PDA

View Full Version : Did I hear this correctly?



T Park
10-13-2008, 06:14 PM
That Obama is on camera with someone saying "I want to spread the wealth around"???

Seriously!??!

I'm hearing this 3rd party but apparently someone asked him why under him he would "get taxed more" and his response was this??

DPG21920
10-13-2008, 06:14 PM
He just lost the richers vote

Anti.Hero
10-13-2008, 06:18 PM
Why is this shocking?

He has been preaching fairness since Day 1.

dg7md
10-13-2008, 06:19 PM
Why this is seen as wrong, is beyond me.

clambake
10-13-2008, 06:20 PM
i want to be fucked over so the rich can stay rich.

TheMadHatter
10-13-2008, 06:21 PM
TFat if you make between $200,000 and $603,000 your taxes will go up $12 under Obama's plan. Do some fucking research you fat tard.

DPG21920
10-13-2008, 06:21 PM
Probably because if you take away peoples money (more so than everyone elses) you take away incentive to do better an earn more. No one likes to be taxed, rich and poor alike.

dg7md
10-13-2008, 06:24 PM
Probably because if you take away peoples money (more so than everyone elses) you take away incentive to do better an earn more. No one likes to be taxed, rich and poor alike.

Not necessarily, this is not something that can be confirmed as that's a personality trait, some people are hard workers by pride and nature, not just because of a cash incentive. Shockingly, some people actually LIKE their jobs and will do what they can to get up higher on the ladder.

remingtonbo2001
10-13-2008, 06:24 PM
Anybody up for some mooching once Obama is elected president? :downspin:

TheMadHatter
10-13-2008, 06:25 PM
I don't consider it to be a tax increase so much as a reversal of a foolish tax cut for the rich that never should have been enacted.

There were plenty of rich people during the Clinton years, your fat ass can survive on those tax levels. Fat fucking greedy sloth.

Anti.Hero
10-13-2008, 06:27 PM
i want to be fucked over by the government because in reality anything they do, the rich will avoid easily, while the little man gets fucked..as usual...every time...classware is swell...yes we can

DPG21920
10-13-2008, 06:29 PM
Not necessarily, this is not something that can be confirmed as that's a personality trait, some people are hard workers by pride and nature, not just because of a cash incentive. Shockingly, some people actually LIKE their jobs and will do what they can to get up higher on the ladder.

If you look at purely economical theory, then if you eliminate incentives people will not be as hard-working, inventive or innovative. Everything will suffer.

MannyIsGod
10-13-2008, 06:29 PM
I will say this. Rich people may pay more taxes, but they sure as hell also get a lot of benefit from the government. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the rich don't know how to make government work for them.

MannyIsGod
10-13-2008, 06:30 PM
I'll give you an example for what I just said. Who gets the most out tax payer funded military protection of the Persian Gulf region? Me, or an Exxon Mobile CEO?

clambake
10-13-2008, 06:31 PM
it's not that easy.

Anti.Hero
10-13-2008, 06:34 PM
The wealthy can afford to cleverly hide their money for a few years while circling the wagons. Raise capital gains tax when it won't produce any more revenue? That sounds like a swell fair idea. It will decrease entrepreneurial endeavors while investors flock to safer investments with just as much return? Fuck that, minor details. These poor idiot sheepvoters don't care about that.


We'll see how many Obamaites can go without a non-government job for a few years. :rollin

boutons_
10-13-2008, 06:58 PM
The Repugs have done nothing but concentrate wealth to the top 5%, while currently spreading taxpayer $ to the fuckups in the financial industry.

SpursFanFirst
10-13-2008, 07:04 PM
TFat if you make between $200,000 and $603,000 your taxes will go up $12 under Obama's plan. Do some fucking research you fat tard.

:nope WHY do you have to take responses to this level?

Kriz-Maxima
10-13-2008, 07:17 PM
That Obama is on camera with someone saying "I want to spread the wealth around"???

Seriously!??!

I'm hearing this 3rd party but apparently someone asked him why under him he would "get taxed more" and his response was this??


Oh my God! What a horrible, horrible man!

boutons_
10-13-2008, 07:42 PM
T_park, how about replacing "distribute the wealth" with "de-concentrate the wealth" that the Repugs have spent so much energy concentrating at the top.

TheMadHatter
10-13-2008, 08:32 PM
:nope WHY do you have to take responses to this level?

If it were anyone else I would agree with you.

TFat consistently parrots this nonsense about how horrible it would be for him to pay higher taxes when he hasn't even studied Obama's tax plan. Quite simply, he's an uneducated moron who got lucky and took over his family's preexisting business.

The bottom line is Bush's tax cuts for the rich were completely irresponsible given how much we were spending. It's time to let those expire and let the rates go back to what they were during the Clinton years.

Purple & Gold
10-13-2008, 08:37 PM
No one likes to be taxed, rich and poor alike.

Ahhhhh not true. Many people don't mind being taxed, to a reasonable extent, because they believe that money is needed to help society in general.

T Park
10-14-2008, 02:21 AM
I will say this. Rich people may pay more taxes, but they sure as hell also get a lot of benefit from the government. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the rich don't know how to make government work for them.

I must not be rich, because I tried to "enact" one of these benefits in the form of replacing older "enviromentally harmfull" tractors with newer "more friendly" tractors but heres the rip.

I don't run enough miles to qualify. Heres the other rip, my tractors are still going to be illegal in 8 years.


So what Uncle Sam has told me, yeah you don't qualify to get help to purchase 200 thousand dollar tractors, but the ones you one? Get rid of em.

Suck it up and spend every dime you have cause we say so.


So yeah, I guess I don't qualify as rich, but Obama says I am.

Which one is it?

T Park
10-14-2008, 02:22 AM
If it were anyone else I would agree with you.

TFat consistently parrots this nonsense about how horrible it would be for him to pay higher taxes when he hasn't even studied Obama's tax plan. Quite simply, he's an uneducated moron who got lucky and took over his family's preexisting business.
The bottom line is Bush's tax cuts for the rich were completely irresponsible given how much we were spending. It's time to let those expire and let the rates go back to what they were during the Clinton years.



I'm gonna ask you again, to stop lying, because in fact, that is not correct one bit.

T Park
10-14-2008, 02:24 AM
Why this is seen as wrong, is beyond me.

Because its not the government's job to "distribute wealth"

Flight3107
10-14-2008, 02:41 AM
Because its not the government's job to "distribute wealth"



First time I have ever agreed with T Park :downspin:

fyatuk
10-14-2008, 08:09 AM
That Obama is on camera with someone saying "I want to spread the wealth around"???


Stupid way to say it, if that's the phrasing he used, and that's not taken without the necessary context. That sounds like it would be the closing line of a more indepth answer regarding the income/wealth distribution and the problems it causes. Can't find anything but this quote by itself though, so whatever.

ElNono
10-14-2008, 08:28 AM
I must not be rich, because I tried to "enact" one of these benefits in the form of replacing older "enviromentally harmfull" tractors with newer "more friendly" tractors but heres the rip.

I don't run enough miles to qualify. Heres the other rip, my tractors are still going to be illegal in 8 years.

So what Uncle Sam has told me, yeah you don't qualify to get help to purchase 200 thousand dollar tractors, but the ones you one? Get rid of em.

Suck it up and spend every dime you have cause we say so.

So yeah, I guess I don't qualify as rich, but Obama says I am.

Which one is it?

You just haven't greased the right wheels... Instead of spending 200K on that new tractor, spend it on some congressman campaign, and make sure he understands that you want to keep using your same tractors for another 20 years or so.
People with money can do that. People without money have to suck it up.

desflood
10-14-2008, 09:01 AM
Why this is seen as wrong, is beyond me.
It's socialism.

hater
10-14-2008, 09:14 AM
Because its not the government's job to "distribute wealth"

oh really? so what about these 700billions bailout, plus the 250 billion to buy banks. they are taking money from taxpayers and distributing it to corporations. is that not redistributing wealth?

VaSpursFan
10-14-2008, 09:32 AM
screw it...flat tax. everyone pay X% and call it a day.

101A
10-14-2008, 09:36 AM
Not necessarily, this is not something that can be confirmed as that's a personality trait, some people are hard workers by pride and nature, not just because of a cash incentive. Shockingly, some people actually LIKE their jobs and will do what they can to get up higher on the ladder.

Operative word being "some".

2centsworth
10-14-2008, 09:55 AM
Wow.. People in here think the government should create, control, and distribute wealth. Then to top it off, institute the fairness doctrine to silence the opposition. When do we begin passing out Soma to the masses?

boutons_
10-14-2008, 10:21 AM
"People in here think the government should create, control, and distribute wealth."

no, some "people in here" think the govt should prevent the corps, wealthy, capitalists from gaming the system to suck more wealth from citizens and from the govt. eg: the mortgage/invisible default credit swap/hyper-leveraging/housing bubble/0%-Fed-rate crisis should have been prevented

"fairness doctrine" got a link for that? that is not from trash-talking hate-radio/tv right-wing asshole?

2centsworth
10-14-2008, 10:33 AM
no, some "people in here" think the govt should prevent the corps, wealthy, capitalists from gaming the system to suck more wealth from citizens and from the govt. eg: the mortgage/invisible default credit swap/hyper-leveraging/housing bubble/0%-Fed-rate crisis should have been prevented

solutions offered: create, control and distribute.





"fairness doctrine" got a link for that? that is not from trash-talking hate-radio/tv right-wing asshole?

you calling other trash-talking-hateful is hilarious, but your response is pretty good evidence.

boutons_
10-14-2008, 10:52 AM
my trash-trash talking here is aimed at real, justified targets.

hate-radio/tv is aimed at almost-completely imagined targets.

Wild Cobra
10-14-2008, 12:01 PM
That Obama is on camera with someone saying "I want to spread the wealth around"???

Seriously!??!

I'm hearing this 3rd party but apparently someone asked him why under him he would "get taxed more" and his response was this??
Absolutely. He said it in context with why he wants to increase taxes on the rich.

How many times have I used the term "Redistribution of Wealth" when refering to many democrats?


Stupid way to say it, if that's the phrasing he used, and that's not taken without the necessary context. That sounds like it would be the closing line of a more indepth answer regarding the income/wealth distribution and the problems it causes. Can't find anything but this quote by itself though, so whatever.
He said it, He believes in Marxist and Socialist policies. He's just showing his true colors. The facade slipped for a moment. Believe me, his public face is not the real Obama.


It's socialism.
Or worse. It's definately everything against what our founding fathers spilled blood over.

fyatuk
10-14-2008, 12:41 PM
He said it, He believes in Marxist and Socialist policies. He's just showing his true colors. The facade slipped for a moment. Believe me, his public face is not the real Obama.


Was that the entirety of his answer, or was it following a more in-depth explanation? That was my question. Anytime you see a single sentence quote in politics, you can pretty much assume it's being portrayed no-where near the meaning it was used originally. Until I see a transcript, I stand by my whatever.

Besides, in the US, the wealth does need to be spread around a little bit. The wealth and income gaps are just plain ridiculous. The market won't correct itself there without a labor shortage. We had a bit of one a few years ago and wages jumped, but that just caused more people to choose to enter the labor market.

Wild Cobra
10-14-2008, 01:15 PM
Was that the entirety of his answer, or was it following a more in-depth explanation? That was my question. Anytime you see a single sentence quote in politics, you can pretty much assume it's being portrayed no-where near the meaning it was used originally. Until I see a transcript, I stand by my whatever.

It was an answer, in clear context. An answer to why the guy needs to pay more in taxes. Many talk show radio hosts have played the entire exchange.



Besides, in the US, the wealth does need to be spread around a little bit. The wealth and income gaps are just plain ridiculous.

Are you high?

Income redistribution does not help low wage earners. It harms them. The solution is to get people capable of contributing to the economy, noyt be a burden on it.

The rich just find ways to move capitol off shore, reducing our economy. Want to see real economic growth? Bring back the big capitolists! Elininate the tax brackets above 28% Have the marginal rates stop there. Lower or eliminate capital gains taxes, or at least index them to inflation. Did you know if I buy a stock in 1990 for $60 per share and sell it in 2008 for $100 oer share I get taxed on the $40 per share. So I pay my 15% on that $40 pe share and give the federal governemt $6.00 per share. Now I still have to pay state tax on it too, which varies by state. Sound good until you look, deeper. Meanwhile, the CPI numbers (Jul 1990 to Jul 2008) went from 130.4 to 219.964. My $60 in 1990 is worth $101.21 per share adjusted for inflation. I effectively lost $1.21 per share already and I am paying $6.00 federal tax on that sale!



The market won't correct itself there without a labor shortage. We had a bit of one a few years ago and wages jumped, but that just caused more people to choose to enter the labor market.

Funny how the media used to say the market would drop because of low unemployment numbers, and now they say the reverse. The markets can get workers cheaper when ynemployment is high. When unemplyment is low, they have to pay people more money to find workers!

George Gervin's Afro
10-14-2008, 01:17 PM
It was an answer, in clear context. An answer to why the guy needs to pay more in taxes. Many talk show radio hosts have played the entire exchange.


Are you high?

Income redistribution does not help low wage earners. It harms them. The rich just find ways to move capitol off shore, reducing our economy. Want to see real economic growth? Bring back the big capitolists! Elininate the tax brackets above 28% Have the marginal rates stop there. Lower or eliminate capital gains taxes, or at least index them to inflation. Did you know if I buy a stock in 1990 for $60 per share and sell it in 2008 for $100 oer share I get taxed on the $40 per share. So I pay my 15% on that $40 pe share and give the federal governemt $6.00 per share. Now I still have to pay state tax on it too, which varies by state. Sound good until you look, deeper. Meanwhile, the CPI numbers (Jul 1990 to Jul 2008) went from 130.4 to 219.964. My $60 in 1990 is worth $101.21 per share adjusted for inflation. I effectively lost $1.21 per share already and I am paying $6.00 federal tax on that sale!


Funny how the media used to say the market would drop because of low unemployment numbers, and now they say the reverse. The markets can get workers cheaper when ynemployment is high. When unemplyment is low, they have to pay people more money to find workers!

Who in the media made those comments? You keep referring to the media as a whole. Oh I get it it's one of those straw man thingys..

With the gap between the rich and poor at highest levels ever , is that a good thing?

Wild Cobra
10-14-2008, 01:25 PM
Who in the media made those comments? You keep referring to the media as a whole. Oh I get it it's one of those straw man thingys..

I'm lost, you mean the employment vs. market? Fyatuk repeated a reoccuring theme I hear from time to time on various news outlets. That higher unemplyment is causing market losses. The reverse used to be said.



With the gap between the rich and poor at highest levels ever , is that a good thing?

Why is it a bad thing? I don't dislike anyone from achieving "The American Dream."

Maybe if people would get off their duffs and work, we would change the supply and demand on labor, raising wages! Stop the illegals from deluting the job market too. Make employers pay more and give better benifits by using market forces. Not government.

wiki: The American Dream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Dream):


The American Dream is belief in the freedom that allows all citizens and residents of the United States to achieve their goals in life through hard work. Today, it often refers to one's material prosperity, which is dependent upon one's abilities and work ethic, and not on a rigid class structure.

Although the phrase's meaning has evolved over the course of American history, for some people, it is the opportunity to achieve greater material prosperity than was possible in their countries of origin. For others it is the opportunity for their children to grow up and receive an education and its consequent career opportunities. It is the opportunity to make individual choices without the restrictions of class, caste, religion, race, or ethnic group. For others in this the dream of choice and flexibility, the ability to wake up in the morning and decide to drive, cycle or take public transportation to work.