Redistribution of Wealth

[willum14pb]

So today In a local restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

So when the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.







I was talking to a friend 's little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were to be the President, what is the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't
have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my
house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my sidewalks and driveway, and I'll pay you $50.
Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy
hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds 'cause
she's only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in
the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the
work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her folks still aren't talking to me. Even children understand.



last one.


Father/daughter talk...

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very
liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor
of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican,
a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that
her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what
he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes
on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to
all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes
because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's
office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I
worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
Republican party."

[seanrg1116]

Redistributioin of wealth is like Communism to some people it looks great on paper but when it happends everybody gets fucked

[tony]

I guess this would be relevant if Obama was actually going to go in and take all your possessions and distribute them as he sees fit. This is what happens when misunderstandings get stretched.

[willum14pb]

who said anything about obama? I just posted it for a good laugh. So quick to defend your candidate.. you must know something we don't..? :)

[tony]

hmm..


So today In a local restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie

[Total_Blender]

The different font sizes and uneven spacing smacks of cut-and-paste e mail forward. If you really did cut out on that server without leaving a tip I wouldn't go back to that restaurant expecting loogie-free food if I were you. :crazy:

You make the assumption that all lower income people are lazy. You also make the assumption that everyone can find work 100% of the time.

But yeah, God forbid that the Socialists get into power and turn everything back to the way it was in the 1990's when the economy tanked, unemployment soared and businesses and the stock market all suffered soooo badly. When all those rich people lost everything from being taxed an extra 3-5%. Remember that huge deficit that Clinton left us? :lmfao:

[willum14pb]

hmm..

[/size]

watching you squeal makes me tickle inside.

[tony]

watching you squeal makes me tickle inside.


Squeal? lol Have you looked at the polls lately? All this that you're posting is wasted bandwidth... please believe this stuff makes time pass for me and nothing more.

The damn size/quote BS still gets me from time to time though.

[willum14pb]

You make the assumption that all lower income people are lazy. You also make the assumption that everyone can find work 100% of the time.




Yes, i copy pasted it from somewhere else, as i saw it funny. This assumption you think im making is false. I don't assume everyone in lower income is lazy, but i do believe the lazy people don't deserve a helping hand. People can find work 100% of the time, it's just whether or not they're willing to "stoop lower than they have and work a job they don't want to work." The local mc donalds/waffle house is always hiring. So please don't generalize my thoughts because you really dont know anything :).

[willum14pb]

please believe this stuff makes time pass for me and nothing more.


:cheers:

[redrumracer]

Yes, i copy pasted it from somewhere else, as i saw it funny. This assumption you think im making is false. I don't assume everyone in lower income is lazy, but i do believe the lazy people don't deserve a helping hand. People can find work 100% of the time, it's just whether or not they're willing to "stoop lower than they have and work a job they don't want to work." The local mc donalds/waffle house is always hiring. So please don't generalize my thoughts because you really dont know anything :).
:no: :no: or at least the one down here isnt. but either way if i had a more open schedule and didnt have to work around school then yea finding work wouldnt be hard.

[SPOOLIN]

awesome, i've heard one of these.

[Total_Blender]

Redistributioin of wealth is like Communism to some people it looks great on paper but when it happends everybody gets fucked

Communism is the reason our government is even functioning right now. If it weren't for China and the trillion dollars or so we now owe them we'd all be fucked.:2cents:

[carbon_crash]

Yes, i copy pasted it from somewhere else, as i saw it funny. This assumption you think im making is false. I don't assume everyone in lower income is lazy, but i do believe the lazy people don't deserve a helping hand. People can find work 100% of the time, it's just whether or not they're willing to "stoop lower than they have and work a job they don't want to work." The local mc donalds/waffle house is always hiring. So please don't generalize my thoughts because you really dont know anything :).

Well said sir, Employment is ALWAYS available. It might not be what you want to do or what you want to make, but Fast food and warehouses are always hiring

[Total_Blender]

All this that you're posting is wasted bandwidth... please believe this stuff makes time pass for me and nothing more.
.

Yeah I'm with you. I already voted, so its not like trying to sway me is going to do any good. :taun:

Willum, there are some people out there who can't even get on at Mickey D's or even Cap'n D's because those places are still businesses and are just a little selective in hiring. If you had the responsibility of managing one of these places, would you hire any random misfit off the street?

[rrutter81]

Communism is the reason our government is even functioning right now. If it weren't for China and the trillion dollars or so we now owe them we'd all be fucked.:2cents:

actually we have a deal with china.... we look the other way so they can devalue their currency and sell us shit for cheap to keep their production up, and they hold the money we owe them for the goods they ship us.

It would destroy china's economy to let it loose in the market.

To the op, that is a good way to put it. Anyone who says otherwise and states that it isnt socialism needs to define socialism then. Because that is exactly what it is. Communism is more of a dictatorship and the government defines what you should have. Socialism is the in-between.

As far as bill clinton vs obama...they are both incredibly different people with different goals in mind. Id vote Bill in over either candidate, however options are limited. Americans got the shaft.

[Total_Blender]

To the op, that is a good way to put it. Anyone who says otherwise and states that it isnt socialism needs to define socialism then. Because that is exactly what it is. Communism is more of a dictatorship and the government defines what you should have. Socialism is the in-between.
.

From Dictionary.com:

so·cial·ism var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "60", "18", "http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif ("][/url]", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FS%2FS0525000.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/S0525000/socialism) (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
I find it odd that McCain supporters are all up in arms about the "socialism" of Obama's tax plan but are silent about the $700 billion corporate welfare of the bailout that both candidates supported. Remember that McCain suspended his campaign to pass the bailout. Is it only socialism when the economic policy of the centralized government benefits the lower classes?

[Alan®]

Communism is the reason our government is even functioning right now. If it weren't for China and the trillion dollars or so we now owe them we'd all be fucked.:2cents:
Funny that you mention China considering that they have probably the worst income inequality in the world and they have 1/5 of the world's population. :rolleyes: They're doing so well

[Total_Blender]

Funny that you mention China considering that they have probably the worst income inequality in the world and they have 1/5 of the world's population. :rolleyes: They're doing so well

I'm just saying that they have 700 billion dollars to send us whenever our leaders (on both sides) decide to socialize the failure of their corporate cronies. I know all about their human rights violations and their income inequality, but that is un-related to the point I was trying to make.

[rrutter81]

I find it odd that McCain supporters are all up in arms about the "socialism" of Obama's tax plan but are silent about the $700 billion corporate welfare of the bailout that both candidates supported. Remember that McCain suspended his campaign to pass the bailout. Is it only socialism when the economic policy of the centralized government benefits the lower classes?

Hell yes it is! They didnt EARN it. They didnt work for it. ITS A FRICKEN HANDOUT. Its marxist to the core. Where it attempts to "level the playing field" for all classes. However it is using Capitalism to "fund" this social behavior. Is it pure socialism? No.... However we can only add so many socialist style plans before our debt reaches beyond the national debt clock again. Believe it.... socialism wont be able to pay for it. We can ALL have 40,000 y/r salaries (pure socialism) and we still wouldnt be able to pay it. So they rip off people who worked up to the top. How convenient...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/27/sot.biden.marxist.wftv

Biden caught offguard with nothing smart to say.

He avoids the question and focuses on the middle class tax breaks but not the LOWER CLASS welfare (tax credits) check.

Hell he even lies and says he isnt even "spreading the wealth around" when everyone has heard him not once, not twice, but 3 times on different occasions. Unbelievable these lying c**k smokers do and the SHEEP follow the fad.

Here is what i think of anyone who votes for these un-american bastards.

http://www.kumah.org/uploaded_images/traitor-730580.jpg

[Total_Blender]

Biden was laughing because its a stupid question. Its no more than of a redistribution of wealth than what happened when Bush made the tax cuts and shifted the tax burden to the middle class, only its going in the opposite direction. The middle class are getting BACK their tax cuts that Bush and the Republicans took away.

So when a company fails and loses billions they have EARNED a bailout? Why can't we apply the same Social Darwinism to corporate America that the Republicans want to apply to "Joe Sixpack"?

And as far as the debt clock goes, it was getting close to maxed out already from Iraq and the stimulus and then the bailout added 700 billion to it. Obama's tax plan is small potatoes in comparison.

[Alan®]

, but that is un-related to the point I was trying to make.
:thinking: How? You basically just praised Communism and then when I point out how not so great China is it's well that's not really the point. I'm sorry you cannot praise China in their economic success and in the same breath discount the other stuff because you think the two are not interrelated.

What does the average person live on over there? How much does the average Chinese factory worker make? People want to complain about income inequality and bad working conditions, and :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: and then praise China when the very things that we condem is what is allowing them to get as far and as quickly as they are.

[rrutter81]

Biden was laughing because its a stupid question. Its no more than of a redistribution of wealth than what happened when Bush made the tax cuts and shifted the tax burden to the middle class, only its going in the opposite direction. The middle class are getting BACK their tax cuts that Bush and the Republicans took away.

So when a company fails and loses billions they have EARNED a bailout? Why can't we apply the same Social Darwinism to corporate America that the Republicans want to apply to "Joe Sixpack"?

And as far as the debt clock goes, it was getting close to maxed out already from Iraq and the stimulus and then the bailout added 700 billion to it. Obama's tax plan is small potatoes in comparison.

Biden was giving his fake laugh of "i dont know wtf to say". Then bought a rhetorical question to just come up with a lie,

"obama isnt going to spread the wealth around" O RLY?
"the middle class....." THAT WASNT THE QUESTION

How about the lower class who didnt pay a dime and are getting MY money. I didnt sign up for taking care of lazy screw ups! Obama's plan and Bush's are only the same to the middle class who actually PAY taxes. Not the 45% of americans who dont even PAY TAXES. Your saying we are getting the tax cuts with 57 TRILLION obama proposes in liabilities?

Specific companies are not getting a bailout. You can blame the community reinvestment act of socialistic behavior and DEREGULATION BY CLINTON that gave us this catastrophe of SOCIAL behavior. Look it up. Socialism + Capitalism mixes as well as oil and vinegar. What did Barney Frank, Reid, Pelosi and all those socialistic darwin screwups say in 2003-2004 when Republicans wanted MORE REGULATION on the federal loans that Fannie and Freddie made?

"I see no problems with this housing...blah blah blah"

The funny thing is, it doesnt matter if i give you a step by step reason why the housing crisis/credit crisis with a "connect the dots" coloring book. You would still come up with some B.S. LIE that you misconstrued when it is there in front of your face.

This is going to be a collapse of our economy if we keep bringing this socialist crap to screw it all up.

[Vteckidd]

those stories are extreme, but it is the CORE of what Obama stands for. Like it or not, this is his tax policy. He wants to raise money on the RICH and give that money in TAX BREAKS to the poor who dont pay any taxes anyway.

Hes not going to take your Ferrari and give it to a homeless guy. Hes going to take the Money you were going to use to buy the Ferrari and give it to 20 middle class workers who make under $60,000 a year.

SOrry folks quit lying to yourselves, that is what his plan suggests.

[green91]

I have entered the SPIN ZONE while reading this thread

[Total_Blender]

What does the average person live on over there? How much does the average Chinese factory worker make? People want to complain about income inequality and bad working conditions, and :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: and then praise China when the very things that we condem is what is allowing them to get as far and as quickly as they are.

The Republicans are quick to criticize Obama's economic plans as "socialism". But I don't think most republicans realize what socialism really is, which is what you have in China. What Obama wants to do is to re-structure the tax code back to the way it was under Bill Clinton. We were still a far cry from socialism under Clinton. The rich stayed rich, the poor pretty much stayed poor, the middle class were just a little better off.

We are actually closer to conditions in China under the Republicans who are all for income inequality, de-regulation (see also: bad working conditions)etc.

[rrutter81]

those stories are extreme, but it is the CORE of what Obama stands for. Like it or not, this is his tax policy. He wants to raise money on the RICH and give that money in TAX BREAKS to the poor who dont pay any taxes anyway.

Hes not going to take your Ferrari and give it to a homeless guy. Hes going to take the Money you were going to use to buy the Ferrari and give it to 20 middle class workers who make under $60,000 a year.

SOrry folks quit lying to yourselves, that is what his plan suggests.

I never said it was communism.

Taking money from the upper class and giving it to people who dont even pay taxes is my problem. Why not pay off the debt instead of giving to some lazy smuck who lives in mom's basement.


The Republicans are quick to criticize Obama's economic plans as "socialism". But I don't think most republicans realize what socialism really is, which is what you have in China. What Obama wants to do is to re-structure the tax code back to the way it was under Bill Clinton. We were still a far cry from socialism under Clinton. The rich stayed rich, the poor pretty much stayed poor, the middle class were just a little better off.

We are actually closer to conditions in China under the Republicans who are all for income inequality, de-regulation (see also: bad working conditions)etc.

WTF that is an outright lie!

and china is communist-pseudo capitalist. WTF??? they monitor their internet and where they go, no human rights, etc etc. They arent socialist in the least. Its almost a dictatorship.

Oh wait, wikipedia is always right, and what china tells you is always the truth.... lol

[Total_Blender]

.Hes not going to take your Ferrari and give it to a homeless guy. Hes going to take the Money you were going to use to buy the Ferrari and give it to 20 middle class workers who make under $60,000 a year.
.

He's going to take 5% of the money for your Ferrari. So you can probably still get the Ferrari, but you might not be able to get the memory foam seats or the gyroscopic cupholders. Oh the HUMANITY!!!

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny-graphs-humanity.gif

[Alan®]

We are actually closer to conditions in China under the Republicans who are all for income inequality, de-regulation (see also: bad working conditions)etc.
You're kidding me right? You are really trying to equate all of the bolded with stuff going on here? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: Real funny man. We are no where near where China is. In China there is almost no such thing as middle class considering most of the population is dirt poor.

[rrutter81]

Obama's 95% Tax Illusion (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/wsj-obamas-tax.html)

Or you want to take it in the ..... as long as he smiles at you and says it'll be alright?

Obama's energy policy.... inflating tires
Obama's financial policy.... print more money
Obama's class based policy.... Robinhood economics
Obama's foreign policy.... Dont fund the troops that didnt make the war

how in the hell is this guy a leader?

[white24d]

I find it odd that McCain supporters are all up in arms about the "socialism" of Obama's tax plan but are silent about the $700 billion corporate welfare of the bailout that both candidates supported. Remember that McCain suspended his campaign to pass the bailout. Is it only socialism when the economic policy of the centralized government benefits the lower classes?

thanks , that is the point i am always trying to make!!

[Vteckidd]

He's going to take 5% of the money for your Ferrari. So you can probably still get the Ferrari, but you might not be able to get the memory foam seats or the gyroscopic cupholders. Oh the HUMANITY!!!


i never said i wouldnt be able to afford the Ferrari still. We have said the rich will stay rich, they are smart.

5%? where are you getting this number from? taxes would increase anywhere from 20-33% under Obama for the "upper" RICH.

Your line about the Memory Foam seats further makes me believe you Obama supporters are buying into this EVIL RICH hype. Just cause you arent rich, doesnt mean you can sit in judgement of the people that have money. Most rich people were poor at one time, how many poor people now used to be rich?

And again you are glossing over the CORE of his plan, which is to TAKE MONEY from the people that PAY THE MOST and give it to YOU, the person that pays the LEAST.

HOW IS THAT FAIR?

Im all for cutting taxes, FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS JUST LIKE MCCAIN WANTS TO DO. What i am NOT FOR is giving the middle class a HUGE TAX BREAK at the expense of the "RICH" because you guys are duped into believing that the rich are horrible greedy people.

How many people here ever got a job from a poor person? anyone?

Most people dont get it because
A) THey dont have any motivation to go out and make more money, they think its owed to them

B) They want to blame all their problems on someone else, Obama is pandering to that

C) They have ZERO concept of how a business works, how revenue is generated, all they are thinking out is that "FAT CHECK OBAMA IS GONNA GIVE ME!"

D) They have ZERO Concept on how our Tax System works

E) Obama is using this as a class warfare tactic, its not CHANGE, its the same old regurgitated DEMOCRAT BULLSHIT we hear EVERY 4 years. I mean its funny all you guys are falling for it. The republicans havent changed, this is the same shit they do, but they are getting the blame on the economy because of the LIBERALS IN CONGRESS WHO PERPETUATED THE HOUSING CRISIS.


I would bet many of you are like me, make sub $100,000 a year. I would bet the MAJORITY OF YOU have NEVER run a business, or owned your own business. So many of you, no disrespect, have NO IDEA WHAT IT TAKES OR HOW HARD IT IS TO MAKE IT. You know that sense of security you have, that "im gonna get my next paycheck on friday", we dont have that. There are weeks you dont know if you can even pay your bills. Its competitive, people always trying to take you down, undercut you, etc.

So, all i ask is that you understand what its like to STRUGGLE, i know many of you prob do. But its what you do to make it through that struggle that seperates you from the NORMAL PEOPLE who DONT DESERVE TO BE RICH, and the ELITE.

WHen did we start rewarding mediocracy ?

[rrutter81]

thanks , that is the point i am always trying to make!!

Giving money to people who dont contribute to society is a charity. When forced upon us, socialism. There is no way you can change it to anything else, even with clever wording. It boils down to giving money from someone else to someone who didnt earn it.

Everyone who pays taxes (middle class +) given more of "their hard earned" money back is just a tax cut.

All a bunch of santa clauses if you think otherwise. Lower class dont pay taxes at all so they cant receive a tax cut.

[Vteckidd]

We are actually closer to conditions in China under the Republicans who are all for income inequality, de-regulation (see also: bad working conditions)etc.

Income Inequality LOL thats a new one. You mean they are all for "If you EARN IT you deserve it". Why should you make more money than me if im more qualified? If im better? gotten better breaks than you, etc.

De-Regulation? Whats your opinion of Barney Frank, just curious how you can say Republicans are for deregulation when Mr. Frank was the cause for this whole crisis in the first place.

I bet 99% of you work for "RICH" People so count your blessings

[rrutter81]

Income Inequality LOL thats a new one. You mean they are all for "If you EARN IT you deserve it". Why should you make more money than me if im more qualified? If im better? gotten better breaks than you, etc.

De-Regulation? Whats your opinion of Barney Frank, just curious how you can say Republicans are for deregulation when Mr. Frank was the cause for this whole crisis in the first place.

DING DING DING we have a winner!

and it goes even farther back than that. We can go all the way to the Carter Administration for the stage being set. Everyone else just abused the system to form the biggest economic collapse short of the great depression.

[tony]

Can any of you show an instance of Trickle Down Economics that did not cause a massive deficit?

Everyone should see their tax bill hike, there are expenses that need to be taken care of and as if nobody has noticed.. its going to require investment.

This whole subject is rhetorical because it is dependent upon your beliefs. If you lean right you see it as welfare and socialism.. if you lean left you feel the current system has not worked and needs to change. There is no common ground amongst any of you.

[rrutter81]

Can any of you show an instance of Trickle Down Economics that did not cause a massive deficit?

Everyone should see their tax bill hike, there are expenses that need to be taken care of and as if nobody has noticed.. its going to require investment.

This whole subject is rhetorical because it is dependent upon your beliefs. If you lean right you see it as welfare and socialism.. if you lean left you feel the current system has not worked and needs to change. There is no common ground amongst any of you.

The 70s is a good ground for the crap being spewed here. Windfall profits, evil corporations, taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Oh yes... that worked well. Then when we use trickle-down it does work until the socialists get their hands in the cookie jar and taint it. BTW we had defecits before Reagan and surpluses after. It works, its when you loons try to "disney-fy" capitalism so that charities are given out that it screws up. Capitalism isnt perfect but its worked the best so far.

Look at all the other marxist-style governments, broke as hell.
Welcome to the "changed united states".......comrade.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/374/failurekf9.png

[Vteckidd]

Can any of you show an instance of Trickle Down Economics that did not cause a massive deficit?

Everyone should see their tax bill hike, there are expenses that need to be taken care of and as if nobody has noticed.. its going to require investment.

This whole subject is rhetorical because it is dependent upon your beliefs. If you lean right you see it as welfare and socialism.. if you lean left you feel the current system has not worked and needs to change. There is no common ground amongst any of you.

good post.

This goes back to an important issue for me which is SPENDING.

We need an ACTIVE CONGRESS that isnt concerned with lining their own pockets. CLinton was GREAT with the Repuiblican Congress, it kept him in check, and they got alot done, whether it was good or not, not my point. But they were ACTIVE.

I Feel like the last 8 years its been Bush acting Rogue trying to do what he feels is best for the economy/country/national security. Lets be HONEST the dems have done JACK SHIT in the congress.

I think as long as we dont have a Congress willing to push the envelope with the president, we will NEVER control spending, and thus no matter what happens, our deficit will continue to increase.

Side Question: Do you really think under Obama the Deficit will DECREASE?

[green91]

Side Question: Do you really think under Obama the Deficit will DECREASE?

I don't think it will happen in either candidate's first term. With the war and rampant damage control spending they are being set up for failure for at least the next 4 years. I do, however, think that there can be a positive spin for this lending to banks, and there is potentially money to be made once things turn around that can help accelerate decreasing the deficit. There is a great potential for a lot of interest to be made.

[Total_Blender]

WHen did we start rewarding mediocracy ?

Right after we subsidized failure? :lmfao:



It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed.
Source: Fox News interview: Apr 27, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYLXZEVsz0

And he's returning the tax rates for the top 2 brackets to 36% and 39.6%, which is where they were under Clinton. Its on page 6 here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Edit: I was sure to use an approved Fox News (tm) source so you guys wouldn't scream BIAS!! lol

[Vteckidd]

RRutter you cant talk about GDP, the Dems have nothing to say about economic growth ive tried to discuss it 10000 times

[Alan®]

Right after we subsidized failure? :lmfao:


Source: Fox News interview: Apr 27, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYLXZEVsz0

And he's returning the tax rates for the top 2 brackets to 36% and 39.6%, which is where they were under Clinton. Its on page 6 here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Edit: I was sure to use an approved Fox News (tm) source so you guys wouldn't scream BIAS!! lol
Ok so then I have a question. And my understand here maybe wrong so dont crucify me here.

If the top two tax brackets go back to that then what is the point of having an LLC or S-Corp when you are essentially going to be paying the same amount in taxes anyway? Other than the legal protection.

[rrutter81]

RRutter you cant talk about GDP, the Dems have nothing to say about economic growth ive tried to discuss it 10000 times

i didnt want to taint the thread, so i removed it for another day...also it would be too much time to cover all the details....lets keep it small for now.




Right after we subsidized failure? :lmfao:


Source: Fox News interview: Apr 27, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYLXZEVsz0

And he's returning the tax rates for the top 2 brackets to 36% and 39.6%, which is where they were under Clinton. Its on page 6 here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Edit: I was sure to use an approved Fox News (tm) source so you guys wouldn't scream BIAS!! lol

While i disagree with the bailout, i guess its no worse than going in to a depression which would have happened. Both suck.

I fail to see "Clinton's tax policy" in there. Just because he makes it the same as Clinton for the top 2 tiers doesnt mean the other shit remains. Its kind of like a magic trick.

say the "Clinton" buzzword
say "tax reform"
target "the rich"

while holding that sack of shit called socialism behind you while everyone stares at the points, but they fail to answer the question.

Comrade....believe in your views, and dont vote. Let us americans who believe in liberty and capitalism do that.

[Vteckidd]

IMO and you can call me whack

The Dems are about enslaving the poorer people (their constituents) to line their own pockets with govt provided social programs, kick backs, etc. They arent for helping anyone, they are for getting your vote so they, and their friends, can keep you from becoming wealthy, because if you become wealthy, chances are you are now smart enough to figure it all out.

Republicans are for making the poor RICHER, but in doing so, that means the RICH have to get RICHER so there is more money for them to spend.

Why do you think historically lower income families (black, white, asian, etc) vote Democrat? Why do wealthy vote Republican?

Think about that for a moment. How come the most succesfull trend toward republican. Dont tell me they are all Greedy evil people.

Why do the lower income families trend democrat?

I think its more of the poor not understanding what it takes to be rich (even though the opportunities are their for them) and less about the Rich not knowing what it means to be poor.

Marinate on that

[white24d]

IMO and you can call me whack

The Dems are about enslaving the poorer people (their constituents) to line their own pockets with govt provided social programs, kick backs, etc. They arent for helping anyone, they are for getting your vote so they, and their friends, can keep you from becoming wealthy, because if you become wealthy, chances are you are now smart enough to figure it all out.

Republicans are for making the poor RICHER, but in doing so, that means the RICH have to get RICHER so there is more money for them to spend.

Why do you think historically lower income families (black, white, asian, etc) vote Democrat? Why do wealthy vote Republican?

Think about that for a moment. How come the most succesfull trend toward republican. Dont tell me they are all Greedy evil people.

Why do the lower income families trend democrat?

I think its more of the poor not understanding what it takes to be rich (even though the opportunities are their for them) and less about the Rich not knowing what it means to be poor.

Marinate on that( fixed, not a good typo when trying to make an argument huh. LOL)

where do you get your facts???? poor are for democrats???
Its simple, when the middle class does well the economy does well. The democrats actually create programs to help the poor , the repulicans fight against any " help" unless it's for the rich. So it's welfare both ways.
Marinate on that

[Vteckidd]

you don't understand what I said read again

[blurred visions]

giving to some lazy smuck who lives in mom's basement.


This is the generalization that someone out there in the media has pushed republicans to think in total disregard of what the lower/middle class can be. I'm a college student, and taking away my families worth (they don't claim me anyways), I would be in the lower class due to my income. Certainly when I get out of college and have loans stacked up I'll appreciate a relief to get me jump started, and I'm not one of a few that fall into this category.

Most of you people arguing in this thread are part of the middle class, in which you will benefit from Obama's plan. I know you want to have your respective angles in trying to down grade the plan, but the words your speaking are those from the elites, and I find it impossible that if someone offered you a tax break you wouldn't take it.

[tony]

That does bring up a good point. You want a tax break if you were wealthy but you are not currently.. you could certainly use a tax break now but you're a part of the masses that are supposedly unproductive.

Strange, tax me more when I'm making less.. but tax me less when I'm making more.

[Alan®]

That does bring up a good point. You want a tax break if you were wealthy but you are not currently.. you could certainly use a tax break now but you're a part of the masses that are supposedly unproductive.

Strange, tax me more when I'm making less.. but tax me less when I'm making more.
Because some people disagree with the principle behind it.

[BanginJimmy]

:no: :no: or at least the one down here isnt. but either way if i had a more open schedule and didnt have to work around school then yea finding work wouldnt be hard.

no chit. I'm in school full time and it is damn near impossible to find a job that will work around my schedule.

I have even tried to talk them into working around my schedule til I finish the current quarter (no more than 3 months), then I can schedule my classes to fit their schedule and it doesnt do me any good.

[Vteckidd]

That does bring up a good point. You want a tax break if you were wealthy but you are not currently.. you could certainly use a tax break now but you're a part of the masses that are supposedly unproductive.

Strange, tax me more when I'm making less.. but tax me less when I'm making more.
sigh
Ill respond later

[CobraClone]

If you want to give more money to less fortunate people and/or those who are less motivated, as Obama and alot of his rich liberal friends think they and everyone else that is well off should. Do it. Noone is stopping you. It is not the role of the government to force these things on anyone.

[Alan®]

If you want to give more money to less fortunate people and/or those who are less motivated, as Obama and alot of his rich liberal friends think they and everyone else that is well off should. Do it. Noone is stopping you. It is not the role of the government to force these things on anyone.
For real for two guys wanting to "Help the little guy" there sure are doing a lot out of their own pockets. Obama I'll give credit to but Biden :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:


Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-tax-returns-low-on_n_93353.html


WASHINGTON — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.

McCain meanwhile


Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to the foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/29/mccains-tax-breaks-for-donating-to-his-kids-elite-schools/

Hell Palin even beat out Biden


Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin's tax records released Friday afternoon.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021684.php

[rrutter81]

This is the generalization that someone out there in the media has pushed republicans to think in total disregard of what the lower/middle class can be. I'm a college student, and taking away my families worth (they don't claim me anyways), I would be in the lower class due to my income. Certainly when I get out of college and have loans stacked up I'll appreciate a relief to get me jump started, and I'm not one of a few that fall into this category.

Most of you people arguing in this thread are part of the middle class, in which you will benefit from Obama's plan. I know you want to have your respective angles in trying to down grade the plan, but the words your speaking are those from the elites, and I find it impossible that if someone offered you a tax break you wouldn't take it.

WOW.... bailout for school? You CHOSE to take that student loan. My wife (before she met me) specifically did NOT take out a student loan but used her credit cards to pay them off quickly. Now i just use my tax return to pay them off, however previously she would put ALL of her money in to those Credit Cards to pay them back. Also you get a TAX RETURN for schooling you pay for, why not put that toward the loan? Its practically free with that method.

While i understand/commend what you are going through, i dont agree with giving you a dime. Life is full of risks and sometimes it doesnt pay off. I went the G.E.D. route and still in the upper percentile bracket, however i want to hit the "elites" before 30.

[tony]

While i understand/commend what you are going through, i dont agree with giving you a dime. Life is full of risks and sometimes it doesnt pay off.


Why even have public education at all then? I mean its a socialist program right?

[rrutter81]

Why even have public education at all then? I mean its a socialist program right?

comparing apples to oranges. I will pay for that kind of schooling and my tax dollars go toward it, however with our public schools the way they are, i will NOT CHOOSE to use such a shitty system.

When has the government EVER done anything better than the private sector? Hell they didnt invent their military might.... they subcontracted it, take for instance the raptor by lockheed. Or other military by boeing. List goes on and on.

[tony]

So the military is inefficient? Interesting.

Also one problem with those whole tax cuts for the wealthy and tax the lower class.. the way this economy is going we are headed toward deflation, which is very scary to economists.. you perpetuate the problem when you take more from those that are already without.

[Alan®]

So the military is inefficient? Interesting.
Come on tony thats not what he said.

[rrutter81]

So the military is inefficient? Interesting.

Also one problem with those whole tax cuts for the wealthy and tax the lower class.. the way this economy is going we are headed toward deflation, which is very scary to economists.. you perpetuate the problem when you take more from those that are already without.

typical dem... ROFL

The government is so retarded they had to subcontract the shit out to the private sector. The private sectore capitalism that made our military so great. government hasnt created shit except subsidizing ethanol which boosted corn prices and is failed. Notice how the EPA said there doesnt need to be 10% ethanol in gas anymore?

Looks good on paper, but is a failure.

You think NASA invented the apollo rocket to the moon? WOW

[Alan®]

You think NASA invented the apollo rocket to the moon? WOW
I thought they did.

[Total_Blender]

I thought they did.

With an assist from a few "reformed" Nazi's like Werner Von Braun. :ninja:

[Alan®]

With an assist from a few "reformed" Nazi's like Werner Von Braun. :ninja:
Well I knew that but I thought that he was working with what was at the time considered "nasa" even though it wasn't really nasa yet.

[Vteckidd]

That does bring up a good point. You want a tax break if you were wealthy but you are not currently.. you could certainly use a tax break now but you're a part of the masses that are supposedly unproductive.

Strange, tax me more when I'm making less.. but tax me less when I'm making more.

Really what its all about is much simpler than you are trying to make it. I dont know why we cant see the forrest through the trees.

Am i wealthy NOW, no i am not. Do i plan on being wealthy, yes i do.

In order for me to make more WEALTH i have to GROW my business. i mean i cant sell 230293029 seats , i have to expand into other items, parts, businesses etc.

Why would you limit my GROWTH?

Now, again, like ive said a million times, no one is saying that everyone making under $250,000 is unproductive and poor and a burden on society.

What we ARE saying is that the majority of those people, should have to make it on their own. You shouldnt take from ME, to give to them. Id much rather you let me HIRE one of them, or INCREASE someones salary that ALREADY works for me.

If you make $50,000 a year, and you are content, and have no intentions of moving up, doing better, etc, why should you get help?

look i can sit here an sell bride seats till im 50, and live comfortably. But why stop there?

Will Obamas plan help me currently more than mccain, SURE, ABSOLUTELY, but im not about the HERE AND NOW, you gotta look at the BIGGER PICTURE.

most of us arent doing that.

Has a POOR PERSON, IE someone making under $200,000 a year, EVER GIVEN ANY OF YOU GUYS A JOB?

[GTScoob]

RRutter, you say you got your GED, I guess that means no high school education? I hate to take a stab at someone who took the initiative to get a GED but you are grossly ignorant on your understandings of political and economic systems and their interactions.

For one thing, you hate on socialism so much, do you know about FDR and the New Deal? Thats the closest America has ever come to socialism and I dont think our country ever will embrace it, I do think we'll head towards aspects of social democracy like what the EU has done such as protectionist economic policies towards vital domestic markets while embracing liberal free trade policies when they are beneficial to us. I'm pretty sure both candidates have made statements along these lines.

Ask yourself, which came first capitalism or democracy? Which begat the other if it can even be correlated? I know its getting a little off topic but the role of every aspect of government changes when going from a democratic/capitalist system to a democratic/socialist system to an authoritarian/capitalist system to a communist system. Is the role of the police to protect the well-being of a nation's citizens or protect the property of said citizens? What about that of the judicial system, to correct social injustices or simply to enforce business contracts? What rights do you consider intrinsic?

I'm worn out from work so this is some half-asleep rambling and not really any coherent thoughts. I'll get back on this tomorrow.

[Total_Blender]

Has a POOR PERSON, IE someone making under $200,000 a year, EVER GIVEN ANY OF YOU GUYS A JOB?

Hiring/staffing decisions are never so simple as "I just got a 5% tax cut... let me go out and hire 20 people." You also have to look a number of factors like the demand for your business and the cost/benefit ratio of hiring employees. I am assuming you run a speed shop from what I have seen you post in other threads, and thats a business that is entirely based on disposable income. If consumers have less disposable income due to inflation/stagnant wages/greater tax burden that means they will have less disposable income to spend on your products, ergo less demand for your products.

[Vteckidd]

Hiring/staffing decisions are never so simple as "I just got a 5% tax cut... let me go out and hire 20 people." You also have to look a number of factors like the demand for your business and the cost/benefit ratio of hiring employees. I am assuming you run a speed shop from what I have seen you post in other threads, and thats a business that is entirely based on disposable income. If consumers have less disposable income due to inflation/stagnant wages/greater tax burden that means they will have less disposable income to spend on your products, ergo less demand for your products.
DO YOU OWN OR RUN A BUSINESS

[BanginJimmy]

Hiring/staffing decisions are never so simple as "I just got a 5% tax cut... let me go out and hire 20 people." You also have to look a number of factors like the demand for your business and the cost/benefit ratio of hiring employees. I am assuming you run a speed shop from what I have seen you post in other threads, and thats a business that is entirely based on disposable income. If consumers have less disposable income due to inflation/stagnant wages/greater tax burden that means they will have less disposable income to spend on your products, ergo less demand for your products.

No, a business isnt going to hire people just because they got a tax cut, but they might forego hiring because of a tax increase, or even no change in taxes.

As I have said many times, my wife really needs to hire someone else for her business, but because of payroll taxes she cant to afford it. She can afford the salary, but the taxes push her well over her budget.

[blurred visions]

i dont agree with giving you a dime.


A tax break is not GIVING money, but giving RELIEF from paying higher taxes. I keep hearing republicans say this over and over, but Obama doesn't want to GIVE money, he wants to change the way taxes are pulled in, and how heavy they are pulled in depending on how much money you make.

It's really not hard to think about, tax the majority less and they'll make more purchases which will help the rich. I certainly have changed my spending habits recently, and if we continue with the way things are going then I'll keep spending less.

I don't view Obama's plan as being anything like "Robin Hood," its just a plan to help fix this economy. If we weren't having such problems then I might agree that if your making less or if you aren't doing anything with your life, then you shouldn't get a break.

I don't know if republicans have dollar signs in their eyes or just an overall rage for money, but times like these you need to just calm down, take a step back, and look at what will be best for the future. I know right now you might be taxed higher, but that is in an attempt to get the economy on the right track, and with the economy on the right track, you'll make your money.

[Total_Blender]

DO YOU OWN OR RUN A BUSINESS

NO BUT I DID STAY AT A HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS LAST NIGHT! OK, MY CAPS LOCK KEY WORKS... JUST MAKING SURE.

I don't see Obama's plan as giving me money, I see it as allowing me to keep more of my money that I earned. Isn't that the major selling point of the "fair tax"... keep your whole paycheck? I'd be happy with just 10-15% more of mine.:goodjob:

[Alan®]

.

I don't see Obama's plan as giving me money, I see it as allowing me to keep more of my money that I earned
Right BY MAKING UP THE MONEY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST LOST FROM YOU BY TAKING IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. :headslap: .As far as I can tell we are not upping our revenues we are simply re-structuring how we are getting it.

IMHO Obama has no clue what he is talking about when he talks about anything business related. Both candidates have acknowledged that we are bad off right now and Obama wants to move the tax burden from the majority to just a few. The very few who keep our economy afloat and keep people employed. This argument that business owners will be able to recoup any loses because of Obama's tax plan because more people will have more money to spend is ridiculous. Nobody is looking at the big picture. Everyone keeps looking at just the income tax issue which i still find in it of itself ridiculous. You guys are still failing to talk about the fact that between the hike in payroll tax, the removal of the social security cap(which BTW is just a huge proxy scheme),etc. small business owners are looking at paying in some cases 62% in taxes to the federal government. That doesn't include state taxes. I don't care who you are that is bullshit

[blurred visions]

Right BY MAKING UP THE MONEY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST LOST FROM YOU BY TAKING IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. :headslap: .As far as I can tell we are not upping our revenues we are simply re-structuring how we are getting it.

IMHO Obama has no clue what he is talking about when he talks about anything business related. Both candidates have acknowledged that we are bad off right now and Obama wants to move the tax burden from the majority to just a few. The very few who keep our economy afloat and keep people employed. This argument that business owners will be able to recoup any loses because of Obama's tax plan because more people will have more money to spend is ridiculous. Nobody is looking at the big picture. Everyone keeps looking at just the income tax issue which i still find in it of itself ridiculous. You guys are still failing to talk about the fact that between the hike in payroll tax, the removal of the social security cap(which BTW is just a huge proxy scheme),etc. small business owners are looking at paying in some cases 62% in taxes to the federal government. That doesn't include state taxes. I don't care who you are that is bullshit

Well, he also stated he wanted to do the following:

1. Go line for line and cut wasteful spending Bush has put in place.
2. Attempt to end the war.
3. Take away the tax breaks to major companies (oil).

These 3 alone will probably make up for, and even exceed the amount of money we lose by giving the middle class tax relief. You just can't say that he makes the money only by taxing the rich.

Then you need to take in account how the redistribution will work, as I stated in a previous post. By doing this, the lower/middle class are left with more money to SPEND. I don't need to explain what happens when companies gain revenue.

In the end, companies have a higher tax burden, but the added revenue from the lower/middle class spending could take its role in leveling the change. << I could be wrong, but does this not sound right?

[Total_Blender]

Sounds right to me. Trickle down economics is synonymous with pyramid scheme :lmfao:

[Vteckidd]

ok next question, what was your tax liability LAST YEAR

[Alan®]

ok next question, what was your tax liability LAST YEAR
Couple of hundred bucks. Don't remember exactly.

[Alan®]

Well, he also stated he wanted to do the following:

1. Go line for line and cut wasteful spending Bush has put in place.
Just about every presidential candidate has said they will do this and when you ask them to name something they would cut they all do the same thing. They all go :thinking:


2. Attempt to end the war.
This is a myth. He will not be able to just go in and go ok were done :smilefu: we are leaving. And what he has already said repeatedly is that he will shift the resources in Iraq to Afghanistan. So you are talking about spending another couple of billion JUST TO MOVE EVERYTHING(Tanks, Aircraft, Battleships, barracks, etc.) and then another few billion a month in Afghanistan. While I think the ultimate cost will go down, don't expect a dramatic decrease in spending on that front.


3. Take away the tax breaks to major companies (oil).
LOL. Yea that will be awesome. Let's take away the tax breaks oil companies get which have helped lower the price of gas ($2.09 here in Barnesville). You raise the taxes on oil companies and all they will do is pass the cost along to the consumer. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I WILL USE THIS ANALOGY UNTIL PEOPLE REALIZE IT'S THE TRUTH. AFTER 9/11 GAS HIT THE ROOF AND WHAT DID THE AIRLINES DO? THEY PASSED THE COST OF HIGHER GAS TO CONSUMERS. IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE AND IT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS HAPPENS. By raising those taxes it goes against Obama's plan to make the cost of living more affordable. IT'S A FACT.


These 3 alone will probably make up for, and even exceed the amount of money we lose by giving the middle class tax relief. You just can't say that he makes the money only by taxing the rich.
Maybe but probably not. Curious. Does anyone know what Obama's plan is projected to raise in revenue versus what we are currently raising. That would in it of itself be an interesting read


Then you need to take in account how the redistribution will work, as I stated in a previous post. By doing this, the lower/middle class are left with more money to SPEND. I don't need to explain what happens when companies gain revenue.
Again most small businesses are paying close to 40% in taxes as it stands now. Under Obama it will jump to 62% in most cases. That's a 50% increase In order for businesses to recoup the additional money they are paying in taxes, people would have to get their taxes cut in half and then spend that tax cut. Obama's not proposing to cut taxes in half for those at the bottom.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i311/midnightracer05/GR2008061200193.gif
So guess what's going to happen.


In the end, companies have a higher tax burden, but the added revenue from the lower/middle class spending could take its role in leveling the change. << I could be wrong, but does this not sound right?
Again see above.

[blurred visions]

Your responses to the three goals of Obama are basically questioning if a candidate will follow through with everything he says, and of course, they usually never do.

I understand everything your saying and how McCain wants to cut taxes for everyone, but is that what we really need right now? I don't want to bring up the national debt, but I think we need to start thinking about the overall country and not just what people personally gain or lose.

I think it's funny how McCain wants to cut an incredible amount of taxes for HIS OWN bracket of wealth.

[Alan®]

Your responses to the three goals of Obama are basically questioning if a candidate will follow through with everything he says, and of course, they usually never do.

I understand everything your saying and how McCain wants to cut taxes for everyone, but is that what we really need right now? I don't want to bring up the national debt, but I think we need to start thinking about the overall country and not just what people personally gain or lose.

I think it's funny how McCain wants to cut an incredible amount of taxes for HIS OWN bracket of wealth.
Ok and having a 50% tax increase on small businesses is what we need with unemployment at a Pre-Clinton level. The national debt will have to wait a little bit at this point.

[blurred visions]

This still brings me back to one of my other points, if you free up money for the lower/middle class, won't that influence spending?

I think of it as the bottom falling out. Businesses are doing worse right now because the lower/middle class is spending less. Major cuts for the lower/middle class WILL influence spending, which means BUSINESS, and you can't deal with BUSINESS without EMPLOYEES.

Cutting business taxes might give them more of a budget for hiring, etc., but with people still spending less companies won't have the revenue to keep a hold of employees.

[Alan®]

This still brings me back to one of my other points, if you free up money for the lower/middle class, won't that influence spending?

I think of it as the bottom falling out. Businesses are doing worse right now because the lower/middle class is spending less. Major cuts for the lower/middle class WILL influence spending, which means BUSINESS, and you can't deal with BUSINESS without EMPLOYEES.

Cutting business taxes might give them more of a budget for hiring, etc., but with people still spending less companies won't have the revenue to keep a hold of employees.
While this honestly sounds great in theory, it simply isn't the case. It's an argument that in this case unfortunately doesn't make much sense. Like I said Small businesses are looking at anywhere from 25-50%. Again this is a cost that they are having to pay out.

Example:
Business makes $100 a day
Business pays $40 a day in taxes thus making $60 in profits

Under Obama that would increase to $62 a day in taxes thus leaving the company $32 a day in profits

Now to get back to making $60 a day in profits one of two things has to happen.

1. Sales Increase
2. Costs have to be cut.(I.E. services, jobs, etc.)Jobs being the BIGGIE there.

Problem is that the tax cut doesn't justify the sales increase needed to recoup those loses.

[rrutter81]

RRutter, you say you got your GED, I guess that means no high school education? I hate to take a stab at someone who took the initiative to get a GED but you are grossly ignorant on your understandings of political and economic systems and their interactions.

For one thing, you hate on socialism so much, do you know about FDR and the New Deal? Thats the closest America has ever come to socialism and I dont think our country ever will embrace it, I do think we'll head towards aspects of social democracy like what the EU has done such as protectionist economic policies towards vital domestic markets while embracing liberal free trade policies when they are beneficial to us. I'm pretty sure both candidates have made statements along these lines.

Ask yourself, which came first capitalism or democracy? Which begat the other if it can even be correlated? I know its getting a little off topic but the role of every aspect of government changes when going from a democratic/capitalist system to a democratic/socialist system to an authoritarian/capitalist system to a communist system. Is the role of the police to protect the well-being of a nation's citizens or protect the property of said citizens? What about that of the judicial system, to correct social injustices or simply to enforce business contracts? What rights do you consider intrinsic?

I'm worn out from work so this is some half-asleep rambling and not really any coherent thoughts. I'll get back on this tomorrow.

sorry ive been away since work calls and such...when it rains it pours here.

ok! on to the flaming.


RRutter, you say you got your GED, I guess that means no high school education? I hate to take a stab at someone who took the initiative to get a GED but you are grossly ignorant on your understandings of political and economic systems and their interactions.

Correct, I went to North Gwinnett High until my Junior year in which i moved to a different area where they did not allow "half credits". It screwed me and set me back a year so I decided to get my GED because im an impatient bastard.

It is also my "observation" that anyone who embraces socialism is superficial. Because I took my G.E.D. doesnt mean I dont know physics, economics, or psychology.

What if i were to tell you i was a convicted felon?

What if i were to tell you i lost my driver's licence for 5 years as well?

Do you think i cant make 6 figures?

This is the land of opportunity my friend. Not this superficial shit i keep seeing. If you think you had it rough try losing your licence, being a felon with a GED, 15k in fines+lawyer fees, and no place to go....only to climb up and get paid more than your own father who has a bachelor's in Network Engineering.

Ive worn the shirt so STFU if "life is too hard" on you.

As far as my stupidity toward economics goes... ROFL my nest egg is already pretty nice. How is your 401k? Did you not hedge it? awww too bad? Not that it really matters because u would have to withdraw from it to take the loss. However there are tactics to use in such situations. i have a G.E.D....what do i know?



For one thing, you hate on socialism so much, do you know about FDR and the New Deal? Thats the closest America has ever come to socialism and I dont think our country ever will embrace it, I do think we'll head towards aspects of social democracy like what the EU has done such as protectionist economic policies towards vital domestic markets while embracing liberal free trade policies when they are beneficial to us. I'm pretty sure both candidates have made statements along these lines.


If you didnt notice, as time progresses we are embracing socialism more and more. Once we fought to destroy it (communism /w vietnam) however more people are more empathetic, and think it isnt a bad idea. Unfortunatley history repeats itself....too many times. Europe has it's fair share of problems as well, considering they needed to make a law for people who go to the emergency room to be seen within "4 hours". Yes this is the future of stupidity and destruction of opportunity. Im assuming you hate "big oil" too? lol

If you think these rich CEO's piss you off, your in for a rude awakening. ENVY is what will push us toward this marxist style thinking. Envy (if you are a student of religion) is also as bad as greed. I like greed. I want my raise...how about you? Well why cant a rich ass CEO get it? hmmm interesting, because it is his ass if screws up. Unless he was subsidized by some marxist community reinvestment act.



Ask yourself, which came first capitalism or democracy? Which begat the other if it can even be correlated? I know its getting a little off topic but the role of every aspect of government changes when going from a democratic/capitalist system to a democratic/socialist system to an authoritarian/capitalist system to a communist system. Is the role of the police to protect the well-being of a nation's citizens or protect the property of said citizens? What about that of the judicial system, to correct social injustices or simply to enforce business contracts? What rights do you consider intrinsic?


Romans/Democracy (although an early form), easy enough.

As far as the rest of the questions you ask, they are rather vague. Police are to protect "said laws". Whether it be well-being of the people or their property. I dont see how you can break them up.




I'm worn out from work so this is some half-asleep rambling and not really any coherent thoughts. I'll get back on this tomorrow.


I took it easy however we can continue at a better time for you if you wish. Keep in mind (and i think we all do) i cant come in here at a whim due to responsibilites..

Anyway the stupidity i see from anyone of different color, race etc can kiss my ass. You werent given a bunch of lemons and made lemonade. THAT IS THE AMERICA I want to live in.

Not this government handout shit that gives minorities or females a leg up. Harder for a white guy to get in to the IT sector now because of this fairy tale people make up.

Think im racist? How about a big "F" YOU. Im married to a colombian. Think i have a right as anyone else to say your full of shit.

[tony]

ok next question, what was your tax liability LAST YEAR

About $7,000.. not including state. And yours Mr. don't tax the wealthy?

[SPOOLIN]

I don't think anyone agrees to not tax the wealthy, but don't tax them more than others.

[ShooterMcGavin]

i lol'd at the first 2, reps!

[blurred visions]

While this honestly sounds great in theory, it simply isn't the case. It's an argument that in this case unfortunately doesn't make much sense. Like I said Small businesses are looking at anywhere from 25-50%. Again this is a cost that they are having to pay out.

Example:
Business makes $100 a day
Business pays $40 a day in taxes thus making $60 in profits

Under Obama that would increase to $62 a day in taxes thus leaving the company $32 a day in profits

Now to get back to making $60 a day in profits one of two things has to happen.

1. Sales Increase
2. Costs have to be cut.(I.E. services, jobs, etc.)Jobs being the BIGGIE there.

Problem is that the tax cut doesn't justify the sales increase needed to recoup those loses.

That clears it up for me, so I guess its a matter of weighing in factors such as how much percent the small businesses make up and how many jobs they provide. I still think Obama's tax plan should be looked at as more of a "surge" rather than anything lasting. It's something that will help right now and I'm sure once the economy begins to level out his tax plan will change to compliment the difference.

[Alan®]

That clears it up for me, so I guess its a matter of weighing in factors such as how much percent the small businesses make up and how many jobs they provide. I still think Obama's tax plan should be looked at as more of a "surge" rather than anything lasting. It's something that will help right now and I'm sure once the economy begins to level out his tax plan will change to compliment the difference.
The numbers vary. Some say it's 70-85%.

Small business makes up ~90% of businesses in the U.S. though. They are the overwhelming majority

[Vteckidd]

About $7,000.. not including state. And yours Mr. don't tax the wealthy?

less than $1000, i made less than $20,000

so lets see, the majority of us dont pay anything especially when its in relation to the salary we make.

hmmmmmmmmmmm

My dad ($300k+) paid $55,000 last year.

so who DESERVES A TAX BREAK?

[Vteckidd]

EDIT: This year ill owe around $15,000, CRAP.

[Alan®]

less than $1000, i made less than $20,000

so lets see, the majority of us dont pay anything especially when its in relation to the salary we make.

hmmmmmmmmmmm

My dad ($300k+) paid $55,000 last year.

so who DESERVES A TAX BREAK?
My dad paid something like $75K+ (I can't remember if that was for the year or per quarter). He just did his taxes for this year I don't even want to know.

[tony]

I just always love the "My parents" thing

Never once have I mentioned my dads tax burden, why? Cause I'm a grown ass man and need not be concerned with what my parents pay.. I got my own adult responsibilities. When I file my taxes I have my house, 2 dependents (my son and I take care of my mother) and a full list of responsibilities.

All I know is when I write that check to the IRS there are programs I don't like, and there are others that I know that are essential. I don't see how some of you are big military but anti taxes when defense spending is more than any social program out there.

[Vteckidd]

I just always love the "My parents" thing

Never once have I mentioned my dads tax burden, why? Cause I'm a grown ass man and need not be concerned with what my parents pay.. I got my own adult responsibilities. When I file my taxes I have my house, 2 dependents (my son and I take care of my mother) and a full list of responsibilities.

All I know is when I write that check to the IRS there are programs I don't like, and there are others that I know that are essential. I don't see how some of you are big military but anti taxes when defense spending is more than any social program out there.

again, you are skirting the issue, ive seen this before.

I dont know anyone on here that makes over $250,000 a year, do you?

Nor do i know their Tax Liability.

All im showing is that me, you, and redgts pay LITTLE TO KNOW TAXES.

Fine, pretend i didnt say my dad, pretend i said "my buddy" or fuck pretend i lied an said it was me. Who gives a rats ass.

The point is, Person "X" made over $250,000" and paid more than 7 times YOUR TAX LIABILITY.

PERSON "X" ISNT RICH.

you BARELY PAID ANYTHING

WHY SHOULD YOU GET A BREAK AND PERSON "X" PAY MORE under OBAMA

waiting

EDIT: I edited the percentage out because then itll become about how Obama isnt going to raise taxes much or the issue will become about numbers. Lets keep it general. Why should you pay LESS taxes and Person "X" pay MORE

[tony]

I don't make over $250k but I am a part of the tax bracket that offers the largest percentage of revenues.

I've posted this up before Mike and you just jump to another thread. Do I need to post the IRS statistics again as to who REALLY has the tax burden in this country? Because its not those that make this huge amount like you think. Furthermore Corporate taxes only account for 14% of tax revenues.

[Vteckidd]

thats what i thought.

so you disagree with the statement that the top 50% of earners pay 95% of income taxes.

[Alan®]

Furthermore Corporate taxes only account for 14% of tax revenues.
This is a whole seperate issue. There is so much more money there and we could get it but at 39.2% corporate tax rate I'd move my company overseas as well.

[tony]

Just to add, I've never once mentioned my mom who i do take care of. She worked for 30 years as an accountant only to be laid off with absolutely nothing to show. Just like you have parents that did well for theirselves.. some of us have parents whose main focus was the upbringing of their children and sacrificed the pursuit of wealth to be at home and be a parent. Some of us have parents that chose to provide their service to this country (and we know career military men do not afford theirselves a wealthy lifestyle) so for me to sit here and spit in their face by saying THEY are less productive because of their income level would be absolute bullshit.. you can never convince me of anything otherwise, no matter what my tax bracket is.

[tony]

And for the 3rd time:




http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in11si.xls

You will notice that the $50k to $500k income bracket account for 57.8% of all revenue before tax credits.

$50k is average Joe salary especially with two incomes, even $400k isn't far fetched so this whole.. "the wealthy needs tax cuts because they pay a proportionate number of taxes" is BS.

Want to know the income bracket with the biggest tax burden?

$100k to $200k -

The #2 tax bracket is $50k to $75k.

[Vteckidd]

and again

so you disagree with the statement that the top 50% of earners pay 95% of income taxes.

[tony]

Nope, but be sure to note that people making $50k a year are added into that "Top 50%"

[AirMax95]

Just to add, I've never once mentioned my mom who i do take care of. She worked for 30 years as an accountant only to be laid off with absolutely nothing to show. Just like you have parents that did well for theirselves.. some of us have parents whose main focus was the upbringing of their children and sacrificed the pursuit of wealth to be at home and be a parent. Some of us have parents that chose to provide their service to this country (and we know career military men do not afford theirselves a wealthy lifestyle) so for me to sit here and spit in their face by saying THEY are less productive because of their income level would be absolute bullshit.. you can never convince me of anything otherwise, no matter what my tax bracket is.

:cheers: