Redistribution of Wealth

[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.

[Vteckidd]

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

[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?


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...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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

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/2008/0...n_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/...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/archive.../10/021684.php

[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.

[Alan®]

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

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.

[Total_Blender]

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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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!