Holy Crap! Listen to this

[DarrinS]

And I already voted for Obama. :depressed

iivL4c_3pck

[BRHornet45]

son I just saw this on the news ... don't worry, the democrats will try and spin it.

[BRHornet45]

And I already voted for Obama. :depressed

iivL4c_3pck

Darrin are you in Texas?

[AntiChrist]

Darrin are you in Texas?


yep

[Wild Cobra]

I know. I heard it on the radio about 1/2 hour ago. It's some pretty scary shit, isn't it?

Tell me he's not a marxist...

[Findog]

I know. I heard it on the radio about 1/2 hour ago. It's some pretty scary shit, isn't it?

Tell me he's not a marxist...

You don't even know what a marxist is.

[clambake]

why do they always cut off the plumber conversation?

you just gave the wealthy how many billion? can you not tell that something has been jammed in your ass?

last thing......can't you dipshits even fix a typo?

[Shastafarian]

yep

:lmao

Only a matter of time before you slipped up. There it is.

[Findog]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X346U109Chs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X346U109Chs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Have Republicans lost their fucking minds????

[AntiChrist]

why do they always cut off the plumber conversation?

you just gave the wealthy how many billion? can you not tell that something has been jammed in your ass?

last thing......can't you dipshits even fix a typo?


Yes. Yes I did.

[ElNono]

OH NOES!!!! Redistribution of Wealth!!!!!
Except it's AOK when it's redistributed to the wealthy... and John McCain was front and center on that one. GAFB.

[DarrinS]

:lmao

Only a matter of time before you slipped up. There it is.



Oh crap. I'm busted.

Fuck it! We'll do it live.

5j2YDq6FkVE

[BRHornet45]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X346U109Chs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X346U109Chs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Have Republicans lost their fucking minds????

son both McCain and Palin have been bombarded with biased BS questions for months now by the liberal media. Including irrelevant personal attacks against them .... but at least they don't choose to BOYCOTT a station for asking difficult (or BS) questions like the Obama camp does.

[Findog]

What Republicans want to say is that they're opposed to progressive taxation, which is what Obama is proposing. That's fine, but it's a losing argument in this election, which is why they have to take the batshit crazy route of describing Obama's taxation policies as Marxist, Socialist, whatever...

I guarantee you in McCain were up 5 points in the polls he'd be amplifying a much more positive message and any negative remarks towards Obama at all would be "He's too inexperienced" angle...or maybe not, since Palin killed his experience argument.

[Findog]

son both McCain and Palin have been bombarded with biased BS questions for months now by the liberal media. Including irrelevant personal attacks against them .... but at least they don't choose to BOYCOTT a station for asking difficult (or BS) questions like the Obama camp does.

Daughter, go back to posting Pastor Manning videos. Economic analysis aint your strong suit.

[BRHornet45]

darrin son luckily you live in Texas so your vote for Obama won't count :)

[BRHornet45]

Daughter, go back to posting Pastor Manning videos. Economic analysis aint your strong suit.

no son you only say that because I don't agree with your personal views. funny how you liberal trash are with that ..

[TheMadHatter]

What the fuck do you all think a graduated income tax is? That's motherfucking redistribution of wealth you fucking morons.

Also, you do realize under George Bush the rich got RICHER and the poor got POORER because of his tax cuts and economic policies. That's redistribution of wealth. My God you people are fucking dumb.

[Findog]

no son you only say that because I don't agree with your personal views. funny how you liberal trash are with that ..

If I want an intelligent conservative opinion, I'll go read George Will. It's what you bring to the table, and you bring nothing.

[Sarah Palin]

I love you guys!!!

[DarrinS]

What the fuck do you all think a graduated income tax is? That's motherfucking redistribution of wealth you fucking morons.

Also, you do realize under George Bush the rich got RICHER and the poor got POORER because of his tax cuts and economic policies. That's redistribution of wealth. My God you people are fucking dumb.


Such venom and vitriol.

[BRHornet45]

If I want an intelligent conservative opinion, I'll go read George Will. It's what you bring to the table, and you bring nothing.

thanks son. god bless

[TheMadHatter]

Such venom and vitriol.

Because you ignorant sheep fall prey to the same bait and switch tactics of the Republican party year after year.

[clambake]

don't worry, darrin. your vote for mccain is appreciated.

[TheMadHatter]

thanks son. god bless

Say it with me.

President Barack Obama.

[BRHornet45]

Say it with me.

President Barack Obama.

false son. he will go by "The Almighty Lord Barack Hussein Obama"

[Findog]

What the fuck do you all think a graduated income tax is? That's motherfucking redistribution of wealth you fucking morons.

Also, you do realize under George Bush the rich got RICHER and the poor got POORER because of his tax cuts and economic policies. That's redistribution of wealth. My God you people are fucking dumb.

Exactly. Bush changed the tax code to partially shift the burden from the upper brackets to the middle class. Obama proposes to shift it back. That's it. All forms of taxation involve redistributing wealth. I doubt very few posters in here make in excess of $250K, so they would benefit from a TAX CUT under Obama's plan.

What the Republicans are really arguing against is progressive taxation. The arguments against PT mainly boil down to as follows:

1) It's not fair. Successful people should not be penalized for their success.

2) Soaking the rich in taxes and putting their money in govt coffers is inferior to letting them invest their money in the economy, which will lead to job creation.

That's a losing argument this election cycle, so therefore Obama is a scary Marxist, etc...

[sontinospurs]

son both McCain and Palin have been bombarded with biased BS questions for months now by the liberal media. Including irrelevant personal attacks against them .... but at least they don't choose to BOYCOTT a station for asking difficult (or BS) questions like the Obama camp does.


I dont see how these questions were biased. McCain can answer them according to his views. Palin, on the other hand, makes a fool of herself. Its not the medias fault she's a moron. I guess you didnt see Obama on O'reilly....

[Findog]

Because you ignorant sheep fall prey to the same bait and switch tactics of the Republican party year after year.

He says he voted for Obama, so I guess wedge issues and cultural war bullshit wasn't a luxury this time around.

[TheMadHatter]

Trickle-down economics has never worked in this country. Why you people think that giving the rich people money is going to translate into them investing in our economy is beyond me. That money is going straight into some off-shore bank account.

The rich don't care about you or the state of this economy as long as they can rape and pillage and make profits. The sooner you understand this the better.

[Damien]

Either way....you are are all going to get screwed.

[ElNono]

Trickle-down economics has never worked in this country. Why you people think that giving the rich people money is going to translate into them investing in our economy is beyond me. That money is going straight into some off-shore bank account.

The rich don't care about you or the state of this economy as long as they can rape and pillage and make profits. The sooner you understand this the better.

It worked for rich people...

[Findog]

http://gawker.com/5069194/the-socialist-menace

There is a spectre haunting the Conservative commentariat—the spectre of socialism! Barack Obama just might be the President, and should that happen, he will immediately redistribute all the wealth and hand over control of the means of production to the workers. Also the government will round up whitey and send him to reeducation camps run by the creepy YouTube singing children! We know all of this is true because Obama told a pretend plumber that he would "spread" the man's pretend "wealth around." Also he proposes some sort of "progressive income tax" policy and he said the words "redistribution of wealth" once on public radio. "Public" is code for Communist! This is seriously the dumbest attack yet in a season of incredibly dumb attacks.

Over the summer, the McCain campaign presented Barack Obama as "a celebrity," a neat, slightly po-mo attack on Obama's popularity. It was, at least, an argument with some resonance in our tabloid-y popular culture. It didn't destroy Obama's brand, but it hurt it. But the desperate and confused McCain campaign never again came up with a coherent attack line on Obama that pleased anyone but the truest of believers.

And that is how we got to "palling around with terrorists," a neat line that manages to incorporate 9/11 dread of four years ago and, more importantly, the culture wars of the 1960s, which make guest appearances in every American election. But this year, of course, no one gives a shit about the 1960s, at all. For the first time since the '60s ended, in 1972!

So the McCain camp has switched to an attack last used effectively in the 1920s. As Hendrik Hertzberg explains:

There hasn’t been so much talk of socialism in an American election since 1920, when Eugene Victor Debs, candidate of the Socialist Party, made his fifth run for President from a cell in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, where he was serving a ten-year sentence for opposing the First World War. (Debs got a million votes and was freed the following year by the new Republican President, Warren G. Harding, who immediately invited him to the White House for a friendly visit.)

And of course JFK and LBJ were called socialists too, but they won. Perhaps soon McCain will accuse Obama of palling around with Italian Anarchists? Sympathizing with Sacco and Vanzetti? In this accelerated news cycle, we could be seeing attack ads accusing Obama of being a tool of the Whig interests by the weekend!

Senator McCain, no one is scared of Socialism anymore, except for members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Socialism today is friendly and Scandinavian. And honestly, with another Great Depression on the way, Americans are probably sympathetic to the kind of Socialism where the government gives you things.

[Findog]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/drudges-latest.html

Go read the original talk that Obama gave on NPR and see if it says anything even faintly similar to the truncated quotes about to be used by McCain. I mean: come on. Here's the headline:

"2001 Obama: Tragedy That 'Redistribution Of Wealth" Not Pursued By Supreme Court"

Here's what it's based on: the "tragedy," in Obama's telling, is that the civil rights movement was too court-focused. He was making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals - which is, last time I checked, the conservative position. The actual quote in full:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that."

So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.

Is this really all McCain has left?

[BRHornet45]

LOL sons findog is such a cuckold

[101A]

What the fuck do you all think a graduated income tax is? That's motherfucking redistribution of wealth you fucking morons.

Also, you do realize under George Bush the rich got RICHER and the poor got POORER because of his tax cuts and economic policies. That's redistribution of wealth. My God you people are fucking dumb.


O.K.

Here's an income distribution graph from '63:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg.png

Now, it's not "Wealth" per se, but that has remained pretty constant.

Please point out to me the dramatic change with Bush's policies; or link the site where you are getting your information.

[JoeChalupa]

Will McCain and Palin milk this for all it is worth?

[101A]

Trickle-down economics has never worked in this country. Why you people think that giving the rich people money is going to translate into them investing in our economy is beyond me. That money is going straight into some off-shore bank account.

The rich don't care about you or the state of this economy as long as they can rape and pillage and make profits. The sooner you understand this the better.


Yes. It's all the richers fault!!!!

What tax rate is high enough? What is ideal? What is TOOOO high?

50, 60 70?; or is it, naturally, 100%?

Is it only about money? Does what the people DO to earn that money not matter? If it does not, why don't we all just stop working - and the Fed can print money and distribute it? Wouldn't that work? Why or why not?

Nevermind, just call names, claim OTHER people are the greedy ones (while you vote for someone who is going to put someone elses money into YOUR pocket).

[101A]

Will McCain and Palin milk this for all it is worth?

If Barrack says something that is questionable, or that many Americans might cringe at; should they not?

Are his actual, stated, words on the economy, civil rights movement, etc. not fair game? Damn, some of you REALLY don't think anyone should be able to level criticism at the man, do you?

Kind of surreal.

[Findog]

LOL sons findog is such a cuckold

Great analysis there, daughter. Way to refute the pro-PT arguments. :tu

[Findog]

Yes. It's all the richers fault!!!!

What tax rate is high enough? What is ideal? What is TOOOO high?

50, 60 70?; or is it, naturally, 100%?

Is it only about money? Does what the people DO to earn that money not matter? If it does not, why don't we all just stop working - and the Fed can print money and distribute it? Wouldn't that work? Why or why not?

Nevermind, just call names, claim OTHER people are the greedy ones (while you vote for someone who is going to put someone elses money into YOUR pocket).

So going from 36% to 39% will plunge our country into Marxist hell. Thank you.

[BRHornet45]

Great analysis there, daughter. Way to refute the pro-PT arguments. :tu

son I don't mean to judge you, but I don't understand what you get out of the cuckold lifestyle letting your wife sleep with other men. do you fantasize about seeing her with Obama?

[Findog]

son I don't mean to judge you, but I don't understand what you get out of the cuckold lifestyle letting your wife sleep with other men. do you fantasize about seeing her with Obama?

Sex insults. Awesome! So you're conceding that you can't mount a logical or coherent argument against progressive taxation. :tu

[101A]

So going from 36% to 39% will plunge our country into Marxist hell. Thank you.

No. I didn't say that.

In fact, I'm on record saying that 36 to 39 in nearly irrelevant. However, it is ironic as hell that the smallest (% wise) of the Bush tax cuts is the only one based on "greed". It's the class warfare language I have a problem with. The rate was over 70% when Reagan took office; and over 90 when Kennedy did; I am not so naive as to believe that politicians can't get it there again; especially in this atmosphere, where blaming the rich is so prevalent.

[clambake]

mccains economic policies aren't even his.

i think it's simple. vote for the smart guy. clinton is smart and times were good. bush is dumb and that's what happens when you choose dumb guys.

this cycle should be about the smart guy, again.

[Findog]

No. I didn't say that.

In fact, I'm on record saying that 36 to 39 in nearly irrelevant. However, it is ironic as hell that the smallest (% wise) of the Bush tax cuts is the only one based on "greed". It's the class warfare language I have a problem with. The rate was over 70% when Reagan took office; and over 90 when Kennedy did; I am not so naive as to believe that politicians can't get it there again; especially in this atmosphere, where blaming the rich is so prevalent.

Yes, but that class warfare language cuts both ways. McCain is clearly delving deep into hyperbole territory describing Obama's tax policies the way that he has.

[101A]

So going from 36% to 39% will plunge our country into Marxist hell. Thank you.

Also, if going from 36 to 39 isn't a big deal; why was it SUCH a big deal in the other direction?

[BRHornet45]

Sex insults. Awesome! So you're conceding that you can't mount a logical or coherent argument against progressive taxation. :tu

no son because arguing with die hard liberal trash like yourself (or die hard conservatives) is pointless. I have tried taking that route with one track minded people like you but I may as well be talking to a wall because your hell bent that your opinions are the ONLY "right" ones.

[xrayzebra]

I know. I heard it on the radio about 1/2 hour ago. It's some pretty scary shit, isn't it?

Tell me he's not a marxist...

If he got any further left he would be walking in circles.

He learned well under Ayers, didn't he? But I see all the Obama
apologist are out in droves to defend him.

More than likely Ayers will be his new Secretary of Education. And
how to blow up government buildings will then be a part of the
curriculum. Along with wealth re-distribution as part of the
Constitution.

[101A]

Yes, but that class warfare language cuts both ways. McCain is clearly delving deep into hyperbole territory describing Obama's tax policies the way that he has.

Yeah, I've pointed that out to some conservative friends; Obama and McCain's economic policies are close enough together to be from slightly different wings of the SAME party; nothing a committee couldn't get together and make identical.

Then to hear McCain's policies labeled as "Only for the Wealthy"; while Obama's are classified, now, as "Marxist"; is pure comedy. It makes me beleive, more than ever, that we are simply pawns in a big old shell game.

I voted already.

Wrote in: "Joe the Plumber".

Really.

[clambake]

If he got any further left he would be walking in circles.

He learned well under Ayers, didn't he? But I see all the Obama
apologist are out in droves to defend him.

More than likely Ayers will be his new Secretary of Education. And
how to blow up government buildings will then be a part of the
curriculum. Along with wealth re-distribution as part of the
Constitution.

:lmao good morning rush.

[Findog]

Also, if going from 36 to 39 isn't a big deal; why was it SUCH a big deal in the other direction?

Shifting the tax burden to the middle class affects them more than it does the rich, since it represents a greater % of their earnings. Middle class doesn't have the same purchasing or investment power as the rich.

[Findog]

no son because arguing with die hard liberal trash like yourself (or die hard conservatives) is pointless. I have tried taking that route with one track minded people like you but I may as well be talking to a wall because your hell bent that your opinions are the ONLY "right" ones.

Insults and name-calling. Awesome! You're a modern-day Voltaire. Do you have anything relevant to say about the topic of this thread?

[BRHornet45]

Insults and name-calling. Awesome! You're a modern-day Voltaire. Do you have anything relevant to say about the topic of this thread?

yep son. your still a cuckold who lets your wife sleep with other men. god bless

[101A]

Shifting the tax burden to the middle class affects them more than it does the rich, since it represents a greater % of their earnings. Middle class doesn't have the same purchasing or investment power as the rich.

The middle class got a larger % of a tax cut than the "rich" did!!!!

No "burden" was shifted; hell, the rich pay a higher percentage of the taxes today than they did when Bush took office.

[Findog]

The middle class got a larger % of a tax cut than the "rich" did!!!!

No "burden" was shifted; hell, the rich pay a higher percentage of the taxes today than they did when Bush took office.

I know the middle class got a tax cut under Bush, everybody did. I'm talking about regressive taxation, which is a theory. So I was mistaken when I said Bush shifted the tax burden to the middle class, everyone got a tax cut, it was just more of a boon to the rich.



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. In simple terms, it imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich.

[Findog]

yep son. your still a cuckold who lets your wife sleep with other men. god bless

Thanks for "contributing" to this thread, daughter. I'm glad I got to hear your views on taxation.

[101A]

I know the middle class got a tax cut under Bush, everybody did. I'm talking about regressive taxation, which is a theory. So I was mistaken when I said Bush shifted the tax burden to the middle class, everyone got a tax cut, it was just more of a boon to the rich.

As a %, it was no more of a "boon".

I've never heard anyone argue for a regressive tax. Hell, a "flat" tax is considered EXTREMELY radical.

[clambake]

As a %, it was no more of a "boon".

I've never heard anyone argue for a regressive tax. Hell, a "flat" tax is considered EXTREMELY radical.

of course that would be radical.....to you and I.

we both know how simple it is to write off something as a business expense, or a loss. you and I don't play around when it comes to april.

[101A]

of course that would be radical.....to you and I.

we both know how simple it is to write off something as a business expense, or a loss. you and I don't play around when it comes to april.


I have gotten letters from the IRS requesting clarification and proof of deductions four times; each time I was able to document the questionable item to their satisfaction.

Conventional wisdom suggests such practices are "easy"; my experience suggests they are not.

Congressman would never pass a flat tax, fair or not, right or wrong; it would remove their greatest power and fund-raising tool; distributing favors.

[clambake]

I have gotten letters from the IRS requesting clarification and proof of deductions four times; each time I was able to document the questionable item to their satisfaction.

Conventional wisdom suggests such practices are "easy"; my experience suggests they are not.

Congressman would never pass a flat tax, fair or not, right or wrong; it would remove their greatest power and fund-raising tool; distributing favors.

4 times or 10 times is not the point. you and I both know how to fudge within reason. just because it's not blatant doesn't mean it's legit. be hosest :lol

[boutons_]

We seen now that the US conservative ideology of all govt/all taxes/all regulation is bad has failed miserably, handing us the still-growing economic disaster, spreading around the planet.

So the answer to the current crisis is (re-)elect McSame?

[101A]

4 times or 10 times is not the point. you and I both know how to fudge within reason. just because it's not blatant doesn't mean it's legit. be hosest :lol


Yeah, I'm feeling you; "within reason" being the operative word. Point is; when you're looking at a 500K salary; and a potential 200k tax bill - there isn't much "within reason" you're gonna get away with. Also, they seem to look MUCH closer, when they will be capturing 35 - 39, and not 15%.

Before the tax reform act of '86 (used to be able to deduct credit card interest, and ALL kinds of business deductions) - it was different.

[101A]

We seen now that the US conservative ideology of all govt/all taxes/all regulation is bad has failed miserably, handing us the still-growing economic disaster, spreading around the planet.

So the answer to the current crisis is (re-)elect McSame?

I don't think the answer lies in Washington; they only provide problems.

[clambake]

you and I will never be crushed by taxes. we ALWAYS get to stack the deck. i have a young son to leave this world to.

i want the smart guy, right now.

there are more important things than some little pissant tax increase.

[TheMadHatter]

One thing I notice people hear what they want to hear not what was said.

First thing the entire interview has to be listened to not just interpreted snippets.

Now just going by the snippets, the only time the phrase “redistribution of wealth” was used was to show the Warren court was not as radical as people said because they did not venture into ROW. That phrase was never used again.

He said one of the failures of the civil rights movements was the inability to build coalitions on the ground that can effect “redistributive change”. The example cited was rulings for funding school districts that would cost money don’t work well.

He said three people could put together legal justifications for “redistributive change” in the courts but never said he would do it. BTW – you could put together legal justifications for a lot of things you wouldn’t do. That was speaking from a lawyers point of view.

Bottom line at no time did he advocate ROW via courts or the legislature. I never heard we are going to take whiteys money and give it to black people.

[boutons_]

"I don't think the answer lies in Washington"

outside of Wash DC, there are two major components.

1. citizens, pretty much powerless

2. corps, we KNOW they will fuck over citizens (and non-citizens) (as they have now with the economic crisis) if not restrained and regulated.

so what's left?

[101A]

you and I will never be crushed by taxes. we ALWAYS get to stack the deck. i have a young son to leave this world to.

i want the smart guy, right now.

there are more important things than some little pissant tax increase.

I agree.

I shudder to think of the burden we leave our children if more, and more, and more entitlement programs are enacted. THEY are the ONLY thing that is forever. Wars come and go; bad economies come and go; hell depressions come and go.

Govt. entitlements? Come and GROW.

Obama doesn't scare me. Pelosi scares me.

[101A]

"I don't think the answer lies in Washington"

outside of Wash DC, there are two major components.

1. citizens, pretty much powerless

2. corps, we KNOW they will fuck over citizens (and non-citizens) (as they have now with the economic crisis) if not restrained and regulated.

so what's left?


I have formed a tribe.

When anarchy comes we cowboy up at my diggs and start conquering from there....I've got 2 docs; 3 ex-marines, 2 soldiers, a bird colonel; some survivalists, etc. Armed to the fucking teeth. Even got 4 lawyers on board (they don't know we use them for food if times get too tough). Sorry, FWDT.

[Tully365]

A video that one second after something is said puts big crayon yellow text on the screen to explain it is clearly trying to impress what its own creator thinks are very slow moving minds.

The whole debate is just a foray into semantics. Obama has learned since that interview not to use words like redistribution freely, because it will sound alarm bells for people who see commies behind every telephone pole and beneath every rug. Practically everything an organized society does is in some way a redistribution of wealth-- for example, homeowners pay property tax, but renters don't pay a renter's tax... this takes wealth from those who generally have more money-- homeowners-- and redistributes it via the government for roads, bridges, and a million other things that renters and homeowners alike will benefit from. Social Security does the same, as do all taxes generally.

[101A]

Oh, on the recording.

Obama simply says that the courts are not capable of mandating economic justice; and that he agrees with that interpretation of the Constitution.

I also don't think he is talking about mandatory, govt. take from one, give to another distribution of wealth (and if you think his 39% vs. Bush's 35.5 are THAT - your just not thinking right); he's talking more about economic opportunity leading to more equal distribution, and making sure that exists, it think.

The ability to move freely into and out of various classes is admirable; up and down as your productivity/usefullness and ideas are used - or not. The classes will always exist; there will always be more poor than rich; the goal should be to make sure the classes aren't permanent for the people themselves.

[Tully365]

And I already voted for Obama. :depressed



I find it hard to believe that you've followed this entire election and listened to Obama speak multiple times, and then voted for him, but upon hearing this video, you are somehow surprised by what he says... it seems to me that either you are being disingenuous, or you like to play the contrarian to see how riled up people can get.

[ploto]

What do you think school taxes do. They pay for schools whether you use them or not. You know how much money I have paid into the school taxes when my child does not even attend public school, but it is an obligation as a member of the society to educate the young. The more money you have as evidenced by your property ownership, the more taxes you pay for schools regardless of your use or need for them. And no I do not support vouchers because I think it is my choice to opt out of the public school system, but pulling my money out will not do justice for those in it.

[JoeChalupa]

This is a bunch of...

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jasonkingcfi/ej1TUk-1.jpg

[101A]

What do you think school taxes do. They pay for schools whether you use them or not. You know how much money I have paid into the shcool taxes when my child does not even attend public school, but it is an obligation as a member of the society to educate the young. The more money you have as evidenced by your property ownership, the more taxes you pay for schools regardless of your use or need for them. And no I do not support vouchers because I think it is my choice to opt out of the public school system, but pulling my money out will not do justice for those in it.

Elitist.

I CAN afford to send my kids to a better school than that public piece of crap down the street; but I'm not going to let others less fortunate have that choice.

AND THEN you pat yourself on the back for being such a Humanitarian.

Teacher's unions love your ass.

[ploto]

I do not support vouchers for ME to take my money out and to a religiously affiliated school. That is what I am talking about. Vouchers would save me a ton of money.

And for the record, I send my child there for religious reasons, not because the public school is bad. It is actually very good.

[101A]

I do not support vouchers for ME to take my money out and to a religiously affiliated school. That is what I am talking about. Vouchers would save me a ton of money.

Don't worry, Richer, I'm sure they can work that out; means test you out of the Voucher program; it's one of their favorite things; probably didn't get a stimulus check, did you?

[ploto]

Actually I am not a richer. I make choices. And yes, I did get a stimulus check. Many parents make sacrifices to send their kids to religious schools. Many are not rich by any means.

[101A]

Actually I am not a richer. I make choices. And yes, I did get a stimulus check. Many parents make sacrifices to send their kids to religious schools. Many are not rich by any means.

Just playing to the stereotype; was surprised you didn't slap me the first time I used it, so I did it again.

Now I'll just refer to you as a Jesus Freak.

[LnGrrrR]

101A,

To be fair, I think there is a level of 'diminishing returns' the more money a household makes. There is a large jump in the quality of life from 30K to 40K a year, much less so from 800K to 810K.

I wonder if there's a study out there that determines the point where people's money starts to 'snowball'. It certainly seems that, for the most part, the more money you have, the more you are able to make due to increased earning opportunities.

[2centsworth]

101A,

To be fair, I think there is a level of 'diminishing returns' the more money a household makes. There is a large jump in the quality of life from 30K to 40K a year, much less so from 800K to 810K.

I wonder if there's a study out there that determines the point where people's money starts to 'snowball'. It certainly seems that, for the most part, the more money you have, the more you are able to make due to increased earning opportunities.

if you have a household income of $40,000 in San Antonio, you have the opportunity to save and be wealthy.

[ElNono]

101A,

To be fair, I think there is a level of 'diminishing returns' the more money a household makes. There is a large jump in the quality of life from 30K to 40K a year, much less so from 800K to 810K.

I wonder if there's a study out there that determines the point where people's money starts to 'snowball'. It certainly seems that, for the most part, the more money you have, the more you are able to make due to increased earning opportunities.

And if you make a huge amount of money and avoid paying taxes for it, the middle class will bail you out of any bad investments that you make. Ain't America great?