Obama says we need to "spread the wealth around"

NMyTree

unsung wrote:

Since you are on a roll I'd like to add one more myself.


TERM LIMITS on everyone. Two consecutive terms, that is it. No more of these 40 year Senators, 20 year corrupt Mayors, take it all the way down to the parking lot committee where you work.

Absolutely.

As well as a complete over-haul of Congress and a new laws for a transparent government.

The government answers to the people......the citizens of the USA!

Milhouse VanHouten

prytoj wrote:

countering facts with some nonsesicle subjective garbage does't help you a who lot. Looking at the facts will. Let's put our heads together and figure this thing out..

What part of my post was 'nonsensical'? Let's not put our heads together.

prytoj wrote:

Obama has:

more corporate money FACT
worse friends FACT
less record of meaningful change FACT
less record of service FACT
less experience FACT
less knowledge FACT
a running mate who thinks HE would be a better president than the nominee. FACT
less resistance to the establishment, aggregate on record FACT

Ending every bullet with "FACT" doesn't make them true. FACT.

I've already agreed with you on the corporate money point, but you don't seem to be able to follow my point that Obama's raised more money across the board.

Worse friends? If you're getting upset about Wright, I assume you're also disturbed that McCain actively sought out the endorsement of John Hagee.

Meaningful change? Tell me about the long list of meaningful changes John McCain has brought about during his 25+ years in Washington, please.

I'll give you 'record of service'. McCain's 25 years older than Obama.

Record of experience? No. No one can be 'ready to be president' before taking office. McCain has spent the last two decades enjoying a safe senate seat. He's got roughly as much executive experience as Barack Obama.

"Less knowledge"? How do you figure? IQ test? Academic record?

EVERY vp choice who was a primary opponent of the nominee thinks he/she would be a better president.

Resistance to the establishment? He's reversed himself on every "Mavericky" thing he's ever done except for campaign finance.

Dylan Stone

NMyTree wrote:

The government answers to the people......the citizens of the USA!

ha ha ha

best post in this thread

what a fucking disaster area this country has become

"for the citicorps by the exxon-mobils"


:mad:

pjfan020

would you say that supplying the government with $700 billion to bail out greedy CEO's and wall street companies is spreading the wealth around? My wealth just went to pay for the gift of greed and now what? people are gonna start bitching when their gonna get taxed higher? Wake up here, BOTH men signed a bill that covered RICH and i'll say it again RICH men's asses..not the middle class. So neither candidate will ever be clean on this issue of unfairly distributing money.

LikeAnOcean

unsung wrote:

The redistribution of wealth is why people don't want him. Why should we work harder so those on welfare can continue to be funded? Communism must be making a comeback.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

I'm pretty sure he's not a fan of welfare..

Back in my moderate Republican days I would have totally agreed with you..

Unfortunately, for every person milking the system for all its worth, there's a person making way more money than they deserve or have earned..


Seriously dude, if you make more than 250k a year, you can afford to give a little more.. if not, you need to learn about GREED.

This world is only full of so many resources.. I agree if you work hard, you should earn more, but to what proportion?

There's people who have more money than they'll ever spend.. they horde it, while other are starving to death.

Communism is a GREAT idea, unfortunately it doesn't work, but we can make some sacrifices..




At at some point, in an economy, if you DO NOT SPREAD WEALTH, the wealth becomes worthless. That's why our economy is failing now.

Look at the basics of an economy. Back to when it was a one person economy.. you hunted for food, or you died. Like I said, sure there are leachers, but there are also people who play with money and economics and make waaay more than they contribute to an economy.

LONGRD

know1 wrote:

Or - what's the income of the average worker in the U.S. compared to that of the average worker in a 3rd World country. Do you think our average union autoworker is being paid fairly compared to people in other countries?

It seems as if it's only unfair to people when they look up.

Well, the living expenses in a Third World country is much cheaper than here, so comparing an American worker to a worker in Cambodia is irrelevant.

You can buy and built a house with $7,000 USD over in a Third World country.

unsung

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Seriously dude, if you make more than 250k a year, you can afford to give a little more.. if not, you need to learn about GREED.

I do give, to charities to my choice. I don't need another politician deciding which of his pet projects or base constituents more of my money should go to.

Commy

unsung wrote:

I do give, to charities to my choice. I don't need another politician deciding which of his pet projects or base constituents more of my money should go to.

since, in most cases, labor helps that individual make that $250,000, I think they should have at least some say in where that money goes.

know1

pjfan020 wrote:

would you say that supplying the government with $700 billion to bail out greedy CEO's and wall street companies is spreading the wealth around? My wealth just went to pay for the gift of greed and now what? people are gonna start bitching when their gonna get taxed higher? Wake up here, BOTH men signed a bill that covered RICH and i'll say it again RICH men's asses..not the middle class. So neither candidate will ever be clean on this issue of unfairly distributing money.

This is pretty much the biggest reason I am voting against both of them....as well as against every Senator and Representative that I can who voted for it.

know1

LongRd. wrote:

Well, the living expenses in a Third World country is much cheaper than here, so comparing an American worker to a worker in Cambodia is irrelevant.

You can buy and built a house with $7,000 USD over in a Third World country.

The living expenses in NYC are much higher than Po-Dunk Missouri....yet the Federal tax rates are the same for both.

know1

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Seriously dude, if you make more than 250k a year, you can afford to give a little more.. if not, you need to learn about GREED.

Again, if you make more than $10K you're richer than about 80% of the people in the world so you can afford to give a little more as well.

dunkman

know1 wrote:

Again, if you make more than $10K you're richer than about 80% of the people in the world so you can afford to give a little more as well.

its all relative though... $10K (£5k) in a third world country will go a long way. it doesnt in the US i presume... it also means £100 a week here in the UK... that might cover your rent? maybe? but you'd need to drink your own boiled urine and eat dust to survive therafter.

its relative to your surroundings surely

know1

dunkman wrote:

its all relative though... $10K (£5k) in a third world country will go a long way. it doesnt in the US i presume... it also means £100 a week here in the UK... that might cover your rent? maybe? but you'd need to drink your own boiled urine and eat dust to survive therafter.

its relative to your surroundings surely

Right, so our money goes a lot farther if we give it to help those that REALLY need it.

My point is that wealth is relative. It seems most people favor redistribution of wealth as long as the cut-off point for those that have to give more lies somewhere above their own financial status. But for those of us on this board, there are far more people below us in this world than there are above us.

evenkat

I think what Obama was talking about is he wants to increase taxes on the ones who make over $250,000 so he can decrease taxes on the middle class or those who make less than $250,000...spreading the wealth around. By doing so it would put more money into the pockets of the middle class so they can use it to put it back into the economy, which in the long run will help businesses large and small...spreading the wealth around again.

prytoj

know1 wrote:

This is pretty much the biggest reason I am voting against both of them....as well as against every Senator and Representative that I can who voted for it.

I cant believe I am agreeing with you, but your fna right.

I will be protest voting all reps who voted this bill through.

Drew263

evenkat wrote:

I think what Obama was talking about is he wants to increase taxes on the ones who make over $250,000 so he can decrease taxes on the middle class or those who make less than $250,000...spreading the wealth around. By doing so it would put more money into the pockets of the middle class so they can use it to put it back into the economy, which in the long run will help businesses large and small...spreading the wealth around again.

A tax cut (which is the term he loves to use) is not the same as a tax credit...which is what he's actually proposing. He's not going to take less money out of my paycheck, therefore it's bs to call it a tax cut.

But....people that love handouts are fooled.

know1

prytoj wrote:

I cant believe I am agreeing with you, but your fna right.

I will be protest voting all reps who voted this bill through.

I actually took the time to write my Senators and Representatives prior to the vote and told them I would be voting against them if they voted for it. I also said I would tell everyone who would listen to do the same. They don't care about me, though. I wasn't one of the people lining their pockets with money and perks while begging for them to bail me out.

dunkman

evenkat wrote:

I think what Obama was talking about is he wants to increase taxes on the ones who make over $250,000 so he can decrease taxes on the middle class or those who make less than $250,000...spreading the wealth around. By doing so it would put more money into the pockets of the middle class so they can use it to put it back into the economy, which in the long run will help businesses large and small...spreading the wealth around again.

thats exactly the way the media have described it over here.

catefrances

LongRd. wrote:

Well, the living expenses in a Third World country is much cheaper than here, so comparing an American worker to a worker in Cambodia is irrelevant.

You can buy and built a house with $7,000 USD over in a Third World country.

you could probably build the same exact house in the US for the same amount of money as you could in a 3rd world country. but as you know keeping up with the joneses, and even bettering them, is a bitch.

prytoj

know1 wrote:

I actually took the time to write my Senators and Representatives prior to the vote and told them I would be voting against them if they voted for it. I also said I would tell everyone who would listen to do the same. They don't care about me, though. I wasn't one of the people lining their pockets with money and perks while begging for them to bail me out.

got you confused with kann, sry.

I called every line to the reps, they were ALL full voice mail :-)
so I faxed them. Watching Cspan - universal rejection of the plan by the people.

They deliberately ignored our will on this issue
They dabased the currency to help only those responsible for the problem

We need to vote them all out before they come after us for another .7 large.