Today's story is off of Yahoo News, reprinting an AP story.
Democrats, the political party that houses people like Michael Moore and the CodePINK people, have long had an issue with trying to appear pro-military… especially during a war.
While the Democrat Presidential Candidates take turns trying to outdo one another with how quickly our troops would be pulled out of Iraq (plunging the country into total chaos, guaranteeing even worse destruction and Tyranny than under Saddam), the individual House members understand that they need to be reelected.
So, they’ve decided to “extend veterans’ benefits” to show how much they care. Keep in mind, it was under Clinton, before the Republican Congress, that quite a bit of military spending was cut.
I don’t think anyone except the most anti-military, would oppose education for those in the military. They must need it, given the “They get stuck in Iraq.” Comments by John Kerry in 2004, and the inference that people in the military are too stupid to know how to read, by Stephen King just a couple of weeks ago.
How is this to be paid for? The devil is in the details, as they say.
“Tax the rich!” The standard liberal mantra. Any married couple making more than 1 million dollars would see a tax increase. Any individual over 500,000 dollars would see the same tax increase.
Per Representative Mike Ross, a Democrat from Arkansas, "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."
Hmm. Yes, that is the same left wing propaganda that has secured them the vote of the poor (which has only made the poor poorer and more dependent.)
Here are a few tidbits of information regarding ‘the rich’ and their paying of ‘their fair share’ . . .
The top 1% of wage earners pay over 1/3 of all income taxes. That doesn’t seem fair, it seems like a punishment on those who succeed.
The top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of all income taxes. That doesn’t seem fair, it seems like a punishment on those who succeed.
The idea that the rich can ‘always pay more’ taxes is a trap. It plays on the selfishness of anyone who is not ‘rich’. . . . to take from those who have succeeded and to PRETEND to give to those who do not have (though the money actually goes to different programs run by friends of the politicians, with very little (if any) money going to help the poor.)
The American Dream has always been sacrificing and working hard to achieve. The Democrats, it seems, are willing to take that success away.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Well said. That's my biggest problem . . . the fact that you get punished for being successful. It really chaps my ass.
Now, of course, the Dems are hammering McCain for voting against the bill. The Dems will do anything to take this country over. Whether its baiting the poor, the blacks, the immigrants . . . it doesn't matter. They play on the fears of the middle class and the poor then end up making things a lot worse. I have no respect for somebody who "victimizes" certain groups in order to keep their votes.
One interesting thing I've found is the radical racism and class structure of the Left.
A black person who is poor is a 'victim' . .. but if they sacrifice and succeed and figure out that the dependence the Left offers is a bane on freedom, then they are suddenly 'not black' anymore, and open for trashing.
look at the way the liberals have dealt with Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Neither of them are very conservative, I'd place them both as moderates.... however they have been horridly demonized by the left.
Even more so by certain black talking heads across the internet and in small circulation newspapers, calling them things so vile, it makes Imus' statement about the Rutgers girls basketball team look sweet and innocent. (Things so vile that I refuse to link to them to give them free press and refuse to quote them)
So hateful, the left is, that they'll destroy a good conservative fellow for an off-hand remark at a birthday party (think Trent Lott), but hold up Roberty Byrd, the KKK member.
They'll persecute a moderate like Imus (who, by the way, LOVED edwards in 04), but give a pass to these newscasters who say that 60% of white voters voting for Hillary shows racism (but ignoring the 90% of black voters voting for Obama. Isn't that racist?)
There have been multiple articles trashing McCain. One says that he is too old to be president. Another attacks his disabled vet status. Another twists his '100 years in Iraq' line. I'm not a McCain fan, but what the left is doing is wrong. However, they HAVE to demonze him, as he is in line with the majority of the Democrat's voters, and they can't have those voters voting for McCain.
This is a good election for the liberal. They get a socialst or marxist on one side, and on the other, a liberal republican (aka a moderate) . ..
In other wholly unreported news:
Another vote on ANWR took place yesterday, to let us drill. Failed by 4 votes. WHOLLY unreported.
Than's Democrats. Way to help us get off foreign oil.
I don't think it is so much a punishment. I mean, I can understand where you are coming from, but I disagree.
I think that the higher taxes for people who make more is the Demorcrats attempting to get America out of debt, since it is far in there and it is not getting any better.
I don't know for sure, but I do not think the Democratic party is going to pull trops out of Iraq straight away, if they know what's best. I think they will do it gradually as in they see improvement, pull some out.
This is just my opinion.
The democrats aren't trying to get us out of debt. Under the Democrat rule (since 2006) we've reached the cap at which we were not going to go further into debt. The democrat response was to raise that cap. The 'extra tax on the rich' was to fund a program that the democrats wanted to fund, not to help pay debt.
If the Democrats (or anyone) wanted to cut debt, they'd cut spending, particularly with government programs that just duplicate efforts of private charities. Instead, Democrats talk about spending MORE (especially with 'money pit' causes as Universal Healthcare)
Time and time again, lower taxes results in more revenue for the government, as people have more of their money to spend on things or to grow their business. Yet the democrats are constantly trying to raise or add taxes.
There is never a reason to tax someone unfairly. The rich are taxed unfairly. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of taxes. How is that fair?
Someone having money is not 'just cause' for the government to take it away.
We've already fought 2 wars over unfair taxation. Will it REALLY take a third?
so i like how you immediately attacked the Dems while using the associated press as a source. nothing speaks to me more than the fact that you take the AP's word for it, while using the war in iraq and whatever bill to attack the Dems, you are no better than they are. don't ever think that you are, otherwise you are using their own tactics and views. just on the flipside. i think that you might need to pay more attention to US history, definitely pre-civil war era.
let's break down the word politics, poli, in greek poly, meaning "many" now the suffix, tics, blood sucking creature, many blood sucking creatures=politics.
Yours truly,
.demosthenes =;
Are you really trying to suggest that the AP is a right wing news outlet? really?
I'm contesting the AP article's whitewash of the issue, as it praises the bill that would tax the rich for being rich and even talks about how it is just a 'tiny' tax that it doesn't matter. Heh.
Given the thought put into your post, you'll forgive me if I don't feel offended by your suggestion.
I don't quite see how that is related to the post I've put up, but I'd love to hear in what way I am uninformed as to the pre-civil war history of my country.
Please do enlighten me.
i am suggesting that the associated press is a news outlet. that is all. don't drag me along into your political distinctions that shouldn't be there anyway. divide and conquer right? we are all american. i think that tax should grow proportionately with the ammount of riches one has. taxes. brought to you by whom? Lincoln. yay. civil war! taxes, especially with the party system set in place are UNAMERICAN. you know the whole taxation without representation bit? this is what it was trying to avoid. as for the pre-civil war history, the nationalist and the federalist debate in congress, which tore the whole of the united states apart, and thus led to the civil war. if the nationalists had had there way, the civil war would have gone a little differently.
and as for the "you are no better than they are" statement, drawing lines again. what are we first? americans? i hope to whomever that is your answer. anything after that is frivolous.
Yours truly,
.demosthenes