Bob F wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On 22 Oct 2008 03:04:46 GMT, Mac Cool wrote:


( "we need to redistribute the wealth" )

You mean like increasing middle class taxes while increasing
corporate tax breaks. I love how portions of the middle class are
so concerned that the rich are paying too much in taxes, that is
some damn fine brainwashing.

Gotta love that trickle down economic theory. Funny how those who
benefit the most do nothing to share their wealth in the U.S.

Seen in a sig line:

There are two types of Republicans. Millionares and Dupes.

Three: Entrepreneurs. It's rare, but not unheard of, to find a business
where the owner is not a Republican (independent bookstores excepted).

2. ABC: McCain Would Help 'Wealthiest,' Obama to Cut Taxes for '95%'

ABC reporter David Wright on Tuesday night, forced to summarize the
tax plans of John McCain and Barack Obama in 30 seconds, described
them through a distorted liberal prism. Though McCain wishes to
continue all the income tax rates from the Bush tax cuts, with no
hike
or decrease for any income level, Wright asserted: "He'd make
permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." No, for
all
Americans. Obama, Wright proceeded to report, "would raise taxes on
the wealthy, people who make more than $250,000 a year, but cut them
for most households." The text on screen, however, stated an
impossibility: "Cut taxes on most households (95%)." That 95 percent
is impossible since one-third of those who file with the IRS are
"non-
payers," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


3. To McCain, CNN's Chetry Forwards Canard Obama Cuts Taxes for 90%
CNN pressed Senators John McCain and Joe Biden about their campaigns'
respective tax plans on Tuesday's American Morning during back-to-
back
interviews. Co-host Kiran Chetry questioned McCain from the left,
citing the supposedly "non-partisan" Tax Policy Center that is
actually run by two liberal organizations, the Brookings Institution
and the Urban Institute, while her colleague John Roberts asked Biden
about the "income redistribution" that is part of the Obama/Biden
campaign's tax proposal. Chetry counted a McCain point by claiming
"most of our independent economists say that Barack Obama is actually
cutting taxes for about 90 percent of Americans," which is not
possible since one-third pay no income tax.


ABC: McCain Would Help 'Wealthiest,'
Obama to Cut Taxes for '95%'


ABC reporter David Wright on Tuesday night, forced to summarize
the tax plans of John McCain and Barack Obama in 30 seconds,
described
them through a distorted liberal prism. Though McCain wishes to
continue all the income tax rates from the Bush tax cuts, with no
hike
or decrease for any income level, Wright asserted: "He'd make
permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." No, for
all
Americans.


Obama, Wright proceeded to report, "would raise taxes on the
wealthy, people who make more than $250,000 a year, but cut them for
most households." The text on screen, however, stated an
impossibility: "Cut taxes on most households (95%)." That 95 percent
is impossible since one-third of those who file with the IRS are
"non-
payers," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


A June report from the Tax Foundation listed 32.58 percent of
IRS
income tax returns for 2005 as "non-paying." See: www.taxfoundation.org


In addition, Obama's plan calls for raising the 33 and 36
percent
tax brackets. In 2008, those with an income as low as $100,150, not
$250,000, paid at the 33 percent rate. See this Tax Foundation report
from January. Tax Foundation report: www.taxfoundation.org


[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Tuesday night
on
the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]


Wright's September 16 story on how the two candidates approach
the economy was the premiere of a new World News series: "What's the
Difference"? Where Wright summarized their tax plans:


"Perhaps the sharpest difference between the two is on the taxes
people pay. McCain believes cutting taxes across the board would
promote economic growth. He'd make permanent the Bush tax cuts for
the
wealthiest Americans, cut corporate taxes and double the personal
exception for dependents.
"Obama would raise taxes on the wealthy, people who make more
than $250,000 a year, but cut them for most households. He's give
middle class families a thousand-dollar tax credit and cut tax taxes
completely for seniors on fixed incomes."


This is not the first time ABC has exaggerated how many would
benefit from Obama's tax plan. The September 15 CyberAlert item,
"Gibson Advanced to Palin What Hume Calls an Obama 'Dishonesty,'"
recounted:


Speaking of "dishonesty" in McCain's TV ads, on Fox News Sunday Brit
Hume pointed out Barack "Obama goes around claiming he's going to cut
the taxes of 95 percent of the public, which is literally impossible"
since "40 percent of American taxpayers don't pay any income tax,"
but
that hasn't stopped ABC (directly) and CBS (implicitly) in recent
days
from advancing that Obama claim as fact. Charles Gibson, in his third
interview session with Sarah Palin excerpted on Friday's 20/20 and
Nightline, stated that Obama will extend the "Bush tax cuts on
everything but people who own or earn more than $250,000 a year --
cuts taxes on over 91 percent of the country."


For the full previous CyberAlert article: www.mediaresearch.org


CNN forwarded the same faulty exaggeration Tuesday morning as
Kiran Chetry insisted to John McCain: "Most of our independent
economists say that Barack Obama is actually cutting taxes for about
90 percent of Americans." (See CyberAlert item #3 below)


Excerpts from a Tax Foundation summary of the McCain and Obama
tax plans:


McCain:


- Continue the lower rates enacted in the 2001-03 tax cuts.


- Increase the dependent exemption each year until it reaches $7,000
in 2016 (the 2016 level would be twice the level in 2009)


- Phase out the AMT.


- Maintain the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends.


Obama:


- Maintain the current 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent rates from the
2001-03 tax cuts, but allow the top two rates to expire (the 33
percent rate would rise to 36 percent; the 35 percent would rise to
39.6 percent). Eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less
than $50,000 per year.


- Create a new "Making Work Pay" refundable income tax credit of up
to
$500 per person or $1,000 per family. It would offset the payroll tax
on the first $8,100 of earnings.


- Create a 10 percent mortgage credit worth up to $800.


- Give full-time workers making minimum wage an Earned Income Tax
Credit benefit up to $555. If the workers are "responsibly supporting
their children on child support," give those workers a benefit of
$1,110.


- Extend AMT patch.


- Raise capital gains and dividends rates to somewhere between 20%
and
28%, keeping them equal.


PDF of the Tax Foundation's summary: taxfoundation.org


To McCain, CNN's Chetry Forwards Canard
Obama Cuts Taxes for 90%


CNN pressed Senators John McCain and Joe Biden about their
campaigns' respective tax plans on Tuesday's American Morning during
back-to-back interviews. Co-host Kiran Chetry questioned McCain from
the left, citing the supposedly "non-partisan" Tax Policy Center that
is actually run by two liberal organizations, the Brookings
Institution and the Urban Institute, while her colleague John Roberts
asked Biden about the "income redistribution" that is part of the
Obama/Biden campaign's tax proposal. Chetry counted a McCain point by
claiming "most of our independent economists say that Barack Obama is
actually cutting taxes for about 90 percent of Americans," which is
not possible since one-third pay no income tax.


[This item, by Matthew Balan, was posted Tuesday afternoon on
the
MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]


For more on how the mainstream media loves citing the "non-
partisan" Tax Policy Center, see the July 15, 2008 Worst of the Week
item by MRC's Rich Noyes, "Obama's Liberal Buddies = 'Non-Partisan'
Experts?" at: www.mrc.org


Chetry interviewed McCain first, and asked the Arizona Senator
to
explain what he meant by saying that "the fundamentals of the economy
are strong" and about regulation of businesses. She then brought up
the issue of taxes: "I want to ask you about this, though, when it
comes to tax policy -- the non-partisan Tax Policy Center calculated
the middle class would actually save significantly more under Barack
Obama's tax plan than yours. How will your tax cuts, as it breaks
down
on income level, benefit the working class and the middle class?"


McCain didn't submit to the premise of the question, and
answered
that Obama actually wants to raise taxes and that he "has plans for
increasing government spending dramatically." The CNN co-host then
followed-up by citing that "most of our independent economists say
that Barack Obama is actually cutting taxes for about 90 percent of
Americans. Do you agree with that?"


Obama plans to cut the taxes for about 90 percent of Americans?
That figure sounds remarkably similar to the 95 percent figure Fox
News Channel host Brit Hume shot down on Sunday's Fox News Sunday
program: "Obama goes around claiming he's going to cut the taxes of
95
percent of the public, which is literally impossible" since "40
percent of American taxpayers don't pay any income tax."


For more on Hume shooting down Obama's tax claim, see the
September 15 CyberAlert item, "Gibson Advanced to Palin What Hume
Calls an Obama 'Dishonesty'" at: www.mrc.org


And for more on the same topic, check #2 above.


During his interview of Biden, Roberts, after asking the
Delaware
Senator what he would to in response to the current financial
trouble,
asked about his campaign's proposed tax hikes on those who make more
than $250,000. Biden first denied that this was the case, but when
Roberts brought up the figure again, and Biden corrected himself.


The CNN co-host then pressed Biden on the timing of such a
raise:
"With the economy the way it is right now, is this anytime to be
raising taxes on anyone?" Biden answered, "We are transferring the
tax
cut. We're raising the tax on them by letting this tax expire and
flipping that tax and giving it to the people who need it." Roberts
shot back, "Right, and some people would say that's income
redistribution." The Senator replied: "Well, I don't care what you
call it -- the middle class is dying. John talks about the strength
of
the American worker. The American worker's been left out in the
cold."

"Michel" wrote in message
," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.

Michel wrote:
snipThat 95 percent
is impossible since one-third of those who file with the IRS are
"non-
payers," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.
snip

.... and don't think for a minute that the wealthy don't get EIC.
People with considerable assets who they don't _need_ to work can
still collect it if they can arrange to get some wages for incidental
jobs.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...

:


( "we need to redistribute the wealth" )

You mean like increasing middle class taxes while increasing corporate tax
breaks. I love how portions of the middle class are so concerned that the
rich are paying too much in taxes, that is some damn fine brainwashing.



Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.


By that same logic, corporate employees don't pay taxes, their employers do.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Michel" wrote in message
," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




there are SO many reasons to not vote for Obama.

socialism (communism)
inexperience,never ran anything
deception(associations,background,campaign finance)
lack of any solid position on important subjects/flip-flopping.
(demonstrates Obama's INDECISIVE)
no military experience and anti-military.
he's a LAWYER.
elitist.


even Biden said Obama was unfit for the Presidency when he was still a
candidate himself,and confirmed he still thinks that today with his recent
comments about expecting Obama to be "tested" in his 1st 6 months.
He knows Obama is weak and wimpy.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

TD wrote in
:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Michel" wrote in message
," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




yeah, you can only vote for white clowns.


ah,MORE DemocRATic playing of the race card.

ever think that people just don't like his positions,lack of
experience,deceptions?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 23 Oct 2008 14:42:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
TD wrote in
:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Michel" wrote in message
," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




yeah, you can only vote for white clowns.


ah,MORE DemocRATic playing of the race card.

ever think that people just don't like his positions,lack of
experience,deceptions?

More worthless ad hominems. Can right wingers ever argue logically or
is mudslinging all they're capable of?

That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




yeah, you can only vote for white clowns.


ah,MORE DemocRATic playing of the race card.

ever think that people just don't like his positions,lack of
experience,deceptions?

More worthless ad hominems. Can right wingers ever argue logically or
is mudslinging all they're capable of?


He just did argue logically with substance "just don't like his
positions,lack of experience,deceptions? "

It is the comment " yeah, you can only vote for white clowns."
that is worthless ad hominem because the author has no basis
for such a ridiculous claim.

wrote in :


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




yeah, you can only vote for white clowns.


ah,MORE DemocRATic playing of the race card.

ever think that people just don't like his positions,lack of
experience,deceptions?

More worthless ad hominems. Can right wingers ever argue logically or
is mudslinging all they're capable of?


He just did argue logically with substance "just don't like his
positions,lack of experience,deceptions? "

It is the comment " yeah, you can only vote for white clowns."
that is worthless ad hominem because the author has no basis
for such a ridiculous claim.


see what we're dealing with re DemocRATs/liberals?
they can't even tell the difference between real matters and "ad hominem"
attacks.

they are strictly operating on feelings and no rational thought.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 23 Oct 2008 21:26:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
wrote in :


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




yeah, you can only vote for white clowns.


ah,MORE DemocRATic playing of the race card.

ever think that people just don't like his positions,lack of
experience,deceptions?

More worthless ad hominems. Can right wingers ever argue logically or
is mudslinging all they're capable of?


He just did argue logically with substance "just don't like his
positions,lack of experience,deceptions? "

It is the comment " yeah, you can only vote for white clowns."
that is worthless ad hominem because the author has no basis
for such a ridiculous claim.


see what we're dealing with re DemocRATs/liberals?
they can't even tell the difference between real matters and "ad hominem"
attacks.

they are strictly operating on feelings and no rational thought.

Again, you fail to do anything but sling mud.

On Oct 21, 10:11*pm, Mac Cool wrote:
George:

We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is elected.

We have an 11 Trillion dollar deficit. Any candidate that claims they
won't raise taxes is lying. At least Obama is honest enough to admit he
will raise taxes, abeit on the wealthiest who have benefited immensely btw
from the war in Iraq and who have just received a huge government bailout,
its time they pay their due.

If you think the only rise in taxes will be on the "wealthy", I have
some prime real estate just south of Galveston that I want to talk
with you about. I know you will buy anything. There is nothing
honest about Obama, he is simply telling a different lie in an attempt
to instill class envy. Make the "rich" the bad guys and I will play
Robin Hood for you. Just never forget that Robin Hood was a damn
thief.

By the way, I am not rich and I don't envy the rich.

Want the "Parade" version?

http://www.parade.com/news/intellige...pay-taxes.html

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On 23 Oct 2008 21:26:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
wrote in :


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




yeah, you can only vote for white clowns.


ah,MORE DemocRATic playing of the race card.

ever think that people just don't like his positions,lack of
experience,deceptions?

More worthless ad hominems. Can right wingers ever argue logically or
is mudslinging all they're capable of?


He just did argue logically with substance "just don't like his
positions,lack of experience,deceptions? "

It is the comment " yeah, you can only vote for white clowns."
that is worthless ad hominem because the author has no basis
for such a ridiculous claim.


see what we're dealing with re DemocRATs/liberals?
they can't even tell the difference between real matters and "ad hominem"
attacks.

they are strictly operating on feelings and no rational thought.

Again, you fail to do anything but sling mud.

Oooo. But he is the worlds expert on what democrats think.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Michel" wrote in message
," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




there are SO many reasons to not vote for Obama.

socialism (communism)
inexperience,never ran anything
deception(associations,background,campaign finance)
lack of any solid position on important subjects/flip-flopping.
(demonstrates Obama's INDECISIVE)
no military experience and anti-military.
he's a LAWYER.
elitist.

Elitist??? Shall we talk clothing bills?

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Mac Cool wrote in
:

George:

We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is elected.

We have an 11 Trillion dollar deficit. Any candidate that claims they
won't raise taxes is lying. At least Obama is honest enough to admit
he will raise taxes, abeit on the wealthiest who have benefited
immensely btw from the war in Iraq and who have just received a huge
government bailout, its time they pay their due.


Obama and "honest" should not be used in the same sentence.

Well. Certainly McCain and honest should not.

"BobR" wrote in message
...
On Oct 21, 10:11 pm, Mac Cool wrote:
George:

We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is elected.

We have an 11 Trillion dollar deficit. Any candidate that claims they
won't raise taxes is lying. At least Obama is honest enough to admit he
will raise taxes, abeit on the wealthiest who have benefited immensely btw
from the war in Iraq and who have just received a huge government bailout,
its time they pay their due.

If you think the only rise in taxes will be on the "wealthy", I have
some prime real estate just south of Galveston that I want to talk
with you about. I know you will buy anything. There is nothing
honest about Obama, he is simply telling a different lie in an attempt
to instill class envy. Make the "rich" the bad guys and I will play
Robin Hood for you. Just never forget that Robin Hood was a damn
thief.

By the way, I am not rich and I don't envy the rich.

************************************************** *********

The other kind of Republican. The fool. Do you ever disbelieve anything they
tell you?

Jim Yanik:

ever think that people just don't like his positions,lack of
experience,deceptions?

Poor example since McCain lies just about every time he opens his mouth.

Jim Yanik:


Obama and "honest" should not be used in the same sentence.

Regardless of who you elect, someone's taxes are going to go up; one
candidate is being honest while McCain is offering free pony rides.

BobR:

If you think the only rise in taxes will be on the "wealthy", I have
some prime real estate just south of Galveston that I want to talk
with you about.

Well your little cancer-ridden buddy is claiming he won't raise anyone's
taxes... so how is he going to pay the 11 trillion dollar debt. Maybe his
Vietnamese supporters are going to help out?

Bob F:

Elitist??? Shall we talk clothing bills?

The funny thing is that they claim most of the clothing won't be worn and
will be donated to charity. So why did they buy it in the first place?
Either they are stupid or they are lying.

In article ,
Mac Cool wrote:

Bob F:

Elitist??? Shall we talk clothing bills?

The funny thing is that they claim most of the clothing won't be worn and
will be donated to charity. So why did they buy it in the first place?
Either they are stupid or they are lying.

Said nothing about won't be worn that I have seen. Think Goodwill or
VFW.

On 23 Oct 2008 14:42:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
TD wrote in
:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Michel" wrote in message
," people who end up paying no tax or get money back which
exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the
credits
surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending
hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.


That is the part that scares me. Sorry, can't vote for the guy.




yeah, you can only vote for white clowns.


ah,MORE DemocRATic playing of the race card.

Do you have any idea what a pathetic idiot you come across as when you
use the argumentative style of a four year old?

Name calling is the lowest preschool tactic in existance.

Grow the **** up!

Mac Cool wrote:
Bob F:

Elitist??? Shall we talk clothing bills?

The funny thing is that they claim most of the clothing won't be worn
and will be donated to charity. So why did they buy it in the first
place? Either they are stupid or they are lying.

I'd be interested to know whether Michelle Obama enhanced her wardrobe for
the campaign.

And somebody should take up a collection to buy Barak a lapel-pin flag.

Mac Cool wrote:
Jim Yanik:


Obama and "honest" should not be used in the same sentence.

Regardless of who you elect, someone's taxes are going to go up; one
candidate is being honest while McCain is offering free pony rides.

That is so not true. A Republican raising taxes is about as likely as a
Democrat approving abortion.

Not saying it can't happen, but the last Republican to agree to such had his
head handed to him.

Mac Cool wrote:
BobR:

If you think the only rise in taxes will be on the "wealthy", I have
some prime real estate just south of Galveston that I want to talk
with you about.

Well your little cancer-ridden buddy is claiming he won't raise
anyone's taxes... so how is he going to pay the 11 trillion dollar
debt. Maybe his Vietnamese supporters are going to help out?

Easy.

Lower taxes.

Lower taxes means more revenue. More revenue means retiring the debt.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:06:58 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
Mac Cool wrote:
Bob F:

Elitist??? Shall we talk clothing bills?

The funny thing is that they claim most of the clothing won't be worn
and will be donated to charity. So why did they buy it in the first
place? Either they are stupid or they are lying.

I'd be interested to know whether Michelle Obama enhanced her wardrobe for
the campaign.

I bet she didn't spend a hundred and fifty thousand dollars at
taxpayer expense!

You're really getting pathetic.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Mac Cool wrote:


Bob F:


Elitist??? Shall we talk clothing bills?

The funny thing is that they claim most of the clothing won't be worn and
will be donated to charity. So why did they buy it in the first place?
Either they are stupid or they are lying.


Said nothing about won't be worn that I have seen.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...ome;topStories

Think Goodwill or
VFW.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Mac Cool wrote in :

Jim Yanik:


Obama and "honest" should not be used in the same sentence.

Regardless of who you elect, someone's taxes are going to go up; one
candidate is being honest while McCain is offering free pony rides.


keep on drinking that Obama Kool-Aid.

No country has ever taxed it's way to prosperity.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in
:

Mac Cool wrote in
:

Jim Yanik:


Obama and "honest" should not be used in the same sentence.

Regardless of who you elect, someone's taxes are going to go up; one
candidate is being honest while McCain is offering free pony rides.


keep on drinking that Obama Kool-Aid.

No country has ever taxed it's way to prosperity.


BTW,CBS has no credibility,not after the Rather forged documents scandal.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

HeyBub:

Easy.

Lower taxes.

Lower taxes means more revenue. More revenue means retiring the debt.

If that worked we wouldn't have run up such a high debt to begin with.

Jim Yanik:


keep on drinking that Obama Kool-Aid.

No country has ever taxed it's way to prosperity.

Actually there are many countries much more prosperous than the US that
have significantly higher tax rates.

Mac Cool wrote in :

Jim Yanik:


keep on drinking that Obama Kool-Aid.

No country has ever taxed it's way to prosperity.

Actually there are many countries much more prosperous than the US that
have significantly higher tax rates.


name them. and define "more prosperous".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik:

Actually there are many countries much more prosperous than the US
that have significantly higher tax rates.


name them. and define "more prosperous".

Here is your list. Buy a dictionary for definitions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3617160.ece