| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2008 06:47:04 AM · #426 |
This redistribution of wealth claim is so overblown.
Ronald Reagan started the Earned Income Tax Credit (which we all know of, I'm sure) and that's a prime example and a basic form of redistribution on wealth.
This is nothing new AND nothing that Republicans haven't done many times while in the White House. There have always been tax scales where the rich would pay a higher percentage which have been broken down over the past few decades. I believe Obamas base point is that the wealthy need to get back to paying their share if the country wants to bring down it's debt and survive this crisis.
Enough money has trickled up to the point where 1-2% of our population holds somewhere around 90% of it's wealth...they can afford it. If you recall in Obamas initial statements before he unveiled a tax plan, he was suggesting that Large Oil companies and corporations exporting jobs no longer receiving tax breaks, which they have been getting, on our backs. Given the gigantic profits they have made of the last 8 years who could argue with that?
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 08:28:39. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 06:58:43 AM · #427 |
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
this is along the baby butcher line. why does one person have a problem with whether or not someone else has an abortion? its not infringing on their life or rights in any way. I have never been able to figure this out |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
While I personally don't feel that the state should necessarily ban abortions I can certainly understand why it is an issue. To some this is to be considered murder and not a medical procedure. I'm sure you are sophisticated enough to understand why. |
The state absolutely has *NO* business telling any woman what she can or cannot do with her body.....neither does any male, but that's a whole 'nother argument, though why women have allowed that to be an issue is beyond my comprehension.
I am a believer in the right to choice. It's not something that should be undertaken lightly, i.e., it's a shitty answer to birth control.
There are circumstances that are justifiable, though it's still a very personal decision that must be between a woman, her conscience and her God or whatever higher authority to whom she holds herself.
I personally would rather see someone make a choice for an early termination than bring an unwanted child into an overpopulated world.....I would only hope that such a decision was forced due to an unwelcome pregnancy due to precautionary failure. And the idea of carrying to term the product of rape or incest is one of the most abhorrent concepts I can imagine. I don't know how any rational mind could entertain that for even one second.
I'm adopted, and I wonder about the anguish that might have been......obviously I'm glad to be here, but my life certainly hasn't been any bowl of cherries, either. Though my father (Adoptive) is still alive, we've never been close, and we haven't spoken in years. My mother, who was my best friend, died when I was 20.
My wife and I did not want children......when after being on the pill for years, she became pregnant during our early years together, we made the decision to terminate, rather I expressed my wishes and told her I'd back her decision, so an unwanted child, that would have been a burden on two wholly unprepared parents did not come to be.
Fifteen years later, when it happened again, we chose life.
Our daughter has changed our lives immeasurably, and has certainly helped us to believe even more strongly in Grace, AND......she's a whole lot of fun. It has been the most deeply rewarding aspect of our life. We were ready, willing, and able to accept the responsibility of another life on this earth this time through.
In this day and age, it's irresponsible, IMNSHO to make the CHOICE illegal. There are too many umwanted children without homes, and our population is increasing way too fast to eliminate the possibility.
But it should never be an easy choice, or undertaken lightly.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 07:02:48 AM · #428 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Obama's plan is not only about helping those that can't help themsleves. It includes helping those that can - but won't. |
Oh, PLEASE!
Do you know you actually said that out loud?
That is so patently absurd!
Any candidate with that type of agenda wouldn't make it to the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 07:48:15 AM · #429 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I am not going to sue you, you big goof (i mean that in an endearing way). I just don't think your statement was fair or accurate. I think women are indeed amazing and wonderful creations of God. I have the utmost respect for their power and resourcefulness. Please tell me exactly where you think my views are way off. I would genuinely be interested in your thoughts. Please base your comments on what I have said however and not some vague idea of what you might think I would think. |
I was basing my comments on the discussion on the other thread on the porn movie.
You made some protectionist comments that seemed to me that you held women in the view as weaker, physically and to some extent, societal, and in need of protection.
It's an impression that you left me with, and some of your specific comments on the whole prostitution and porn movie enterprise kind of made me wonder at your exposure to women in any socially functional way.
Unfortunately, I have something of a bias towards women as human beings......on the whole they tend to be intelligent and pragmatic, yet manage to temper that with compassion and emotion.
Men.......well, you start out with that whole male ego thing, and it devolves rapidly from there as a rule. I hate having to prove myself right out of the gate within someoen else's parameters, and then being kicked to the curb because I don't conform to some strange concept of normalcy that I don't want anyway.
Women will generally assume that you're a decent human being until you prove otherwise.......despite hundreds of thousands of tough object lessons.
I think we are pretty much polar opposites in our views towards women from what I sense from your writings. I don't see you as being much in touch with women of the species much less your own female, yet decidedly human, characteristics.
But I could be wrong!......8>)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 08:20:17 AM · #430 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
Obama's plan is not only about helping those that can't help themsleves. It includes helping those that can - but won't. |
Oh, PLEASE!
Do you know you actually said that out loud?
That is so patently absurd!
Any candidate with that type of agenda wouldn't make it to the end of the day. |
1. I typed it silently.
2. Absurd is This taken from the tax records themselves.
3. Any candidate with this type of agenda is not only making it to the end of the day, but is likely to be your next president.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 08:26:26 AM · #431 |
"Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal."
Source; 2001 radio interview
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 08:41:33 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by Flash:
"Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal."
Source; 2001 radio interview |
That's not how I heard it. When you say source "radio interview" you used someone elses quote. Who's quote is that?
I'm curious why a D70 shooter is so adamantly fighting for the rich. Since 1968, only 12 of those years has there been a Democrat in the White House. Over the last eight years, 6 where both the Exec. Branch and Congress were dominated by the Republican Party.
McCain might be correct when he points out the grave dangers of having a single party control Government. He should know. Look how fantastic things turned out with his party was at the helm.
Maybe you're watching too much FOX but if you haven't noticed yet we already have become a Socialist state. We now own a whole bunch of banks and are going to regulate them more deeply. AND yes, this has all happened with a Republican deregulator in the White House.
Wake-Up!
eta: If you want a reasonable clear picture about anything read David Gergen. He worked for Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. He's consulted both parties and has a good nose for pure bullshit when he sees it. Out of all the talking heads I've been reading and watching over the years and this political season he's been making the best and most honest calls. Stay away from FOX or MSNBC.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 08:47:20. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 08:55:03 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Wake-Up! |
Those needing the wake-up are those buying the Obama hype.
The reason this D70 shooter is so adamant about my position is unlike some here, I do not feel it is my right to take someone else's property. I can afford a D70 so that is what I shoot. Sure I'd like a nicer body, but I can't afford one. Therefore, stealing one from a rich person who could "afford the loss" is still stealing to me. Not an option.
The real Obama
In case you missed this link above - the real Obama 2
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 09:01:24. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 08:57:38 AM · #434 |
While cutting the pork spending is a cool, populist idea it's also a nickle and dime...small potato idea that won't have much of an effect on the big picture. It does sound really good and will win votes but it has little bite.
BTW where was McCains BIG VETO PEN when he signed the "rescue package" that was loaded up with pork spending.
Is there a list of the congressmen and the congressional districts that received (requested) those pork benefits before signing? I'm not a bloodthirsty guy but I'd bring back the guillotine for those dudes. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:04:16 AM · #435 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Wake-Up! |
Those needing the wake-up are those buying the Obama hype.
The reason this D70 shooter is so adamant about my position is unlike some here, I do not feel it is my right to take someone else's property. I can afford a D70 so that is what I shoot. Sure I'd like a nicer body, but I can't afford one. Therefore, stealing one from a rich person who could "afford the loss" is still stealing to me. Not an option.
The real Obama |
"I do not feel it is my right to take someone else's property"
Property? Nah...just some tax dollars. Not property. Don't distort things or there is NO conversation.
Unless...Obama said somewhere that he was going to take a D300 from those making $250,000 or more and give it too the middle class. Then I would stand corrected.
I look at it this way. We could and should raise Paris Hiltons taxes...any argument, there?
Sadly it won't keep her off the air waves.
One last thing. We have a tax system in place only it's been getting chopped up by the wealthy and they have grown wealthier ...and wealthier...and wealthier, while the country has gone to shit.
Everyone wants benefits...services... a strong military etc. but nobody wants to pay for it. Tax cuts over the last 8 years have trickled a lot of money upwards...a lot and if you've read the papers you also note that very little has trickled down. Also those ho make $250,000 will be paying at the same rate they were during Clintons time in office. Oh...how terrible. We wouldn't want that. All the fortunes that were made during that period were such a horrible things?
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 09:14:24. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:05:56 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
While cutting the pork spending is a cool, populist idea it's also a nickle and dime...small potato idea that won't have much of an effect on the big picture. It does sound really good and will win votes but it has little bite. |
Yet it is a beginning and a gesture of good will if the congress would at least START there. Their lack of willingness to even help themselves is what has my gander up. Again, I don't mind helping those who can't help themselves, but I refuse to give to those who can - but won't. I see Obama's (and congress') pork spending as the same attitude of, I won't help myself AND I'll take what you have as well. That is stealing.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:11:38 AM · #437 |
| Obama's plan is not taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor, it's taking it from the rich and giving it to the government (ok, that's the really, really poor). If you disagree with that concept, then do you disagree with taxes completely? Or is a flat tax the only equitable means of taxation in your view? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:12:02 AM · #438 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm not a bloodthirsty guy but I'd bring back the guillotine for those dudes. |
At least you favor capital punishment. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:12:24 AM · #439 |
| Oh, and maybe you'd be more fair and balanced if you could occassionally quote a source other than fox news. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:20:08 AM · #440 |
From FactCheck.org concerning "spread the wealth".
For the hyperlink impaired:
Originally posted by FactCheck.org:
Actually, McCain has supported taxing high earners more than low earners. Not so long ago McCain said, "Wealthy people can afford [to pay] more." Obama's tax plan would "spread the wealth" more than McCain's, but it's not as though McCain wants to do away with the progressive tax system we currently have. |
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:20:22 AM · #441 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Obama's plan is not taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor, it's taking it from the rich and giving it to the government (ok, that's the really, really poor). If you disagree with that concept, then do you disagree with taxes completely? Or is a flat tax the only equitable means of taxation in your view? |
Obama said he will give tax breaks/returns to 95%, yet 40% do not pay Federal tax to begin with. That is taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn't. The "ecomonic stimulus package" which is what Obama's tax break reall is - is income redistribution. It takes from those who paid and gives back to those who paid and those who didn't. That is wealth redistribution. Obama is consistent. People just aren't listening. He has consistently stated and contuinues to state, that some people have too much. That is socialism and or marxism and or communism. His long term associations are with those who espouse that ideollogy and his record proves his work on behalf of that ideology. Now if you want to vote for that - fine. Just don't call it something it isn't. That is lying. So for me Obama is both a thief and a liar. Not my idea of who I want to vote for this time. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:21:59 AM · #442 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Oh, and maybe you'd be more fair and balanced if you could occassionally quote a source other than fox news. |
I would if the other news outlets carried anything other than blind prasie for the messiah. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:22:43 AM · #443 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Obama's plan is not taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor, it's taking it from the rich and giving it to the government (ok, that's the really, really poor). If you disagree with that concept, then do you disagree with taxes completely? Or is a flat tax the only equitable means of taxation in your view? |
Obama said he will give tax breaks/returns to 95%, yet 40% do not pay Federal tax to begin with. That is taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn't. The "ecomonic stimulus package" which is what Obama's tax break reall is - is income redistribution. It takes from those who paid and gives back to those who paid and those who didn't. That is wealth redistribution. Obama is consistent. People just aren't listening. He has consistently stated and contuinues to state, that some people have too much. That is socialism and or marxism and or communism. His long term associations are with those who espouse that ideollogy and his record proves his work on behalf of that ideology. Now if you want to vote for that - fine. Just don't call it something it isn't. That is lying. So for me Obama is both a thief and a liar. Not my idea of who I want to vote for this time. |
Then obviously so is McCain -- see my post just before yours. If all progressive taxers are thiefs and liars, then you're living in a country full of them already. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:23:10 AM · #444 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Oh, and maybe you'd be more fair and balanced if you could occassionally quote a source other than fox news. |
I would if the other news outlets carried anything other than blind prasie for the messiah. |
And if you listen to the same message long enough, I guess you'll start to believe it. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:23:30 AM · #445 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Yet it is a beginning and a gesture of good will if the congress would at least START there. |
You mentioned "Obamas hype"? Well, there's McCains hype. He ain't gonna do shizzle and the FACT that he just signed a highly visible bill, loaded with pork is a testimony to that. I don't think anything could speak louder or clearer to show someone saying one thing and doing another AND how limp of a plea to cut pork spending, as signing that bill.
You're giving one guy a pass while condemning the other.
Wake-up and smell your feet! |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:37:41 AM · #446 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Wake-up and smell your feet! |
My feet smell fine. I simply hope you are prepared to give up your D300 for a D70 as it is unpatriotic for you to have more than another. It is your duty to downsize, not have too much in your 401K, not have too nice a car or home or anything that would make you appear to be "better" than your neighbor. Government will decide how much you can earn, where you will place your savings, what possessions are allowed by the state, and who your doctor will be. As I wrote previously - it matters not to me if that is what you want to vote for - just don't call it something it isn't. Obama has a consistent history on his stances and his associations with those who share that ideology.
A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take all you have. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:42:05 AM · #447 |
Originally posted by Flash:
2. Absurd is This taken from the tax records themselves. |
Haha. The groups are only controversial because Faux News said so. Most of the claims and arguments are attempts to make mountains out of molehills (and often where their own candidate has bigger molehills).
Cutting pork barrel spending would not be a good start. It would be trivial... a largely symbolic gesture like vowing to go on a diet by skipping dessert only on Thanksgiving.
If Ayers is controversial because of his ties to a former bad guy, then McCain should be controversial because of his ties to numerous convicted felons and white supremacists (not to mention his own corruption issues).
Wealth redistribution. LOL. McCain himself has repeatedly backed higher taxes on the wealthy, and once opposed President Bush̢۪s 2001 and 2003 tax cut as a give-away to the rich. What you seemingly fail to grasp is that even his current proposal requires the rich to pay more overall than the poor, but it keeps much of the burden on the working lower and middle classes who are trying to make ends meet. Everyone would rather keep 100% of what they earned, but those who reach the top of the ladder can't ignore the needs of the people holding that ladder up. You cannot make money from people who have none. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:43:42 AM · #448 |
Originally posted by Flash:
A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take all you have. |
You either know that this is not what Obama is proposing or you are unwilling to look beyond what Fox News is telling you to think. Did you even look at the FactCheck.org piece? Or is that too liberally biased for you? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:50:41 AM · #449 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Wake-up and smell your feet! |
My feet smell fine. I simply hope you are prepared to give up your D300 for a D70 as it is unpatriotic for you to have more than another. It is your duty to downsize, not have too much in your 401K, not have too nice a car or home or anything that would make you appear to be "better" than your neighbor. Government will decide how much you can earn, where you will place your savings, what possessions are allowed by the state, and who your doctor will be. As I wrote previously - it matters not to me if that is what you want to vote for - just don't call it something it isn't. Obama has a consistent history on his stances and his associations with those who share that ideology.
A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take all you have. |
That is just so ridiculous that words fail me. I feel sorry that people have been so brainwashed to believe that hype. And I truly have no sympathy for the oil billionaires that might need to actually pay some fair share of taxes. I'm sick to death of "trickle down economics", it doesn't work, it will never work. And I'm sick of rich billionaire foreigners coming in and buying up our businesses and shipping the jobs overseas. The only jobs available in my area are service jobs. Serving the rich. That's how McCain wants to keep it. Rich/Destitute, nothing inbetween. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 09:54:00 AM · #450 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take all you have. |
You either know that this is not what Obama is proposing or you are unwilling to look beyond what Fox News is telling you to think. Did you even look at the FactCheck.org piece? Or is that too liberally biased for you? |
I read your link - but you have not explained why those individuals who make $200K or couples making $250K a year should pay more than they already do? Your argument and that of others - reads to me like it is our right to take from those because they either have too much or can afford it. Both of which begs the question - says who? Who says they can afford it or have too much? The Government? If the government can set the bar at $200K or $250K, then it can certainly set it somewhere else. And it will.
sp edit
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 09:57:25. |
|
