Oct 31, 2008, 06:22 AM

Yes, CNN is as left as Fox is right.

Oh dear lord! Are you so extreme right that you believe the center is left. Joke.

Queso

Oct 31, 2008, 06:55 AM

Unexpected? Maybe. But M. Night Shaymalan is directing the election.
So it's a surprise win for Jimmy Carter then? :eek:

Evangelion

Oct 31, 2008, 07:02 AM

ROFL. That is how you view it because you are a democrat. That is hilarious.

This is coming from someone who lives outside USA. And yes, USA doesn't really have any left-wing parties. Democrats are about as right-wing as the mainstream-right is in Finland. Republicans would be in the "*******-insane right"-category.

Funny, by your standards, we are nothing but hardcore commies (we are not. We do have some real commies in here. They got about 1% of the votes in the last elections), but we seem to be doing just fine.

Calling Democrats or any part of the mainstream-media in USA as "left" is a clear indication that the person has no idea what "left" means when we talk about politics.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with "left". "Left" supports different policies than "right" does, but neither of them is "good" by default. They are different. Singularily labeling "left" (or "right") as bad means that the person in question suffers from severe case of dogmatism.

Evangelion

Oct 31, 2008, 07:03 AM

Hehe..I've always wanted to see a fight break out during the debates. Watch Obama running away saying "can't we just talk this out?"

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

Queso

Oct 31, 2008, 07:08 AM

Heres one from b3ta (http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/election/)
I love b3ta. Some of the things on there are just so delightfully irreverent :)

And this one had me in hysterics :D

http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/ballotbox.jpg

miloblithe

Oct 31, 2008, 07:24 AM

Please learn to talk sense. There is no "extremely left" or even "left" mainstream media in the USA. Don't you understand? There is extreme right, far right, right, right of centre, and centre. Just like US politics. You obviously have no idea of the political spectrum in the real world and you simply continue to make a fool of yourself by posting this arrant and ignorant nonsense over and over again.

I disagree. If we're going to use the entire world as the spectrum, maybe it's like right or at most far right, right of center, and center in the U.S. You can get a lot farther right than Fox News. At least they offer the pretense of being "fair and balanced." Extreme right wouldn't even bother. It's not like Fox News advocates for military dictatorship.

Sdashiki

Oct 31, 2008, 09:17 AM

>250k isnt that much money, and I do not consider those people wealthy who earn that much. Make it >500k and your on to something.
You effin joking right?

thats 5-10x the mean national average. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

skunk

Oct 31, 2008, 12:47 PM

At least they offer the pretense of being "fair and balanced." Extreme right wouldn't even bother. It's not like Fox News advocates for military dictatorship.What relevance does what they "offer the pretense of" have? Among so-called civilised democracies, it is only in the USA that any self-styled news organisation gets away with being so outrageously biased. Fox has no business even calling itself "News". It should be Fox Right-Wing Propaganda.

glocke12

Oct 31, 2008, 02:20 PM

You effin joking right?

thats 5-10x the mean national average. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

it may be 5x-10x the mean, but it is in no way alot of money, and people making that much, while doing well, are by no means super wealthy....and this is coming from someone making close to 90k...

Sdashiki

Oct 31, 2008, 02:38 PM

it may be 5x-10x the mean, but it is in no way alot of money, and people making that much, while doing well, are by no means super wealthy....and this is coming from someone making close to 90k...

If I made 2.5x what I make now, id consider myself rich. Richer than people around me.

And you would be above 250k, big deal. You cant tell me you wouldnt be quite well off making 2.5x your current salary.

glocke12

Oct 31, 2008, 03:38 PM

If I made 2.5x what I make now, id consider myself rich. Richer than people around me.

And you would be above 250k, big deal. You cant tell me you wouldnt be quite well off making 2.5x your current salary.

Right now Im just barely getting by, and I dont live large...
Student loans, mortgage, car expenses, and up until my mother passed away I was paying for alot of her healthcare costs..

If I was making 2.5x what I am making now, Id better off, but I wouldnt be well off. Id be able to pay all my bills which I can barely afford to do now, and Id be able to save for retirement which I am not able to do now...but I wouldnt call myself rich by any means..

I do know people who have a combined salary of 250k...they are better off than me and have more flexible income, but they arent really what I consider rich either..

it5five

Oct 31, 2008, 05:31 PM

EDIT: Nevermind.

iShater

Oct 31, 2008, 05:55 PM

What part of the country are you in that you barely get by on 90k? :confused:

Medical expenses can rip any budget, so that probably is it.

At some point the more you make is going to exceed your expenses, and even someone making far less can save for retirement and take advantage of the tax benefits, etc.

$250k for a combined income is not super wealth by any means, but to say they cannot live on that indicates that they are doing something really wrong with their budgets.

Right now Im just barely getting by, and I dont live large...
Student loans, mortgage, car expenses, and up until my mother passed away I was paying for alot of her healthcare costs..

If I was making 2.5x what I am making now, Id better off, but I wouldnt be well off. Id be able to pay all my bills which I can barely afford to do now, and Id be able to save for retirement which I am not able to do now...but I wouldnt call myself rich by any means..

I do know people who have a combined salary of 250k...they are better off than me and have more flexible income, but they arent really what I consider rich either..

glocke12

Oct 31, 2008, 06:11 PM

What part of the country are you in that you barely get by on 90k? :confused:

Medical expenses can rip any budget, so that probably is it.

At some point the more you make is going to exceed your expenses, and even someone making far less can save for retirement and take advantage of the tax benefits, etc.

$250k for a combined income is not super wealth by any means, but to say they cannot live on that indicates that they are doing something really wrong with their budgets.

I live in the east coast 90 minutes north of philadelphia in a rural area. Previous to this I lived a little closer to philly in a more urban area and was having an even more diffucult time of things. I dont live large, pack my lunch, etc...Its just the way things are back here.....its very expensive (of course having $300.00 a month in student loans doesnt help).

I never said the people I know who have a combined income of 250k are struggling. I merely said they are not what I consider rich.....They have a nice house, a few fancier toys, and more flexible income, but they arent rich.....

iShater

Oct 31, 2008, 06:18 PM

I live in the east coast 90 minutes north of philadelphia in a rural area. Previous to this I lived a little closer to philly in a more urban area and was having an even more diffucult time of things. I dont live large, pack my lunch, etc...Its just the way things are back here.....its very expensive (of course having $300.00 a month in student loans doesnt help).

I never said the people I know who have a combined income of 250k are struggling. I merely said they are not what I consider rich.....They have a nice house, a few fancier toys, and more flexible income, but they arent rich.....

Loans suck, that is for sure.

I guess it is all relative. Our household income is less than 250k (by a decent margin) and we live in the burbs in Chicagoland, and compared to some folks I know who do not earn close to what we do, I feel "rich". My wife disagrees of course :D

I just budget like a hawk and make sure to never spend beyond my means. Of course like everybody else though, if we didn't have health coverage or lost employment we would easily fall down.

xUKHCx

Oct 31, 2008, 06:37 PM

Wow some peoples definition of not rich is a tad out of line with those who are actually poor.

it5five

Oct 31, 2008, 06:39 PM

Wow some peoples definition of not rich is a tad out of line with those who are actually poor.

Yeah that's what my neverminded post was about, but I figured it wasn't worth the effort and I'd just be accused of class envy or something.

I make ~17k a year working part time and going to school. Even 3x this amount would be rich to me, let alone the 15x that would get me near 250k.

iShater

Oct 31, 2008, 06:41 PM

Wow some peoples definition of not rich is a tad out of line with those who are actually poor.

Well, I think we have 4 views here in the states:

1) How do I compare to the people on TV? the true rich and famous?
2) How do I compare to the average middle class (40k-90k)?
3) How do I compare to the poor (poverty line is 25k or so for a family)?
4) How do I compare to the poor of the world (who live on a $1 a day)?

Most people look at #1 and maybe #2. Some might look at #3, and rarely do people look at #4.

Yeah that's what my neverminded post was about, but I figured it wasn't worth the effort and I'd just be accused of class envy or something.

I make ~17k a year working part time and going to school. Even 3x this amount would be rich to me, let alone the 15x that would get me near 250k.

You know, I remember when I got my 2nd full time job after college. My income more than doubled, and I remember feeling "rich". (My first job was like you, 18k).

Now, a couple of years ago I worked part time at a store (cause I liked it ;) ), and made something like $10 an hour or so. I didn't need the money, it was a way for me to try something new and enjoy it. But it reset my perspective. I had other folks at the store where this was their 2nd job cause they didn't earn enough in the first to live a decent life. I started paying attention to "how many hours of work does it take for me to buy that". That is when I realized that buying a $300 iPod is more than half a months rent for some people, close to what they make in a week, etc. And lets not start talking about minimum wage so I don't completely derail this thread.

The higher tax bracket at the top of the income hits discretionary spending money more than anything else. :o

miloblithe

Oct 31, 2008, 09:00 PM

What relevance does what they "offer the pretense of" have? Among so-called civilised democracies, it is only in the USA that any self-styled news organisation gets away with being so outrageously biased. Fox has no business even calling itself "News". It should be Fox Right-Wing Propaganda.

More or less fair, but they are not extreme right wing. That's my point. And they do offer opposing viewpoints, even if with minimal enthusiasm and with little devil horns over the "lefties."

CalBoy

Nov 1, 2008, 03:40 AM

If I made 2.5x what I make now, id consider myself rich. Richer than people around me.

Here's a real shocker, but I actually agree with glocke12 on this one.

Depending on where you are and your particular circumstances, a salary of $250k can definitely mean much less than one would imagine.

Take the Bay Area for example. Out here, the average family home is quite expensive, even if it's a good 40+ miles from San Francisco and a respectable distance from San Jose and Oakland (for anyone from the area, think of Dublin). A young couple, even with a healthy down payment, is looking at an annual mortgage payment of around $60-80k per year (depending on neighborhood, schools, etc) at the minimum, and this won't get you a fantastically large house either (one might fare better in the current market, but in the long term, the Bay Area will only experience more housing shortages as more people keep moving here).

Add to that higher gas prices than the national average, relatively high property tax rates (not the percentage per se, but the high cost of land means that that hypothetical couple will pay an additional $7-10k in property taxes per year), more expensive food, and merchandise that is generally more expensive compared to the national average (essentially the product of expensive land and high gas prices), and one can see that $250k doesn't go as far as it would in another region of the country.

Now don't get me wrong; I'm in no way saying that this hypothetical couple earning $250k is hard pressed for cash. They are bound to be quite comfortable and will probably have the opportunity to save modestly for retirement, pay for most of their children's college expenses, etc. However, I don't think that this qualifies them as "rich." To borrow from Claire Huxtable, people are rich when their money works for them. A couple earning $250k would likely only be able to bank enough to have their savings sustain them after 40 years of work, essentially making them "rich" in retirement.

Now, I want to stress that this doesn't mean I disagree with Obama's tax proposals, or that I think Obama is a "socialist," "commie," or whatever utterly nonsensical word one can come up with.

I just happen to disagree with some of the semantics in this thread. ;)

glocke12

Nov 1, 2008, 05:46 AM

Here's a real shocker, but I actually agree with glocke12 on this one.

Depending on where you are and your particular circumstances, a salary of $250k can definitely mean much less than one would imagine.

Take the Bay Area for example. Out here, the average family home is quite expensive, even if it's a good 40+ miles from San Francisco and a respectable distance from San Jose and Oakland (for anyone from the area, think of Dublin). A young couple, even with a healthy down payment, is looking at an annual mortgage payment of around $60-80k per year (depending on neighborhood, schools, etc) at the minimum, and this won't get you a fantastically large house either (one might fare better in the current market, but in the long term, the Bay Area will only experience more housing shortages as more people keep moving here).

Add to that higher gas prices than the national average, relatively high property tax rates (not the percentage per se, but the high cost of land means that that hypothetical couple will pay an additional $7-10k in property taxes per year), more expensive food, and merchandise that is generally more expensive compared to the national average (essentially the product of expensive land and high gas prices), and one can see that $250k doesn't go as far as it would in another region of the country.

Now don't get me wrong; I'm in no way saying that this hypothetical couple earning $250k is hard pressed for cash. They are bound to be quite comfortable and will probably have the opportunity to save modestly for retirement, pay for most of their children's college expenses, etc. However, I don't think that this qualifies them as "rich." To borrow from Claire Huxtable, people are rich when their money works for them. A couple earning $250k would likely only be able to bank enough to have their savings sustain them after 40 years of work, essentially making them "rich" in retirement.

thanks, good points. and once again Im not saying the people I know are poor, or are struggling, they arent. they just are not rich..250k can get you an above average comfortable life, but thats it...they can save for retirement, they are able to put money away for their childrens future, take one big vacation once every two years, but thats about as extravgant as they get. they probably arent able to invest in short term investments, and just really arent able to live as extravagantly as one would think someone earning 250k would.

thats why I said a couple or an individual making 500k is approaching what I consider to be rich, and why I wish Obamas tax proposal started there. At 500k, a couple or individual probably has alot more room to absorb a tax increase, and it wouldnt have as large of an impact as it would on someone making 250k....

As the previous poster mentioned, you have to take into account the cost of living of certain areas when thinking about this also. Where I am at 90k does not get one very far in terms of housing (this includes type of housing and location), add in very high property taxes in some areas, other costs, etc...and you just dont get very far.

I also still say that tax increases are not the answer. I do think we are overtaxed as it is many times over. The feds really just need to clean up the books and stop throwing our money away.....

xUKHCx

Nov 1, 2008, 08:03 AM

Here's a real shocker, but I actually agree with glocke12 on this one.

Depending on where you are and your particular circumstances, a salary of $250k can definitely mean much less than one would imagine.

The distance between work and home can only be so far before it becomes uneconomical to either live where you are or work where you do.

This distance increases with wealth.

The more expensive areas still need those on lower income for the society that has built up there to continue, school teachers, lollipop men, milkmen, shop owners, council workers, bin collectors, street sweepers, cops, ambulance crew, firemen ...

Now given the above statement they can't afford to live too far from their job and thus also have to try and make a life for themselves in the more expensive areas and factors such as increased gas prices affect the poor more than the well off. Where the difference is that one person might have to skimp on a Starbucks coffee the other might have to stretch the entire foodbuget for the family even tighter.

So yes people who earn $250,000 are less well off compared to other people who earn $250,000 elsewhere but so do those who earn a lot lot less. The breadline is actually higher in these areas and therefore these people need just as much assistance as the poor living elsewhere.

Society allows those people to earn the money they do, after all they wouldn't be in a situation where they could earn that much money (save the few extremes) without schools, local shop owners, everyone who supports the business they are in. It will lead to a few % less expendable income for the 250ers who live in those areas but we are still mainly talking about expendable income.

People are far too shortsighted with their money. If society is better than you have helped create a better world for those around you and your children.

I just happen to disagree with some of the semantics in this thread. ;)

As is always the case in the PRSI. The difficulty comes from the difference between what people consider rich / well off as explained by iShater's list.

skunk

Nov 1, 2008, 08:56 AM

People are far too shortsighted with their money. If society is better than you have helped create a better world for those around you and your children.Sadly, a significant number of people do not appear to want to create a better world outside their own bubble. The phrase "No man is an island" has been part of our cultural heritage since John Donne gave it to us in 1624, but it seems that some truths are more truthy than others.

glocke12

Nov 1, 2008, 10:54 AM

Yeah that's what my neverminded post was about, but I figured it wasn't worth the effort and I'd just be accused of class envy or something.

I make ~17k a year working part time and going to school. Even 3x this amount would be rich to me, let alone the 15x that would get me near 250k.

Working part time and going to school? I take it you are in your early twenties than? Are you still living at home or are you paying rent somewhere?

Its much different when you are older and in your 40's and 50's. Those people have children to raise and take care of, elderly parents that they probably need to help out financially etc....

When I got my first real job at the age of 26 I was making 40k a year and still staying at my parents. Within a month of getting that job I moved out and realized that 40k was not that much. It paid rent on an apartment, paid my bills and bought me food, thats it. I was not even able to afford furniture for another year.

ucfgrad93

Nov 1, 2008, 11:18 AM

I thought this was pretty funny as well.

Blue Velvet

Nov 1, 2008, 11:25 AM

^Only if you believe that Democrats reward laziness, something I've seen you say before. What exactly do you mean by that?

freeny

Nov 1, 2008, 12:39 PM

the troubling part of this whole republican angle is that they would rather vote for continued government corruption, corporate welfare, lies, an unjust war, ignoring the constitution, etc. etc. over some taxes paid by the small minority of the wealthy.
:eek:
A majority of those votes would actually be against their own interest.:confused:

At least we can hope for the complete rejection of this greed come Tuesday...

mactastic

Nov 1, 2008, 01:22 PM

thats why I said a couple or an individual making 500k is approaching what I consider to be rich, and why I wish Obamas tax proposal started there.
Well, at least with you we're only arguing over semantics, not theory.

As the previous poster mentioned, you have to take into account the cost of living of certain areas when thinking about this also. Where I am at 90k does not get one very far in terms of housing (this includes type of housing and location), add in very high property taxes in some areas, other costs, etc...and you just dont get very far.
Would you also agree that because the costs of living in certain cities are much higher than others that welfare and food stamps and college tuition aid, and all over government benefits should be indexed to the highest-costing metropolitan areas?

Because every time I've asked that question, conservatives tell me that those people are free to exercise their personal responsibility to move to a cheaper location.

Are you willing to define both rich AND poor by the most expensive places?

I also still say that tax increases are not the answer.
Here's the problem... conservatives cannot define a time when tax increases are the answer. And every time is a good time for a tax reduction. Good economy? Cut taxes to keep it going. Bad economy? Cut taxes to stimulate it. So-so economy? Cut taxes to give it a shot in the arm.

Eventually, under this theory, taxes either reach zero, or some minimal functional level that can never be reduced the next time an economic situation arises that would require it.

Right now it would make economic sense for the government to run a deficit, cut taxes across the board, and increase spending on borrowed money.

But we can't do that, because Bush decided that good economic times were when you wanted to spend on borrowed money, cut taxes, and run a giant deficit. Now we're stuck at a time when we needed the flexibility he destroyed with his economic theories -- which were celebrated by conservatives as being the height of conservative economic theory during the entire boom.

Of course now that conservative economic theories have fallen apart, we hear it all being blamed on how "Bush really wasn't a conservative".

CalBoy

Nov 1, 2008, 01:37 PM

I also still say that tax increases are not the answer. I do think we are overtaxed as it is many times over. The feds really just need to clean up the books and stop throwing our money away.....

I'd part ways with you here.

The couple making $250k isn't going to be hurt if their income above $250k is taxed by an additional 4%, as most or all of this is completely discretionary income that they are able to unfairly pocket, since their burden on the government increases as they become wealthier (they use more infrastructure, they make better use of the court system, etc). They also have more to gain with a stable government (more property to protect and hold).
The distance between work and home can only be so far before it becomes uneconomical to either live where you are or work where you do.

This distance increases with wealth.

Yes, this has long been a problem in the US.

Thankfully white flight is near its end (if it hasn't ended already). High gas prices, better urban housing, and baby-boomers who long for the convenience of urban living are reversing the trend.

<snip about society>

I don't disagree with you at all, and that's why I like progressive taxation.

I'm just getting caught up in semantics. :p

As is always the case in the PRSI. The difficulty comes from the difference between what people consider rich / well off as explained by iShater's list.

Indeed. I still prefer the definition used by Claire Huxtable (rich people have money for work them rather than the other way around). If you work hard for your money, then I think you are in a situation that is similar to most workers. Even if you have a high salary, you could become unemployed and lose it all, whereas someone who is rich will have their money to protect them from the problems of unemployment and disability.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 01:51 PM

NT1440

Nov 1, 2008, 01:54 PM

You have to consider that all prices are going up, utilities have sky rocketed some 30% and still going higher. If people can barley get by now how will a tax hike help. Why not work on cutting the wasteful projects and saving money that way rather than asking people for more money for more wasteful spending. In CT we are already paying some of the highest taxes in the country.

Who making over $250,000 "is barely getting by now?" :confused:

Maybe they should stick to the important bills and not buy gigantic houses or lexus's if they are in such bad shape.

And yes, cutting wasteful projects will be good, but theres no way in hell its going to fix things on its own.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 01:55 PM

I still think that no matter how much you make taxes will be going up.

glocke12

Nov 1, 2008, 01:56 PM

I'd part ways with you here.

The couple making $250k isn't going to be hurt if their income above $250k is taxed by an additional 4%, as most or all of this is completely discretionary income that they are able to unfairly pocket, since their burden on the government increases as they become wealthier (they use more infrastructure, they make better use of the court system, etc). They also have more to gain with a stable government (more property to protect and hold).

.

this is where you lose me....unfairly pocket? use of more infrastructure? Please define...

You also have to take into account that people like the friends I am talking about spent a large portion of their 20's educating themselves in graduate programs and paying for it in large part out of their own pocket....they invested in themselves, and deserve to reap those rewards. It is not your decision, nor anyone elses to decide that they "dont need" that income. That takes ALOT of nerve....

I honestly dont know when this idea came about that people making above a certain amount of money "dont need" or "dont deserve" their income, but it is pretty disturbing....it also opens up the question of if you know your income above a certain level is going to be taxed higher and "spread around", whats the point in striving to earn more??????

NT1440

Nov 1, 2008, 01:56 PM

I still think that no matter how much you make taxes will be going up.

Well then thats going off your opinion rather than looking at plans/policy.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 01:59 PM

Well then thats going off your opinion rather than looking at plans/policy.Those were the get me elected plans, now what are the real plans.

Sky Blue

Nov 1, 2008, 01:59 PM

Yes, CNN is as left as Fox is right.

That's a good one!:D

NT1440

Nov 1, 2008, 02:01 PM

That were the get me elected plans, now what are the real plans.

Ask that on both sides.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 02:06 PM

Ask that on both sides.Of course, but don't get upset when all the policies change.

Sky Blue

Nov 1, 2008, 02:07 PM

NT1440

Nov 1, 2008, 02:08 PM

Of course, but don't get upset when all the policies change.

I have nothing against doing things realistically. I realize that many plans will be toned down, but hell, even STARTING in the right direction is a hell of alot better than going backwards.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 02:10 PM

I do agree with the Republicans. Why can't those soldiers in Iraq buy their own guns and armor? It was their choice to go there. There's roads around my town I never drive on. Why do I have to pay for them with my hard earned money?Roads are payed with state and local taxes. If I do recall it was the Dems that were threatening to cut war funding.

Sky Blue

Nov 1, 2008, 02:13 PM

is this the political comic thread then?

http://localhostr.com/files/8caed4/GOPAndDemDeficitCartoon.jpg

CalBoy

Nov 1, 2008, 02:25 PM

this is where you lose me....unfairly pocket? use of more infrastructure? Please define...

Someone who earns more makes more use of the government and its infrastructure than someone who earns less, on average.

Take our hypothetical couple for example. If their annual income is $260k, then those $10,000 over the 250 line is going to be almost purely discretionary. With this additional money, they can choose to do one of two broad things:

1) Consume their additional earnings

or

2) Save/invest their additional earnings.

In either case, they make use of more government services that are provided by general taxation. In consumption terms, buying more goods means that your burden on the rail, port, and road systems is greater. It also means that you received more in regulatory services that keep those products safe and consumable (think of the FAA for instance; if you fly more often, you receive more from its inspections than someone who doesn't). It's a myth that buying a given product reflects its pure cost; tax payers get together to collectively build infrastructure to make the economy more efficient, and those who buy more receive a disproportionally larger share of this taxpayer-provided service.

Buying more also means that you have more property that needs to be protected by police, fire, and military services. If you think about it, we all pay for these things, but the wealthier one is, the more one has that needs protecting.

On the other side, investing additional income makes use of the government's banking and monetary infrastructure. As in the case of consumption and property protection, an individual begins to rely more and more on government protection against violence in order to secure their property. If those extra $10,000 are invested in a bank, the individual relies more on FDIC insurance than someone who invested only $1,000 (note, this is a service that both banks and customers benefit from because the government is not out to make a profit).

If the additional $10,000 is invested in the stock market, that investor is making more use out of the SEC, the IRS, and the FTC, all of which are intended to help make the stock market a more stable place, than someone who doesn't invest a dime.

You also have to take into account that people like the friends I am talking about spent a large portion of their 20's educating themselves in graduate programs and paying for it in large part out of their own pocket....they invested in themselves, and deserve to reap those rewards. It is not your decision, nor anyone elses to decide that they "dont need" that income. That takes ALOT of nerve....

No one is saying that they don't "need" that income, but they do need to pay their fair share of running society and keeping it running smoothly. At the moment, this burden is placed too heavily on the lower middle class (via sales taxes, which lower income people tend to pay more of), and that is unfair.

As for your friends, they are able to make their student loans tax deductible, and if they applied to FAFSA, they received Federal and state aid when they were in school, and likely received subsidized loans and/or grants. I think it's ok if we ask them to repay the favor for the next generation of college students.

whats the point in striving to earn more??????

You'll still take away more at the end of the day.

Think of it this way: if your income is $260k, your tax rate from $250k-260k is 35%, so you pay $3,500 on the income between $250k and $260k.

Under Obama's plan, you pay 39%, so instead of $3,500 you pay $3,900. At the end of the day, you still walk away with $6,100 more than you would have if you had only made $250k.

mactastic

Nov 1, 2008, 02:57 PM

Roads are payed with state and local taxes. If I do recall it was the Dems that were threatening to cut war funding.
So the federal highway money is used to buy twinkies and ho-hos?

iGary

Nov 1, 2008, 02:59 PM

So the federal highway money is used to buy twinkies and ho-hos?

I loves me some Twinkies.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 02:59 PM

So the federal highway money is used to buy twinkies and ho-hos?It would seem to be, we get taxed up the butt on gas and that is supposed to go for road work.

glocke12

Nov 1, 2008, 03:13 PM

Someone who earns more makes more use of the government and its infrastructure than someone who earns less, on average.

Take our hypothetical couple for example. If their annual income is $260k, then those $10,000 over the 250 line is going to be almost purely discretionary. With this additional money, they can choose to do one of two broad things:

1) Consume their additional earnings

or

2) Save/invest their additional earnings.

In either case, they make use of more government services that are provided by general taxation. In consumption terms, buying more goods means that your burden on the rail, port, and road systems is greater. It also means that you received more in regulatory services that keep those products safe and consumable (think of the FAA for instance; if you fly more often, you receive more from its inspections than someone who doesn't). It's a myth that buying a given product reflects its pure cost; tax payers get together to collectively build infrastructure to make the economy more efficient, and those who buy more receive a disproportionally larger share of this taxpayer-provided service.

Buying more also means that you have more property that needs to be protected by police, fire, and military services. If you think about it, we all pay for these things, but the wealthier one is, the more one has that needs protecting.

On the other side, investing additional income makes use of the government's banking and monetary infrastructure. As in the case of consumption and property protection, an individual begins to rely more and more on government protection against violence in order to secure their property. If those extra $10,000 are invested in a bank, the individual relies more on FDIC insurance than someone who invested only $1,000 (note, this is a service that both banks and customers benefit from because the government is not out to make a profit).

If the additional $10,000 is invested in the stock market, that investor is making more use out of the SEC, the IRS, and the FTC, all of which are intended to help make the stock market a more stable place, than someone who doesn't invest a dime.

No one is saying that they don't "need" that income, but they do need to pay their fair share of running society and keeping it running smoothly. At the moment, this burden is placed too heavily on the lower middle class (via sales taxes, which lower income people tend to pay more of), and that is unfair.

As for your friends, they are able to make their student loans tax deductible, and if they applied to FAFSA, they received Federal and state aid when they were in school, and likely received subsidized loans and/or grants. I think it's ok if we ask them to repay the favor for the next generation of college students.

You'll still take away more at the end of the day.

Think of it this way: if your income is $260k, your tax rate from $250k-260k is 35%, so you pay $3,500 on the income between $250k and $260k.

Under Obama's plan, you pay 39%, so instead of $3,500 you pay $3,900. At the end of the day, you still walk away with $6,100 more than you would have if you had only made $250k.

ok.....thats actually one of the better explanations Ive seen in favor of higher taxes and Obamas plan.....thanks.... but...I still argue that if the feds were to go through and determine how much of what they collect now is wasted, they would be able to do alot more with what is being collected now than if Obamas plan is implented....

When I feel that I am not making enough, I dont want to have to go out and get a second job, I value my free time to much for that. Instead, I look at how much I am spending, and determine what I can live without...Our gov't needs to take the same approach....

iGary

Nov 1, 2008, 03:18 PM

Someone who earns more makes more use of the government and its infrastructure than someone who earns less, on average.

Take our hypothetical couple for example. If their annual income is $260k, then those $10,000 over the 250 line is going to be almost purely discretionary. With this additional money, they can choose to do one of two broad things:

1) Consume their additional earnings

or

2) Save/invest their additional earnings.

In either case, they make use of more government services that are provided by general taxation. In consumption terms, buying more goods means that your burden on the rail, port, and road systems is greater. It also means that you received more in regulatory services that keep those products safe and consumable (think of the FAA for instance; if you fly more often, you receive more from its inspections than someone who doesn't). It's a myth that buying a given product reflects its pure cost; tax payers get together to collectively build infrastructure to make the economy more efficient, and those who buy more receive a disproportionally larger share of this taxpayer-provided service.

Buying more also means that you have more property that needs to be protected by police, fire, and military services. If you think about it, we all pay for these things, but the wealthier one is, the more one has that needs protecting.

On the other side, investing additional income makes use of the government's banking and monetary infrastructure. As in the case of consumption and property protection, an individual begins to rely more and more on government protection against violence in order to secure their property. If those extra $10,000 are invested in a bank, the individual relies more on FDIC insurance than someone who invested only $1,000 (note, this is a service that both banks and customers benefit from because the government is not out to make a profit).

If the additional $10,000 is invested in the stock market, that investor is making more use out of the SEC, the IRS, and the FTC, all of which are intended to help make the stock market a more stable place, than someone who doesn't invest a dime.

No one is saying that they don't "need" that income, but they do need to pay their fair share of running society and keeping it running smoothly. At the moment, this burden is placed too heavily on the lower middle class (via sales taxes, which lower income people tend to pay more of), and that is unfair.

As for your friends, they are able to make their student loans tax deductible, and if they applied to FAFSA, they received Federal and state aid when they were in school, and likely received subsidized loans and/or grants. I think it's ok if we ask them to repay the favor for the next generation of college students.

You'll still take away more at the end of the day.

Think of it this way: if your income is $260k, your tax rate from $250k-260k is 35%, so you pay $3,500 on the income between $250k and $260k.

Under Obama's plan, you pay 39%, so instead of $3,500 you pay $3,900. At the end of the day, you still walk away with $6,100 more than you would have if you had only made $250k.

You all know how much I love taxes, but this post really made me reconsider some of the ways I have been thinking about the issue.

Well done, CalBoy.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 03:18 PM

The word surplus is evil. It is free money for the government to spent. They feel that just because there is money that they are going to waste it. Why not give it back to the tax payer.

it5five

Nov 1, 2008, 03:24 PM

The word surplus is evil. It is free money for the government to spent. They feel that just because there is money that they are going to waste it. Why not give it back to the tax payer.

I'd rather the surplus either be:

-used to improve the infrastructure of our country
-saved, so when another "fiscal conservative" takes office we have a buffer against their cut & spend policies.

CalBoy

Nov 1, 2008, 03:29 PM

ok.....thats actually one of the better explanations Ive seen in favor of higher taxes and Obamas plan.....thanks.... but...I still argue that if the feds were to go through and determine how much of what they collect now is wasted, they would be able to do alot more with what is being collected now than if Obamas plan is implented....

I won't disagree that the government tends to be irresponsible at times with taxpayer money, but most of the wasted money is probably a very small chunk of the pie. By far most of the government's expenditures are on things that can't be eliminated (Social Security, Medicare, Medical, and the military) and are surprisingly efficient (Medicare's overhead is a mere 2-3% on average, while most insurance companies have their figures hover around 15%).

You would get no argument from me, however, if you were to say that the government should trim some fat and stop unnecessary pork from getting passed. I prefer my brides to go somewhere thank you very much. ;)

You all know how much I love taxes, but this post really made me reconsider some of the ways I have been thinking about the issue.

Well done, CalBoy.
:o

See, PRSI doesn't always have to be nasty. :p:)
The word surplus is evil. It is free money for the government to spent. They feel that just because there is money that they are going to waste it. Why not give it back to the tax payer.
Problem is, we've never really had a genuine surplus. Even during the Clinton years it was used to pay off some of our massive debt.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 03:29 PM

iShater

Nov 1, 2008, 03:31 PM

It would seem to be, we get taxed up the butt on gas and that is supposed to go for road work.

We do? you realize we have one of if not the least amount of taxes any developed country pays right?

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 03:32 PM

We do? you realize we have one of if not the least amount of taxes any developed country pays right?You have never lived in CT. You would never think such a small state could have such huge taxes.

NT1440

Nov 1, 2008, 03:37 PM

A surplus is over taxation, so rather than hold on to it it should be refunded back. If the government could learn to spend wisely we would not need to get over taxed.

Debt is the other side of government waste. They enjoy spending money so they over spend. Why can't we have people that know how to manage money run the tax system.

or you know....we could pay off all that crippling debt we have, but no, im sure itll be put to much better use by the tax payers. Good idea.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 03:38 PM

or you know....we could pay off all that crippling debt we have, but no, im sure itll be put to much better use by the tax payers. Good idea.Since when has a surplus gone to pay bills, it usually causes more bills.

iShater

Nov 1, 2008, 03:38 PM

You have never lived in CT. You would never think such a small state could have such huge taxes.

1) You said that we pay high gas taxes in response to the comment about FEDERAL gas tax. ;)

2) We still pay less than other developed countries. How much are you paying right now for regular? $3 something?

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 03:39 PM

1) You said that we pay high gas taxes in response to the comment about FEDERAL gas tax. ;)

2) We still pay less than other developed countries. How much are you paying right now for regular? $3 something?Roads are paid for by the state.

I last paid $2.40, but that is including a 60 cent a gallon tax.

iShater

Nov 1, 2008, 03:46 PM

Roads are paid for by the state.

I last paid $2.40, but that is including a 60 cent a gallon tax.

Interstate highways are also maintained by federal funds. And we still pay almost a third of the taxes say the UK pays.

My issues with the gas tax is that it doesn't really equate use of roads, it equates consumption of fuel. So a person in a hybrid driving the same distance and using a road the same way as a gasoline car driver, pays less per mile to use it. What will we do when we all drive electrics?

But that is another topic :)

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 03:49 PM

Interstate highways are also maintained by federal funds. And we still pay almost a third of the taxes say the UK pays.

My issues with the gas tax is that it doesn't really equate use of roads, it equates consumption of fuel. So a person in a hybrid driving the same distance and using a road the same way as a gasoline car driver, pays less per mile to use it. What will we do when we all drive electrics?

But that is another topic :)That is the big concern, plus the fact that electrics are subsidized at the moment. The other problem is where will the electricity come from to power all these electric cars. We will need to build more plants to handle the demand.

mactastic

Nov 1, 2008, 03:58 PM

It would seem to be, we get taxed up the butt on gas and that is supposed to go for road work.
Do you know how much roadwork costs?

It's not cheap.

Since when has a surplus gone to pay bills, it usually causes more bills.
Since the guy before the one that's in the White House now... You remember him, don'tcha? Southern guy -- real folksy. What was his name again? He sure did love the ladies, I remember that... I think his wife is a politician of some note...

A real tax'n'spender though. Practically socialistic. Just like Obama. Sure would be a shame if we had more of those years of economic prosperity again...

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 04:04 PM

The government should not tax and spend just for the hell of it. They should tax and spend when it is needed. And even then it should tax and spend just what you need and not more.

iShater

Nov 1, 2008, 04:35 PM

The government should not tax and spend just for the hell of it. They should tax and spend when it is needed. And even then it should tax and spend just what you need and not more.

Surpluses are typically unexpected, and even if we get them today, we know we will need them tomorrow or we should be paying some of the national debt down.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2008, 04:37 PM

Surpluses are typically unexpected, and even if we get them today, we know we will need them tomorrow or we should be paying some of the national debt down.The problem is government doesn't do that, they see money and spend it.

mactastic

Nov 1, 2008, 04:46 PM

The government should not tax and spend just for the hell of it.
They don't. You may disagree with what taxes are used for, and argue that there is a certain level of waste associated with government spending, but never has a tax been proposed "just for the hell of it". That's just an ill-thought out statement.

They should tax and spend when it is needed. And even then it should tax and spend just what you need and not more.
When times are good, you gradually increase taxation rates so that you can pay off debt and take care of your infrastructure and other vital taxpayer needs.

When times are poor, you use deficit spending and tax reductions to stimulate the economy.

Unfortunately, you have people who refuse to acknowledge that taxes should ever go up, and insist that they should only go down.