Redistribution of wealth, like taking $700 Billion and handing it to Wall Street?

or Palin's redistribution of wealth, taking Oil profits through taxation and redistributing it to the alaskan population-that is YOUR tax dollars redistributed to the Alaskans

Obama voted for the $700 BILLION or have you forgotten?

Obama voted for the $700 BILLION or have you forgotten?

#2 | Posted by anamerican

so it is good when repubs redistribute wealth but bad when dems do it ok gotcha!

btw I am for wealth redistribution, cause that is the natural way of thngs

With representatives like that, it's no wonder that Alaska, despite its oil boom, is still at the top of states subsidized by federal dollars, receiving $1.84 back from Washington for every $1 that Alaskans pay in federal taxes. (California receives 78 cents for every $1.)

which is the red state and which is the blue state

Wealth redistribution from the blue to the red.

Wealth redistribution from the blue to the red.

Wealth redistribution from the blue to the red.

Wealth redistribution from the blue to the red.

Wealth redistribution from the blue to the red.

"I am for wealth redistribution, cause that is the natural way of thngs"

Yea, i beat you up and redistribute your wealth to me.

But once again who will be paying the lions share of that 700 billion, huh? It sure won't be the underlings. Sorry but i just don't think it is fair too be so prejudiced and gang up on and bully a minority just because the have and extra zero after their balance. But somehow it is ok now to attack those that are already paying their fair share because we are tired of paying for ourselves, sorry i cannot go along with that twisted idea and complete lack of principals.

Michelle Obama: "We're going to have to make sacrifices, we're going to have to change our conversation, we're going to have to change our traditions, our history and we're going to have to move to a different place."

"Wealth redistribution from the blue to the red."

Sorry, but a big part of the subsidies goes to keep food prices down in the blue states. I do not believe that subsidies are needed as much any more for the food and farming industry but just everyone else they are addicted to the free money and will not give it up. IS that what you want for the entire nation?

btw I am for wealth redistribution, cause that is the natural way of thngs

#4 | Posted by truthhurts

That being about the only reason to support him. Anothe "have not" wanting to be a member of the "haves" without paying the membership dues.

Michelle Obama apparently takes a dim view of the notion that a rising tide lifts all ships:

Most Americans, she said, don't want much.

"They don't want the whole pie," she told the women. "There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."...

"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Michelle Obama: "We're going to have to make sacrifices, we're going to have to change our conversation, we're going to have to change our traditions, our history and we're going to have to move to a different place."
#7 | Posted by anamerican at 2008-10-07 10:36 AM

Ohmygawd!
Is she nuts or what?
Sacrifices? Hell, no, buy more.
Change our conversation? Whuzzamattah with the ever-repeating loop?
Change our traditions? Boolshit, bear-baiting's fine.
Our history? Huh? You mean it's not immutable, set in concrete?
Move to a different place? I ain't moving to no Injun rezurvashun.
~Rightbot

PS: I like quotes like this that can only be found on rightbot-socialism's-gonna-
eat-us-all sites. Keep 'em comin'!

Michelle Obama:

"Barack stood up that day," talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, "and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about "The world as it is" and "The world as it should be..."

And, "All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be."

Here's an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals:
"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive but real allies of the HavesThe most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be."

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

#10 | Posted by anamerican

I agree those greedy bastard CEO's who we see on tv should share some of their ill gotten gains.

Obama voted for the $700 BILLION or have you forgotten?

#2 | Posted by anamerican

Did the maverick vote all mavericky against it?

I forget.

Alaska, despite its oil boom, is still at the top of states subsidized by federal dollars, receiving $1.84 back from Washington for every $1 that Alaskans pay in federal taxes.

Don't mention little things like that.

Also don't mention the profits tax the mukluk messiah put on the oil cos to distribute to the residents of Alaska. Higher energy prices to pay off Alaska residents. Nothing to see there, move along.

"I agree those greedy bastard CEO's who we see on tv should share some of their ill gotten gains."

And the guy living in the cardboard box probably feels the same way about you.

" Nothing to see there, move along.

So you agree that it's not what we should be doing. So you won't be voting for obama then, right? Or does your opinion just apply to states and people you don't care about?

the point is the wealthy have the money, therefore, that is who you get the money from.

second the wealthy have been getting wealthier while the rest of us get poorer and poorer.

thirdly, we have a public debt to pay, so who is going to pay for it? people with money, see point 1

fourthly, wealth does not exist in a vaccuum, the wealthy get wealthy because they have capacities the poor and the middle class do not, namely money.

fifthly, wealthy wouldnt be wealthy without the working people to make them wealthy

sixthly, the wealthy become wealthy by exporting costs to the public, examples of this are everything from corporate bailouts, to public paying to secure the resources they export (iraq war, guarding oil shipments, policing of private lands), dumping of production wastes on the public (pollution), worker safety

progressive taxes are the only FAIR taxes

wealth redistribution is the natural way of things, that is commerce, there is no such thing as a free market, when the market is poorly regulated, the wealthy privitize the profits and socialize the costs/losses

That being about the only reason to support him. Anothe "have not" wanting to be a member of the "haves" without paying the membership dues.

#9 | Posted by wisgod

the haves have what they have by exploiting those who have not.

"the haves have what they have by exploiting those who have not."

Although they do occasionally remind the have-nots how lucky that the haves are around. Noblesse oblige

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolutoin inevitable."

"Practice opening up your wallets to government, folks!!!"

At least this time it'll be the American government.

Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.

Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.

The ancient Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder once said, "In wine there is truth." It means that people tell you what they really think once they have a couple of drinks.

I don't think Mr. Biden was drinking on the campaign trail last week, but it was a rare moment of complete candor when he told ABC News that people who are well-off have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. That perfectly states the liberal Democratic philosophy that those who do the right things in their personal life to make more money have an obligation not only to pay more taxes (which they do even under a flat tax because 17 percent of higher-income is more than 17 percent of lower-income), but that they should pay an ever-higher additional percentage on top of that. Liberal Democrats consider it patriotic to pay more taxes, and have a consistent record of voting to help nurture our patriotism for us.

the haves have what they have by exploiting those who have not.

#19 | Posted by truthhurts

Then we have differing definitions of "haves". I just wonder what Obama's definition is? I don't think we'll know until he's elected.

"Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration."

More tax breaks for the richest in the sty!
Some piggies are more equal than others!
More tax breaks for the richest in the sty!
Oink, snort, oink, snort, oink, snort!
~GOPiggy Mantra

"meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld."

WRONG. 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any FEDERAL INCOME taxes withheld.

"That is pure income redistribution. "

Where were these folks when the richest got a 60% rate cut on their dividends? And what would they call borrowing billions and billions to eliminate a tax which only effects multi-millionaires and billionaires?

"those who pay no federal income taxes..."

...still pay sales taxes, gas taxes, utility taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and payroll taxes...to name a few. Once ALL taxes are included, all 5 quintiles pay about 17%-21% of their total income in taxes. The American who pays the highest percentage of their income in taxes isn't the millionaire, or the billionaire, but the wage-earner making $102,000 a year.

Consider this comment by one poster about taxation of large corporations:

Say one is starting up and expects earn a billion dollars profit their first year. But they have to decide where to build their business. One country has zero taxes so they keep the whole billion dollars and divide it up amongst share holder (owners). A second country has a rate of 35%, so the coumpany would have to pay 350 million dollars taxes, greatly reducing their proft. Where do you think the company will go?

If our business taxes were lowered to competitive levels with other counteirs, not only would our companies STAY here, tons of businesses from around the world would move here for our hungry markets.

Finally, over-regulation stifles business start-up and growth. SMART regulation is what's needed to protect the people while not being prohibitive. Both Bush and McCain have lead on this for years. Republicans and democrats blocked them each time. Some dems tried to help as well. But Obama WAS NOT among those looking out to protect the people.

"Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration"

When Bush took office, dividends were considered regular income, and taxed at regular rates, as high as 38.5% for those making $350,00 or more. Today, that rate is 15%, a cut of over 60%, or a savings of $235,000 for every million dollars of income. That's not a tax holiday, that's a round-the-world-8-year- vacation.

"Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush."

And anyone who took a grade-school math class will conclude, with much lower rates, to still pay more in income taxes means you're not just making more, you're making much, MUCH more.

"progressive taxes are the only FAIR taxes"

Then i should just stop working..... NOW

Sorry, no i'm not one to bully someone else into paying my fair share. I don't like the idea of taking away rewards for being successful, i don't like the idea of rewards not based on merit but instead bully tactics.
Ask yourself this, has any socialist country succeeded? Would you live in any of them? But you have no problem with pointing our country straight down that road. It is very apparent what happens when you give most people a free ride, we see it every day with the misuse of welfare, why would you even think about taking a step closer to that as a national ideal? Sorry but you talk about nature, capitalism is nature, survival of the fittest, we would like to think we have evolved beyond that but the truth is without reward or punishment we do nothing. As we slide closer to a tax code that will prohibit the growing of wealth w take away these rewards, you punish entrepreneurs and anyone else trying to make something more then just average. With your ideals being set to a mediocre goal our society stops growing and we settle into a hum-drum circle, never getting anywhere.
What happens when the rich can no longer support the masses? Then who is the target? I have seen it here in WA. The money has to come from somewhere, i know lets take it from those who have a little more than i do. I cannot afford to buy a house anymore, why, it's not the payments it the taxes. Now the land taxes are almost what i pay for rent, and still every year more and more get tacked on. The masses don't care, they don't think it affects them so they are happy to vote on new levies or increased land taxes at others expense. I personally know many who have had to sell their home due to increasing taxes, my grandmother had to sell some of her property because she had to pay these extravagant amounts.
Sure, overtaxing the rich sounds like it hurts no one, right? That is until it is you who are hit with the taxes, and when you are already struggling to make it having the people mandate that the government steal from you is about the worst thing that can happen.
I don't think i need to go into the small business argument either, i think everyone knows how important those are and how we can't afford to loose them due to the jealousy of others.

...still pay sales taxes, gas taxes, utility taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and payroll taxes...to name a few. Once ALL taxes are included, all 5 quintiles pay about 17%-21% of their total income in taxes.

Yes, Dan they do. But we are talking about federal income tax.

Then we have differing definitions of "haves". I just wonder what Obama's definition is? I don't think we'll know until he's elected.

#24 | Posted by wisgod at 2008-10-07 11:32 AM | Reply |

Those who make $200,000 or more a year. Pay attention. You vote? Then read about the candidates dUmmY.

If all Obama supporters would quickly sign up to give 70% of their income (be it earned or otherwise) to the federal government, we would see that their support of his ideas for redistribution is sincere.

Have at it!!

"Those who make $200,000 or more a year. Pay attention. You vote? Then read about the candidates dUmmY."

Absolutely...and HERE'S a good place to start!

"Yes, Dan they do. But we are talking about federal income tax. "

No, your author used the phrase "any taxes withheld." Payroll taxes are withheld.

And speaking of payroll taxes, those aren't just regressive, they're super-regressive. That's why Warren Buffett pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than does his secretary. So OF COURSE you only want to talk about income taxes. You lose the argument every other way.

Those who make $200,000 or more a year. Pay attention. You vote? Then read about the candidates dUmmY.

#31 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I say he's bullshitting the American public. But you keep believing the shepard, sheep.

"I say he's bullshitting the American public. "

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than does his secretary

He also pays more income tax in one year than she will earn in her lifetime. So what! It's the same old tired argument. If WB pays 10% of $10,000,000 and she pays 15% of $50,000, who pays more taxes? If she can't live on her wage, she needs to find a new job or get retrained/reeducated to get a better one.

I say he's bullshitting the American public. But you keep believing the shepard, sheep.

#35 | Posted by wisgod at 2008-10-07 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag

Yeah---and you believed Bush. Like YOUR judgement is sound. Can you say BAAAAAaaa----I knew you could----you've had lots and lots of practice the last 8 years.

If WB pays 10% of $10,000,000 and she pays 15% of $50,000, who pays more taxes? If she can't live on her wage, she needs to find a new job or get retrained/reeducated to get a better one.

#37 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-10-07 11:59 AM | Reply

Nobody EARNS 10 million in a year. Nobody works hard enough to EARN that kind of money. Oprah doesn't EARN 50 million a year---she GETS 50 million a year. Big difference.

Socialism?

Wealth redistribution?

Boogety Boogety BOO!

This shit is just so funny.

Coupla things here.

First Spud luffs it when Rtards come out with this scare tactic that if a lefty gets elected they are suddenly gonna change the tax code to become a wealth redistribution system.

Clue to Rtards from Spud:

It already is.

Has been fer longer than any of you have been alive.

That aint the real question.

The only real question is "Who's benefitting?"

The only real answer is "the wrong people"

Why are the right so invested in inequality?

They don't want equal rights for gays. Many of them were not cool with the idea of civil rights for blacks. They don't want women to have a say in life and death decisions involving their own bodies and they seem bound and determined to support wealth inequities until we have returned to a feudal time where the only classes are the hyper rich and the dirt poor.

Why so much stoopid?
Why so much FAIL?

Propaganda can only account fer so much of this stuff.

As to any notions that there is any hard left left in the Dem party all Spud can say is that people who make those assertions have completely and utterly FAILed to pay attention in class.

There is a creeping fascism on the right that has pulled that party so far to the extreme right that the left now looks further away than ever. Maybe that's part of it too.

The Rtarded chimp are flinging the poo fast and furious as we come down to the wire here. Desperately hoping that some of it sticks. The "Obama is a muslim, socialist, comunist, American hatin', too inexperienced, too black, not black enuff, crackhead" memes can only be bought into by so many people before you encounter a massive wall of sane folks.

These "true believers" of the rightwing smear e-mail campaigns are the folk Lincoln sed were the "some of the people" you can "fool all of the time"

There aint enuff of you to win this election.

Not this time.

America is waking up

Growing up.

'Bout bloody time.

G08ama.

Be Well.

BuffaloBob

If you get a chance, don't miss my #64 post on the "Dickinson: The Make-Believe Maverick" thread.

You will like it.

If WB pays 10% of $10,000,000 and she pays 15% of $50,000, who pays more taxes? If she can't live on her wage, she needs to find a new job or get retrained/reeducated to get a better one.

#37 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-10-07 11:59 AM | Reply

How much does WB have after taxes---9,000,000? The other person has 42,500. WB got his money from his rich uncle. The other person works in a coal mine---who works harder for their money? Who enjoys more of what life has to offer? Who should pay more percentagewise in taxes. I know your answer. The country has been living under that assumption for the last 8 years---time for change.

Like YOUR judgement is sound.
Posted by Buffalo_Bob

That's rich coming from the antenea on the moon nutjob.

"pulled that party so far to the extreme right that the left now looks further away than ever. "

Thats your excuse?
The left has been teetering on the edge for a while now and when they finally fall they attribute the separation between the party to the right?
On what basis do you come to your conclusion?
Definitely not on social issues, most of those would have been seen as radical 40-50 years ago.
Same deal with military control.
Economics, maybe but there still is a vast chasm between the left of years ago and now.

So what do you base you twisted thought process on?
are you no longer talking about the left as it pertains to America but instead moving to the European ideals? I could see you there, America has shied away from the socialism for most of it's existence but Europe is a different story.

"Redistribution of wealth - that is the real change Obama believes in."

That is what both parties believe in. The bailout, the Iraq War, the billions we give to Israel, etc, etc etc.

At least when you give money to the poor they immediately spend it and it goes back into the American economy.

"America is waking up

Growing up."

Whaaaaa, mommy, tommy has more then me, whaaaaaa take some from his and give it to me, whaaaaaaa.

Yea, real grown up spud.

"Whaaaaa, mommy, tommy has more then me, whaaaaaa take some from his and give it to me, whaaaaaaa."

Where have you been the last 8 years? That's all big business has been saying, that's all the wealthiest have been saying, and now, that's all Wall Street is saying.

When people get 27 million for 17 days work--wealth needs to be redistributed. When CEOs get Golden Parachutes worth half a billion dollars--wealth needs to be redistributed.

Those who won't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Check the redistribution of wealth after the French revolution. Check out the redistribution of wealth after the Russian revolution. They said the same thing Salamandagator says---let them get better jobs---let them eat cake--same thing. The poor of today have the same shot at getting that million dollar a week job as the poor in France had of eating cake.

Redistribution of wealth WILL HAPPEN. It just depends on whether it is through fair taxation---or fair firing squads--since we've mostly done away with the guillotine.

On what basis do you come to your conclusion?

Under Dumbya the US has legalised torture, invaded a nation which never threatened the US that never stood a chance against yer military might, spied unprecedentedly on it's own citizenry, politicised the DOJ to the point of ordering USAs to prosecute Dem candidates in order to win elections, denied habeous corpus, enacted tax changes that have screwed the majority over while benefitting the haves and the have-mores.

As more and more people fall behind, as the economic tsunami that's been building fer years starts to hit land you have the balls to try and suggest that a furtherance of such policies is actually the wisest course to take?

Yer worse than a fool.

Yer an apologist fer untrammeled greed and unAmerican fascist policies.

Do grow up.

Be Well.

That's rich coming from the antenea on the moon nutjob.

#43 | Posted by wisgod at 2008-10-07 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag

I bet you think you have a point in there someplace don't you, dumMY. You are mistaken--again. No point---just more ignorance from you.

Back in line sheep.

"Where have you been the last 8 years? That's all big business has been saying, that's all the wealthiest have been saying, and now, that's all Wall Street is saying."

What the hell are you talking about?
Whining that they are paying for everyone else is not he same thing. Of course they are greedy, so what, let them be, are you willing to mandate ethics, morals? I do not believe in the vast subsidies that exist, i think they are only needed because of over taxation, but i can also not blame the business for trying to keep up their margins when a lot of the burden of our society rests on them.

"What the hell are you talking about?"

The massive tax cuts for the wealthiest leading to the largest deficits known to man, more massive tax cuts for the most profitable company of all time, and now a massive $1 Trillion+ bailout of Wall Street.

What the hell are you talking about?

"Do grow up."

Yup, once again it's me spouting off the convoluted BS talking points, oh wait, no it's you. When you decide to start thinking like an individual not some robot for the socialist party then you can pretend to have something intelligent say. Until then go back to living in you parasite country, with your economy that cannot survive without ours because of the very policies that you are defending.

What the hell are you talking about?

He was talking about the policies of the last 8 years---pay attention. Geez.

Whining that they are paying for everyone else is not he same thing.

They weren't paying for everyone else--they were paying their fair share for living in mansions having the best of everything. If they were paying too much---they wouldn't be able to live in mansions. I guess that logic eludes you.

and Of course they are greedy, so what, let them be, are you willing to mandate ethics, morals?

Yes---that is what regulations do.

I do not believe in the vast subsidies that exist,

Like the military and the Federal Government?

i think they are only needed because of over taxation,

Yes---let's cut all taxes and become a nice third world country. Taxes are what makes America Great---no taxes makes America Jamaica.

but i can also not blame the business for trying to keep up their margins when a lot of the burden of our society rests on them.

The burden of society rests with society. The fat cats you support could easily be replaced by a fifth grader---any one of them---from Bill Gates on down.

#51 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 12:51 PM | Reply

Under Dumbya the US has legalised torture
Link?

invaded a nation which never threatened the US that never stood a chance against yer military might,

While Canada supported - along with many other nations and the support of the dems in congress based on intelligence from the U.S. and other countries - old and tired potatoe -

spied unprecedentedly on it's own citizenry,

Nope-just on the people making and receiving calls from terrorist countries.

politicised the DOJ to the point of ordering USAs to prosecute Dem candidates in order to win elections
Link?

, denied habeous corpus
To prisoners of war? Right.
, enacted tax changes that have screwed the majority over while benefitting the haves and the have-mores.

The top 5% of wage earners pay 95% of total income tax - yeah pretty unfair - unless you are a communist.

Bush has made many errors resulting in Hussein winning the nomination. He has not done anything worse than most presidents - you just have the internet to look it up now. Bad president - yes. Guilty of the old tired talking points from the left - no.

"Until then go back to living in you parasite country, with your economy that cannot survive without ours because of the very policies that you are defending."

Serious revisionist history.

Bill Clinton took deficits from his predecessor and delivered true budget surplusses to the doorstep of his successor. GWB took those deficits, and left us with the largest deficits known to man, finally presiding over the first trillion-dollar deficit. The economy was surviving fine under Clinton, with the Dow more than tripling, increasing 225%. Under Bush, we're less than zero, and our survival is now in question. Bush had a once-in-a-century opportunity to do some real economic good; instead, he and his cronies treated the US Treasury as if they were casino goons sent in to skim everything they could.

Poor bob, talk about hook line and sinker.

"He was talking about the policies of the last 8 years---pay attention. Geez."

Do you mean the slowing economy brought on by less then careful taxation of clinton.

"If they were paying too much---they wouldn't be able to live in mansions."

Don't you mean
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

After all why get reward for your toil.

"Yes---that is what regulations do."

No, those apply to legalities, not morals.

"Like the military and the Federal Government?"
What?

"let's cut all taxes and become a nice third world country."

So why not just give your bank account number to uncle sam, he will buy your groceries.

"The burden of society rests with society. The fat cats you support could easily be replaced by a fifth grader"

So apply for a job making a mill plus. They will laugh you out of the office. Sorry the financial burden of us all rests mainly with those making a lot more then you.

Your bad politics betrays your vengeful jealousy.

"Do you mean the slowing economy brought on by less then careful taxation of clinton"

Can people actually be this stupid?

"The economy was surviving fine under Clinton"

He was handed a good economy, he took advantage of the growth of prior economic policies and raised taxes. Great for short term, virtually stopped growth. Hence part of the reason why we are at where we are now. You can pretend that economic policies have an instantaneously but you fool only yourself. No, instead you could look at the numbers when Clinton left office when the economy was already trending down or you could pass the blame to the next guy, i guess thats easier. But answer me this, i bought a car am i responsible for building it? Is the reliability going to be compromised right away by starting and stopping a little fast? No it take a catastrophic event. Clinton bought a good car beat the hell out of it then gave it to bush and you think it's his fault the transmission went. Nice.

Can people actually be this stupid?

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-10-07 01:17 PM | Reply

Unfortunately---yes. That's how any republican ever get elected.

I would venture to say that not one member of Salamandagators family makes over 200,000 a year---yet he thinks a CEO of a failing company--a company that is taking the savings of thousands down the tubes with it---should get a golden parachute of millions of dollars because he "earned it". Stupid---yes---unfortunately he votes his stupidity.

He was handed a good economy,

#59 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 01:28 PM | Reply

Nice revisionist history. In 1992, the election Battle Cry was IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID. Reagan/Bush gave us an unprecedented National Debt.

The rest of your post is just as full of bullshit and lies as your first 6 words.

What a DUmmY.

"Reagan/Bush gave us an unprecedented National Debt.

Seriously you think clinton turned the economy around that quick?
And i thought the obama supporters had a messiah complex.
Bob, do me a favor, find me a non wartime president that has ever had that kind of instant effect on the economy. If you cannot then it would be safe to assume that the changes made take years to come to fruition and if that is the case then clintons only effect was to slow the economy before he handed it to bush.

National debt was not a problem, while it consumed a lot of revenue it was a necessary investment in the future. I am truly sorry for you if you think you can get blood from a turnip, it was these investment that enable many new industry's to have explosive growth. Where would clintons economy have been without the tech boom? Did that just come from thin air? Or did clinton stimulate it by sapping all of the money from the economy?
Sorry bud, just cause you want something to be true does not make it so.

"Where would clintons economy have been without the tech boom?"

Good question.

If you pin the DJIA post 9/11 lows on Clinton (not really fair, but...), he still more than doubles the Dow, increasing it by 150%.

That same DJIA which, under Bush, is BELOW the level Clinton left it.

Seriously you think clinton turned the economy around that quick?

Who said it was QUICK dUmmy? It took about six years.

National debt was not a problem

What a maroon. No wonder you vote republican. You believe any stupid shit they say.National debt was not a problem

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#62 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 01:43 PM | Reply

National debt--no problem.

" while it consumed a lot of revenue it was a necessary investment in the future."

Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires? The largest deficit known to man since the dawn of time? Iraq bleeding the treasury by the billions? The first trillion dollar deficit? And the increase of the interest burden by 50%?

Where is the infrastructure, or the new electrical grid, or the shoring up of Social Security and Medicare, or, or, or.....

Which of those cash bonfires was " a necessary investment in the future"?!?

They weren't paying for everyone else--they were paying their fair share for living in mansions having the best of everything. If they were paying too much---they wouldn't be able to live in mansions. I guess that logic eludes you.

Wow, let's just declare that no one deserves to live in anything except the very minimal housing, so everyone can be treated fairly. sarc/

"Sorry bud, just cause you want something to be true does not make it so."

Look in the mirror, Salam.

"they were paying their fair share for living in mansions having the best of everything"

No, they weren't.

They were getting huge tax breaks while we were running massive deficit budgets, borrowing billions and billions to give 60% rate cuts to everyone making $350,000 or more.

Ask yourself this: if they pay less, who has to pick up the slack?

The transfer of wealth can occur in various ways. Some methods for transferring wealth are voluntary transfers from those who have it to those who do not. Other methods involve forcibly removing the wealth from those who have it and redistributing it to those who do not.

Several political systems are designed to redistribute wealth including Communism, Socialism, and Welfare Capitalism.

Voluntary transfer of wealth
Charity is a common method of shifting wealth from those who have it to those who do not.

[edit] Forced transfer of wealth
Some methods for this are: welfare, slavery, taxation, inflation, devaluation, government policies, or theft

Arguments against Redistribution
In the view of opponents to redistribution, the above arguments often overlook the standard of living, which historically rises dramatically with lesser redistribution[citation needed], while at the same time increasing unequal results. This is due to wealth creation which benefits all areas of society, albeit in a more unequal proportion.[citation needed]

Public choice theory states that redistribution tends to benefit those with political clout to set spending priorities more than those in need, who lack real influence on government.[3] Opponents of this theory argue that it punishes good economic activity whilst rewarding poor economic activity, resulting in an inefficient economy, and that it infringes on one's right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor and property rights. Milton Friedman famously argued that the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" turns ability into a liability and need into an asset.[citation needed] Critics also argue that such measures will result in a brain drain and lead to a state where the middle class have to support a large population of unemployed and working poor with an ever-increasing percentage of their income. They also believe that income redistribution creates a dependency culture and a society that is not meritocratic.

There are numerous examples[citation needed] of wealthy individuals and companies leaving a country (and moving their wealth) to others with a less punishing tax system.[citation needed] Thus an argument against redistribution is that the wealthy are far more likely to create wealth, jobs and employment and therefore taxation policy should entice them to remain.[citation needed]

One could also argue that the wealthy do not generally receive more or better governmental services that all share equally. For example the rich do not get preferential treatment at the public library or on the national highways. NASA does not specifically benefit the rich more than the poor, and thus should not be excessively taxed for general benefits to the population as a whole.

Individualist and libertarian ethical arguments consider "redistribution" a euphemism for theft, maintain that it infringes on one's right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor, that concepts such as "fair" and "deserve" are arbitrary excuses for plunder, and that stealing is still stealing regardless of what any group of non-owners may succeed in obtaining via government intermediary, and that consequently redistribution of legitimately obtained property cannot ever be just.[4]

In a recent survey of 1000 economists by the Economist, over 73% did not think income redistribution merited discussion.

"The trend had turned down long before 9/11."

And George Bush jawboned from mid-November thru March that we were in "a recession". Not based on any facts, mind you...just to get his tax cuts for the wealthiest passed. But if the trend was truly downward, we would have had a recession before this. By definition, we haven't.

"Because seven yeas into his presidency the numbers start leveling off then falling."

If you take the Dow wire-to-wire, it was up 225% under Clinton. What does it matter if, at one point, it was up 245%? Hell, under Bush, a 2.25% return would be an improvement!

"the point is the wealthy have the money, therefore, that is who you get the money from.

second the wealthy have been getting wealthier while the rest of us get poorer and poorer."

Okay, all of you here who are getting poorer and poorer join the queue for your handouts (be sure to have the good manners to say thank you to those whose money you are willing to take).

Oops, sorry, I asked for good manners from liberals - LOL You can Google manners and at least learn what they are.

The fact of the matter is the the economy is made of of so many elements it is hard to pin it on one.
Yes, the war hurts.
Yes, clintons taxes hurt.
Yes, bushes unwillingness to cut spending hurts.
Yes, a congress who's mantra is spend spend spend hurts.

But forcing someone else to take care of us just because we outnumber them can only be bad for the country as a whole.

"and Welfare Capitalism."

Which is typified by tax breaks for Exxon/Mobil, or 60% rate cuts to the wealthiest during a time of war and the largest deficits on record.

"f you take the Dow wire-to-wire, it was up 225% under Clinton. What does it matter if, at one point, it was up 245%? Hell, under Bush, a 2.25% return would be an improvement!"

Due in big part to the growing economy that was set in motion by Reagan. You cannot deny the effects on the market of growing business and you cannot deny the negative effects of over taxing business.

Danforth,

I don't disagree with you necessarily on tax policies regarding oil companies and the wealthiest Americans but you rail on and on and on about rate cuts to these folks as though it is the largest driver of our deficits.

Do you believe that these tax cuts are more significant to the deficits than our ridiculous spending?

Because seven yeas into his presidency the numbers start leveling off then falling. Are you going to blame bush for that too? You know, back before he had a say?

What planet are you from? You reinforce my belief in aliens. You couldn't have spent much time on this planet. Certainly not in the 90's.

After 7 years in office, the economy was humming and Wall Street was a happy place. At the end of Clintons term there was a balanced budget, and a government surplus. Maybe you are thinking of the planet you came from---was it full of dUmmies too? Maybe you were the smartest one.

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag

Let me add to my point Danforth, if you could go back and not have these rate cuts, do you believe that we wouldn't be in the same position we are in right now?

"Due in big part to the growing economy that was set in motion by Reagan."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Due in big part to the growing economy that was set in motion by Reagan.

LOL. LINK? Reagan was deep in the arms of Alzheimers his second term. He did nothing for the economy except borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend

You cannot deny the effects on the market of growing business

Whatever that means--when it makes sense to you--let me know.

and you cannot deny the negative effects of over taxing business.

Businesses have not been over taxed in the history of the US. Business relies on customers. No customers--no business. No middle class--no customers.

#78 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 02:08 PM | Reply

Hey mr bob, did you look at the market graph?
Wall street was stagnet for the lat two years of his presidency. That aluminum is seeping into your brain again bob, i would suggest that if you are that set on wearing it, wrap your head in saran wrap first, stop some of the leaching.

Other then that, i have a chart to back up my conclusions you have what? Your rusty memory? Time to get that brain back into shape bob. Look at some facts, forget what you fooled yourself into believing and try watching something other then the x-files for once.

Look at it this way, if you had $1,000 in 1992 when Clinton Took office and invested it in a DOW Index Fund, you would have had $3,450 when he left office.

If you had $1,000 when Bush came into office and invested it you would have around $900 today.

The rich don't need the money---they are rich. Any tax cuts they get are put in the bank to collect interest.

If the same tax cuts had been given to those making less than 200,000---those people would have SPENT the money and the economy would be MUCH stronger---and McCain would likely be the next President.

If you dont tax people where is the money going to come from to lower the defict, create a surplus and pay down the existing debt?

"Do you believe that these tax cuts are more significant to the deficits than our ridiculous spending?"

The spending is ludicrous and out of control, but the tax cuts about equal the record deficits. You do the math.

"if you could go back and not have these rate cuts, do you believe that we wouldn't be in the same position we are in right now?"

When Bush took office, 11% of our annual budget went to servicing the debt. That has risen by 50%, to one dollar of every SIX, and guess which way Bush has guaranteed it'll go? These idiot moves choke off everything else a society wants to do, and with the twin tsunamis of Medicare and Social Security visibly coming at us for a half-century, skimming money when we should have been shoring up liabilities was, and is, the height of irresponsibility.

See, when it comes to Economics...I'm a conservative.

"Wall street was stagnet for the lat two years of his presidency."

Yet at the wire, a 225% increase, versus a George Bush LOSS.

"Whatever that means--when it makes sense to you--let me know"

see, bob here is how it works.
Without business there is no wall street.
Without buisness there are no jobs.
Without business there is no middle class.
Grow business, add jobs, push the economy forward.
Stop business by taking to much money, take jobs, take money for the workers, drop the middle class to the bottom, see?
Many businesses provide products that the people can't live without, they can't stop buying no matter the cost. When you increase the tax burden to the companies providing the necessary services the will pass it on to you to save their margins.
Do you understand now?
The same greed that you think they should be punished for will not stop but end up in your expenses.

Salamandagator

That looked stagnant to you? Do you think the market should always be going up and up and up?

Let's try again.

IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID

Economy good under Clinton.

Economy bad under Bush.

Get it? No---you'll never get it. Vote McCain and live under Hussein Obama for the next 8 years.

Enjoy.

;-)

"Stop business by taking to much money, take jobs, take money for the workers, drop the middle class to the bottom, see?"

Except history disagrees with you. Those awful, awful Clinton "take money" tax codes did a lot better for the country and its citizens than those benign "give money (to the wealthiest)" Bush tax codes.

Salamandagator

No customers--no business.

You see---the country tried it your way for the last 7 years---it didn't work so well.

Get it? No---you'll never get it. Vote McCain and live under Hussein Obama for the next 8 years.

Enjoy.

;-)

The spending is ludicrous and out of control, but the tax cuts about equal the record deficits. You do the math.

If we had imposed tax increases in the areas you have mentioned then I can agree that we would have increased revenue. My argument is that the same congress who just passed these bailouts would have simply spent any additional revenue we would have given them throughout the last 7 years. In fact, I believe they would have spent more than collected regardless of how much revenue was given them.

I don't care how much we would have given them, it would be gone, out the window, regardless and we would be in the same situation we are in anyway.

"When you increase the tax burden to the companies providing the necessary services the will pass it on to you to save their margins. "

You could not be more wrong. Time to read up on The Theory of Elasticity.

"it would be gone, out the window, regardless"

But for what...

More war?
More tax cuts for the wealthiest?

or something of actual value, like a new electrical grid, or shoring up SS & Medicare?

"The rich don't need the money---they are rich. Any tax cuts they get are put in the bank to collect interest."

See bob, to avoid looking stupid you should probably stop now.
That money that goes into the bank?
It provide you the possibility of getting a mortgage, buying a car or any other sort of loan. Guess what you get interest too, it's just you mccdonalds paycheck doesn't net you a whole lot. Bob, your hatred for those that have more then you is only a testament to your own frail intellect. What happens when you tax everyone to the same class? Who will you go after then? Those who make over 100,000 50,00 25,00? Your jealousy only holds you back, let it go, be happy for those that have more initiative then you. Remember you were given a fair shake too.

don't care how much we would have given them, it would be gone, out the window, regardless and we would be in the same situation we are in anyway.

#94 | Posted by eberly at 2008-10-07 02:27 PM | Reply

So vote McCain and quit boring people with your distorted view of reality. Trying to spread your ignorance is failing. You are just showing people your ignorance. You should try to keep it a secret as long as you can---not advertise it every chance you get.

Danforth,

You are advocating that if we have given them more then it would have been spent responsibly.

I can't accept that. those things you are mentioning could have been addressed for years and years with the revenue we have given them. We have had the chance to deal with SS, Medicare, energy etc.... for decades while we have piled up this debt. How can you suggest that we would have done any of that stuff?

You should try to keep it a secret as long as you can---not advertise it every chance you get.

Yeah, I'll start a thread on how GWB Sr is a pedophile, smokestacks on the moon, 9-11 conspiracy theories.

Go bite someone else's ankles for a change idiot.

So vote McCain and quit boring people with your distorted view of reality.

bob is lecturing about "reality".

Anybody want to jump in here and help bob out?

What happens when you tax everyone to the same class?

#97 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 02:30 PM | Reply |

WTF are you talking about now? Building another straw man? Have you ever read anything---ever? I'm including comic books and the backs of ceral boxes---have you read ANYTHING????? EVER????? Other than the bullshit put out by America hating right wingers that is.

bob is lecturing about "reality".

Anybody want to jump in here and help bob out?

#101 | Posted by eberly at 2008-10-07 02:34 PM | Reply

Jump in yourself badass. You got something to say---spit it out.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

If you dont tax people where is the money going to come from to lower the defict, create a surplus and pay down the existing debt?

We have tried supply side for nearly 30 years and the deficit has exploded.

The choice is tax those with the money to pay down the debt or cut federal spending.

The problem is the same either way, removing money from the economy.

You cut spending you take money out of the economy

Without business there is no wall street.
Without buisness there are no jobs.
Without business there is no middle class.

there is no helping you bob. that is why nobody here can stand you. neither on the left nor the right.

I'm sure you will argue that you don't come here to make friends. I don't care.

there is no helping you bob. you are a lost soul.

this exchange is a great example....

you are arguing with me over what?????

we need to reduce the deficit, it costs everyone more through higher rates for lending or inflation.

There is NOTHING free in life. the public expenditures are NOT free. Borrowing the money COSTS you money.

you have less money to spend when the federal deficit is ballooning.

"No customers--no business."

No business--no customers

"That looked stagnant to you? Do you think the market should always be going up and up and up?"

So what, now it's okay the market is falling?
It's the natural order of things?
It's not bushes fault?

Get your thoughts together man.

"Economy good under Clinton.

Economy bad under Bush."

My god, do you still not realize that the effects are not instant?

I give up bob
It's like talking to a wall

"What happens when you tax everyone to the same class?

#97 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 02:30 PM | Reply |

WTF are you talking about now?"

End result.
Destroy classes.
Everyone equal finances.
Bad idea.

Sal,

I understand what you are saying but I don't believe that clinton's tax policies have caused businesses in this country to suffer. Other things have and both clinton and bush (along with their respective congresses) have contributed to this problem.

My god, do you still not realize that the effects are not instant?

#107 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 02:40 PM | Reply

I guess the effects are only instant in the case of democrats--like Carter--where the republicans blamed him for the inflation of 12 years in Viet Nam---is that your point bunky? I guess the effects are only instant when Reagan takes credit for the plans initiated by Carter to get America back on track.

I wasn't talking about INSTANT anything.

I was talking about 8 years under Clinton.

I was talking about 8 years under Bush.

Economy good under Clinton.

Economy bad under Bush.

Nothing instant about anything there dUMmy.

What happens when you tax everyone to the same class?

#97 | Posted by salamandagator at 2008-10-07 02:30 PM | Reply |

WTF are you talking about now?"

End result.
Dest