Redistributor-in-Chief

[theHawk]

I have to give the McCain camp credit. They haven't run a very creative campaign at all, but this little pet name for Obammy might have something to it.

"That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else," he told a crowd of around 2,000 at a sports hall in this key battleground state.

"He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1



Listen to the language Obama uses when talking about taxes, saying that the rich must "pay their fair share" when they already pay way more taxes than everyone else. When he critizes "Bush-McCain" tax policies that "distribute wealth to the rich via tax breaks". It really shows the mentality of this idiot, "distribute wealth via tax breaks"? I guess he assumes all money made already belongs to government, and whatever they don't take is the same as the government distributing wealth to you. A very disturbing way to look at wealth in this country....

[Psychoblues]

The tax code and government subsidies have been redistributing my tax dollars to the already wealthy for years, huk. I understand that it has been that same way for at least a hundred or so years. It's time for the wealthy to pay their own way and relieve the low and middle classes from having to subsidize them.

[Sitarro]

The tax code and government subsidies have been redistributing my tax dollars to the already wealthy for years, huk. I understand that it has been that same way for at least a hundred or so years. It's time for the wealthy to pay their own way and relieve the low and middle classes from having to subsidize them.

You truly are mentally challenged aren't you? You're Joey Steel's father, it's now obvious to me, you both don't think in exactly the same way.

[Psychoblues]

Don't go there, zero. I'm serious.

You truly are mentally challenged aren't you? You're Joey Steel's father, it's now obvious to me, you both don't think in exactly the same way.

I knew you were low but I never thought you were scum. I was kidding on that though.

[Immanuel]

The tax code and government subsidies have been redistributing my tax dollars to the already wealthy for years, huk. I understand that it has been that same way for at least a hundred or so years. It's time for the wealthy to pay their own way and relieve the low and middle classes from having to subsidize them.

You know, if I truly believed that the poor would benefit from a tax increase I'd say give it to them. But, the fact is the money doesn't make it to the poor in any sizeable amount. It ends up in the pork barrel projects of the government with millions of dollars going to supporters of one candidate or another and that is just plain wrong.

What kind of increase will Welfare recipients see in there weekly checks? $5, $10? I'm sorry, but that is just not gonna cut it. But, what kind of projects will be funded with Barack's Presidency? A trillion dollar health care plan that socializes medicine and really benefits no one except insurance companies and politicians?

Immie

[Gaffer]

You know, if I truly believed that the poor would benefit from a tax increase I'd say give it to them. But, the fact is the money doesn't make it to the poor in any sizeable amount. It ends up in the pork barrel projects of the government with millions of dollars going to supporters of one candidate or another and that is just plain wrong.

What kind of increase will Welfare recipients see in there weekly checks? $5, $10? I'm sorry, but that is just not gonna cut it. But, what kind of projects will be funded with Barack's Presidency? A trillion dollar health care plan that socializes medicine and really benefits no one except insurance companies and politicians?

Immie

Your absolutely right. There will be no increase for the poor. I'm poor and don't pay taxes being on 100% disability. I'll be sure to keep everyone posted on the massive increases of money I receive. I'm sure in 6 months I will be rolling in dough after the messiah takes over. And since, if I invest it, I will be taxed and lose it all, I'll just squander it on frivolous things.

[Immanuel]

Your absolutely right. There will be no increase for the poor. I'm poor and don't pay taxes being on 100% disability. I'll be sure to keep everyone posted on the massive increases of money I receive. I'm sure in 6 months I will be rolling in dough after the messiah takes over. And since, if I invest it, I will be taxed and lose it all, I'll just squander it on frivolous things.

Let's put it in perspective here. With the massive increase of subsidies expected to come to the poor at $10 a week (you can't count on much more than that) if I remember correctly the cost of a carton of cigarettes (I don't smoke but my parents do) is about $35. That means that each month a Welfare recipient will be able to buy one more carton of cigarettes. In the meantime the guy that wants a million dollars to fund his planetarium will receive $3 million. That financial bailout bill that they just passed and are already talking about the second phase of it... funded. AIG gets to go on another retreat!

Thank you President Obama.

Immie

[Gaffer]

I'm a smoker. I buy two bags of tobacco a month and make my own. It's the equivalent of five cartons of cigs for $28.00. I smoke cheap and screw the government out of taxes.

[bullypulpit]

I have to give the McCain camp credit. They haven't run a very creative campaign at all, but this little pet name for Obammy might have something to it.




http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1



Listen to the language Obama uses when talking about taxes, saying that the rich must "pay their fair share" when they already pay way more taxes than everyone else. When he critizes "Bush-McCain" tax policies that "distribute wealth to the rich via tax breaks". It really shows the mentality of this idiot, "distribute wealth via tax breaks"? I guess he assumes all money made already belongs to government, and whatever they don't take is the same as the government distributing wealth to you. A very disturbing way to look at wealth in this country....

<blockquote>It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, <b>but something more than in that proportion</b>. - Adam Smith, <i>The Wealth of Nations</i></blockquote>

This from Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. You see, taxation is ALWAYS about the redistribution of wealth...to fund infrastructure projects, schools, social services, health care for children and the elderly, police and fire departments, the military, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that under the Bush administration, that redistribution has been away from those activities as well as the middle class and towards the top 5% of US citizens.

As for socialism, let's look at it's definition.

<blockquote>so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)n.
1. 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.</blockquote>

Clearly, if anyone has set America on the road to socialism, it is the Bush administration with its bailout of Wall Street by assuming an ownership stake in these troubled firms.

[theHawk]

<blockquote>It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, <b>but something more than in that proportion</b>. - Adam Smith, <i>The Wealth of Nations</i></blockquote>

This from Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. You see, taxation is ALWAYS about the redistribution of wealth...to fund infrastructure projects, schools, social services, health care for children and the elderly, police and fire departments, the military, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that under the Bush administration, that redistribution has been away from those activities as well as the middle class and towards the top 5% of US citizens.

As for socialism, let's look at it's definition.

<blockquote>so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)n.
1. 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.</blockquote>

Clearly, if anyone has set America on the road to socialism, it is the Bush administration with its bailout of Wall Street by assuming an ownership stake in these troubled firms.

The tax code already raises the tax rate for the upper class Bully. Can you please explain how any tax dollars are being spent on "the top 5%" and not on normal federal budget costs? No one is denying taxes have to be done and paid by someone to pay for those things. But to say that the middle class is currently being taxed to 'give wealth to the top 5%' is absolutely absurd and false.

[Psychoblues]

I don't understand how you are equating welfare recipients with low and middle wage earners/incomers. Perhaps that's all you can think about when you hear about top down reversal to the present bottom up propensity of the tax system to fund a growing and responsible society, economy and national infrastructure. I don't have time or the inclination to write you a book but maybe you ought to read a few of them.

You know, if I truly believed that the poor would benefit from a tax increase I'd say give it to them. But, the fact is the money doesn't make it to the poor in any sizeable amount. It ends up in the pork barrel projects of the government with millions of dollars going to supporters of one candidate or another and that is just plain wrong.

What kind of increase will Welfare recipients see in there weekly checks? $5, $10? I'm sorry, but that is just not gonna cut it. But, what kind of projects will be funded with Barack's Presidency? A trillion dollar health care plan that socializes medicine and really benefits no one except insurance companies and politicians?

Immie

Through the years trickle down economics has been proven faulty over and over again but it makes for good political banter and somehow appeases the ignorant. Why? To hell if I know, Immie.

How about a beer?!?!?!?!??!?!

[Psychoblues]

Here's a little something that many of you don't know about and obviousloy need an education about!!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COOPER: It's certainly a question the McCain campaign has kind of been hammering at, portraying Obama as a socialist. You hear that on -- on the Palin campaign as well.

Is it working?

GERGEN: They may be making some modest progress with it, Anderson. We did see some evidence of McCain coming up a point or two here and there. I don't think it's anywhere near close enough to win an election. And more importantly, I don't think the Democrats have really answered it appropriately.

You know, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was very much an advocate of what's called progressive taxation. Ad that is the rich pay more than the poor in terms of taxes.

Now, one of the most effective popular programs we've had in the last three decades. It's called the earned income tax credit. It's a program whereby, if you're a working person, a working couple and you're below the poverty line, the government will actually give you money. That's a redistributed program. It's a program which takes money from the upper classes and gives it to the lower -- to the working poor.

Now who started that program? The earned income tax credit? Ronald Reagan. It was one of the -- it was an achievement of the Reagan administration that Bill Clinton then built on.

So I think that these arguments are -- you know, some of them get so carried away that they don't recognize the realities of what we've been going through in public policy and the big arguments about why the wealth over the last 30 years has been redistributed. It's been redistributed upwards.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/27/acd.01.h...

Other Republican Presidents who supported "redistribution of wealth":

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate.”
- Theodore Roosevelt

“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

In 1986, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax “refund.”

“It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”
- Ronald Reagan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!

[Immanuel]

I don't understand how you are equating welfare recipients with low and middle wage earners/incomers. Perhaps that's all you can think about when you hear about top down reversal to the present bottom up propensity of the tax system to fund a growing and responsible society, economy and national infrastructure. I don't have time or the inclination to write you a book but maybe you ought to read a few of them.



Through the years trickle down economics has been proven faulty over and over again but it makes for good political banter and somehow appeases the ignorant. Why? To hell if I know, Immie.

How about a beer?!?!?!?!??!?!

Um, maybe you should listen to Obama. He's talking about redistributing wealth to the poorest among us. The core idea of which is pretty decent. The problem is that the poor won't see much, if any, of that wealth.

Obama is sure as hell not talking about giving the middle income bracket anything. He's talking about giving to Welfare recipients, but the problem is they won't see it. All those tax dollars will go to pork barrel spending and remuneration for services rendered to get him in the White House.

And I never said anything at all about "Trickle Down Economics". So your post doesn't make a damned bit of sense.

Obama's screwing you and everyone of those 95% of taxpayers he's promising to lower taxes for and he's ing all the way to the Oval Office because of idiots that believe him.

I'll have a beer with ya. "Bartender another round please".

Immie

[manu1959]

why does obama think he knows how better to spend your money than you do......

[bullypulpit]

The tax code already raises the tax rate for the upper class Bully. Can you please explain how any tax dollars are being spent on "the top 5%" and not on normal federal budget costs? No one is denying taxes have to be done and paid by someone to pay for those things. But to say that the middle class is currently being taxed to 'give wealth to the top 5%' is absolutely absurd and false.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in significant tax savings for the top 5% of American taxpayers, in effect, becoming a regressive tax rather than a progressive tax system.

For a thorough examination of the effects of the Bush tax cuts can be found at the <a href=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/ignore.cfm>Tax Policy Center</a> website.

I'm sure your frustration becomes intolerable every time you find out that reality has a "liberal" bias.