Obama: We’re all going to have to sacrifice for the greater good

posted at 1:07 pm on January 11, 2009 by Allahpundit

Fair warning from this morning’s long chat with Stephanopoulos; follow the link for fudging about whether he’ll investigate Bush or why it might take more than 100 days to close Gitmo, both of which have the nutroots wringing their hands. When I first saw the headline on this bit, I thought for sure he was hinting at raising taxes. And maybe he is, but that’s not the context in which the exchange occurs. Stephanopoulos’s question, quite explicitly, is about entitlement reform, including — dare I say it? — social security.

Exit question: What does The One have in mind? Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

cool breeze on January 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM

My apologies for hijacking your comment. I should learn to read, first.

OldEnglish on January 11, 2009 at 10:30 PM

“We’re all going to have to sacrifice for the greater good”.

Me thinks,that if Commander Ernest Evans of the
U.S.S Johnston,from ‘Taffy 3′,the Destroyer that
faught like a Battleship,

had said that,it would have real meaning,

unlike Obama’s Liberal talkin points!

canopfor on January 11, 2009 at 10:31 PM

Obama needs to give up his AGW fantasy.

Basilsbest on January 11, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Harry Schell… nice..

katy on January 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Basilsbest on January 11, 2009 at 10:44 PM

+10

jerrytbg on January 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM

“It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.” – Ayn Rand

Xolom on January 11, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Some of us will have more skin in this game than others, and the ones with the least skin in the game will be those who got us into this mess in the first place.

unclesmrgol on January 12, 2009 at 12:47 AM

Cha ching!

capitalist piglet on January 12, 2009 at 1:20 AM

The word “sacrifice” is not going to go over well with the
“hope and change” I won’t have to pay my mortgage or pay for my gas crowd.

Obama rarely actually answers a question.
It is always,”well you know,what I want to do” and “what I have instructed my staff to do”.

That whole interview is nothing but a sign of someone who will be more interested in controlling message and making the appearance of doing something than actually producing results.

It is always about getting to work on this or addressing that so if you stick with me and make me your leader for 8 years,than my grandiose propositions will come true.
Not one strong significant statement of guarantee on anything.
What happened to “Together we can change the world”.
Now it’s “We’re all going to have to sacrifice for the greater good”.
What a bunch of idiotic suckers Obama voters are starting to look like.
The icing on the cake was kicking the BDS crowd right in the balls with “We are going to be looking forward,not backward” in relation to all their conspiracy theories.
I think I will keep that “HOW’S THAT IMPEACHMENT GOING
JACK….(PICTURE OF A DONKEY IN A SUIT) bumper sticker on my
Avalanche just a little while longer.

Baxter Greene on January 12, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Seeing as he is a socialist, I don’t think I will like his definition of “greater good.”

ToddonCapeCod on January 12, 2009 at 1:34 AM

OK, “skin in the game”, “all make sacrifices”.

Umm, ok. So tell me this. How is this new efficiency czar that he announced going to transform our bloated unresponsive gubmint when she is not even in any of the cabinet departments? As a former Industrial Engineer (used to reorganize and transform inefficient factories, or at least tried to, but that was another story) Many times, as a former IE, I would go to the various production departments with all the logical plans in the world, but the rulers of their own fiefdoms never wanted to relinquish turf, so things rarely got done.

I see the same results with this plan of his to have this figurehead in the White House go out and try to tell this out of control bloated bureaucracy how they can “improve”.

I seem to remember AlGore was appointed by Clinton to head up a committee that was supposed to do the same thing almost 20 years ago. Today we have even bigger and more bloated bureacracies.

Where are the conservatives in Congress? Why are we not going over each and every budget item, line by line, inside of each department and asking why each and every program exists? They might even find somewhere that someone is still subsidizing buggy whip manufacturers. Does anyone, anywhere, ever look at this stuff? Probably not.

Same thing at the local level. Ever notice when it comes to budget cuts, it is always the local police, firefighters, pools and libraries that get hit first? The elected officials do that to scare the crap out of their sheeples, so they will cough up the extra taxes to keep these vital services, and the unnecessary spending never gets cut.

This is just too depressing. How are we going to even survive for 2 years until 2010? But it sounds like the Republican Congressional retreat last week just told those cowards to shut up and be quiet, rather than raise holy hell over all of this in Washington. Geesh.

karenhasfreedom on January 12, 2009 at 1:55 AM

We’re all going to have to sacrifice for the greater good”.

Me thinks,that if Commander Ernest Evans of the
U.S.S Johnston,from ‘Taffy 3′,the Destroyer that
faught like a Battleship,

had said that,it would have real meaning,

unlike Obama’s Liberal talkin points!

canopfor on January 11, 2009 at 10:31 PM

They didn’t just fight like a battleship. The DE’s DDs and escort carriers took on battleships including the Yamato. Imagine going against a japanese cruiser with 3 5″ guns and 3 torpedoes.. and succeeding. (Unfortunately I don’t immediately recall which DE managed that)

You are correct. Obama doesn’t even have half a clue as to what it means to sacrafice. Heck, he ‘thought’ about enlisting once, for a couple of minutes.

The liberal left mocked GWBs service but he flew the F-102 which was an incredibly unforgiving aircraft. The peacetime attrition rate was damn near what the ground pounders in vietnam were experiencing.

I’m hoping that obamamama will over-reach and people will start to get a little pissed off. Sacrafice?? How about taking his kids out of Sidwell friends?? How about having Michelle give back some of that raise she got after barryo gave her organization a whole bunch of OUR dollars. How about if Barry and Michelle sacrafice and pay the full value of the Obamamansion??

AAAAAarrrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

bullseye on January 12, 2009 at 2:39 AM

AAAAAarrrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

bullseye on January 12, 2009 at 2:39 AM

Now, now. Don’t get all upset. Remember, it’s all for the greater good.
/ducks.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2009 at 2:47 AM

When the government destroys federalism, controls healthcare and the courts and dictates which businesses are going to live and which are going to die and has the media on its side – well, Obama said he would destroy America. Only he called it change. Unfortunately for all the liberal idiots out there, America will not become Sweden or Germany. It can stay American or it will become something worse.

el gordo on January 12, 2009 at 4:33 AM

To the big-eared freak “we” alternately means “you” or “me”. It never actually means “we”. Remember, he is so high above “us” that he must be considered a unique entity. A small point, I know, but I like to get my shots in early.

SKYFOX on January 12, 2009 at 5:27 AM

Would that include actors, lawyers and sports celebs. Nah.

What about Congress – they just got a self-imposed raise.

Nah. There are “special” people, you know.

stenwin77 on January 12, 2009 at 7:27 AM

I’m not about to “sacrifice” for the “greater good” which turns out to be a socialist utopia where my freedoms are gone! God has been replaced by the Humanist agenda, Government is the new Nanny and we are no longer allowed to make any decisions for ourselves or take any risks in life! This is not the America that I grew up in! This is not Freedom!

sabbott on January 12, 2009 at 7:48 AM

Greater good? How about what’s best for the individual like the founding fathers intended. That the Republican Party allows this propaganda to go on and on only reinforces my new beliefs that they are as socialist as the lefties. As I’ve written before, even if there is no way in hell for a Libertarian candidate to win, they’ve got my vote from now on. Freedom and Liberty for the individual is dying. Sabbott is correct, this is not the America that I grew up in either…Ron Paul would have made a much better President, trutherism not withstanding….

adamsmith on January 12, 2009 at 7:57 AM

ObaMcCarthy is a monumental sack of human excrement. He will continue to spend ridiculous amounts of money on his coronation party while telling the rest of us we have to sacrifice.

Thanks a lot you Obama supporter scum.

csdeven on January 12, 2009 at 8:06 AM

According to the LA Times. Republicans love Hillary.

Reporting from Washington — Long considered one of the nation’s most polarizing figures, Hillary Rodham Clinton steps into her new role as America’s chief diplomat this week with a Senate confirmation hearing that is likely to look more like a tribute than an examination of a controversial politician.

Clinton has fanned political passions as first lady, as New York’s junior senator and as a presidential candidate. Yet she is collecting rhetorical bouquets from Republicans as she prepares for the Tuesday committee appearance that will open the way for her fourth public incarnation — as secretary of State.

Conservative attitudes toward Clinton have changed as she has detailed her foreign policy views, which lean toward the center or even the center-right. She has been hawkish on the defense of Israel and tough on Iran, and said during her presidential campaign that the United States would “obliterate” the Muslim country if it attacked Israel.

Isakson said he found a long discussion with Clinton on the Middle East to be “very satisfactory.”

She’ll be running the country in no time with her bi-partisan take on things. Good for her.

kanda on January 12, 2009 at 8:42 AM

We’re all going to have to sacrifice for the greater good.

Hey government: you first.

Dave Shay on January 12, 2009 at 8:56 AM

This guy is more creepy by the day. By the way, how about the Government sacrifices and lower taxes so we can hire a bunch of new people?

marklmail on January 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM

adamsmith on January 12, 2009 at 7:57 AM

Celente predicts it will get so bad that by ’12, a small-government, anti-welfare-welfare state third party will rout the Republicrats.

But gird your loins! It’s always darkest before the dawn.

Rae on January 12, 2009 at 9:13 AM

It isn’t enough, homeowners have “sacrificed” 20%-25% of the equity in their most valuable asset, thanks to these do-gooder b*st*rds.

It isn’t enough, those who save for their retirement have been “skinned” 20%-40% out of their investments, thanks to these Social Engineering Geniuses.

It… Just… Isn’t… Enough

franksalterego on January 12, 2009 at 9:24 AM

America’s electorial chickens are comming home…. to roost.

Mark Garnett on January 12, 2009 at 9:28 AM

America’s electorial chickens are comming home…. to roost.

Mark Garnett on January 12, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Touche’ I recomend you for the best 1 liner award on Hot Air!

kanda on January 12, 2009 at 9:52 AM

How much skin in the game will the fat, lazy, bastards who had to be hoisted off the rooftops in New Orleans during Katrina be willing to donate? How bout them gettin off their overweight, government feed, asses and rebuild their own city Obammy?

dhunter on January 12, 2009 at 10:01 AM

The only word missing is “comrade”

Bevan on January 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM

dhunter on January 12, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Nah. They get a free pass because once upon a time, some mean people forced others to pick cotton. Apparently this makes them special. There’s a lot more cashin’ in to be done on that guilt trip yet.

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM

The only word missing is “comrade”

Bevan on January 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM

He’s not in, yet.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Sacrifice for the greater good. Spoken like a true Marxist.

Dasher on January 12, 2009 at 10:26 AM

When will the aristocrats who pay taxes less than 1/1000th of their fortunes and less than 1% of the income begin to sacrifice.

Theresa Kerry paid $627,150 dollars in taxes on a reported income of $5 million dollars. The WSJ reported at that time that her fortune was about $1 billion.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Obama: We’re all going to have to sacrifice for the greater good

OK, I choose to sacrifice you. That will definitely be for the greater good.

Vashta.Nerada on January 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Theresa Kerry paid $627,150 dollars in taxes on a reported income of $5 million dollars. The WSJ reported at that time that her fortune was about $1 billion.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 10:48 AM

How does that work?
And does it include the corporate profit tax that the companies she holds stock in pay on her behalf?

Count to 10 on January 12, 2009 at 11:18 AM

“How does that work?
And does it include the corporate profit tax that the companies she holds stock in pay on her behalf?”

Theresa Kerry paid $627,150 dollars in taxes on a reported income of $5 million dollars.

She almost certainly “undereported income”. For the year reported, AAA bonds yielded over 6%. The stock market went up 26%. Municipal Bonds (a large part of her reported income) were about 4%. Yet she reported $5M in earnings (less than 1/2% of her fortune, according to the WSJ). But whether she underreported or not, the fact remains that she paid a tiny fraction of her fortune, and that fortune was certainly growing by leaps and bounds. For example, if she actually increased her fortune by only 5%, it would have grown by $50 million that year, yet she “reported” $5 million. Everything she did report, of course, was legal.

“does it include the corporate profit tax that the companies she holds stock in pay on her behalf”. This is a nonsense question. You would never have asked it about an individual such as yourself, since it wouldn’t have deflected the topic. Theresa Kerry probably doesn’t hold much stock in businesses. For example, she isn’t curently listed as a major holder of HJ Heintz Co. People as wealthy as herself don’t need to take risks. They invest in municpal bonds, real estate, and hide money offshore (UBS recently reported that under fed pressure they will be releasing this information, which the fed estimates will raise $300B in taxes, for UBS alone).

But just for fun, let’s assume she was fully invested in businesese. U.S. businesses pay about $400m in taxes or about 2% of capitalization. If that were the case (and it is not), then the corporataions would have paid 2% of her wealth in taxes “for her”, vs the 25% YOU are likely to pay annually in federal and SSN taxes (plus of course, whatever your investments paid “for you”.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 11:42 AM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 11:42 AM

You most certainly are a ghoul. A ghoulish thief…or at least a ghoulish enabler of thieves.

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM

So, have Marx Jr’s kids dropped out of Sidwell friends and enrolled in pubic school yet???

If not, I guess he can always get Ayers to ghostwrite another book for him to pay the tuition??
Besides, the friends schools are the only schools more liberal than the public schools. The local school here had student art pics of Karl Marx all over the place. The obamakids would feel right at home.

bullseye on January 12, 2009 at 11:57 AM

“You most certainly are a ghoul. A ghoulish thief…or at least a ghoulish enabler of thieves.”

I’m a thief because I show that the super rich, like Kerry, Kennedy, Hollywood kooks, and all the other uber-liberals, pay taxes at rates between 1/100th and 1/1000th of what working people pay?

Liberals whole schtick is the class warfare game. Yet, the money-men behind these Socialist effectively pay no taxes at all. That’s the game, dummy. That’s the game.

Strange isn’t it?

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 12:03 PM

And oh, by the way, the income taxes that the top 25% of asset holders in this country (about 100,000 families who do not work for a living) AVOID is about equal to the income taxes the rest of us PAY.

If the Super-rich were taxed like everyone else, all of the financial problems of the rest of the country could be solved.

And I’m not talking about CEO’s either. They actually work. I’m talking about parasites like Kennedy and Kerry, who do no work and do nothing for the country. They don’t even invest in our economy.

Basically, what the parasites want to do is destroy the entrepreneurial class, because the entrepreneurs threaten their position at the pinnacle of the wealth and power chain.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 12:09 PM

America’s electorial chickens are comming home…. to roost.

Mark Garnett on January 12, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Touche’ I recomend you for the best 1 liner award on Hot Air!

kanda on January 12, 2009 at 9:52 AM

/bow

Mark Garnett on January 12, 2009 at 12:20 PM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Money is only virtuous if you broke a sweat earning it, eh?

All money, at some point, is earned. It is the rightful property of its earner, and if they wish to amass it and provide their heirs with a secure bedrock, that is also their right.

Just because you have some emotional problem with ‘parasites’ that ‘do not work’ for their money, you do not have the right to steal their money from them.

Their money is invested. Investment drives our economy. They also employ people.

Long may the super-rich thrive!

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 12:29 PM

“Money is only virtuous if you broke a sweat earning it, eh?”

Money isn’t virtuous or not.

These people do NOT invest in the economy. They hide their money offshore, sit on unearning real estate and invest in municipal bonds (which have some value).

Let’s say, Madame Kerry made ALL of her income in 2003 from Municipal Bonds. If that were so, then she would have had $15M of her $1B fortune invested munical bonds. Pretty good huh, limey? 1.5% of her fortune in investments working for the country. Sweet.

Kennedy, Kerry, Soros and the like are parasites. Pure and simple. In Kennedy’s case, by the way, grandpa Joe made his money illegally by selling liquour during prohibition. Then he manipulated the markets, and supported Hitler. He was a sweetheart. Now his heirs commit their own crimes and contribute nothing to the country.

Go on in your dreamworld thinking these Socialist blood-suckers are “investing” in the country. Not a one of them has lost a penney during this crisis, simply because they don’t invest in the country. Theresa’s taxes prove it.

And they won’t pay a dime for the recovery either.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 12:43 PM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 12:43 PM

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that this country has a right to benefit from their wealth.

They ‘hide’ (aka ‘shelter’) money offshore to keep it out of reach of the thieves onshore. Sounds like a smart move.

Stop frothing with envy, help to lobby for the FairTax, get it enacted, and watch those dollars flow homeward.

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM

And of course, Kennedy, Kerry, and Soros are leading the movement to increase taxes for the REST of the country. And are leading the movement to “stimulate” the economy with debt packages that will slap another huge tax burder on the people who DO pay taxes (not them, other people).

That way, the rest of us can never achieve their exalted status.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 12:58 PM

“Stop frothing with envy,”

I don’t have an envious bone in my body. I live simply and have never overspent my income.

I just think the elites should pay taxes like the rest of us.

Not more, not less.

But as i’ve said, they pay 1/100th to 1/1000th of what we pay.

In the meantime, the economy goes further in the tank.

Why are you an apologist for them?

Think about it.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM

The name of the article is “we’re all going to have to sacrifice”

Yet, the parasitic elite will be making no sacrifice at all. The only sacrifice they make is to break the bad news that WE will have to sacrifice.

Truly Orwellian.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I just think the elites should pay taxes like the rest of us.

They pay more taxes than any of us. How much more should they pay? What is a “fair” amount?

But as i’ve said, they pay 1/100th to 1/1000th of what we pay.

In the meantime, the economy goes further in the tank.

And you believe that the amount of tax they pay has anything to do with the current economic situation? If only they paid more everything would be OK?

Why are you an apologist for them?

They don’t need me to apologize for them. I’m just objecting to your desire for theft.

Truly Orwellian.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Read “Atlas Shrugged”.

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 1:15 PM

“If only they paid more everything would be OK?”

If they paid 5% of their estates annually, which is far below what we pay, it would be $1 trillion per year, so yep, it would pay off all the bad debt and solve the economic crisis they created. If you are average, you pay about 25% of your wealth in income tax and FICA/Medicare taxes. And that deprives you of any chance to become, like them, financially independent, unless you are 1 in several thousand and hit the jackpot or come up with a brilliant business concept that they don’t steal from you.

“I’m just objecting to your desire for theft.”

How is it theft to ask the super-wealthy to pay what the rest of us pay? Their fortunes will continue to grow if they pay 5%. If I wanted to steal their fortunes, i would sugges the 25% rate that YOU AND I pay.

The “theft” here is that they have foisted on YOU the idea that it is ok for you to pay about 25% of your income annually, while they pay 1/100th to 1/1000th of that on the wealth their daddy’s gave them.

“Read “Atlas Shrugged”.

I have. Atlas Shrugged is about entrepreneurs who compete in a free economy, which in turn lifts the standard of living for everybody. It’s NOT about wealthy parasites who inherit their money and hide it so they won’t pay taxes like the rest of us. Maybe you should re-read it.

As I have said, Kerry, Kennedy, Soros and these uber-liberals leaches create nothing. But they have persuaded the country that entrepreneurs are the people who should be punished by huge taxes to grow unproductive governments run by, you guessed it, Kerry, Kennedy and Soros

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM

If they paid 5% of their estates annually, which is far below what we pay

You pay 0% of your ‘estate’. You are advocating theft, pure & simple. They contribute far more to the government revenue stream than any individual.

Atlas Shrugged is about entrepreneurs who compete in a free economy, which in turn lifts the standard of living for everybody.

No it isn’t. In fact, it’s almost the exact opposite.

Maybe you should re-read it.

You really should. Concentrate hard.

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM

“They contribute far more to the government revenue stream than any individual.”

No, they contribute far less than average people.

Therea Kerry in 2003 paid $627,150 dollars in taxes on a reported income of $5 million dollars, yet her fortune was estimated at $1 Trillion dollars by the WSJ. So she paid 12.7% of her reported income, which was 1/2% of her estate.

You seem to believe that is “far more” than fair, since she is a capitalis “investor”, like the value creators in Atlas Shrugged.

Did you know that average corporate dividends at that time were about 2% of share prices? So if she was “invested” in corporations, she would have declared about $20M in dividend income alone, if her fortune was invested in businesses. She actually declared 5M in income. And since the broad stock market went up 26% that year, shouldn’t she have been declaring a tiny fraction, at least, of capital gains. Well sir, she couldn’t have more than $3M in gains, because her capital gains tax rate was 20%. So where is any evidence whatsoever of her “investing” in businesses at all. On the other hand, if she were fully invested in Munical Bonds, a mere $15M in bonds would have created her entire “income”.

No, her tax return itself shows that she doesn’t invest. She is probably a tax cheat and certainly a parasite, as are the Kennedy’s, and most of the people in the elite. And again, since it’s been a long time since you read it, Atlas Shrugs is about entrepreneurs who take risks to create goods and services but are stymied by idiotic government beurocrats like John Kerry. Madame Kerry, as I’ve said, is the thwarter, not the risk-taker, as evidenced by her tax return and her husband’s politics.

And you, limey, are the naif who defends her. Her “class” loves silly “conservatives” like you because you work overtime to enable them, based on a book you don’t understand. It’s almost as if Alinsky was writing about you. The Communists call people like you “useful idiots”.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM

correct, Theresa’s fortune was estimate at $1 Billion, not Trillion in 2003 by the WSJ.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 2:34 PM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM

I am not a ‘conservative’, and you are not lucid.

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Change you can believe in! Yes We Can…sacrifice!

You want us to sacrifice, Barry? Why don’t you lead by example, and sacrifice that $300K you saved on your mansion into stimulus package? Why don’t you throw in the leftover campaign money while you’re at it?

The Candidate of Change! R. I. P., 11 / 4 / 2008.

Steve Z on January 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Obama: You’ll have to sacrifice.

Where should we look for the golden calf?

Steve Z on January 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM

“I am not a ‘conservative’ ”

So now we know whay you flail so to defend the indefensible.

By the way, do you have a single data point to defend your opinions? Or like all liberals is just “feeling” something enough for you.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM

I am not a ‘liberal’.

LimeyGeek on January 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I’ve already sacrificed my job. Is there anything else I’m supposed to do?

BackwardsBoy on January 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Our family wealth is down almost 50% since October. I think I have sacrificed enough. This man is clueless as to how this country works.

BetseyRoss on January 12, 2009 at 5:18 PM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM

So, how much should a rich person pay to have their garbage taken away, compared to someone such as yourself?

One of the mantras of the old Socialists was that if a person earned ten times more than the average, that person should pay ten times the tax. Naturally, that is stupid.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2009 at 6:20 PM

CHANGE we can believe in.

Cylor on January 12, 2009 at 6:41 PM

“So, how much should a rich person pay to have their garbage taken away, compared to someone such as yourself?”

Well, considering that they pay taxes between 1/100th and 1/1000th on a percentage basis of what I pay, and that their garbage is a heckuva lot more than my garbage……they should pay a heckuva lot more than they are paying now.

You liberals are GREAT at playing class warfare against people making 125K to 250K a year, but you squeal like little piggies when somebody points out that your big-time parasitic fat-cat do-nothing lib money-men are the ones skating through for free.

They control 25% of the country’s wealth you know, and pay less than 1% of the taxes. And most of that is by people like Buffet and Gates, who do invest. The Kennedy’s and Kerry’s don’t invest in anything. They hide their money in land and offshore illegally tax-free accounts.

And one last point, my liberal friend, Bush’s tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with this. The system for the do-nothing Kennedy fat-cats has been around for decades.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:07 PM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Two things.

First, one of us doesn’t understand the term “Liberal”. Now, if you had labeled me as Attila the Hun, you would be close to the mark.

Second, The “illegality” mentioned is only so because Leftist edicts have made it so. Said edicts don’t make it right, merely legal theft.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Then OldEnglish, instead of making an inane comment about garbage, tell me why, if as the article says the entire country has to “sacrifice”, and if for 2 years we have heard nothing but class warfare against entrepreneurs and business people (who are the people that create the jobs and wealth that the entire country enjoys), and if Theresa Kennedy (who under intense scrutiny at the time) paid 1/2 of 1% of her wealth in taxes in 2003, why would you think that there is anything incorrect with pointing out that parasites like her aren’t making and will never make the slightest “sacrifice”?

Frankly, I have nothing against wealthy people. But when I see that they are paying less than 1% in taxes while I pay 25% and up, I say enough is enough.

For those of them who invest and take risks, my comments do not apply. For the far greater % who are living off the wealth their daddy’s gave them or who now hoard and cheat because they got lucky and made a billion, they should “sacrifice” at the same level as the rest of us.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:32 PM

To answer the implicit question, the reason they will never “sacrifice” is because they found it much less expensive to buy an election for the fool Obama.

Did you notice that his tax plan, which devastates entrepreneurs, will not touch the mega-rich in any way? Gee, I wonder why that is?

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:34 PM

they should “sacrifice” at the same level as the rest of us.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:32 PM

My point, exactly! The problem is, we pay too much tax. I have always been of the opinion that tax is evil, but fees for service are not. A service has a value – even defense, and I don’t think a rich person’s life is worth more, in human terms, than mine. We should both pay the same amount.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2009 at 7:38 PM

oldenglish, we may agree. But to be clear, i believe the super rich should pay the same tax % as average people, not the same dollar amount.

If they did, the economic crisis would disappear instantly.

The top 100,000 families in the control have assets of 15 to 20 trillion dollars. If they paid only only 5% per year, it would be about equal to the income tax all of the rest of us pay. You and I are paying 25% or more on what we have, so 5% would be a small % for them.

But they never will. They bought the election for Obama.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:58 PM

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Yes, I agree with your numbers, but I will have to stay on the other side of the equation when it comes to cause. Yes, the rich could clear the debt, but why should they pay for more than their fair share of it. The debt is pretty much worldwide, because the world caused it. Many people have been too greedy in their quest for unearned benefits, and it’s just too easy to say let the rich fix the problem.

We pay too much in tax because government has grown well beyond its original purview. It wasn’t the rich who caused this – it was us.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2009 at 8:49 PM

they should “sacrifice” at the same level as the rest of us.

notagool on January 12, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Addendum; My comment about garbage charges wasn’t meant to be inane. It was merely meant as an example. I have lived under varying systems and ,currently, under a system where a greater amount of garbage is covered by Bin Charge. If you have more than the average amount of garbage, as I do, you pay for another bin, and the emptying thereof.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Class envy… Here at HA…

The “Progressives” and far left Liberals have WON the fight.

Mark Garnett on January 13, 2009 at 7:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3