- This topic has 260 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 29, 2010 at 6:49 AM #18007September 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM #610439
abell
ParticipantCongress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.
September 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM #610527ParticipantCongress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.
September 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM #611073ParticipantCongress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.
September 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM #611184ParticipantCongress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.
September 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM #611498ParticipantCongress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.
September 29, 2010 at 7:40 AM #610444BigGovernmentIsGood
Participant[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?
September 29, 2010 at 7:40 AM #610532Participant[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?
September 29, 2010 at 7:40 AM #611078Participant[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?
September 29, 2010 at 7:40 AM #611189Participant[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?
September 29, 2010 at 7:40 AM #611503Participant[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?
September 29, 2010 at 7:50 AM #610454(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
September 29, 2010 at 7:50 AM #610542Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
September 29, 2010 at 7:50 AM #611088Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
September 29, 2010 at 7:50 AM #611199Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
