+Troll Subscriber¹ Posted May 1, 2009 Subscriber¹ Share Posted May 1, 2009 No, the government needs to stop spending as much as it is... Regular people need to start spending more.. thats why people got that bonus money last year. When the "average" American family has around 20k in credit card debt, then the average person needs to spend less. Spending more now to help "save" the economy only props it up for a short period of time and then hurts us in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Do people that donate to campaigns earn their money? Yes, they do, but don't you think there are better things to spend that money on? like trying to fix the economy? Oh, right, It was Sarah Palin, so it's ok. So I guess complaining about getting raised taxes shouldnt be an issue then.. since you earn your tax bracket you should have to pay it. When the "average" American family has around 20k in credit card debt, then the average person needs to spend less. Spending more now to help "save" the economy only props it up for a short period of time and then hurts us in the long run. Then people need to stop spending stupidly. They got themselves into this whole mess.. then they expect the government to bail them out of it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ew2x4 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Does anyone else find this hilariously ironic that such a worthless thread is in the "Real World Issues" forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C++ Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 This article is as stupid as it could possibly get. When they talk about saving money, they are talking to people who have no money. Those whose spending puts them in debt. Not people who do have money. Those who do have money need to spend. They need to spend to support the economy, to support businesses, so that the government doesn't end up having to do it instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yes, they do, but don't you think there are better things to spend that money on? like trying to fix the economy?Oh, right, It was Sarah Palin, so it's ok. So I guess complaining about getting raised taxes shouldnt be an issue then.. since you earn your tax bracket you should have to pay it. Then people need to stop spending stupidly. They got themselves into this whole mess.. then they expect the government to bail them out of it.. You said Michele earned her money, so she should spend it as she wants, but Sarah got her wardrobe from campaign contributions. If someone made the same stink about a democrat getting a new wardrobe, my reaction would be the same, whereas I offer that the MSM would not have pursued the $150k story. The issue behind taxes being raised is the purpose behind the increase, which is to pay for additional social engineering. If the government froze spending and raised taxes, I think there would be less of an uproar, if the purpose was to reduce the deficit. Here is an interesting scenario: If I work 70 hours a week to grow my business, and I make $400,000 a year, with one employee handling some administration duties, should I pay more in taxes to help those less well off? How would you suggest fixing the economy? Just out of curiousity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Who cares what she wears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Food kitchen, poor people, tennis shoes that could could feed them for a few months = priceless Double standard. First Lady/politicians will always have more scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Food kitchen, poor people, tennis shoes that could could feed them for a few months = pricelessDouble standard. First Lady/politicians will always have more scrutiny. Poor people should get education/ jobs. its not their fault that Michelle Obama worked to get to where she is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Poor people should get education/ jobs.its not their fault that Michelle Obama worked to get to where she is today. You're correct, too bad politicians want to take from the rich and give to the poor. That demotivates them to move up. Don't forget Michelle's board stipend went up about $200k after Chicago Senator Obama handed a sweet deal to the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 You're correct, too bad politicians want to take from the rich and give to the poor. That demotivates them to move up.Don't forget Michelle's board stipend went up about $200k after Chicago Senator Obama handed a sweet deal to the company. If they wanna stay poor , that's their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarpraz Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Really depends whether she bought them using her own money or not. If it was then it's up to her, if it wasn't they're a tad on the pricey side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Considering the whole female universe, those were probably cheap shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diffused Mind Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 She probably could have gone down to Jamaica Ave and got them for $40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crompee Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 She can buy what she likes with her own money.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted May 2, 2009 Member Share Posted May 2, 2009 As long as my tax dollars ain't buying it she can buy whatever she wants. Seems silly to pay that much to me, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 You're correct, too bad politicians want to take from the rich and give to the poor. That demotivates them to move up.Don't forget Michelle's board stipend went up about $200k after Chicago Senator Obama handed a sweet deal to the company. Please stop drinking the Right Wing koolaid. Her TOTAL salary from her Board job is $51,200. Before that "raise" was she PAYING the board $150,000 a year to work there? Haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sujmano Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 i mean if she is the first lady she needs to look decent, and theres nothing wrong with her spending her own money, if its tax payers money then she should be a little more conservative with her spending, basically is her money and she can choose what she wants to do with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 This whole concept of tax the rich is such a joke. Simply because rich people own businesses. Poor and middle class people work there. If you take a cut out of the rich guy's profit he is going to try and make up for it by cutting in to the money he is paying out. Who do you think looses money in the end ? the poor and middle class people. Somebody needs to tell the govt if you don't have money you do what we do... and that would be stop spending and start saving. Why can no one see this simple truth ? Probably because it will make things simple and straightforward and we absolutely hate that. Neither Sarah Palin's dress nor Michelle Obama's shoes were paid for by public tax money. So stop making an issue about it. If spending 150K on dress is such a big issue to you then spending $540 on shoes should be equally upsetting. Its about time people start using the same yard stick for all. The govt really needs to be more accountable and responsive towards the situation. I can understanding investing in schemes with long term benefit. But there is time and place for everything. This is like furnishing the house when there is no money to put food on the plate. Furniture is good when you have excess money and not when you are bankrupt or close. The priorities of the current govt is in shambles. Lets hope they get their head screwed on straight and think reasonable instead of grand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 This whole concept of tax the rich is such a joke. Simply because rich people own businesses. Poor and middle class people work there. If you take a cut out of the rich guy's profit he is going to try and make up for it by cutting in to the money he is paying out. Who do you think looses money in the end ? the poor and middle class people.Somebody needs to tell the govt if you don't have money you do what we do... and that would be stop spending and start saving. Why can no one see this simple truth ? Probably because it will make things simple and straightforward and we absolutely hate that. Neither Sarah Palin's dress nor Michelle Obama's shoes were paid for by public tax money. So stop making an issue about it. If spending 150K on dress is such a big issue to you then spending $540 on shoes should be equally upsetting. Its about time people start using the same yard stick for all. The govt really needs to be more accountable and responsive towards the situation. I can understanding investing in schemes with long term benefit. But there is time and place for everything. This is like furnishing the house when there is no money to put food on the plate. Furniture is good when you have excess money and not when you are bankrupt or close. The priorities of the current govt is in shambles. Lets hope they get their head screwed on straight and think reasonable instead of grand. In what society in the world aren't the poor and middle class losing in the end? Actually, I guess in more socialist societies, the poor and middle class are treated the best. Universal health care. High minimum wages. Strong employee rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Please stop drinking the Right Wing koolaid.Her TOTAL salary from her Board job is $51,200. Before that "raise" was she PAYING the board $150,000 a year to work there? Haha. Sorry, it was $200,000 raise for her VP job, resulting in an earmark for the Medical Center. Good thing I messed up the jobs and favors versus the net result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamwhoiam Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 The President makes money. He doesn't have free reign over government money. With his spending habits as of late, and those projected by the end of his four year term, I'd say he's pretty much been given free reign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Sorry, it was $200,000 raise for her VP job, resulting in an earmark for the Medical Center. Good thing I messed up the jobs and favors versus the net result. I guess if you are superficial about it, it might seem that way to an untrained eye or uneducated observer. To an educated observer: Michelle is on the board. She gets a raise. A year later, the Medical Center gets $1 million from the state. Before Michelle arrived, had the Medical Center gotten anything from the state? Yes, they've gotten earmarks in the past. After Michelle left, has the Medical Center received earmarks? Yes, they continue to get state projects. I don't see the connection with Michelle... OH WAIT, if you pick and choose your facts and spin it, then it comes out the way you want! I get it! Looks like you messed up again. No surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 The same thing could be said for Sarah Palin, but she was wrong and Obama is right? That's the point, which you so easily missed, but then again I wouldn't expect anything more. I never cared about the whole Sarah Palin thing either...so your argument makes no sense....I did not say "She was wrong and Obama is right" Way to put words in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 In what society in the world aren't the poor and middle class losing in the end?Actually, I guess in more socialist societies, the poor and middle class are treated the best. Universal health care. High minimum wages. Strong employee rights. Yes thats because they don't break fifty people's lives to compensate one person's agony. They also don't have healthcare which is a ripoff and qualified doctors actually get to decide what treatment a patient needs instead of some idiot insurance company. Above all health insurance is not looked at as a cash cow rather as a means to help people who can not come up with huge sums of money in an instant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strekship Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Who cares what shoes she has and how much they cost. People can buy with their money what they damn well please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts