President Obama!

[diesel96]

Re: Obamanation here today

The whole point is that rich people will hide money or take it underground to avoid paying taxes.

Then why are you supporting the Party that benefits and favors the rich, that swallows up the country's wealth from the brow sweat of the shrinking working class and barely schitts out enough compensation and security for those who are the engine that drives this economy. The FAILED Trickle Down idealogy at it's finest.

 

[moreluck]

Re: Obamanation here today

I'm just trying to get across the point that taxing the rich more, won't bring in more $$$ and Mr. Harvard doesn't seem to understand this because he is surrounded with Chicago crooks as his advisors.... The house of cards will tumble........

 

[1989]

Re: Obamanation here today

Then why are you supporting the Party that benefits and favors the rich, that swallows up the country's wealth from the brow sweat of the shrinking working class and barely schitts out enough compensation and security for those who are the engine that drives this economy. The FAILED Trickle Down idealogy at it's finest.

Rich people tend to be smart and are always investing their wealth which in turn drives the economy. For every dollar the government takes, how much goes back into the economy? 70 cents, 50 cents, I don't know. But it is not a dollar. Maybe the working class you are talking about needs to get out of this poor mans mentality.

 

[unionman]

Re: Obamanation here today

Rich people tend to be smart and are always investing their wealth which in turn drives the economy. For every dollar the government takes, how much goes back into the economy? 70 cents, 50 cents, I don't know. But it is not a dollar. Maybe the working class you are talking about needs to get out of this poor mans mentality.

And who buys the products that drive the economy? The middle class drives this country, not the rich, Reagan's trickle down never happened, it only allowed the rich to get even further away from the middle class. That in my eyes is socialism.

 

[1989]

Re: Obamanation here today

And who buys the products that drive the economy? The middle class drives this country, not the rich, Reagan's trickle down never happened, it only allowed the rich to get even further away from the middle class. That in my eyes is socialism.

The rich buy the same pidley things that the poor buy. But they also buy equipment and hire people. The prez now says that bonuses are ok. Figure that, maybe he is begining to understand who his friends should be.

 

[unionman]

Re: Obamanation here today

The rich buy the same pidley things that the poor buy. But they also buy equipment and hire people. The prez now says that bonuses are ok. Figure that, maybe he is begining to understand who his friends should be.

When you have middle class people being laid off and losing there homes because of corporate greed (rich people) and then you turn around and give them huge bonuses for a job well done. That to me is socialism for the rich. Take money from the middle class and give it to the rich. Hey, you Repub lie cans make **** up all the time, how do you like it?

 

[wkmac]

Re: Obamanation here today

The rich buy the same pidley things that the poor buy. But they also buy equipment and hire people. The prez now says that bonuses are ok. Figure that, maybe he understands who his friends really are better than his proclaiming supporters do!

I re-worded the above to better fit the truth!

PAC's and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise

Obama's Love of Corp. Money and Lobbyists

And les we forget how Corporate Money Favors Obama over McCain

But the best of all is from Harper's Nov. 2006' Barack Obama Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine

As you can see 1989, the actual facts demanded a slight touch up to your post so I hope you don't mind.


Comments?

Unionman?

As you Flame Out, you're being Conned!

 

[unionman]

Re: Obamanation here today

I re-worded the above to better fit the truth!

PAC's and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise

Obama's Love of Corp. Money and Lobbyists

And les we forget how Corporate Money Favors Obama over McCain

But the best of all is from Harper's Nov. 2006' Barack Obama Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine

As you can see 1989, the actual facts demanded a slight touch up to your post so I hope you don't mind.


Comments?

Unionman?

As you Flame Out, you're being Conned!

Wow, do you just make shot up as you go along in life. Is that why Obama is kicking lobbyists out of Washington. Oh except the 1% that are left to fight things like child obesity.

That was almost as bad as Palin's death panel lie.

 

[wkmac]

Re: Obamanation here today

When you have middle class people being laid off and losing there homes because of corporate greed (rich people) and then you turn around and give them huge bonuses for a job well done. That to me is socialism for the rich. Take money from the middle class and give it to the rich. Hey, you Repub lie cans make **** up all the time, how do you like it?

If money is taken from the middle class or any class for that matter and in any way shape or form moved to the so-called rich and through this re-allocation of resources (wealth redistribution) makes it possible for "the rich" to realize greater profits enabling bonuses than without said gov't resources would not have been realized in the natural function of private economic activity, then yes, that does fit the definition of socialism just as extracting resources from the middle class or again whoever for the re-allocation of resources to those who never earned it. A tax cut is not "socialism" if you will if the cut is equal across the board for everyone or if a tax cut is given for a specific area or corporate interest, an equal amount of Federal Spending (for said interest's benefit) specific only to the area in which the Tax cut applies and in equal value to the tax cut itself is also eliminated. We will give you no more bread therefore you don't have to pay for it and visa versa. And they ain't doing that and that's a fact JACK!

Since Reagan and so-called Reaganomics, the idea of tax cuts to corp. interests has been defended by claims of increased revenue as the economy grew. To do such meant some form of limiting gov't and spreading free market capitialism. That all sounds good until you seriously look at the Myths of Reaganomics from a true free market, laissez faire POV which so many "CONservatives" think they hold. In truth and reality, that "socialism" word again doth apply!

Depending on how you context it, you nailed it with the socialism claim IMO.

Footnote: The Myth of Reaganomics was written by the late Murray Rothbard circa late 1987'

 

[tieguy]

Re: Obamanation here today

When you have middle class people being laid off and losing there homes because of corporate greed (rich people) and then you turn around and give them huge bonuses for a job well done. That to me is socialism for the rich. Take money from the middle class and give it to the rich. Hey, you Repub lie cans make **** up all the time, how do you like it?

my god you are a sucker for the class warfare / screw the rich mind games.

I personally am not interested in defending the rich from taxation. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of taxation and especially class warfare taxation. Once we decide its ok for the government to selectively screw specific segments of society then we eventually end up allowing government the right to screw everyone.

you have had the class warfare argument with moreluck and she may in fact be an excellent example of why we need to think hard about these socialistic vendettas. her and her husband worked hard throughout their working years building up for their retiremennt. They sacrificed much to get where they are at. without speculating on their finances if they did reach that 250,000 dollar plateau for tax increases should they now be punished after all those years of working and paying their tax's.

You're painting too many people with the greedy rich paintbrush. we are all greedy here. We all bust our asses to earn a decent living and a decent retirement some day. We are all looking to make more even though our present earnings may allow us a comfortable living. Greed motivates success and motivates a productive lifestyle.

 

[unionman]

Re: Obamanation here today

my god you are a sucker for the class warfare / screw the rich mind games.

I personally am not interested in defending the rich from taxation. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of taxation and especially class warfare taxation. Once we decide its ok for the government to selectively screw specific segments of society then we eventually end up allowing government the right to screw everyone.

you have had the class warfare argument with moreluck and she may in fact be an excellent example of why we need to think hard about these socialistic vendettas. her and her husband worked hard throughout their working years building up for their retiremennt. They sacrificed much to get where they are at. without speculating on their finances if they did reach that 250,000 dollar plateau for tax increases should they now be punished after all those years of working and paying their tax's.

You're painting too many people with the greedy rich paintbrush. we are all greedy here. We all bust our asses to earn a decent living and a decent retirement some day. We are all looking to make more even though our present earnings may allow us a comfortable living. Greed motivates success and motivates a productive lifestyle.

I disagree. How can you say that a guy, lets say he is a bricklayer making 50k a year with 3 kids should pay the same as a person that makes 250k as a stock broker. For what ever reason that these two examples ended up where they did is not important. What is important, is that the guy making 50k struggles to make ends meat and put his kids through college, when the stock broker can afford to easily put his kids through college. They both work hard but in the end the bricklayer should not have to pay as much tax because he is struggling. It is our moral obligation to help the less fortunate. I know that one will raise some hairs.

 

[brett636]

Re: Obamanation here today

I disagree. How can you say that a guy, lets say he is a bricklayer making 50k a year with 3 kids should pay the same as a person that makes 250k as a stock broker. For what ever reason that these two examples ended up where they did is not important. What is important, is that the guy making 50k struggles to make ends meat and put his kids through college, when the stock broker can afford to easily put his kids through college. They both work hard but in the end the bricklayer should not have to pay as much tax because he is struggling. It is our moral obligation to help the less fortunate. I know that one will raise some hairs.

The problem with your scenario is the bricklayer and the stockbroker do not pay the same in taxes, even if the tax rate remains the same. If they both pay a 15% income tax the stock broker pays more because 15% of 250k is more than 15% of 50k. Or in the case of a 23% fair tax the stock broker would still pay more because the stock broker can afford to buy more stuff. The idea that higher income earners should pay higher tax rates comes straight from the father of communism himself Karl Marx.

 

[unionman]

Re: Obamanation here today

The problem with your scenario is the bricklayer and the stockbroker do not pay the same in taxes, even if the tax rate remains the same. If they both pay a 15% income tax the stock broker pays more because 15% of 250k is more than 15% of 50k. Or in the case of a 23% fair tax the stock broker would still pay more because the stock broker can afford to buy more stuff. The idea that higher income earners should pay higher tax rates comes straight from the father of communism himself Karl Marx.

So if the same two people gave a dollar to a bum the poor guy would be giving a lot more than the stock broker, right?

 

[brett636]

Re: Obamanation here today

So if the same two people gave a dollar to a bum the poor guy would be giving a lot more than the stock broker, right?

Since both are giving their dollar away voluntarily its irrelevant the percentage of their pay that is going to the homeless man. Thats the free market at work!

 

[unionman]

Re: Obamanation here today

You missed my point, the rich guy can afford to give more to the homeless person. The dollar would not effect the rich guy as much as it would the bricklayer.

 

[brett636]

Re: Obamanation here today

You missed my point, the rich guy can afford to give more to the homeless person. The dollar would not effect the rich guy as much as it would the bricklayer.

Obviously you missed the point. If they are both giving their dollar to the homeless man then they are doing so of their own free will and both have an extra dollar to give. Although I would advise neither to give their money to the homeless man simply because if he were a good steward of money he would not be homeless in the first place.

 

[unionman]

Re: Obamanation here today

Obviously you missed the point. If they are both giving their dollar to the homeless man then they are doing so of their own free will and both have an extra dollar to give. Although I would advise neither to give their money to the homeless man simply because if he were a good steward of money he would not be homeless in the first place.

maybe he is a Vietnam Vet that has fallen on hard times. He had to fight a war because he was poor that he didn't want.

 

[tonyexpress]

Re: Obamanation here today

I disagree. How can you say that a guy, lets say he is a bricklayer making 50k a year with 3 kids should pay the same as a person that makes 250k as a stock broker. For what ever reason that these two examples ended up where they did is not important. What is important, is that the guy making 50k struggles to make ends meat and put his kids through college, when the stock broker can afford to easily put his kids through college. They both work hard but in the end the bricklayer should not have to pay as much tax because he is struggling. It is our moral obligation to help the less fortunate. I know that one will raise some hairs.

Why should the stock broker be penalized for his hard work? How does penalizing success motivate someone to achieve more?

Granted, not everyone is afforded the same opportunities in life and there are people that are suffering and need help. However, in this case if the bricklayer is unable to make more $...why isn't it his MORAL obligation to make better choices (maybe not have as many kids, different car or house) and live within his means with what he has?

 

[tieguy]

Re: Obamanation here today

I disagree. How can you say that a guy, lets say he is a bricklayer making 50k a year with 3 kids should pay the same as a person that makes 250k as a stock broker. For what ever reason that these two examples ended up where they did is not important. What is important, is that the guy making 50k struggles to make ends meat and put his kids through college, when the stock broker can afford to easily put his kids through college. They both work hard but in the end the bricklayer should not have to pay as much tax because he is struggling. It is our moral obligation to help the less fortunate. I know that one will raise some hairs.

Your whole argument is flawed. The stock broker already pays a lot more then the brick layer. If you're really concerned about fairness then a flat tax rate is what you want. The present system favors the rich wage earner who can afford the accountants that maximize his tax savings. With government creating tax write offs and exemptions government can promote a tax rate that appears to be fair while providing the rich with write offs to avoid actually paying those rates.

 

[moreluck]

Re: Obamanation here today

There was a jobs bill....a bipartisan effort......King Harry Reid says "NO" !!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/11/reid-scales-jobs-eliminates-key-bipartisanship-elements/