Nice try jdang, but that picture fails to address the other 95% of the argument, and you somehow think you proved me wrong. For anyone watching, this is what it's like trying to debate the republicans in America these days. And I guess since they have roads in North Korea that invalidates the fact that they enable us to conduct business on a daily basis, that makes sense.
Dude, it was a joke. Did you not see the smiley? Calm down.
I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative. I voted for John Kerry because Bush is no conservative and I thought his going into Iraq was a huge mistake and I hated the decision.
So take your assumptions and shove it!
Let me ask you this. In his speech where he said "You didn't build that" Barack Obama said, the people who were successful did not do so because they are smart, or they were hardworking. Here are his words.
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
Well tell me, the smart people out there, the hardworking people out there that Obama references, and are not successful. Did they not have access to the roads, bridges, internet and American system that everyone else has? They did right? But they're not successful. So it cannot be the bridges, and roads, and internet that made the difference. It was the entrepreneur. So yes, they did build that.
Again, I'm not against raising some taxes. I think we should raise them all across the board. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. All of them. So I'm not saying, we need to coddle the rich or the successful. Trust me, they can handle the minor increase in taxes. If we are going to raise taxes, we need to raise all of them. We need to broaden the tax base. Raising taxes only on the rich will only yield about $5 billion a year. That's not going to get anything accomplished.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of what Obama tried to say. The fundamental difference between what Conservatives want and what Liberals want is the amount of gov.t interference in our affairs. Are things better today than yesterday? Govt. has their hand in more things today than 1, 5, 20, 30, 40 years ago. Are things really better? They fucked shit up, and we want them to be more involved? Govt. is necessary. They have functions that only govt. can provide. Public safety, national defense, regulation of the commerce. That is great. Only they can handle that, nobody disputes that.
But ever since the Great Depression have things gotten better with Gov.t intervention? Have they eliminated or even smoothed out recessions? No. Since they've jumped into education with the DOE have our test scores improved? No, we spend much, much more than we did before the DOE but our children's test scores have remained stagnant for 50 years. Since they started the Department of Energy has our energy independence increased? Nope.
I'm not an anarchist. We're all for good, efficient govt. We just differ on how much gov't there should be.
The top 20% of earners, pay 70% of all taxes. So when anyone tells you the upper class isn't paying enough, they're bullshitting you.
Govt. provides very useful services, and yes the Rich has taken advantage of it, and yes they pay for it. As you can see, the bottom 60% of tax payers pay much less in taxes than their share of total income. And that's not wrong. That's fair. But to say the top 20% hasn't paid their fair share is ludicrous. They pay 70% of all taxes collected. Whether we want them to pay more, well that's a worthy discussion. But what we cannot say is they haven't paid a reasonable or fair share. They pay 70% already. What's fair. 99%? Maybe..
EDIT: Eh, it's 3 am and I'm drunk. Ignore all that shit I just wrote above, I'm not fooling anyone. Democrats and Republicans all suck, they take care of themselves, and we all get fucked. That's just the way it is.