Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Spred YOUR Wealth
Published on October 31, 2008 By Dr Guy In Democrat

By now, every one who has not been living on a disappearing iceberg, knows about Obama and his run in with Joe the Plumber.  An average guy in almost every respect save one - he actually confronted Obama.  With why Obama was trying to deny him the American Dream.  Obama's response has become a rallying cry for republicans:

 

"I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

He wants everybody behind you to have a chance at success too (just not you).  Perhaps less well known is an additional comment he made to Joe that same day:

…"when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

Spread the wealth around.  A noble concept worthy of Marx or Engels.  ANd one many are yelling about all over the world (because the messiah said it).  But is it true?  Does Obama really beleive that is a good idea?

Depends upon how you look at it.  If you are talking about his money, now way Jose!  Obama has gotten rich by doing what?  Being a community organizer (Yea, like Jesus got rich, right? HaHa).  But it is his money to do with as he wants to.  Like sharing.  Yea, he wants to share our money, so he must be sharing his money, right?

LIke George.  HIs brother in Kenya - he shared his money, right?  No, George does not want any of that money - or so he was told to say.  How about that dear aunt he wrote about in his memoirs?  Must have shared with her, right?

Want to buy a bridge in brooklyn?

Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Obama's best-selling memoir "Dreams fFrom My Father," lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

Seems Obama does not care for that Aunt so much after all!

But what about his Uncle?  Must have taken care of him right?  Sure!  Want some lake front property in Florida?

A second relative believed to be the long-lost "Uncle Omar" described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a "sawed-off rifle" while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom apartment for failing to pay $2,324.20 in bills, according to the Boston Housing Court.

Two thousand dollars.  Obama could not spare a couple of thousand out of his millions.

So what "wealth" does Obama want to share? Not his surely.  With a few hundred dollars in charitable donations over the past several years, even as he managed to acquire millions (from Rezko perhaps?), Obama does not like to spread his wealth.

Like most liberals, we see that their charity is taking money from YOUR pocket and giving to others.  While they keep their OWN money.  After all, Charity does not begin at home, but at the IRS.

What a great example we have of unbridled greed and avarice.  And we have 4 years of his hands in our back pockets to look forward to. 

That is Democrat, not Republican for all the bots out there.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 03, 2008

ShadowGryphon
Ok.... now listen for the sound of mass ear plugging by the obama crowd.

His campaign theme should be changed to the Sounds of Silence - as in the silence of the press when he basically makes them all out to be fools.

on Nov 03, 2008

And miss the sound of all the anguish that the right is going through? Hardly.

Anguish?  Yea, I guess there is some.  There is still a lot of denial out there.  But you wont be hearing that for long - I told you so - is a lot sweeter.

on Nov 03, 2008

All taxation is basically spreading the wealth, its not a radical or novel idea. the McCain campaign just wants to try to make it sound scary. And as far as "Joe the Plumber" he is a normal guy which is why he wouldn't see a tax raise under Obama's proposed plan (he actually makes closer to 40k a year) and if he did make 280k a year as he claimed then the higher tax rate would only be on the 30k income earned over the quarter a mil he is taking home. And no, I don't feel bad for people making over a quarter million dollars, and no progressive tax programs don't make people not want to earn over a quarter million dollars.

Actually no.  Taxation was not that for the first 150 years of this country.  It was to provide for common services.  FDR under the new deal changed the definition, and now kids cant seem to think of anything else.

And the "tax the rich" is regressive.  So that if you make more than the imaginary level, you start losing your deductions and paying taxes on the money less than 250k.

But your last statement is very indicative.  If you are anything but a moron, the tax is going to get you in a few years.  It may seem like a lot now, but to my parents, $40k seemed like a lot 50 years ago, hell even 30 years ago!

on Nov 03, 2008

No, it simply discourages people from starting businesses and encourages large businesses to break camp and set up in another country.

Not double talk.  Just inexperience.  Just like Obama.

on Nov 03, 2008

catwhowalksbyhimself


No, it's not, and yes, it is.  If you tax equally(percentage wise) from everybody and use money only for the true public good, like the miliary, road maintenance and such, then you are most definitely not redistributing wealth from anyone to anyone.  In fact, in the Constitution before certain amendments, it lays out that you can't tax people based on how much they make.  You couldn't consider the individual taxpayer in any way.  What went for one had to go for all.  The idea of taxing the richest and giving away the money to the poorest is a fairly recent idea.

Actually, just last week Biden lowered it to 150k.  They keep changing the amount, lowering it actually.  The fact that you are gullible enough to believe these people, when liberals have a history of promising not to tax certain groups and then doing it anyway, is more than I am capable of understanding.


It certainly lessens the benefits of doing so.  More than the individual, consider the impact on small buisinesses.  250k without any taxes is only enough to hire 5 people at 50k a year, and that's without considering even one expense.  In reality it means that if you have a small business and actually hire people, you are in trouble.  When Joe the plumber talked about 250k, it was in context of him possibly buying the buisiness he works at.

Great points all!  Thanks for posting!

on Nov 03, 2008

Would you rather have a job or a handout?

Obama is just selling handouts - and they are selling very well.  When told that his tax would not increase revenues, he switched and said it was about "fairness".

It is not the money that matters, but making it "fair" by his standards.  Problem is, while many may agree today with his definition, I doubt that will be the case for long.

on Nov 04, 2008

Hello:


The tax cuts that were implemented by President Bush were tilted heavily towards the higher incomes.  This is supported as a rational practice through the trickle down (or voodoo) economical theory.  As I understand his plans he will be rolling back the recent tax cuts to something more Clinton like (sigh...remember Bill Clinton...I wish I could have voted for him).  By spreading the wealth around what Obama will be doing is letting us keep more of what we earn (by us I mean myself and others who do not make over 250K).  As of this year there was an attempt to stimulate our economy from the bottom up...thats right the checks...  If the poor have more of the money they earn...1) they might be more willing to work 2) with more of their own money they are more free to spend, to invest in themselves. 

As for spreading the wealth...were you aware that the "red states" receive more federal handouts than un poor blue states happy to support you...because we know you wouldn't ask for it unless you ALL REALLY needed it. 

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

So really both your Dems and your Reps, please everyone this is beneeth us, we're better than this...Lord I hope we are better than this.  The older I get the more I wonder if our founding fathers were just like this or if they were more lofty.  Perhaps this is why they wanted to keep the common people out of the important decisions (the senate for example...2 people over 30 from each state or the electoral college).  

Listen:  I loved McCain 9 years ago or so on the straight talk express...loved, I am saying loved here and I really dug Obama before he became a serious cantidate...  To be a serious cantidate for president in this country you have to walk yourself through a bullshit car wash and in case you don't know...that sticks to ya.  Thomas Jefferson once said that no man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation that carried him into it...something close to that...it once meant that once you were there you would be shot down and slandered for up to eight years...but now after what Obama have endured...which all in all has not been THAT BAD...i guess...but I think its now possible that Obama (if he wins) has a chance to become beloved by the country or McCain a chance to regain his character.  Gosh I miss the old McCain...and Clinton...remember Slick Willy...?  sigh. 

Rev Phil

 

 

on Nov 04, 2008

The tax cuts that were implemented by President Bush were tilted heavily towards the higher incomes.

No they were not.  They were actually tilted toward the low end.

As I understand his plans he will be rolling back the recent tax cuts to something more Clinton like (sigh...remember Bill Clinton...I wish I could have voted for him).

When you grow up, you will realize Clinton was just another hack that got caught lying.  And no, when your taxes go up, that is a tax increase.  Big brother has not taken over yet. 

By spreading the wealth around what Obama will be doing is letting us keep more of what we earn (by us I mean myself and others who do not make over 250K).

That is the whole point. He is spreading YOUR wealth around (remember Niemoeller).  He is keeping his under lock and key.

If the poor have more of the money they earn...1) they might be more willing to work 2) with more of their own money they are more free to spend, to invest in themselves.

The poor already have all the money they earn.  They do not pay taxes.  Without Obama they can still invest in themselves.

As for spreading the wealth...were you aware that the "red states" receive more federal handouts than un poor blue states happy to support you...because we know you wouldn't ask for it unless you ALL REALLY needed it.

Did you factor out defense?  no?  So you really dont understand the numbers you are looking at do you?

older I get the more I wonder if our founding fathers were just like this or if they were more lofty.

The founding fathers were against forced confiscation.  I dont think they would like the modern politicians much at all.

Nice of you to reminiss.  But the point is that if I take your wallet, that is robbery.  If I get elected, it is called spreading the wealth.  The difference?  newspeak.

on Nov 06, 2008

The tax cuts that were implemented by President Bush were tilted heavily towards the higher incomes.

As my friend above said, that is not true. In fact, I do believe lower incomes had a slightly higher amount of taxes, percentage wise, reduced than those with higher incomes.  The fact remains that 1% of 2 million is a lot more than 5% of 20,000.  Does that mean that in my example, the cut is tilted heavily toward the 2 million?  No, it isn't.  The opposite is true.  Those who pay massively more do get more back in any tax cut, simply because they have and pay so much more.  In reality it is wrong to treat the person at 2 million this way, punishing him because he makes more.

In addition, who invests money so that banks and buisinesses have money to grow and lend?  Who spends a lot of money on things that we need people to work to make?  The rich do.  Certainly it's wrong to exclude any group from any tax cutting, and those with lower incomes need the help, but right is right and punishing someone else is the kind of injustice our country is supposed to stand against.

on Nov 06, 2008

When you grow up, you will realize Clinton was just another hack that got caught lying. And no, when your taxes go up, that is a tax increase. Big brother has not taken over yet.

Perhaps you folks as I pointed out in a different post should take alook at the history of taxes since 1917.  When you do you will notice that in the last 30 years the richest amongst us have been making out quite well, if you base your observations on real actual history, the real hard numbers.  My guess is that you wont though you'll just say "oh your wrong you look at the wrong stuff moose".

on Nov 06, 2008

Perhaps you folks as I pointed out in a different post should take alook at the history of taxes since 1917. When you do you will notice that in the last 30 years the richest amongst us have been making out quite well, if you base your observations on real actual history, the real hard numbers. My guess is that you wont though you'll just say "oh your wrong you look at the wrong stuff moose".

Did you check who was paying?  if you did , you would notice that you are all wet.  Rates are for suckers and the middle class.  The rich dont care about rates - but when they get high, the money goes into non-producing boondoggles that do not help anyone except the rich not pay taxes. When the rates go down, then the rich pay more.  Indeed, the rich can hardly pay more now since they are paying over 95% of the taxes now.  Unlike newspeak, the world stops at 100%.

Saying the "3rd lowest" is like saying that I am the 3rd oldest - in a room full of infants.  It means nothing.  What is paid means everything, and something you are avoiding by not addressing the subject at hand.

on Nov 06, 2008

catwhowalksbyhimself

You are talking to brick walls.  For it is apparent by both words and actions, that right now, no one cares about effects, only feelings.  Obama admitted that taxes were not to produce revenue, but to be "fair".  Mooseplow wants you to believe that the rich are skating - even though they pay well over 90 percent of the taxes.  It is not about truth or numbers, but about feelings and "fair" and distributing your money, not theirs.

Their money is not where their mouth is.  But their hands are in your pocket.

on Nov 06, 2008

Their money is not where their mouth is. But their hands are in your pocket.
I make $170K per year and voted for Obama. How much do you earn?

Don't tell me my money is not where my mouth is or that I have *my* hand in *your* pocket.

on Nov 07, 2008

Don't tell me my money is not where my mouth is or that I have *my* hand in *your* pocket.

Their money is not where their mouth is. But their hands are in your pocket.

$170 a year where?  on welfare?  Cause you sure dont read well.  last I checked, you was you, and their was their.  their was not you.  Or is that part of the newspeak now? 

And again "their" money "their" mouth.  Google Biden and Obama's tax returns.  Google charitable giving between red and blue states. 

If YOU want to be a part of "their" jump right in.  I am sure YOU donated tens of thousands of dollars to charity too, right?  No?  Are you really "their"?

Just a little advice as well.  Dont lecture the host on their blog site. 

on Nov 07, 2008

$170 a year where?
That's $170,000 per year as an Electrical Engineer designing classified DoD communication equipment. The only reason I mention this is that there seems to be the prevailing attitude on this site that only the opinions of people that "make stuff" have validity. I make plenty of stuff, how about you?

The point you were making (or to be fair the point I *thought* you were making) by your "Their money is not where their mouth is" comment was that the people supporting Obama were those looking for a handout and not those that pay substantial taxes. I pay substantial taxes and do *not* expect/need/desire a handout which contradicts (or at the very least provides an example of a single exception to) your implication that Obama supporters hands are in “your” pocket (your words define them as you will).

Just a little advice as well. Dont lecture the host on their blog site.
A little advice back at you as well. Just blacklist anyone with an opinion counter to yours and that way you can pretend that everyone agrees with you.

However my presence here has been a short foray into the world of blogging and frankly I've found it to be totally unsatisfactory. But before you say "fine, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out", let me make a few comments.

It's generally not in my nature to be argumentative or confrontational. I've been around the block enough times to realize that not everyone shares my particular political/religious views and again in general I don't feel any compelling obligation to try and convince folks that they need to believe like I do. On the other hand I don’t care to let what I take to be inflammatory and incorrect statements slide by without comment either. Since there’s clearly no real tolerance here for views that contradict the majority and since I have no desire to waste my breath or be the target of abuse I shall simply withdraw from the site.

You might want to take a look at my parting post Blogging? Thanks but no thanks. If I’ve aggravated you, I apologize, but you need to realize that you’ve aggravated me (and perhaps others) as well. But although I do apologize for any grief that I may have caused in my brief stint here I do not apologize for any comment that I’ve made since they have all been the truth as I see it. Deal with it as you will, it’s no skin off my back.

In any case with all of the cross posting among Stardock’s 12 forum sites you may see my name on an occasional thread scroll by but I will do my best to avoid the JU specific forums in the future. Life’s too short and I really don’t need the aggravation.

3 Pages1 2 3