Again, Gene, kill the bold. It makes you look even less intelligent because you rely on such petty tactics to get your point across.

fine then i am just using your philosophy you have more than me so you should pay me.

what point

Reply By: DraginolPosted: Friday, December 21, 2007Are individuals ever responsible for their own actions in your world, Gene?

Yes however that is not the issue. Is it better to prevent a mortgage created recession by helping millions of people to refinance their mortgages or accept what could be far more harmful situation by doing nothing? Greenspan believes we would be better to prevent the massive foreclosures and I agree with him. It is like putting a small fire out or let it burn and cause far more damage.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Friday, December 21, 2007 Better go back and look what I have written. I have always said we should increase the tax burden on the top 10%. They are the people that got most of the Bush Tax Cuts! fine then i am just using your philosophy you have more than me so you should pay me.

I do not know what you have but I know I did not receive much from the Bush Tax cuts so I have nothing to give back!

you sir are a bigot.

your anti rich.

that makes you a bigot.

So how much are you willing to donate?  Why should my family sacrifice to bail other people out of their own greed and poor decisions?

Then you must not pay very much in taxes. It doesn't surprise me that you're not well off given your views on economics (such as the one where you say that when you spend too much you should just look for a higher paying job or get another job).

The path to wealth isn't through consumption. It is through investing.  Those who spend more than they make often end up begging for help in the end.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Friday, December 21, 2007 do not know what you have but I know I did not receive much from the Bush Tax cuts so I have nothing to give back! you sir are a bigot.your anti rich.that makes you a bigot.

That is pure BS. The fact remains the wealthy got a huge tax cut from Bush and the GOP that was justified by this surplus that did not exist. Thus there was NOTHING to give to the rich and that has created part of the deficit. We need to recapture that money that should not have been given to them and use it to repay the debt it helped create!

NOT ONE person on this Blog site has provided a single reason why the tax cut should have been passed given the fact there was no Surplus to return. As soon as it became clear the Bush Surplus was an illusion, the tax cuts should have ended as O’Neil and Greenspan said! It was clear by early 2002 there was no SURPLUS as Bush stated!

Reply By: DraginolPosted: Friday, December 21, 2007 Yes however that is not the issue. Is it better to prevent a mortgage created recession by helping millions of people to refinance their mortgages or accept what could be far more harmful situation by doing nothing? So how much are you willing to donate? Why should my family sacrifice to bail other people out of their own greed and poor decisions?

If it prevents a recession it will help the wealthy and they have the resources to pay a little more in taxes.

Those who spend more than they make often end up begging for help in the end.

That is just what our country is doing by running annual budget deficits and in creating over $9 Trillion in debt!

and has been for 230 years.

the fact is they deserve an even bigger tax cut.

I like Gene's bold. It reminds me of who I'm dealing with, and then I only have to read the main point of whatever he said without bothering with the rest of it.

The government isn't bailing PEOPLE out of mortgages. It's bailing mortgage companies (aka THE RICH) out of bad risks they shouldn't have taken in the first place.

The consumer also took risks, but the fact is, if the consumer loses a house, he probably won't pay off the mortgage ever. He will rent for the rest of his life. And the mortgage company will never see the money. All this is doing is sending money through the hands of the poor into the hands of the wealthy.

It's the opposite effect of the tax cuts to the wealthy. There, the government let the wealthy keep more of their money - instead of keeping it, they hired more people, so the poor actually ended up better off. Raising taxes on the wealthy will not keep the money out of the wealthy's hands - it'll keep it out of the poor's hands, because the wealthy will take the same amount as always.

So basically, Gene, it's okay to raise taxes on the wealthy (hurting the poor) but it's also a great idea to give money to the poor so they can turn around and give it right to the wealthy.

Gene, I know you want to help the poor by taking from the rich - but the policies you support do the exact opposite.

he won't get it

just like he doesn't understand that universal health care does the same thing.