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??
Printable View
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??
He just lost the richers vote
Why is this shocking?
He has been preaching fairness since Day 1.
Why this is seen as wrong, is beyond me.
i want to be fucked over so the rich can stay rich.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
Anybody up for some mooching once Obama is elected president? :downspin:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dg7md
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'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?
it's not that easy.
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
The Repugs have done nothing but concentrate wealth to the top 5%, while currently spreading taxpayer $ to the fuckups in the financial industry.
:nope WHY do you have to take responses to this level?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadHatter
Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
Oh my God! What a horrible, horrible man!
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.
If it were anyone else I would agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursFanFirst
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadHatter
I'm gonna ask you again, to stop lying, because in fact, that is not correct one bit.
Because its not the government's job to "distribute wealth"Quote:
Originally Posted by dg7md
Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
First time I have ever agreed with T Park :downspin:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
People with money can do that. People without money have to suck it up.
It's socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by dg7md
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
screw it...flat tax. everyone pay X% and call it a day.
Operative word being "some".Quote:
Originally Posted by dg7md
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?
"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?
solutions offered: create, control and distribute.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
you calling other trash-talking-hateful is hilarious, but your response is pretty good evidence.Quote:
"fairness doctrine" got a link for that? that is not from trash-talking hate-radio/tv right-wing asshole?
my trash-trash talking here is aimed at real, justified targets.
hate-radio/tv is aimed at almost-completely imagined targets.
Absolutely. He said it in context with why he wants to increase taxes on the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
How many times have I used the term "Redistribution of Wealth" when refering to many democrats?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fyatuk
Or worse. It's definately everything against what our founding fathers spilled blood over.Quote:
Originally Posted by desflood
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fyatuk
Are you high?Quote:
Originally Posted by fyatuk
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!
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by fyatuk
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
With the gap between the rich and poor at highest levels ever , is that a good thing?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Why is it a bad thing? I don't dislike anyone from achieving "The American Dream."Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
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:
Quote:
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.