Hope is not a dirty word....redistribution of wealth is,
Posted By: sam on 2008-11-03
In Reply to: I want politics of division to become obsolete. - Unity and shared vision of purpose.
in my books. Have you looked at the church he belonged to for 20 years? Divisive is a MILD way to describe it. He has no interest in uniting us. He has interest in forcing his view of how society should run down all our throats. I do not call that bringing unity. His whole life has been influenced by Marxists. That is how he wants to "unify" us. I am sure Cubans heard these same stories from Che Guevara and loved him just as much. And look how it turned out for them. Not great, not even the way Che wanted. He was off to Bolivia when he found out it wasn't going the way he hoped. The next socalist always thinks he will get it "right." And you know what? Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them...I just hope America is not the next failed socialist state. There is MY "HOPE."
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
against wealth redistribution
I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for. My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes.
Second issue. It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon. The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so. Think about it. Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a mistake? Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected. The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected. This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.
I don't really think a redistribution of the wealth
is the answer and don't necessarily agree with it either. What I would like to see though are these corporations, and individuals, that don't fairly pay taxes start paying what they are supposed to. They hide their money in off-shore accounts and redistribute it so they don't have to pay so much. I know that this happens, I started out in accounting in college and we had big long discussions about this. But I didn't have to have a class to know that this happens.
Too bad that redistribution of wealth
won't benefit most of us.....it will benefit the low income people who want to mooch off of the government. Besides, I still says that the middle class is fair game to Obama. He will raise our taxes too....you just wait.
Redistribution of wealth...
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
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 hom eless 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."
Redistribution of Wealth
Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer. Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.
Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?
The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct. I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.
Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying
reparations, just not as blatant.
Redistribution of YOUR Wealth
Obama and Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. That will cost each of us MTs about $1,200 or so a year. He is proposing 3 new separte payroll taxes (new separate deductions) including his own bill now in Congress to "fight WORLD hunger." Sounds nice, but I would rather fight hunger at my house. If you think you are going to get a bunch of free stuff in return for all these new taxes, think again - that stuff will all evaporate after the election but the tax increases will remain, just like with Clinton. I heard last night that 57% of Americans think Republicans now control Congress - and these morons vote - scary.
He is already promising redistribution of wealth and he ...
doesn't even have the job yet. That is not a lie. He has campaign commercials about it and he is Barack Obama and he approved that message. Have you read anything about his voting history and the people he has associated with most of his adult life? Of course he is socialist. Way left socialist.
I never said Democrats were socialists. I did say Hillary Clinton was one, and Obama is to the left of her on that particular issue.
You think calling someone a socialist is name calling?
About all that redistribution of wealth silliness
That would be $1200 to nearly every Alaskan in addition to their already existing $2000 annual rebate. In a nutshell, Palin levied a windfall profit tax against oil companies, then will pay a portion of the revenues out as bonus checks to residents.
One might even suggest that, since Alaska has no state income tax, this was a almost straight redistribution of wealth using higher taxes on the oil companies to redistribute wealth to individuals. It's almost...socialist. Go Gov. Palin!!!
Correct. The *redistribution of wealth* is just that...
those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.
I think not. both related to redistribution of wealth...nm
An argument for redistribution of wealth
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
FY 2007
Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:
1. Individual income tax 45%.
Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35%
Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Individual's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15%
4. Excise Tax 3%.
Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.
If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
A couple of other points of interest:
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:
Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
What pat of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
THAT is socialism and THAT is what he wants to do. Said so himself. Remember spreading the wealth? C'mon. Admit it. He's a socialist. Fair tax cuts go to EVERYONE. Not the rich to redistribute to those who do not even PAY taxes. THAT is socialism.
He's not lying about redistribution of wealth...
unfortunately. He is wholly committed to that one.
Obama's redistribution of wealth
I challenge all of you who are making such a big deal about Obama's plan for "redistribution of wealth" to do a little research. Then come back and talk about it. It's a matter of where the distribution is to go. Republicans want it to go to the top i.e. Reagan's "trickle down economics" and the institution of the earned income tax credit goes to him as well. Tell me, who has benefited? Maybe it's about time we go back to trickle up economics....sorta like FDR's "chicken in every pot." Ya thank????
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us? Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
Redistribution of wealth American style.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:
1. Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues. Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues. Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Employee's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues.
4. Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues. Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%. If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes. Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information: Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
Redistribution of wealth is a basic socialism tenet...
and it is part of his platform. He leans very hard in the direction of government run health care...alnother socialism tenet. He used and taught the Alinsky method of organizing...hard left Marxist theory. Not overgeneralization. He went to a church preaching black liberation theology for 20 years....major Marxist overtones and "economic parity" part of that theology. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. And if you look at his associations throughout his career...common thread there. And for me, that is concerning. And yet another reason I am not voting for him. He is no change from any of the hard left liberals before him, except in one key area...he is harder left than any of them, if you look only at his voting record. He's not the guy for the job as far as I am concerned.
Does corporate welfare qualify as wealth redistribution
nm
Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/
Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.
Halliburton and troops: Dirty water, dirty tricks
MSNBC.com |
Report: Untreated water at U.S. base in Iraq Halliburton denies contamination of supply to American soliders, civilians
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Jan. 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn’t get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails.
“We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated,” said a July 15, 2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton’s KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.
“The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River,” Granger wrote in one of several documents. The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations Monday.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who will chair the session, held a number of similar inquiries last year on contracting abuses in Iraq. He said Democrats were acting on their own because they had not been able to persuade Republican committee chairmen to investigate.
The company’s former water treatment expert at Camp Junction City said that he discovered the problem last March, a statement confirmed by his e-mail the day after he tested the water.
Bottled water used only for drinking While bottled water was available for drinking, the contaminated water was used for virtually everything else, including handwashing, laundry, bathing and making coffee, said water expert Ben Carter of Cedar City, Utah.
Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps — problems he also suffered.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton said its own inspection found neither contaminated water nor medical evidence to substantiate reports of illnesses at the base. The company now operates its own water treatment plant there, spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said.
A military medical unit that visited Camp Ramadi in mid-April found nothing out of the ordinary in terms of water quality, said Marine Corps Maj. Tim Keefe, a military spokesman. Water-quality testing records from May 23 show the water within normal parameters, he said.
“The allegations appear not to have merit,” Keefe said.
Halliburton has contracts to provide a number of services to U.S. forces in Iraq and was responsible for the water quality at the base in Ramadi.
Year-long exposure? Granger’s July 15 memo said the exposure had gone on for “possibly a year” and added, “I am not sure if any attempt to notify the exposed population was ever made.”
The first memo on the problem — written by Carter to Halliburton officials on March 24, 2005 — was an “incident report” from tests Carter performed the previous day.
“It is my opinion that the water source is without question contaminated with numerous micro-organisms, including Coliform bacteria,” Carter wrote. “There is little doubt that raw sewage is routinely dumped upstream of intake much less than the required 2 mile distance.
“Therefore, it is my conclusion that chlorination of our water tanks while certainly beneficial is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure.”
Carter said he resigned in early April after Halliburton officials did not take any action to inform the camp population.
The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. “They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut,” he said.
‘They brushed it under the carpet’ On at least one occasion, Carter said, he spoke to the chief military surgeon at the base, asking him whether he was aware of stomach problems afflicting people. He said the surgeon told him he would look into it.
“They brushed it under the carpet,” Carter said. “I told everyone, ‘Don’t take showers, use bottled water.”
A July 14, 2005, memo showed that Halliburton’s public relations department knew of the problem.
“I don’t want to turn it into a big issue right now,” staff member Jennifer Dellinger wrote in the memo, “but if we end up getting some media calls I want to make sure we have all the facts so we are ready to respond.”
Halliburton’s performance in Iraq has been criticized in a number of military audits, and congressional Democrats have contended that the Bush administration has favored the company with noncompetitive contracts.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10977706/
All I know is that all this dirty, ugly
campaigning by the McCain camp has done nothing but fuel the fires. You can't blame this on Obama. He has handled his campaign with nothing but class. There were so many things he could have dragged out, but he chose not to lower himself to those standards. Kind of reminds me of the hysteria of the Massachusetts witch trials, and a lot of innocent people were hung over that.
Dirty Politics
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/04/campaign-to-grow-veg.html
Dirty foreign policy
Well, seems to be if we didnt have such a murderous dirty foreign policy for the last 50 years, the rest of the world might not be wanting to blow us to kingdom come. You have to wonder why other people of the world hate us so. It is because we have overthrown third world governments and placed puppets in, undermined elections in other countries, murdered duly legally elected leaders in other countries. Heck, we were bombing Iraq nonstop through the 1990s and stepped it up right before this illegal criminal war. The great thing is lots of those soldiers who took part in the bombing are now speaking out. It has been my experience, from what I have seen in life, you can only bully for so long, then others will definitely strike back. We are now being struck back.
More on Barney Frank...he is SO dirty in this economic mess....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html
You cannot type it word for word, just provide a link.
.
Redistribution (sm)
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
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 remember the debate. And of course this is not word for word, I NEVER said...sm
*because I'm not.* This is a LIE that I got tired of arguing with them about then. Unless you are confusing me with an old poster that went under the moniker Demo.
Sambo thinks last word=best word...
su
Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
Over generalization....socialism is redistribution
xx
"income redistribution" is just a fancy term for
nm
Good for Joe! I hope so. And I hope he sues...
the governor of the state of Ohio from now to next week. He should. They BIG time violated his civil rights. If this situation was reversed and he was a Dem who had asked McCain a question and a state had had him investigated, the ACLU would be all over this like ugly on an ape. Liberals only care about other liberals...they could care LESS what happens to conservatives. But yeah, they are all about civil liberties. Geez. Pull the other leg awhile.
What exactly do you think spread the wealth
xx
I say YES to spreading the wealth
I am happy that FINALLY someone is standing up for the middle class. I am happy that finally we will be given some tax breaks. The wealth does NOT trickle down when the tax breaks are given to the upper class/business that fall in that tax bracket. They do not create more jobs, therefore strengthening the middle class/economy. What they do is line their pockets and get rich and then save even more money and get even more tax breaks by sending work overseas and hiring people that will gladly work for way less an hour, therefore driving the value of American jobs down so that the rest of us, who are stuck trying to make it, find a decent paying job, are screwed. I am voting for Obama and I think he is going to win.
spreading the wealth
no I dont and I dont want to. But I do know about working my butt off and my husband his. My husband has lost his job as a finish trim carpenter because of this ecomony. I also know that since Bush has been in office, our lives have been that much harder. Prices have gone up on EVERYTHING but our pay has not. I also know that McCain did nothing but support Bush over the last eight years and only just recently has tried to separate himself from him. Even McCain has said that he voted 90 percent of the time with Bush. That is ALL I need to know. By the way, not everyone who is having a hard time these days are people who refuse to work. Not everyone that votes for Obama are people that are on welfare. I have never been on welfare and would never be on welfare. But unfortunately, the days of just simply working hard and getting ahead are gone. It is NOT true. I have been smart with my money, I work hard and I have been responsible with my credit but I cant see where I am getting anywhere.
"Spread the wealth around"..also known as...
we are penalizing those who have worked hard, make a decent living, pay our bills and don't live above our means so that those who don't or won't do the same can ride our coat tails and not have to be responsible for themselves and feel some sort of entitlement. Some plan, placed squarely on the shoulders of hard working Americans who have done the right thing. Can you say SOCIALIST STATE?
Yes, need to spread that wealth around. LOL nm
So restribution of wealth
isn't taken away someone's rights even though it penalizes hardworkers by taking their money and giving it to people who don't? I do believe that is taking away someone rights....the rights to keep the hard earned money that they earned and make their life better because that is what they worked for and we voted for that when we voted in Obama.
They still have the right to be together as a couple. No one is telling them that they can't go out in public and declare they are a couple, etc. However, to allow their union and call it marriage is something that many people cannot agree with and they have that right to their opinion and their vote has made that decision. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If homosexuals want to be legally bound to each other......call it something else but keep the definition of marriage as a man and woman.
yep. Its Fox. Just googled it. word for word. nm
nm
Not one word. One defitinion of a word.
Cult: 1. A system of religious worship or ritual.
Or how about this:
Cult: A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
Or my personal favorite:
Cult: A self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective.
talking about "redistributing the wealth" --
do you not think that is already being done? How about the earned income credit? Why should some people get back $5000-7000 on their taxes, never pay anything in, and all because their income is lower? That is definitely redistributing my wealth!
our government already redistributes the wealth...
I don't know why this is now an issue when it has not been being one - nobody cares about the redistribution of our wealth when tax time rolls around and all these people get thousands and thousands of dollars back from the IRS that they did not pay in, will never pay in, did not earn! Where do you think that money comes from - from us of course.
For example, I have a relative who makes $13.00 an hour but she never pays in a single penny of tax during the year and she gets a rebate of at least $5000 every year because of earned income. That effectively means, she makes $27040 tax free. That $5000 does not go toward income requirements for anything - she still qualifies for any government programs without including that extra $5000 as income.
Wake up people - our wealth has been being redistributed for years!
I'm going shopping before O can spread my wealth around! nm
//
No, wait! Not until he spreads enough wealth
nm
O has talked about "spreading the wealth."
That basically means those who have are going to be taxed so that the have nots get more than what they work for.
Once placed in context of unequal distribution of wealth,
So you decided the information here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth. didn't matter? What about here? http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html?
You cannot talk about dollar amounts of tax burden for rich or poor without talking about distribution of wealth. Economics 101. There is a reason they pay higher percentages of total revenues. Some of them make 345 times more money than the average mean income in the US, for starters.
This is the kind of thinking that will drive JM/SP to certain defeat in November. Do you not understand how out of touch this issue is with the mainstream?
The explanation you gave for the $6 billion tax you claim O would impose on small businesses is now applied to an entirely different context. The trillion dollar boondoggle still remains the descent from $559 billion suplus inherited from BC to the $400 billion dollar deficit we have after Bush's economic policies and war. BTW, lest we forget, JM voted to support 90% of these plans.
Sam, do not expect the American public will have this same short attention span you demonstrate on these issues or that the spell the NeoCons and femocons seem to be under in never-never land has been cast over the rest of us "lower brackets" with the economy in free-fall and no end in sight.
obama's share the wealth plan
So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:
Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?
Share the wealth -- Karl Marx...
as usual, take from those who have worked hard, achieved something and made something of themselves and give to those who are lazy and irresponsible and who think they are entitled just because life hasn't been fair to them. What an incentive for a great country.
Spreading the wealth in action...love it!
nm
Good for you! Then you won't mind sharing your wealth (NM)
x
|