OK bush suppored the rich in wich he is one. The rich employs people that earn money that the govt takes in taxes. The rich own big business. They spend money, Pay taxes. Support towns and citties.
Yes. And this is also inefficient, ineffective, creates wealth inequality and results in a lot of stationary wealth. State capitalism is not the best way to go.
The rich give to charities. etc.
Sometimes they do. After all, they have the money. Andrew Carnegie was known as a big philanthropist. But he had a lot to make up for. He mercilessly overworked the workers, treated them as dirt and locked them out of his steel mill when they organised and tried to do something about it.
Obama? You clearly do not kow me. He neither represents me, nor my views in the slightest.
taxed the rich so much they can't afford anything, so the country is failing.
Firstly, he's giving tons away to private tyrannies and rich people. The bourgeoisie also pay themselves huge bonuses.
Let's have a look at your point as well. When the Government takes money through taxes, the money doesn't just disappear. The Government spends it again, re-injecting it into the economy. Let's take an example:
The Government builds a housing complex, perhaps, for the elderly. The Government uses money it has gotten from tax (some of it from rich people) and pays the concrete manufacturers for the concrete, brick-makers for the bricks, the construction company to put up scaffolding, dig the foundation and build the complex. All these private companies then pay their workers some dismal wage and keep as much profit as possible.
Also, think how much rich people have. Very very few spend a large proportion of it. That means a
lot of stationary wealth. Taxing the rich actually stimulates the flow of cash because it's guaranteed to move. Therefore, taxing the rich more would actually be an economic benefit.
That said, i'd really rather nobody paid tax.
I suppoes you can't see that from your position. I also see your mind is in a negative position as is so many that think obama is your salvation.
I have a negative position because i am cynical and pessimistic, not because i worship some politician.
I do not think Obama is my salvation. On the contrary, Obama is my
irritation. Please stop misguidedly inferring that i support Obama. I don't.
Saying he is a muslim supporter doesn't make someone a raciest. I didn't say he was a muslim, although who knows? He has shown support for them, including terriorists.
It was just an odd phrase to use.
I'm a secularist, am i a muslim-lover? I have a muslim friend, as well as a Jewish friend and quite a few Christian friends even. I support liberties for them all. Does that make me a Jew-lover or a Christian-lover?
Terrorist is a bit of a trick word, because it's difficult to define. If you take the official definition, for example, it's
identical to what's called "low intensity warfare", which is US military policy in Afghanistan. But that's called
"counter-terrorism" or "counter-insurgency".
Who were you specifically referring to? Which terrorists has he "shown support" for? Other than the British Army and NATO?
This poor excuse for a president has shown Americans he is not a leader,
On the contrary, he's been shown to be quite an effective leader of people. Look how many on the left follow him like sheep when he has repeatedly betraed their policies. The anti-war lot still follow him, even though he's a hawk. The liberals still follow him, even though he's blindly following the wishes of private capital.
does not support the Constitution,
Agree.
is not trying to improve unemploymet
Improve unemployment? Do you mean relieve it or increase it?
If you expect Obama to relieve unemployment, it's a bit of a fantasy. He doesn't care about poor people. The only people he explicitly tries to keep in employment are the bosses.
and has not fullfilled his oath of office. ( has not tried to defend America and its people)
I can't argue for or against this point without an example. Could you elaborate and give an instance, please?
So put your head in the sand while Sarah Palin goes about fixing everything this nitwit has broken.
Seems unlikely. Her policies sound disastrous. Not to mention, she won't get in until, at the
very earliest, the next election. If she really
does run, anyway. Also, i expect Obama to get another term. (I may be wrong, of course). It would be a very big swing, otherwise. Also, when the economy gets properly back on track, Obama will take the credit.
