+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/19/2018 10:37 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  11.097 Visits   8 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
10/15/2008 09:02 PM ID: 74050 Permalink   

Obama: Take from the Rich and Give to the Poor


Conservatives ripped in to Obama for suggesting to an Ohio plumber that he intends to 'spread the wealth around' by taking monies from small businesses and redistributing it to the poor. An idea that you have yet to see in his campaign commercials.

The Freudian slip occurred last Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama he worked 10-12hr/day and was getting ready to purchase the plumbing company that he worked for. He was concerned that the tax increase would hurt his business.

Obama shot back that his plan doesn't intend to hurt him but instead, help those 'behind him' make it up the ladder of success. Obama then continued on to explain his trickle up theory. Until now Obama has been careful to conceal his socialistic idea

    WebReporter: FreakKeeper Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  obama quotes from the article  
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"My plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can 'spread the wealth around.' My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans."
  by: HAVOC666     10/15/2008 09:17 PM     
  Very good to hear.  
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - Obama

So very, very true. When you have 95% of the wealth in just 5% of the population’s hands with little chance for the majority of Americans to have a chance at succeeding, you end up with a "ruling class" minority that economically enslaves the majority.

I wish Obama was more forthright like this all the time. The more honest he is, the more I respect him.
  by: vash_the_stampede     10/15/2008 09:19 PM     
Quote from the source Obama's response to Wurzelbackers comment of 'being punished for living the American dream':

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
  by: FreakKeeper     10/15/2008 09:19 PM     
this is socialistic, HOW? It sounds more caring towards mankind than any right-wing idiot politician. Also, the summary seems biased and has taken things out of context to put a conservative 'spin' on this. Obama has never said he would steal from the rich to give to the poor. That is just total BS.
  by: JonSmith     10/15/2008 09:22 PM     
  I'm not sure why this is so bad...  
...but then again, I'm a filthy Canadian socialist.

Up here, our small businesses pay 16% taxes on every dollar of net income that we make up to $400K. After that, the tax rate goes up incrementally. Do US businesses pay absolutely no tax on profits? If so, how do they get money to pave their roads with?
  by: Mister crank     10/15/2008 09:27 PM     
  And might I add:  
I have no problem with paying $64,000 on my first $400K, knowing that this will allow me (or even someone I don't know) to get free cancer treatments or trips to the emergency room, keep community facilities open, pay for good governance, keep Canadian businessmen subsidised for international business development trips, etc, etc.

When we all pay a bit into the pot, we can all raise our standard of living together. What a disgusting pinko sentiment, eh?
  by: Mister crank     10/15/2008 09:32 PM     
Here is the entire questions and answers without right-wing editing, spin and lies:

You decide.
  by: JonSmith     10/15/2008 09:33 PM     
It clearly isn't socialist, it is merely a great and necessary step at making this country the shining light it once was, a beacon of hope in this world.

We (America) used to have the best and the brightest in the world, skilled immigrants flocking here in droves, ready to improved our great nation.

Now? We don't see those skilled immigrants flocking here like they once did. The ruling class has choked the very life out of this country, encouraging unskilled workers to immigrate here. They don’t want skilled, experience workers anymore; they want a dime-a-dozen workers.

Workers that will work for pennies on the dollar and not speak up to the ruling class, workers that are treated as commodities and shipped back to their country of origin when their usefulness has worn out.

Obama’s bold plans can succeed, but he has to show he means what he says if he is elected. He need not bow down to corporate influence; if he manages to stay strong we may actually see this great country be rejuvenated! This is an exciting time in American history, to say the least.
  by: vash_the_stampede     10/15/2008 09:34 PM     
  He is starting to sound like...  
a modern day Robin Hood.
  by: captainJane     10/15/2008 09:41 PM     
  I guess the republican way of taking from the poor  
and giving to the rich works much better somehow...
  by: slavefortheman     10/15/2008 09:44 PM     
  I like what I hear  
My opinion of Obama is slightly improving. He still has a slim chance of getting my vote, as opposed to 3rd parties. McCain has NO chance. Anyways, I am waiting to hear from cray0la on this issue. I really like the fires he ignites when he starts spouting out his right-wing BS.
  by: Mr. Wright     10/15/2008 09:48 PM     
  @Mr. Wright  
LOL! I dont think there is anything right wing about cray0la. Its just BS plain and simple. If anything he espouses an extreme left-wing ideology of corporate socialism. Somehow this sort of socialism though is classified as a right wing ideology. I really never understood that... IE: National Socialism or Fascism is right wing even though it usually involves socialist policies that benefit the corporations. Same with the US system.

One of the other users pointed out what the actual term for this is. I had never heard of it till then. "Stamokap". Capitalism in decay. A last stage of a economic/political system when the state merges with corporate interests.
  by: slavefortheman     10/15/2008 10:06 PM     
  In Defense  
To those dieing to 'neg', let me point some things:
The title is accurate, in fact it's almost verbatim in said article

Wrong channel? We were requested sometime ago to try and not 'load' particular channels and to 'spread things out' and thats what I've done by posting here... It had to do with possible tax increases and that affects the E-C-O-N-O-M-Y...

Socialistic is too strong? It was referred to as socialistic in the article as well. Socialism is the idea of taking monies from the 'rich' and giving it the poor... so that everyone is in the 'same boat' while only a few in power actually have any kind of wealth... That was for those who flunked both history and poly sci...
  by: FreakKeeper     10/15/2008 10:11 PM     
You are accurate to the source.Although, after listening to the video of the statements in question, as posted by Jon Smith I have to tell you the source did a major chop job to give their bias.

Jon Smith I hope you forgive me for riposting the URK to the statement that you posted earlier.

Hey folks take a look. You be the judge.
  by: ichi     10/15/2008 10:28 PM     
Yeah, I remember reading about Stamokap. It would really make George Bush turn "red" if someone would expose his "red" tactics for all the world to see.

It seems American politics is all about creating an enemy, then doing just what that enemy did decades later. Central banking, taxation without representation, removal of rights, and now Marx's idea of Stamokap.
  by: Mr. Wright     10/15/2008 10:38 PM     
  RE: Take from the rich ...  
This wasn't a Freudian slip, this Obama guy really wants to do this.

Quote: "So very, very true. When you have 95% of the wealth in just 5% of the population’s hands with little chance for the majority of Americans to have a chance at succeeding, you end up with a "ruling class" minority that economically enslaves the majority."

What are you talking about? I believe you meant to say the 95% of the U.S. tax burden falls on 5% of the population. Also, I guess I am not succeeding...I did not know that - but I don't want hand-outs either. Does anyone making under $250K a year, whether as a business or individual, believe they will receive a tax break anyway from Obama? Have the Democrats ever given anything to the poor, other than empty promises and an even emptier future?

I would prefer to give Joe a "high-five" than take his money. And thanks to those like Joe, who hang in their and pursue their dreams they are able to give others something that is much more honorable than a hand-out. It is called a job - and this too will spread wealth, along with dignity, self-respect, dreams they too can be like Joe...

The world has already experimented with wealth redistribution thanks to Karl Marx and other socialists. Countries such as Canada have unimagineable unemployment rates, lower standards of living, and economic policies which would get an American President shot.

From one of England's own and often forgotten:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
  by: DutchSharer   10/15/2008 10:49 PM     
  It is socialist  
But that seems to be the way of the politicians now. Not full blown socialism, some sort of disgusting mixture. Punish the wealthy, for being successful, and then punish the poor, by making the few dollars they earn worthless in overspending for "services" and enticing the business owners to fire them.

Taxing the hell out of small business is exactly what California did. It forced my grandpa to make one of two choices, fire all 3 of his employees, or go out of business, either way the worker's lose their job, because the government wanted all the money. California destroyed its small businesses and is reaping the negative income benefits.

I'm not telling you one candidate has a better answer, both will ruin things, Obama maybe more professionally though, that is, more organized with the money, and its redistribution. I can see McCain making money magically disappear.
  by: promontorium   10/15/2008 10:54 PM     
  @mister crank  
I dono, last time I was driving in MI, I nearly lost my car in some potholes... thankfully I knew enough to take a rental..

So having said that, I don't know if they pave their roads...

Actually thats and out and out lie, I do know as they were redoing the 75 or 696 or some damn fool highway last time I was there, to the point of removing half of it
  by: hl2k   10/16/2008 12:50 AM     
When you have an economically enslaved underclass, all that it begets is more slavery, generation after generation of an impoverished population who has little chance at succeeding. The occasional 'rags to riches' story, letting those who have nothing have a little hope, making them work a little harder to make 5% of the population even more money.

I mean just look at state lotteries. As the economic times get worse, the buying of lottery tickets increases. What does that say about the mentality of this country? Billionaires get more and the hard workers of this world, the ones whose broken backs made them their billions, they are hoping – no, praying – to be able to get at least slice of that pie in this world.

We have an enslaved middle class who works for entire lives, and if they are lucky, they'll get to retire when they are 65. 65.. it takes them to be 65 before they can have any true freedom of their lives, to do what they want to do. Too old to enjoy what they have and too old to put the skills they have accumulated to proper use.

Meanwhile that 5% of the population has a life of luxury and opulence, able to enjoy the finer things in life almost immediately. They don't have to wait until they are 65 to actually enjoy life. They get to enjoy it from the get-go, in their late 20's to early 30's.

God bless Barack Obama. I only hope that he follows through with his commitments and allows prosperity to be obtainable by the majority of Americans and not just the 5% of elitists out there who would sooner see you work until the day that you die than have a few extra bucks in your pocket.
  by: vash_the_stampede     10/16/2008 01:25 AM     
I'm all for caps on maximum ownable assets and cash, and taxing the shit out of people like Gates and Jobs, the real money reseviors. Not Joe Plumber, or Dan the Handy Man, who are doing their utmost to make their lives worthwhile.

Nor am I for any kind of blanket "distribution of the wealth" - people have demonstrate they are worthy of the assistance, that they are actively in control of their lives and pursuing a future that doesn't involve riding on the backs of the hard workers of America.

Forcing rich people to spend will do more to revitalize the economy that any kind of socialist bullshit like this.
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/16/2008 02:08 AM     
  Trickle Up Economics? We are DOOMED!  
If you give poor people lots of money they will all get hooked on Meth and Crack and kill each other. They should be kept poor so all they can afford is cheap weed, that way they will just stay mellow and keep working like drones.

I don't know any rich people that have a problem paying the utility bill. Rich people don't need to buy anything. How does giving them all the money help the economy? They just buy expensive bobbles or stash it in the lock box. Give it to the poor, then will keep it flowing through the channels. The have no choice.
  by: valkyrie123     10/16/2008 03:01 AM     
I think 'Joe the Plumber' is looking more like a GOP 'shill.' They are trying an 'October surprise' with this BS. McCain is already making a big deal about this in tonight's debate.
  by: Lurker     10/16/2008 03:48 AM     
McCain referenced Joe the Plumber about ten times to night. It didn't work well for him - the debate was roughly a tie, it was reminiceint of the first debate with it leaning towards Obama.

first debate: Tie, leaning slightly towards McCain.
VP debate: Major Biden victory.
second debate: Victory for Obama.
third debate: Tie, leaning slightly towards Obama.
  by: vash_the_stampede     10/16/2008 04:35 AM     
"The world has already experimented with wealth redistribution thanks to Karl Marx and other socialists."

no they didn't, they used a modified version, in a true socialism (or communism) there is no rich ruling elite, nor is there poor people... there is only collective ownership wealth and resources in terms of production, destribution and equality... the things that truely determine monetary wealth.

sociallism is usually the result of class wars and is usually followed by the more socially advanced doctrine of communism.

"Countries such as Canada have unimagineable unemployment rates"

6.4% compare to the US's 4.8% both of which are the offical number both of which are false number as athey both only count those actively drawing unemoploymenty not everyone who actually is unemployed. in the case of both countries they are both well over 10% in terms of true unemployment. if the US is any better off they aren't much better off.

"lower standards of living,"

since when? canada has much higher standards of living according to studies, though the US standards has steadily been falling, the US used to have higher standards than canada, but then they USED to have the highest standards of living, now they are on the bottom half of the top ten list, IF they even make the list, the last year or two the US hasn't even made the top ten, FYI, canada is ranked 4th
up from 6th the US is ranked 12 down from 8, canada has consistently ranked higher than the US in standards of living for about 30 years atleast; infact in the last 27 years canad has had the highest standards for 10 of those years, the US again didn't make this list... these stats are almost a years old:

"and economic policies which would get an American President shot."

yeah like JFK; BY the rich ruling elite.
  by: HAVOC666     10/16/2008 05:01 AM     
  I don't think  
That very marginal increases in taxes on those making over a quarter-million dollars a year is "punishment." And I don't think that using that tax money to create jobs for people out of work is a "hand-out."

But what do I know -- I keep thinking common sense actually matters.
  by: l´anglais     10/16/2008 07:33 AM     
250k gross. That doesn't include overheads and costs of operation, all of which get deducted after the states and government take their cuts.

250k a year for a business is miserable.

I've seen first hand the result this kind of wealth distribution has, it isn't pretty. It's great in theory, but it doesn't account for human nature.
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/16/2008 07:56 AM     
I've also been at the bottom myself, on subsistence, struggling to make ends meet. I can tell you "There is always a way".
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/16/2008 08:00 AM     
  Flawed plan damnit  
Okay, so 95% (according to Obama) of SMALL businesses make less than 250. That means 250 is around the upper mark of income for most small businesses. 5% of small business make more than that (like this plumbing business). So what Obama is going to do is tax those small businesses that are doing well, and give it to the ones that aren't (in the form of tax credits).

This is what we call a "Chilling effect" - it retards growth and innovation, be encouraging businesses that are doing about average to rely on government assistance and not to push above the 250k mark, and it penalises those businesses that do rise above the mark by making it cost more to operate.

Joe Plumber works 10-12 hours a day so he can afford to grow a future, but if he is going to be taxed more heavily for doing so, and get tax credits for not doing so, where is the incentive to work harder?
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/16/2008 08:06 AM     
Hey, me too. I've had to make those choices about whether the electric bill gets paid in full or whether I get to eat for another week.

However, I should point out that Obama's plan pertains to personal income taxes. If a business owner files his/her taxes properly, there's no way he/she would be taxed on $250,000 gross income for the entire company -- just on what he/she takes home.

For a different perspective, John McCain would cut income taxes for 60 percent of taxpayers by a total of 1.4 percent. Obama would cut taxes to those same 60 percent by 11.5 percent (
  by: l´anglais     10/16/2008 08:10 AM     
  Follow up  
Here's the Plumber's feelings AFTER Obama left, as reported by Fox.
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/16/2008 08:37 AM     
Uh, most small businesses ARE owner/operators. The business income IS the income of the owner, and it is what is taxed. The owner is NOT paid a wage by the business.

The business could incorporate or become a limited proprietorship etc , but that simply isn't the case for most small businesses.

From another clip, when asked "Did Obama win you over?"

Joe replied "No, not even a little bit, his answer made me more scared"
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/16/2008 08:43 AM     
  yes obama does  
wanna take from the rich and give to the poor
obama wants MORE government, free healthcare, and more people to depend on the government, why work? obama will take care of you.

welfare all over again under obama.
its pathetic.

joe plumber worked HARD for his money so we need to take it away from him to spread it to jim the crack head bum that does nothing but leech off the government for his money?

pretty stupid to me

i dont want my money going to the person who gets high all day and does nothing with there lives, the person that hangs out with there freinds all day and refuses to work yet complains about never having money and the government needs to give more.

its a joke but yet you are all blinded and want to give everyone a hand out even if they pay hardly any or NO TAXES PERIOD.

thought we were shying away from more government, more spending, more worthless expensive programs.
under obama this is multiplied by 50
  by: cray0la     10/16/2008 08:57 AM     
"joe plumber worked HARD for his money so we need to take it away from him to spread it to jim the crack head bum that does nothing but leech off the government for his money?"
That example works less well when you replace the crack head with an innocent child who would die because its parents wouldn't be able to afford the basic healthcare that would save its life.
  by: Ec5618   10/16/2008 11:11 AM     
Joe the plumber an economist in his spare time?
  by: Ub3rTristan   10/16/2008 11:25 AM     
  Turns out...  
...that Joe the Plumber doesn't currently make more than $250k and thusly would be better off, currently, under Barack Obama's tax plan.
  by: vash_the_stampede     10/16/2008 12:12 PM     
Except the business he is going to buy does, so no, he won't be better off under Obama's plan. In fact, Obama's plan pretty much discourages him from actually buying the business.
  by: SoshiMaster   10/16/2008 12:41 PM     
No it doesn't. As sad as that sweet little child's case might be, it is not Joe the Plumber's responsibility to take care of her/him.

Joe's responsibility is to his family and to the workers he employees or will employee, not to anyone else.
  by: SoshiMaster   10/16/2008 12:44 PM     
Saying 'I don't want to give money to crack heads' is different from saying 'I don't want to give money to children'. I'm sorry you don't understand that.
  by: Ec5618   10/16/2008 12:50 PM     
you can haz it.


So if he buys a business that will earn $250K which is more than he is on now, he will pay a higher percentage of tax. The problem is?

Sorry, I'm not going to cry about a guy clearing $250K. If he is complaining about a complicated tax system, that is different.
  by: jendres     10/16/2008 02:32 PM     
"joe plumber worked HARD for his money so we need to take it away from him to spread it to jim the crack head bum that does nothing but leech off the government for his money?"

So under your system of "give all of Joe's money to the already rich CEO and execs" is any different?!?!

You say you hate socialism yet you will gladly support it when it benefits the super elite...

You republicans are nothing but Corporate Socialists and you try to hide your socialism under the guise of "Democracy" and "Freedom".

I will say what it is and its Corporate Socialism pure and simple. Your corporatist system of economics is sinking beneath the waves as we speak while you and the rest of the neocons are at the helm declaring full speed ahead!
  by: slavefortheman     10/16/2008 02:37 PM     
  lol Crayola  

"joe plumber worked HARD for his money so we need to take it away from him to spread it to jim the crack head bum that does nothing but leech off the government for his money?"

Cause %95 of all americans are crack heads on welfare right? Perfect sensible post there bud.
  by: pineal420   10/16/2008 05:39 PM     
  could be good/bad  
It depends on what the money is spent on. Taxing people who TAKE HOME 250k+ doesn't matter if you spend the money stupidly. To give it to the poor seems like a bad idea, I think the money should be taken and put into national infrastructure. build new roads, fix our bridges (live in Minneapolis here, we could have used it a while ago), and build more schools/fire/police stations.

More jobs made and the "rich" can at least get something for his money.

That being said the whole idea of taxing the rich is bad when we could just cut our costs. Bring home the troops, cut our defense budget in half... hell one quarter of it should be enough, and stop trying maintain a empire around the world.

Obama says he is going to go through the federal government and get rid of useless programs, but I doubt it.

Is he going to stop the drug war? The "war on terror"? stationing "peacekeeping" troops in countries all over the world? Is he going to stop paying interest from borrowing on OUR currency from a private bank?

I doubt it. Hes just more of the same.

I do hope I'm wrong though, because he will win barring a hostile GOP takeover.
  by: Trevelyan   10/16/2008 06:24 PM     
  Joe the plumber  
has NO plumbing license:
  by: JonSmith     10/16/2008 06:47 PM     
No it doesn't. As sad as that sweet little child's case might be, it is not Joe the Plumber's responsibility to take care of her/him.

Joe's responsibility is to his family and to the workers he employees or will employee, not to anyone else."

If he has that attitude, he won't give a crap about his employees either.
  by: JonSmith     10/16/2008 06:51 PM     
"If he has that attitude, he won't give a crap about his employees either. "

Did you read what he said?

""Joe's responsibility is to his family and --to the workers he employees or will employee--, not to anyone else.""

I agree too, its not my responsibility to take care of you just because you can't take care of yourself.
  by: skittlesloli   10/16/2008 08:42 PM     
"Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, the nickname Republican John McCain bestowed on him during Wednesday's presidential debate, said he works for a small plumbing company that does residential work. Because he works for someone else, he doesn't need a license, he said.

His boss, Al Newell of Newell Plumbing and Heating Co. of Toledo, is a licensed plumbing contractor in Toledo, records show. But anyone working under Newell should have a journeyman’s plumbing license or an apprenticeship license, officials said.


He said the business consists of owner Al Newell and him. Wurzelbacher said he's worked there for six years and that the two have talked about his taking it over at some point.

"There's a lot I've got to learn," he said.


"I just hope I'm not making too much of a fool of myself," he added. "

LOL! Excellent link, especially how Joe points out that he is not going to be directly affected by the tax increases (maybe one day) and is so concerned about Obama "hurting others." Seems like Joe the plumber's concern and empathy for his fellow man is, dare I say, a bit "socialistic."
  by: goran   10/16/2008 11:27 PM     
It's different in that the person is making a separate choice as to who he specifically wants his money to go to.

That's why we have charities, so people can make informed decisions about who they want to benefit more with their hard earned ... earnings.

It's not the least bit different in terms of whether this is a good idea or not. For that, it's emotional obfuscation.
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/17/2008 02:19 AM     
The original poster was expressing reluctance to give money to crack heads. You then put words into his mouth by suggesting that this must also mean reluctance to help children.

And while you're accusing me of 'emotional obfuscation', the original poster used crack heads in his example. I used children to point out that this was merely an emotional plea.

So, you're wrong on both counts. You're trying to make a general political point, but the posts you're responding to weren't, while removes the applicability of your posts.
  by: Ec5618   10/17/2008 10:11 AM     
Read it again. I made no such question or statement.

"joe plumber worked HARD for his money so we need to take it away from him to spread it to jim the crack head bum that does nothing but leech off the government for his money?"
That example works less well when you replace the crack head with an innocent child who would die because its parents wouldn't be able to afford the basic healthcare that would save its life.

by: Ec5618 10/16/2008 11:11 AM

Why, that's what YOU said.
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/17/2008 11:01 AM     
No, I said it was different if instead of being asked to give money to a crack head, people were asked to give money to a child.

Key word here: DIFFERENT.

You disagreed. You said it was the same scenario, that it made no difference. You implied that unwillingness to give money to crack heads must mean unwillingness to give money to children.
  by: Ec5618   10/17/2008 11:07 AM     
Most business pay 35% in taxes. This is why more companies are moving overseas to place where the taxes are less. Now Osama/Obama thinks this is too little and want to increase it to 38+% and give the “worker” a tax break. Now if you own a company and this happened to you? What are the odds you would move to a place where your taxes are less?
Under Obama we will loose more small/mid sized manufacturing Jobs.
  by: damndave   10/17/2008 01:20 PM     
  tax rate of 35%  
Most business pay 35% in taxes. This is why more companies are moving overseas to place where the taxes are less. Now Osama/Obama thinks this is too little and want to increase it to 38+% and give the “worker” a tax break. Now if you own a company and this happened to you? What are the odds you would move to a place where your taxes are less?
Under Obama we will loose more small/mid sized manufacturing Jobs.
  by: damndave   10/17/2008 01:21 PM     
You're an ass.

And while the tax rate may seem high, have a look at what amount of taxes are actually paid.
  by: Ec5618   10/17/2008 01:24 PM     
It can't feel good to have all that hate inside your heart. Why don't you try living without that hate? I'm sure your life will improve drastically if you start to look at things in a positive light rather than keep on being a bigoted individual.
  by: vash_the_stampede     10/17/2008 01:31 PM     
I have looked at the taxes paid.. they are presently 35% and they will go to 38%

and there is no hate in my heart i just call it like it is.
  by: damndave   10/17/2008 02:16 PM     
neo-cons and there base wont be satisifed until they'd forced the country into such debt that even the concept of work is pointless because the monetary incentive has disappeared... the people at the bottom do nearly all the work and make almost no money the people at the top do almost no work and hold almost all the money; less than 1% of the population hold 99% of the wealth and they bitch and whine when finally someone tries to rebalance the scale by throwing a tax break to the REAL workers (the people that make up most of the workforce yet dont even make enough not to have to choose between electricity, food and rent/morgage) that will benifit 95% of people the people who REALLY comprise the workforce; who do NEARLY ALL the work for next to nothing... at the expense of the same people that have been profitting from the unbalanced system; the same people that have repeatively had their taxes cut... tax cuts for the rich by the rich only screw the people... the real people... the 95-99% not the 1-5% that could easily live off half amount some are whining about them being taxed on.

yet the people on the bottom cant even really afford to pay taxes at all due toe th wonderful state the economy has been in the last 7 years, we have this problem too in canada of people not being able to afford the life that EVERYONE deserve to have, having to choose between the rent, the lights and the food shows how hopeless enslaved we really are, for canada it started with free trade (thank you very much for the royal screw job btw).

personally i think one year the the lower 95-99% should boycott income tax entirely, sad thing is that even at that point they probably wouldn't get accross.\

any time a person making a 1/4 million annually complains about taxes laugh at them... they are the one that can easily afford taxes, MOST people cant; for instance anyone making minimum wage cant afford taxes due the shitty economy. in most cities you cant live on minimum wage, or even a buck or two more an hour. the the majoirty that need tax releif... not the majority of the tax burden compared to held wealth. true the rich pay more in taxes they also have more looholes out of taxes, they also have alot more income, and they have benifited the most from the country whereas the people on the bottom haven't benifited from the american dream pretty much at all and would be just as well of in canada, australia or most of europe, instead they are only enslaved to the dollar by other people's dream; the very few that have escaped the gravity of debt that most people now know, where even buying food often puts people in debt, a debt that is largely inescapable by the majority of people and hence they are a slave, a slave to debt and thusly a slave to those that aren't a slave to debt; a "wage slave". even which obama's tax detristrubution (which is sorely need thanks to failed reagonics; trickle down economics) wont solve but atleast dinner will be alittle easier to put on the table... not that neo-cons or most of supporter care about that.
  by: HAVOC666     10/17/2008 02:57 PM     
"and there is no hate in my heart i just call it like it is."
Calling a respected man Osama isn't hateful? Comparing a presidential candidate to a mass murdering terrorist is 'calling it like it is'?

"I have looked at the taxes paid.. they are presently 35%"
But by using loop holes and the like, most companies actually pay less. So, please have a look at taxes paid.
  by: Ec5618   10/17/2008 03:55 PM     
Hear hear!

Neocons are nothing more that corporate socialists. They have turned the Republican party into a the party of Socialism for the Wealthy Elite while the masses starve.

Their motto should be "Let them eat cake!"

I think that americans in general pay way to much taxes to get so little in return. I know taxes are a requirement for government to function.

That is why I support the FairTax. Basically the abolition of the IRS and the creation of a federal sales tax. That way the rich that use those tax loopholes would now be taxable. Also that would mean your entire paycheck would come to you!
  by: slavefortheman     10/17/2008 04:06 PM     
  Possible flaw  
I'm not pro-socialist, pro-Obama, or pro McCain. I'm making an observation of the little bits of the plan that I have read.

If they want to increase the taxes on the businesses, then won't those businesses simply increase their price for services or products to compensate?

A smart business person finds ways to have others pay the incurred cost for them. Like a landlord that uses the rent from his tenants to pay property taxes, debt interests, upkeep costs, etc.

The extra taxes will simply be passed on to the consumers, whom it is meant to help in the first place, and I doubt wages will increase to compensate.

It would almost be another way to increase inflation by devaluating the dollar. When the exact same products and services increase in price for reasons not normal (ie: labor, shipping and materials cost), then that will reduce the purchasing power of the dollar which is the most basic form of inflation. When the currency has less purchasing power than it did in the past, you have inflation.

Not saying this can't be overcome, but I will say that I am very curious to see exactly how anyone intends to overcome that obstacle.
  by: id10t16   10/17/2008 08:40 PM     
  Re: "Joe the Plumber"  
How does a guy with no license plan to do such a booming business? Seems that "Joe the Plumber" may just be a walking strawman:
  by: MomentOfClarity     10/17/2008 09:11 PM     
  US Income Tax  
Only pays for the interest on the national debt and goes directly to the the federal reserve. It doesn't pay for any service to the American people.
  by: momto2   10/18/2008 02:55 AM     
Exactly. Not only does Joe the plumber (who I am sick of seeing on TV) NOT own his business he doesn't even have a professional license.

Why don't we talk to a bunch of medical assistants and paralegals and call them Nurses and Lawyers.
  by: TaraB     10/18/2008 04:00 AM     
  I am only 23...but here is MY view...  
I find this election extremely frustrating. I am not really for either candidate, yet voting for McCain was more so a vote against Obama than for McCain. At 23 years old, I have worked very, very hard to get a decent education, and to find a stable job. I did NOT grow up with money...AT ALL! We have five kids in our family and college was something that could have been more easily a non existent part of our future than something that was actually going to happen! Despite our financial status, all five kids in the family made due with borrowed money. Loans. We received no special privileges from anyone. The first 2 children had to figure out how to do MOST of that on their own, as our parents were not around a lot of the time. We had nothing handed to us. Times at that point were very difficult for the most part and the school district we grew up in was not the brightest. Many people had no clue how to help us. Yet despite the challenges we faced, we still managed to go to school. We got there with HARD WORK! VERY hard work! What frustrates me is this...

The "spread the wealth" progam. It's almost unnerving to listen to President Obama talk about tax breaks for people who are "underprivilaged". He seems to talk a lot about people with a higher income needing to get taxed more to help out families who don't have it as easy. Here is how I see it. Take two 18 years old kids. One being from the inner city and the other being from typical suburbia, if you will. May one of those kids have it easier as far as going to college is concerned? Sure. But just because it is more difficult for one, doesn't mean it's impossible. EVERYONE wishes that it would be easier to go to college. But please take into consideration that the majority of American college students are paying for school themselves. If college rates drop, what do you think will happen to the quality of teachers at the schools? Sure, in a eutopic world teachers would ALL want to teach for the good of the group and not mind a pay cut. But in a eutopic world, college would be free! I feel like some politicians want to make the impossible possible. And that will NEVER happen. At that point there would be no value left. In ANYTHING. With schooling, just because it may be harder, doesn't mean it's impossible. If you are an American citizen and you have the will to accomplish something, it's VERY possible! Spread the wealth is rediculous to me! I work very hard for my money. I already get taxed a lot. And for ONE MAN to decide WHO my money goes to??? I don't like the feeling of "the harder I work, the more I have to pay"...and to OTHER people! How is it fair to basically, "punish" someone for there dedication and efforts?

And here is where I stand...

If I am 18 years old and have just graduated high school. I will be faced with the option of going to school for 5 years or more to work very hard to make a higher income, where I will be graciously rewarded with a nice paycheck that reflects my dedication and efforts. OR...I could NOT go to school and get a job that pays less because I KNOW that my lack of drive or initiative will give me a break when it comes to paying taxes. How is it okay for someone who has worked their butt off to make 200 thousand dollars a year to get taxed more so that "lower income" people and get a break?!! All youre doing by implementing this idea is promoting laziness! How does it promote any kind of drive or "go getter" attitude for someone who is going to have to "pay" to do so? I don't want to get promoted just to have to pay more money. Everyone in this country has the same rights. This is NOT about race or religion, or ANYTHING else of that nature. This is about freedom. Life. Fairness. And the greater good for everyone. There will always be people who work harder than others. There will always be people who will make MORE MONEY than others. But that's life. Someone who makes 500K a year certainly didn't get that money by sitting on their butts. They did something about it. And they did it with the SAME opportunities that everyone else in this country is born with!!!! Nobody gets things handed to them. At least not the majority of us. If you work hard, you will be rewarded. There is no reason why you shouldn't. And having to give your own money away to "even things out" is bull shit. Keep in mind...

"If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take YOUR moeny and give it to someone else, including themselves."

Thomas Sowell

I think too many people cast an ignorant vote. Voting because they thought it was cool, or because a certain celebrity told them to. Voting because Obama was plastered all over E News. Voting for race. Voting for the wrong reasons. At the end of the day, life does go on. Many of us will be taxed higher to give other people a break. And it is a shame. But I do hope to see a country that is NOT r
  by: aj161d   11/05/2008 07:02 AM     
  A few McCain quotes before he turned into  
mr right wing once he won the republican nomination.

There's one big difference between me and the others "I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy." [McCain campaign commercial, January More..2000]

"I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers." [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

"But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that"as the previous tax cuts"that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans." [NBC's "Today," Jan. 7, 2003]

When campaigning in 2000, McCain told a crowd of supporters, "I don't think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think your parents do."
  by: Kaleid   11/05/2008 07:20 AM     
If you earn $250,000 a year, your taxes would increase by three percent under the Obama proposal. If you make $200,000 a year, your taxes will stay the same. If you aren't lucky enough to be in those tax brackets, your taxes will be cut.

The extra $100 a month paid by those making $250,000 a year or more won't simply be handed out to people making less. It will be used on better schools, better infrastructure, jobs programs and better equipment for our military.

There's really no need to hyperventilate about the Obama tax proposals; they're more conservative than were Bill Clinton's. In fact, for five of Reagan's eight years in office, the rich were taxed at a rate of about 50 percent!
  by: l´anglais     11/05/2008 07:32 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: