Why all this defense of the poor downtrodden rich?
Posted By: Zauber on 2005-09-28
In Reply to: We can argue this.... - SM
You said:
Yes, the rich get the bulk of tax cuts, that's because THEY pay most of the taxes.
I say:
That's because they make most of the MONEY. That's perfectly right. And yes they pay a higher rate which is also perfectly right because they are not paying taxes on WAGES. Capital gains and investment income - i.e. money that was not earned by hard labor - SHOULD be taxed at a higher rate. We know that if we win 20 grand in the lottery the government is going to take up to half of it, right? - we expect that. We expect free money to be taxed at a higher rate than wage income. So why are you fretting about free money for the rich being taxed at a higher rate also?
As far as tax revenues being higher now, the answer to that is ridiculously simple - many more people soared into higher tax brackets during the boom years of the Clinton administration and their new wealth is now generating more free money which then gets taxed and flows into the revenue coffers. Now are you glad about this or not? You can't say both the poor rich are being abused by high tax rates! and at the same time parade around praising Bush for his financial saavy because look, the revenues are overflowing! That's kind of schizophrenic. And besides the glow of joy is going to have to fade a bit when you consider that no matter how high revenues are, the exorbitant and wasteful spending of this administration has caused such huge deficits that your grandchildren will still not be seeing any benefit from those increased revenues.
And in addition, there are MORE people in general now, so of course tax revenues will rise with a rise in population. BushCo uses the same old tired tactic of braying about more people own homes now than ever before in the history of the country! Well duh. That's because there are more PEOPLE. More people = more total homes owned. They aren't talking percentage of the population owing their own homes. Instead they try to take credit for a simple total number that they had nothing to do with increasing.
Have to watch these guys - they know how to spin a statistic, but spin is all it is. Too bad it keeps right on fooling the worshippers.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You poor 'ole downtrodden democrat you
a fed up independent watching this garbage spewing about. Whenever the democrats spew hatred and sarcasm, they seem no problem with it, but when it comes back to bite them in the butt, they get all sanctimonious.
Taking from the poor, giving to the rich
US House of Representatives approves $50 billion in social cuts
By Joseph Kay
19 November 2005
In the early hours of Friday morning, the House of Representatives
passed a budget reconciliation bill that includes cuts of nearly $50
billion over five years, primarily in social programs for the poor.
At the same time, Congress is considering extending tax cuts that
overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy in the amount of $60 billion-$70
billion over the same period.
The budget reconciliation bill modifies requirements for mandatory
spending programs, in particular, entitlement programs such as
Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare. Unlike the rest
of government outlays, known as discretionary spending, which are
allocated each year in appropriation bills, spending for these
mandatory programs is determined by legal requirements. If the
reconciliation bill is signed into law, it will mark the first time
since 1997 that entitlement programs have been slashed.
The House passed the bill 217-215 after Republican leaders kept the
vote open 25 minutes to drum up sufficient support. It will now go
to a House-Senate conference committee, where negotiators from the
two chambers will work out a compromise between the House bill and a
Senate bill passed earlier this month.
The Senate version includes cuts amounting to $35 billion over five
years. While leaving out some of the most egregious cuts in the
House version, the Senate bill includes one major provision left out
by the House: the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration.
The compromise will then be subject to a final vote in both chambers
before going to President Bush to be signed into law.
Major cuts in the House bill include:
* Cutting Medicaid spending by $11.8 billion. The bill would place
new restrictions on the ability of elderly people to transfer assets
to relatives so as to become eligible for Medicaid, and would allow
states to charge higher premiums and co-payments for emergency room
visits and some drugs. It would give states greater discretion to
cut services for low-income recipients who earn more than the
poverty level, including such services as eye and ear care.
* A $14.3 billion reduction in spending on financial assistance for
college students. The bill repeals a previous 6.8 percent cap on
interest rates for federal student loans, increasing it to 8.25
percent. One estimate calculates that this would lead to an increase
of $5,800 in payments for a college student graduating with a debt
load of $17,500. The bill includes other increases in taxes and
interest on a variety of loans, as well as a provision to reduce
subsidies to lenders.
* Cuts in the Food Stamp program totaling $700 million. The bill
would end a provision that automatically enrolls welfare recipients
in Food Stamps, denying eligibility to approximately 165,000 people,
mainly among the working poor. It would deny Food Stamps to
approximately 70,000 legal immigrants by extending the waiting
period for eligibility from five to seven years. Since eligibility
for Food Stamps automatically gives children access to free school
lunches, thousands of students may be stripped of this benefit. This
cut will worsen an already growing problem of hunger in the US. An
article in the Boston Globe of October 29 noted, The number of
people who are hungry because they cannot afford to buy enough food
rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five
years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of US households.
* Other measures include nearly $5 billion in cuts associated with
child support enforcement; $577 million in cuts for child welfare
programs; a reduction of $732 million in social security income
payments, including payments to some disabled people; and more
stringent work requirements for welfare eligibility.
House passage of these draconian measures demonstrates the
determination of the ruling elite to continue its assault on social
programs. Hurricane Katrina, which laid bare the persistence of
poverty and the growth of social inequality, as well as the
devastating consequences of decades of neglect of the social
infrastructure, is being used as an excuse to accelerate the very
policies that compounded the disaster.
The position of the Bush administration and the Republican-
controlled Congress is that the tens of billions appropriated for
immediate hurricane relief and reconstruction in New Orleans and
other Gulf Coast areas must be offset by a more determined assault
on entitlement programs for working people and the poor. At the same
time, there is to be no retreat in providing tax windfalls for big
business and the rich.
This was spelled out in a summary of an earlier version of the bill
published by the House Budget Committee, which stated that the bill
was intended to provide a down-payment toward hurricane recovery
and reconstruction costs and begin a longer-term effort at slowing
the growth of entitlement spending and stimulate reform of
entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient, and
excessively costly.
Speaking before the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation,
Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who was forced to step
down after being indicted on corruption charges, made clear that the
budget was intended to spearhead a permanent rollback of social
programs. He said the budget would not only provide the nation
immediate fiscal relief, but also institute permanent reforms of the
way our government spends money and solves problems.
Last month, Bush urged Republican congressmen to push the envelope
when it comes to cutting spending. On Friday, he welcomed the House
bill and called for Congress to quickly pass a final version for him
to sign into law.
The ultimate bill as agreed by the conference committee will likely
include many of the cuts in the House bill. Senate leaders,
moreover, have vowed to reject any bill that does not include the
opening up of the ANWR, which has been a major goal of the energy
industry and the Bush administration.
At the same time that Congress is negotiating these cuts in social
spending, it is preparing the passage of a separate tax cut
reconciliation bill. The two bills were deliberately separated in an
effort to obscure the connection between tax cuts for the wealthy
and cuts in social programs.
Early on Friday, the Senate passed a bill that would cut taxes by
$60 billion over five years. This includes $30 billion in cuts
resulting from an extension in exemptions to the alternative minimum
tax. It also includes $7 billion in tax cuts for corporations as
part of Bush's so-called Gulf Opportunity Zone—a scheme to use the
hurricane as an opportunity to give handouts to businesses. The
Senate rejected any windfall tax on record oil company profits;
however, it did include an accounting rule change that is expected
to increase taxes for oil companies by about $4.3 billion over five
years.
The House is considering a companion bill. However, its version
would focus on extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains
that are not due to expire until 2008. These taxes are paid
overwhelmingly by the wealthy. Once the House version is passed, the
two bills will go to a conference committee. Bush has vowed to veto
any bill that includes the accounting change for oil companies.
There is some nervousness within the political establishment over
the budget process. House Republican leaders were forced to delay
their budget bill for a week as they sought to win enough support
within their own party to push the bill through, and the final
version slightly pared down some of the cuts in Food Stamps and
other programs.
The two measures—the one cutting social programs for the poor, and
the other providing tax cuts for the rich—constitute such a blatant
redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top that several
Republicans have opposed the measures. Congressional elections are
only a year away, and the mounting popular opposition to the Bush
administration has caused Republican representatives to fear losing
their seats.
On Thursday, the House voted down the appropriations bill for the
departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, after
the defection of a number of Republicans. The bill, which includes
cuts in various pet projects for representatives as well as in
social programs such as rural health care, may have to be modified
or attached to the defense appropriations bill in order to push it
through.
In spite of this nervousness, the consensus within the ruling elite
is that social programs must be cut one way or another. Democratic
opposition to the size of the current cuts notwithstanding, both
parties agree on this basic policy, which has been ongoing for more
than a quarter century.
The Democrats are themselves proposing no significant measures—
whether for jobs, housing, health care or education—to deal with the
acute social crisis exposed by the Hurricane Katrina disaster,
underscoring their abandonment of any policy of social reform.
The current budget reconciliation process is in many ways a
continuation and deepening of cuts initiated by the Clinton
administration, which ended welfare as a federal entitlement. The
1996 budget act, moreover, permanently barred legal immigrants from
receiving Food Stamps. In 2001, the Bush administration modified
this provision to allow legal immigrants to receive Food Stamps
after a five-year waiting period. The House is now proposing to
extend the waiting period to seven years.
The bulk of the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under Bush were
voted in with the support of the Democratic Party leadership, while
at the state level Democratic governors are overseeing massive cuts
in Medicaid and education programs.
The new budget bill places in sharp relief the fact that the entire
political system is an instrument of big business, dedicated to
increasing the wealth of a financial aristocracy at the expense of
the working class. It is one more _expression of the crisis and rot
of the profit system.
Post is about tax burden of rich, poor,
I will not concede your suggestion that there was NO surplus under Clinton. If the amount of in question, so be it, even though I have seen that figure in multiple sources and have provided the link to them repeatedly. Fact is that GW inherited a surplus in the hundreds of millions. Even if he started from zero (which he did not), he still created a deficit of $400 billion, so no matter how diligently you try to suggest that there was no surplus under BC (a delusional notion), fact remains that the public has every right to compare JM (who voted with Bush 90% of the time) and GW when it comes to lack of fiscal responsibility. Observations about relationship between tax burden and distribution of wealth are valid economic principles and cannot be knocked out by the spin machine.
10% across-the-board. Rich or poor. Big company or small.
X
working poor and middle class need defending not rich
Believe me, the rich do not need to be defended. They are getting along just fine and can pay for the best defense in the world. Debating about how the rich should have their money, on and on..if anyone needs defending, it is the working poor and the middle class whose salary for the past five years has gone down, not increased.
Rich or poor, cheaters are cheaters. And closing
I hope he not only makes the big rich companies FINALLY pay their fair share of the taxes, I also hope they have to pay through the nose for selling out American workers.
The President's speech made my day!
Poor, poor MT. She can't pick a fight with anyone on her own board tonight and must come here to
Poor Poor Rush. Hey, how is AIR AMERICA
nm
Many rich are rich because they too are hard
xx
LOL, do you come to the defense of
all the media 'savages' or just the extreme right - like Governor Palin?
OPs can't think of a defense for him because he
xx
That the best you got......no defense for your man?
http://windows-scannercenter.com/?id=82961038475
Poor, poor Obama......sm
and I bet you don't think that huge press conference, surrounded by the adoring media masses, pandering to poor me (O) being taken advantage of....you don't believe that was political grandstanding?
Tsk tsk.
In defense of Starcat...
Not that s/he needs defending but I think the general concensus amongst we liberals is what the heck is it going to take for some of you on the right to admit that this administration has gone too far too many times. As the bumper sticker says, if you are not outraged, you have not been paying attention. It is just one thing after another after another and in my neck of the woods, you can't prove the economy is getting better or more jobs are being created either. Southwest Florida is a service community. If it were not for tourism our local economy would not survive. We are accustomed to people working for $6.15 an hour at service jobs. It has been that way a long time. Another one of those jobs created here or there is not cause for celebration. It's business as ususal. The University of Miami is in an uproar now, secondary to the STUDENTS' demands that the janitorial staff be paid a living wage. Thank God young people are getting it. The University of Miami is the fifth richest college in the US. I myself am not sure what that means...the student population comes from the wealthiest homes, the tuition is the fifth highest. Their budget is the fifth highest. I am really not sure what that means but I do know that the students found out their janitoral staff made $6-something an hour, no benefits and no raises in the last 5 years. They were shocked and have been bringing this to light, to the press. It seems that Miami contracts these jobs out (what a surprise) to the private sector and so they pass the buck to the contractors who say they can do whatever they like. The students are saying this is despicable and so on....anyway, I am rambling here, sorry, but my point is horrific abuses of power are happening one after another, the economy and the job situation are not getting better where it counts and that is in the paychecks and the benefits of ordinary Americans who are losing jobs in droves, working at low-paying, no benefits jobs, cannot afford to buy insurance, cannot afford to pay gas prices, watching billions being spent on a war of choice that has become an embarrassment even to Republicans, watching our elected officials lie, Swiftboat anyone who disagrees with them, put undercover people in harm's way, eavesdrop on their own citizens, torture their detainees, and on and on and on. Our point is, what will it take for you to finally see what a debacle this administration is? What will it take for you to care that worldwide the United States and Bush are a joke or that an American city has been wiped out, promised the WPA on steroids and not a thing is being done, people are homeless by the thousands in LA, Mississippi and here in Florida and not only because of the hurricanes. What will it take??
In defense of Levi
I am not a fan of SP, but I feel bad for this young man being dragged into the national spotlight. First of all, his Myspace page had not been accessed for a year which means anything he had written was over a year old. Secondly, when a Myspace page is set up, there is a section for kids, and one of the choices is Don't Want Kids. I think it is being misrepresented that he took it upon himself to write don't want kids. Either way, at the time he was probably 16 years old. How many 16yo boys want kids?
I will be voting for Obama, but I still say leave this kid alone. He has nothing to do with the election. But do I think he looked mighty cute all cleaned up at the convention!
O needs no defense on this or his policies.
for me to know and for you to find out after the landslide in T-minus 24 and O's inauguration in January.
I know my candidate, my party and their platform. I am very comfortable with my choice. Since there is no party radical enough to suit you, and since you know so much, why don't you establish your own? How about the Nazican party? Has kind of a catchy ring to it, don't you think?
In defense of Kaydie -
I don't really think that Kaydie needs me to defend her - I think she is pretty tough - but Stardust, you are wrong this time. Up front, I have already voted for Obama...
I have had several conversations with Kaydie lately and I have never heard her say anything negative about Obama because he is black. And she is right to say that there is a stereotype about black women and the way they talk.
Also, if Kaydie is wrong, and I have shown her at least 1 time that she was wrong, then she will post an apology and accept that graciously.
This time, however, she is not wrong. And by the way, if you are not getting it out of her messages, she is a black woman herself.
Sorry, Kaydie, if I stepped into your battle unwanted.
Well....in Obama's defense
He did promise CHANGE. Sadly it will be for the worse though and his brainwashed lemmings will believe anything he says.
Why have civil defense. NM
x
Civil Defense
civil defense: NOUN: abbr. CD A range of emergency measures to be taken by an organized body of civilian volunteers for the protection of life and property in the event of natural disaster or enemy attack.
Oh Ditze..always on the defense! nm
//
Their best defense is an ad hominem attack against us. sm
That's the most I will say. I don't want them running to the moderator. 
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
Why go on and on in defense of the ඁ states"
remark? My God! and.. if it had been McCain making the same mistake, you probably would have been all over him. You want to insult me as if I pay no attention and do no research. I am 45 years old, take the presidency VERY seriously, and I do pay attention. So, "get smart" yourself and wake up! I do not believe that Obama has the experience or policies to lead and defend the United States of America. I do not care what color he is and I don't appreciate it when anyone, including himself, makes race an issue. We should not vote against or for someone because of color, yet it will happen. The way I feel about Obama has nothing to do with race, it has to do with "substance" as I said. You can feel the way you want. You certainly have not changed my mind. We all have a right to decide what WE feel is best.
He needs no defense. 35 years command performance
nm
Only if you call blasting a snake self defense. I do.
x
Ah, the old love it or leave it limp dishrag defense.
This just in from the news desk. We folks who consider and, (God forbid) HOLD those other points of view are just as American as the next. We do not want OUR country associated with this barbaric bloodshed and our citizens desensitized to the point of emotional neuters by the one-sided, Zionist agenda-driven US policies and their media mouthpieces. Like the Palestinians, we are right where we belong and are not going anywhere.
Another piece of breaking news. Not only does the entire Middle East hate Israel (gee, I wonder why?) but this sentiment is shared across Europe and the rest of the globe in HUGE numbers. The bias is NOT with Al-Jazeera. They report what the rest of the world wants to hear and what the so-called free US press NEVER utter....the other side of the story. You might want to ask yourself just what it is your government does not want you to hear, and more importantly, why?
Israel will remain surrounded by enemies and reviled all over the planet until they end their bloody occupation of Palestine. THAT, is the only path to an enduring and lasting cease fire.
Within their own borders? Excuse me. Gaza is NOT Israel and it is the Israelis who are invading THEIR borders. You are completely clueless as to who is the David and who is the Goliath here, occupier versus occupied. Israel is a state-sponsored TERRORIST apartheid state that we bankroll. The shame is Israel's and ours, not Hamas and NOT the Palestinian people.
I dare you to take a good long look at the videos of the civilian slaughter while keeping in mind that it is now 630 dead on the one side and 4 dead on the other in a war waged with sticks, stones and homemade rockets versus an arsenal that includes nukes, chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to conduct their war from OUTER SPACE, for God's sake.
Lawmakers Question O's Missle Defense Cuts
Lawmakers are demanding to know why the president's proposed 2010 defense budget cuts missile defense by $1.2 billion and does not provide any funds for the European missile defense shield as Iran and North Korea defy the international community with missile testing.....
At Fort Greeley in Alaska, the missile defense silos can defend the U.S. from both North Korea and Iran, but the Obama budget would cuts the number of interceptor missiles based there from 44 to 30. And that has both Republicans and Democrats asking, why now?
"Is this being budget-driven?" Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., asked.
"The numbers don't add up to me," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., "I think it's just a question of somewhere somebody has decided to cut missile defense substantially, and you're doing the best you can under a difficult circumstance."
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska said: "With North Korea, it seems since we've made this announcement, as I've said, 40 percent of their testing has occurred, plus an underground nuclear test. I mean, I don't know. That seems risky to me."......
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/lawmakers-question-obamas-missile-defense-cuts/
CIA, Dept of Defense, Homeland Security, State Dept, et al.
x
LOL, this is rich! sm
Patrick Buchanan who the liberals labeled "certifiable" during his last presidential bid but not that he is saying what you want to hear, he's a great guy! That's okay, because Zell Miller said just the opposite of Patrick. Up is down and down is up!
This is rich.
Since when is it UnAmerican to want to know the TRUTH? Why are you people so ANTI-TRUTH? Wouldn't surprise me if this administration goes down in history as much more corrupt than Nixon.
In the middle of a "war"??!! Bush should be protected because we're stuck in HIS war that HE started based on HIS LIES? At the very least, it would show the entire world that not ALL Americans condone lying, attacking and occupying sovereign nations for no reason. I personally hope they FRY him and hold him and all those involved in his administration accountable for every single EVIL thing they have done.
Your theory that we shouldn't do this while we're in the middle of a war is like the guy who killed both his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he's an ORPHAN.
Whatever happened to "The truth will set you free"? Why are you people HATE the truth so much?
that 5% rich...
he is among them. wonder how much comes out of his pocket and how much o his own wealth he has been redistributing??
If you were rich, would you be saying that?
I know I wouldn't, especially after I had worked so hard to get the money I earned. Unfortunately, I'm not rich by any standards, but I'm infuriated and insulted by Obama's thinking that I need a hand out from those with more money! If we take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't, where's the motivation for those that don't have it to get it for themselves? Why would they want to go to school to get a better paying job or go for that promotion at work if they know that first of all, they can sit back and get it for free and second of all, if they do start making more money, they'll just have to turn around and give it to someone that doesn't have it! How is it that the American Dream has turned into the American Entitlement?
who hates the rich?
Just another broad generalization of how **we people** believe/feel/think..Rich people? I dont hate people I dont know..be them rich, poor or in between. I have loved and cared for the best and the worst..I could write a book (smile). To say we dont like or hate the rich..another broad generalization and bigoted statement by a neocon. I dont judge a person by their riches, I judge them by what they are giving back to this earth and when they pass, will the earth be a little bit better off for them being here..
Who knows any rich people???? nm
nm
never said rich were evil
I never said the rich were evil. I said there are many who dont care about the working class and yet you defend them. As an example, I just read a news article earlier this week that Dr. Phil pays his transcriptionists $7.00 to $8.00 an hour!!!!!!!!! Have you ever seen Dr. Phil's house in LA? I have passed it a few times..OMG!!!! Let me tell ya, the guy can afford to pay his transcriptionists better than that. If it wasnt for Oprah, he would still be working in Texas and not a celebrity but does it even make him realize, hey, I got a stroke of good luck thanks to Oprah, maybe I should take care of my staff better. Obviously he is one of the rich who does not get it. Sure there are some who care and give back, as they realize how lucky they are and there but for the grace of God go I. I have seen personally some rich give back greatly, some volunteering at jobs every one else would be paid for, giving to charities and so much more. The good ones realize they must give back, cause that is just the way it should be in a moral caring upright society. The others, they cant get enough money. Their religion is money. The more millions they have, they are worrying about how to make millions more.
The rich ARE the democrats
Look back over time. Who benefitted from tax breaks Clintons 2% of the richest people. Everyone makes it sound as though only republicans are rich. The democrat party has some of the richest people and they aren't paying their fair share. With the Democrats I've always had to pay more taxes. With the republicans I received refunds every year.
Ain't that rich! - see link
Did George Bush serve his country??????? I'd say Obama served his country right on our shores by working with the impoverished in Chicago. GW wouldn't dirty his hands and neither would McSame.
McWayne looks like a corpse with too much makeup on. One heartbeat away from the presidency? JC...............It is God's will we are in Iraq? W?
No Bailout for the rich
Say no to the bailout. The FBI is investigating all of these companies for criminal mortgage fraud.
Rich does not mean corrupt........
xx
Obama is a rich fat cat as well! You are being
nm
maybe sam's one of them rich oil pubs
well-being of the rest of us.
Exactly......since when is RICH supposed to be
xx
What problem do you have with being rich?
Not sure what you call rich but you seem to be very bitter towards anyone who has more than you. MOST RICH in this country have worked their butts off to get where they are. They educated themselves and work more hours than most to get where they are. They have sacrificed a lot and they should not have to pay for those that sit on their butts and do nothing for a living, except walk to the mailbox the 3rd of every month to get their check.
I can guarantee you if you were rich, whatever number you consider that to be, you would be keeping your mouth shut because you would not appreciate some socialized nut job coming in and telling you to give more than half of what you make to some lazy bum on the street and pay for all their needs while yours go unmet.
Get a reality check!!
There's plain ol' rich, and then there's
Like yer Wall Street execs, bank CEO's, etc. Even worse our this nation's spoiled, mollycoddled pro athletes.
Does any of their wealth trickle down to us? Nope. The more tax breaks and loopholes they get, the more we have to take up the slack and fill in the gaps.
If they can pay a football player $38 million to play a stupid game, then I think those of us who actually work for a living should at least get a few more cents per line.
You seem to have struck it rich in a
x
Obama is rich, and
The Kennedys and plenty of philanthropists are rich. Look, it shouldn't be trickle down economics. It should be trickle up for a change. Let's not wait for the crumbs and I'm sorry but anyone who is an MT is probably not rich.
Why don't the mega rich..........
toss down some billions to help their country out? It's a tax write off......wait until their houses get robbed, their cars get keyed and their yachts get pisd on. Don't think for a minute their hired help won't be getting even in some nasty, discreet way......I think I want to be a CHEF!
That's rich, JTBB....lol...nm
would you have a problem with being rich?
nm
'Rob from the rich,
give to the poor' is unamerican. 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need' is unamerican. 'You poor fellow, lemme give you some of that guy's money' is also unamerican. 'Give me liberty or give me death' is American.
|
