Blue Dog Democrats don't believe what you wrote about economics. That's about all they disagree with Republicans on. They favor a 3 class society, and Republicans favor just a 2 class society.

Too funny.

Maybe he has the hearing aid switched to
off around your mom. Probably decided the
world of silence was a pleasant one.

My mom (RIP) caused me to go deaf
on purpose in Elementary School.

well, instead of slapping a 'republican' label on what i wrote, tell me what's wrong about it? how does increasing the cost of business, which ultimately affects workers-both in lost jobs and price increases-mean it's a republican viewpoint? how does raising govt income help an employee? i'm asking in the hopes that you'll give an opposite view to what a wrote, rather than just dismiss it as a republican view. i'm using my POV, due to where i work, and where my husband works, as the basis for what i wrote. i know that over the years, my husbands company has laid off hundreds of folks-moreso when it was a publically held company, to help it's share price. now it's private, but there were still layoffs when the company was purchased. since companies have to maintain their bottom line, have to be profitable, how would my contention that increasing their cost of business would be harmful to the middle class employee mean i support the rich? what am i missing? or do you believe that the rich guys who own and manage the company are somehow going to take a pay cut to make up the difference?

edit~also, while i'm awaiting an answer, and not just an 'oh, you're a republican blah blah' retort...you also mentioned above that since i'm a gun owner, i must be a republican...could you also take the time to explain why exactly my exercise of that constitutional right is somehow incorrect, or to be treated with disdain? should we as americans only follow parts of the constitution, but not all of it? since some are exercising the right to free speech to encourage hate, should we all lose that right as well?
thanks in advance for what i'm sure will be a well-thought out response on that issue.

well, now this is interesting....while i had the time, i did a search on corporate taxes. now, since i say that no corporate taxes should be raised i was told i'm a republican. that keeping corporate taxes low is a republican idea....and i found this:

"On the campaign trail, McCain portrays Obama as an eager supporter of higher taxes who is unwilling to buck his own party, while Obama often charges that McCain's policies would help the wealthy and strand blue-collar workers.

"Both of them would raise corporate taxes but not the rate," said Roberton Williams, a principal research associate at the Washington-based nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute.

"Both of them would raise taxes by closing some loopholes that allow corporations to reduce their taxable income," he told the Reuters Wealth Management Summit."


so, tell me again...mccain is a rep, but is also advocating raising corporate taxes. i also strongly disagree with his idea of taxing our insurance benefits. so, i'm a republican....but i disagree with the republican candidate. it's all becoming clearer. :rolleyes:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22917.html

i have no idea what type of site the above is, but also found it worth looking over.
and i had no idea charles rangel was a republican.

No, McCain is not a typical Republican. He has the pliability of Taffy. He believes in getting elected,and low income taxes. Everything else is up for grabs with this individual. He is a populist. The reason he is losing is because he changes his message constantly, and Independents aren't in the mood to put someone like that in charge in a serious economic time like this.

and this was apparently run in the new york times:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...ate-vs-pe.html

a part of the above:

-Economists teach that corporations are often able to pass on much of their tax burden to employees and/or customers.

-Relatively high corporate tax rates incentivize corporations to find ways to run their profits through lower-tax jurisdictions

why would anyone favor a three class society? that would mean we still had poor people.
about all i've read about blue dogs is that they favor 'paygo'. i'll have to do some further research on them.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-...ate-taxes.html

interesting stuff...

It's bipartisan. Among people who have called either for a reduction in or elimination of corporate taxes are John McCain, Charlie Rangel, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Lester Thurow.


Some 70 percent of the corporate tax burden is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and fewer high-paying jobs

An EU study of 50,000 companies found that a 1 percent increase in marginal corporate income tax rates leads to a 0.92 percent decrease in real wages.



It's a hidden tax: Even workers get hit by it, but they don't know it because they don't directly pay the tax.

For every dollar the government collects in revenue, the corporate tax may actually cost the government $1 in revenue through slower economic growth

But some (Dala) will argue that these greedy corporations deserve to pay more because they havent passed enough down to the workers. That type of logic baffles me. Like it or not most companies dont exist to provide for workers, they are created and run to make money for the owners and or shareholders. The residual effect of creating jobs is just that. Higher taxes never helps an economy.

i just want to know what i've got 'wrong' on all this. apparently it's because i own guns and (gasp) hunt. oh, i fish too. thought i'd throw that little tidbit of evil in there as well.

and in one of the above, it said japan (currently the highest corporate taxes in the world) may lower their rate, which would make the u.s. #1 in taxes in that respect.

Yeah and people complain when companies send jobs and divisions overseas...

I suppose my biggest issue is that saying something to get elected and actually believing what you are saying are two different things. This tax plan that Obamas has floated has interestingly gone unchallenged by just about everyone save the "right wing publications" like the the Wall Street Journal. Not that McCains is very good either.

What scares me is they now throw around $50, $100, $200 Billion like they were betting $2 exacta's...right after "try lower limit" "try lower limit" "try lower limit"
:eek:

I've notified PETA on behalf of the deer and fish. They should be picketing you shortly you Bambi killer.:D

trillion is the new billion.

get with it.

well, if they come on my lawn, i'll shoot them. it's the irresponsible gun toting thing to do. :rolleyes:

:tro: I like your answer. Continue on........

i don't like either plan. i don't like that the deficit will continue to grow, spending will increase...we can't afford what we're already doing, so we're going to add to the problem? how does that make sense?! it doesn't. we get lower taxes, while our employers see theirs go up-so they leave, and then we work where exactly? and then we all go on the dole, which makes the problem larger, the divide between rich and poor wider-because jobs leave, more people unemployed, but the rich will stay rich...but i'm the republican?!

and, much like annie oakley, i don't miss.

Yeah after that $700 Billion everything looks like pocket change.:zz: