What would eating the rich accomplish?

"We should allow for more people to be able to enter business instead of having it dominated by giants."

Taxcutter says:
You start by getting government out of the way of those who would start up new competitors.

 

Good! So what's the difference? All the Tea Party type "solutions" all have to do with taking "free stuff" and jobs, and money and benefits away from the middle class and below, so if we're screwed either way, I want to do what I can to see that the the top 1% burns in hell with us.

 

" All the Tea Party type "solutions" all have to do with taking "free stuff" and jobs, and money and benefits away from the middle class..."

Taxcutter says:
Lying sack!

How does an agenda of "Less Federal spending, Less taxation, and Less Government in General" take away jobs? Benefits are PAID FOR by the middle class and not enjoyed by the middle class. "Free stuff" to moochers is a slap in the face of the middle class. The "free stuff" enjoyed by the 47% cause greater spending and greater taxation so it is valid to demand less free stuff be handed out.

 

The vast majority of the "47%" work full time! You consider some of them not being taxed because their income is so low as being "free stuff"! So "F" you! "F" the Tea Party, I want WAR and SECESSION!

So now explain in detail, how the Tea Party agenda will create jobs SPECIFICALLY, don't just say that they will pop up randomly just beacuse their is less taxation and regulation, that is not a garauntee.

 

"So "F" you! "F" the Tea Party, I want WAR and SECESSION!"

Taxcutter says:
Bring it on, windbag.

 

I'd be the 1st to sign on, if there was any movement to create a state or union that excludes the stupid, hillbilly, ********** red states, count me in.

 

What a crazy understanding of history. The poor saw their incomes rise fastest under Reagan. You have it all 100% backwards.

 

There are many things more important than just money. Things that I'd GIVE money for, things like rights, and power. So you want me to give back rights, powers and garauntees just for a few extra dollars? No thanks.

 

You want to have any chance at all to get rid of the conglomerates You need to quit voting for the people that create and nourish them, the democrats.

 

In theory, sounds great. In practice, we'd get a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of wasteful spending, and then big government types would tell us it wasn't quite enough. Now if we had a government that already has shown some restraint and good decision-making, I think it would be an idea to put on the table. But seriously, to hand Barack Obama nearly $8 trillion??? Yeah that'll work.

 

I wish every Liberal and Progressive could, first, read your post and THEN start the tax debate.

 

Why not, he's spent WAY LESS than Bush or Reagan. I personally hate Obama and his RIGHT WING asss. I want to elect a LEFTIST as POTUS!

 

That's true, I'd like to elect someone far to the left of the Democrats, voting for the Dems has mostly been to stop the bleeding and keep ********** ideas from ever happening, it's not because I trust or respect them at all.

 

Wrong Reagan and Bush did not spend a damn dime that was not authorized by congress. If Obama has spent less than Reagan and Bush how ist it that every source Dem or REp tells you that by the time Obama leaves office the national Debt will be three time higher than when Bush left office?

 

This is what eating the rich should really mean. Stopping anyone from benefiting in a grotesque and extreme manner from the labor or skills of anyone else.

 

Who is John Galt?

 

Neither did Obama.

 

Sorry, I don't eat junk food.

 

I would vote for that, provided ALL OF IT, as in, WITH NO ADD-ONS goes DIRECTLY to pay down the Federal Debt.

 

Exactly no presisdent does.

 

Works for me.

 

Yes by all means we should hang the victims along with their victimizers...

 

It is wrong to blame politicians for spending that was approved before they came to office. They should each be judged on the spending and regulations they champion. If Ron Paul was elected, and he got none of his spending cut proposals passed, and Congress kept spending big money, would he be the highest spender since Obama? Of course not, that is silly. It is what they add, and it should be added up for the duration of the plan, not just the years they were in office, most politicians know to delay disaster until they are out. (Pensions that could not be paid for that are causing California cities to go bankrupt is a great example, there are hundreds of others).

 

The truly rich will jump on their yachts and airplanes and leave America if things get crazy. But libs can succeed in destroying the upper-middle class, and small business owners, and farmers.

 

Good! "F" them! GTF out. We then should freeze their assets and tie them up in our banks as much as possible! (*)(*)(*)(*) on their UN-Patriotic asses! (*)(*)(*)(*) their property rights! Confiscate any property they own inside our borders, in fact, monitor them and confiscate their passports and don't let them get on the plane until they pay huge exit fees.