Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: IFBBwannaB on October 27, 2008, 05:07:53 AM
-
My statement is relevant. I don't give a flying rats ass if you don't think so. I posted it for a reason... or I can just end this and kill all threads like this from here on out if that'll make you happier.
What do you think about Obama radio interview calling for "Redistribution of wealth"?
Come on now...stop denying facts....step up and answer.
-
What do you think about Obama radio interview calling for "Redistribution of wealth"?
Come on now...stop denying facts....step up and answer.
They could care less. This false messiah could shoot their mothers in front of them and they would still worship him.
Most of the people voting for ZERO are no different than the Jim Jones cult.
Taxing ANYBODY more right now is just stupid. Most of the people who espouse ZERO's form of marxism have never run a business, never had a real job, never had responsibilities, and probably have never even taken an economics 101 class.
-
8 or more years ago, the majority in this country would have been critical of this policy...after Bush, it seems like many are willing to accept it because they want a new leader in Washington. IMO, we already have a graduated tax policy and there is no need to increase taxation penalties for success more than they already are. The gov should close loopholes and make sure people & corporations are reporting income correctly.
-
I'm very concerned with the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to a very small fraction of people. McBush should be ashamed. Obama not going along with this attack on the middle class and is the best guy to reverse this disturbing trend. McBush=$170 billion a year in tax cuts to corporations which is a redistribution of wealth ACCORDING TO MCCAIN 4 billion additional cuts for Exxon Mobil... gimme a break....
-
I'm very concerned with the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to a very small fraction of people. McBush should be ashamed. Obama not going along with this attack on the middle class and is the best guy to reverse this disturbing trend. McBush=$170 billion a year in tax cuts to corporations which is a redistribution of wealth ACCORDING TO MCCAIN 4 billion additional cuts for Exxon Mobil... gimme a break....
Hey moron, ending the Bush tax cuts result in a tax increase for many middle class people since the rates are going back up.
Anyone who believes ZERO is going to give a tax break to anyone is delusional at best.
Cutting taxes is not resdistrubting wealth. Its noth the govt's money to begin with you commie stooge.
The money I earn is mine, not yours or your welfare and malcontent constituencies.
-
What do you think about Obama radio interview calling for "Redistribution of wealth"?
Come on now...stop denying facts....step up and answer.
I think one of the biggest analytical mistakes by the McCain camp is to pick up on the redistribution thing as something they can slam Obama for.
I have a feeling that swing voters actually wants some redistribution, my guess is that many believes that banks and oil companies have gotten filthy rich.
Then you have McCain slamming attempts of redistribution the wealth?
I think he goes about it the wrong way.
McCain needs to address how he's gonna fix the economy, how he will fix relations with Russia, energy dependency, et al. He needs to become the caretaker.
It's probably to late though.
-
I think one of the biggest analytical mistakes by the McCain camp is to pick up on the redistribution thing as something they can slam Obama for.
I have a feeling that swing voters actually wants some redistribution, my guess is that many believes that banks and oil companies have gotten filthy rich.
Then you have McCain slamming attempts of redistribution the wealth?
I think he goes about it the wrong way.
McCain needs to address how he's gonna fix the economy, how he will fix relations with Russia, energy dependency, et al. He needs to become the caretaker.
It's probably to late though.
Great, just what we need, millions of citizens demanding for money to be taken from those that do to be given to ZERO to doll out as he pleases.
I never thought I would ever live to see the day when Americans were begging for communism. The public education systema nd media has done its job well.
-
As it is now, we have a graduated tax policy. It is already skewed to higher taxation for the wealthy. What don't you guys understand. Why would we make it worse? Makes little sense to punish success to a greater degree than is done now.
I agree with you on tax cuts to corporations. That is a complicated issue but needs to be examined thoroughly. We must prevent federal kickbacks and favoritism to corporations.
-
why do so many normal people defend the rich getting richer, while the middle class shrinks?
Is it some sort of moral obligation? Do they not know what 4 or 8 more years of the same economic policy will bring? Do they not turn on the news this morning, and see Asian markets down 12% and the DOw about to jump off a cliff despite another fed rate cut? Q3 and Q4 are going to be be 2% and 4% negative growth - and that's a conservative estimate - I mean we're looking at 4 quarters of negative growth - and you're still pissing and moaning because Obama wants to take some money from Bush, Cheney, and Swiss banks and put it in the pockets of walmart shoppers?
Geez.
-
Hey moron, ending the Bush tax cuts result in a tax increase for many middle class people since the rates are going back up.
Anyone who believes ZERO is going to give a tax break to anyone is delusional at best.
Cutting taxes is not resdistrubting wealth. Its noth the govt's money to begin with you commie stooge.
The money I earn is mine, not yours or your welfare and malcontent constituencies.
Hey Moron, I was going by McCain's definition of redistribution of wealth, not mine...
-
why do so many normal people defend the rich getting richer, while the middle class shrinks?
Is it some sort of moral obligation? Do they not know what 4 or 8 more years of the same economic policy will bring? Do they not turn on the news this morning, and see Asian markets down 12% and the DOw about to jump off a cliff despite another fed rate cut? Q3 and Q4 are going to be be 2% and 4% negative growth - and that's a conservative estimate - I mean we're looking at 4 quarters of negative growth - and you're still pissing and moaning because Obama wants to take some money from Bush, Cheney, and Swiss banks and put it in the pockets of walmart shoppers?
Geez.
It's what idealistic peasant farmers used to say in the 1200's
BIG f-ing deal. If you make over 250K year you'll have to pay how much more?
It's better then the republican PARTY'S history of REDISTRIBUTION OF DEBT.
-
I think one of the biggest analytical mistakes by the McCain camp is to pick up on the redistribution thing as something they can slam Obama for.
I have a feeling that swing voters actually wants some redistribution, my guess is that many believes that banks and oil companies have gotten filthy rich.
Then you have McCain slamming attempts of redistribution the wealth?
I think he goes about it the wrong way.
McCain needs to address how he's gonna fix the economy, how he will fix relations with Russia, energy dependency, et al. He needs to become the caretaker.
It's probably to late though.
Considering that Big Oil gets subsidized (read hand out) from the People to the tune of around $55 billion a year, I'd say getting some of that back is a matter of fairness especially in light of the fact that Big Oil has set records for profits.
Why do the most profitable companies in history still need tax payer subsidies? They don't.
-
why do so many normal people defend the rich getting richer, while the middle class shrinks?
Is it some sort of moral obligation? Do they not know what 4 or 8 more years of the same economic policy will bring? Do they not turn on the news this morning, and see Asian markets down 12% and the DOw about to jump off a cliff despite another fed rate cut? Q3 and Q4 are going to be be 2% and 4% negative growth - and that's a conservative estimate - I mean we're looking at 4 quarters of negative growth - and you're still pissing and moaning because Obama wants to take some money from Bush, Cheney, and Swiss banks and put it in the pockets of walmart shoppers?
Geez.
Even people on wall street are admitting this is partly the Obama-PELOSI-REID panic because they know he is going to absolutely kill any jobs growth with capital gains tax increase, income tax increases, etc.
Even Marie Bartiromo admitted this in an interview that the world markets are partly paniced over having a self admitted marxist in the WH with Pelosi and Reid running the congress and Senate.
ZERO has never even read an economics book, let alone have a real job, run a business, or done anything ever in his life regarding private enterprise.
The middle class has been shrinking because of the tax burden already on people. Between FICA, Income Tax, sales tax, real estate tax, energy tax, etc, everyone is getting the slammed.
TAXES are killing this economy.
-
Considering that Big Oil gets subsidized (read hand out) from the People to the tune of around $55 billion a year, I'd say getting some of that back is a matter of fairness especially in light of the fact that Big Oil has set records for profits.
Why do the most profitable companies in history still need tax payer subsidies? They don't.
The marxists like yourself on this board who have NEVER run a business have no clue about economics.
When you take more money away from people who do have "it" they stop spending. On what????
1. Landscapers.
2. Home improvements.
3. Boats,
4. Vacations
5. Restuarants
Who do you think owns all those small businesses???? Middle class people who rely on rich people to spend their money to stay in business you ignorant fool.
Assuming you do have a real job, which I doubt, why dont you go ask your boss if him or her being taxed more is going to result in you getting a raise a pink slip???????
-
Its not just income taxes. Many taxes will increase. Sales tax just increased in our area...again.
I feel we give too much of our money to the gov, who wastes a large portion of it...be it on Iraq, inefficient programs, $150,000 clothing allotments, whatever...there is just too much waste to justify any increase in spending. We must hold gov accountable first.
There are many reasons the middle class has shrunk, its not just because of federal income tax rates.
-
Decker, I agree. Those are the kinds of things gov should look at more closely. Stop subsidizing companies that don't need it. Stop rewarding non-compete contracts for work (like Haliburton). I am against corporate greed...but I am also against excessive taxation. I don't see the far left stopping at incomes of $250,000 and above (which in many areas is still upper middle class). Also, how long have these people made $250,000? Did they go to school for 10+ yrs with little or no income, sacrifice, come out with $100,000 of school loans with interest? Why penalyze them even more than our graduated tax policy already does? Why, because you don't think it will affect you? Many of these people become future employers, philanthropists, and spend $ that makes the economy grow. True, we don't want tons of millionaires but $250,000 for a family is hardly that....and Obama wants to take 40% of those income earnings (which does not include state and local taxes)?
The far left philosophy is to increase overall taxation so the gov can do more and control more. The gov is wasteful...I want it to do less and do it more efficiently.
-
Its not just income taxes. Many taxes will increase. Sales tax just increased in our area...again.
I feel we give too much of our money to the gov, who wastes a large portion of it...be it on Iraq, inefficient programs, $150,000 clothing allotments, whatever...there is just too much waste to justify any increase in spending. We must hold gov accountable first.
There are many reasons the middle class has shrunk, its not just because of federal income tax rates.
The average person spends probably 40% of his income on taxes of all sorts. Its really a crime how much the govt steals from its citizens.
-
The marxists like yourself on this board who have NEVER run a business have no clue about economics.
When you take more money away from people who do have "it" they stop spending. On what????
1. Landscapers.
2. Home improvements.
3. Boats,
4. Vacations
5. Restuarants
Who do you think owns all those small businesses???? Middle class people who rely on rich people to spend their money to stay in business you ignorant fool.
Assuming you do have a real job, which I doubt, why dont you go ask your boss if him or her being taxed more is going to result in you getting a raise a pink slip???????
Once Obama assumes control of the government, you will bow down before the collective might of the Proletariat embodied in our new Socialist Government and you shall join them in sharing the wealth of this country each according to his need!
Workers of the world Unite....that means you too 3333386!
-
Once Obama assumes control of the government, you will bow down before the collective might of the Proletariat embodied in our new Socialist Government and you shall join them in sharing the wealth of this country each according to his need!
Workers of the world Unite....that means you too 3333386!
Not without a hail of bullets.
-
Decker, I agree. Those are the kinds of things gov should look at more closely. Stop subsidizing companies that don't need it. Stop rewarding contracts for work (like Haliburton). I am against corporate greed...but I am also against excessive taxation.
I hate taxes as much as the next guy. Excessive taxation is a bad thing. In our debates on this board, setting out appropriate marginal income tax rates, sales tax rates etc. seems like a decent idea.
The idea that a gov. imposes taxes where the money is makes sense. Trying to squeeze 23% tax from a family earning 25,000 a year makes no sense to me.
There is a national interest in the oil companies being successful. That's where I agree with you. Big Oil has been way too successful to merit tax payer subsidies.
-
Not without a hail of bullets.
Son, suicide is not the answer.
-
hahaha.
-
Considering that Big Oil gets subsidized (read hand out) from the People to the tune of around $55 billion a year, I'd say getting some of that back is a matter of fairness especially in light of the fact that Big Oil has set records for profits.
Why do the most profitable companies in history still need tax payer subsidies? They don't.
My point was simply that the McCain camp is making a mistake if they think the swing voters considers redistribution as something bad.
Swing voters are likely to see redistribution as something positive, a way to get money back from the big greedy corps to the middle class. And if McCain opposes it, they will vote for the other fellow.
McCain needs to explain in detail why it is better to lower taxes for everybody (the argument is usually that it will stimulate the economy and create room for investments).
But he ain't doing that. Instead he's and Palin are talking about Obama's issues.
They're letting a junior senator from Illinois setting and owning the agenda.
Amazing.
Have to say that McCain seems a bit out of touch. :-/
-
My point was simply that the McCain camp is making a mistake if they think the swing voters considers redistribution as something bad.
Swing voters are likely to see redistribution as something positive, a way to get money back from the big greedy corps to the middle class. And if McCain opposes it, they will vote for the other fellow.
McCain needs to explain in detail why it is better to lower taxes for everybody (the argument is usually that it will stimulate the economy and create room for investments).
But he ain't doing that. Instead he's and Palin are talking about Obama's issues.
They're letting a junior senator from Illinois setting and owning the agenda.
Amazing.
Have to say that McCain seems a bit out of touch. :-/
When you add up the overall tax burden on everyone, its too much. WAY TOO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!
-
1.To all of you that say that it's fair and they shouldn't cry about more taxes...STFU! There is nothing ethical about increasing taxes to people that make more money, money comes from hard work, this isn't tax on your casino winnings!
And giving it to welfare and other BS is even less ethical.
2.The government doesn't lack money, it need to spend it more wisely, and that is exactly what WON'T happen with Obama! He want to take more and spend more! He said he got tons of new plans to spend lots of money on them...no amount of taxation can save from that thinking!
3.The government job isn't to even out and take Exxon money and give it to crack head Frank for him to buy more shit.
4.Business's pay less taxes because they have MUCH MUCH larger risk, they help the goverment in providing supporting infrastructure , they create jobs and they can always move to some place that will charge them less.
So killing big business is not the way to go, that's a sure way to ensure that no new infrastructure like better telecommunications will be built since there will be no money in it! No new oil rigs to supply demand and more similar issues.
The solutions is to have SMARTER spending, to prevent LOOPHOLES and tax FRAUDS (and other types of frauds) and to help defend the consumer from the overwhelming power of big corporations, the rest will be dealt by the market.
-
why do so many normal people defend the rich getting richer, while the middle class shrinks?
Is it some sort of moral obligation? Do they not know what 4 or 8 more years of the same economic policy will bring? Do they not turn on the news this morning, and see Asian markets down 12% and the DOw about to jump off a cliff despite another fed rate cut? Q3 and Q4 are going to be be 2% and 4% negative growth - and that's a conservative estimate - I mean we're looking at 4 quarters of negative growth - and you're still pissing and moaning because Obama wants to take some money from Bush, Cheney, and Swiss banks and put it in the pockets of walmart shoppers?
Geez.
"Markets down," "negative, growth," blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
The stock market is like a spoiled bratty kid who throws a hissy fit at the slightest provocation. People who freak out about the stock market are the same people who freak out about global warming... both of them are similar... they go through cycles, that's the way it's always been! So just sit down, take a deep breath, and breathe.
Glenn Beck lives in NYC and lives with lots of people who work on Wall St. He mentioned very recently that NINE financial people within his own circle of acquaintances have committed suicide within the past month or two. I mean, WTF. The market reacts to perceptions... so much of it is based on speculation... it's been so volatile lately and I just have to roll my eyes when the news reports that the market ended down 800 points or whatever. Like that's big news lately. All they're basically saying is "the market pitched a hissy fit today in reaction to this or that news."
Economic bubbles (e.g. dot-coms, mortgage lending booms, etc.) form, and they inevitably eventually burst and things settle back down to normal. And if you're going to get worked into a tizzy every time that happens you'd better stock up on Pepto-Bismol and blood pressure pills.
Oh and this whole 'wealth redistribution' thing is pretty stupid and pointless. As if I should vote for Obama because I'll get $1000 instead of only $600 from McCain. It's political maneuvering and vote-buying on both sides and it just makes me want to gag. But I have to say it's infinitely more stupid to talk about giving "tax cuts" to people who don't even PAY taxes.
-
http://www.americasright.com/ (http://www.americasright.com/)
'Change' Could Last a Generation
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."
So, according to Barack Obama, it is a tragedy that the Court never interpreted the U.S. Constitution, a document he said was fundamentally flawed and "reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day," so as to force the redistribution of wealth to African-Americans. He called it "one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement" that we could not "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution," and noted that "the framers had that same blind spot." At the time this interview took place, in 2001, he lamented that such change would likely not come from the judiciary and would have to come from legislation.
A week from tomorrow, Barack Obama could be well on his way of ensuring that the Supreme Court, and indeed all levels of the federal bench, adhere more to his ideological perspective that the role of the courts is to "favor the weak against the strong" rather than interpreting the U.S. Constitution as it was written.
We already know that Obama is a socialist, plain and simple. He wants to punish those who are successful, and give the fruits of that hard work to those who simply have not chosen to work as hard. We already know that Obama has an ultra-left take on the role of the judiciary -- now, a week and a day before the election, maybe more people will see it.
With the advancing age of the Supreme Court Justices, it is possible that the next president of the United States could nominate anywhere from two to five--or more!--Justices to the highest court in the land. I wonder about how Barack Obama's potential nominees, who would inevitably make the Ninth Circuit look like Justice Scalia in comparison and would receive minimal vetting from a democrat-controlled Congress, would address the erosion of our Constitutional rights, the thinning of our core values, the prosecution of the War on Terror and the need to insulate ourselves from Islam and Sharia Law.
Barack Obama is absolutely, 100 percent wrong on the judiciary. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is NOT to evaluate the matter at hand based upon the feeling in their "hearts." The role of a Supreme Court Justice is not to make a decision based upon the interests of a single mother, a welfare addict, or anyone else for that matter. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to look at the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION when weighing a controversy and interpret the document--preferably in as narrow a fashion as possible--as needed to adjudicate the controversy in question.
We need to "break free" from the principles put forth by our framers? As far as I can tell, the abandonment of those ideas and ideals is what got us here in the first place, staring a bloated government in the mouth, watching as our sovereignty is eroding by the minute. Every single word, phrase and paragraph in our founding documents are there for a reason, placed there by people who fought, bled and died to make this country the antithesis of the tyrannical rule from which they escaped. This is a nation which, because of its founding principles, is a beacon of hope for those around the world who strive for freedom, opportunity and fairness. And now, the man who very likely could be the 44th president of these United States laments that the Supreme Court hasn't just tossed asunder the principles and aspirations of our founding fathers in the name of a Marxist approach to social engineering.
Achieving "social justice" through "redistributive change" is his goal. And, come January, he could be well on his way to using every branch of government to do it.
We absolutely must take back some Congressional seats through action in the voting booth. If the democrats obtain exclusive control of both the legislative and executive branches, and Obama the Oval Office, the judicial branch will soon follow. The harm done to our nation over the course of four years could last a generation.
For your reading pleasure, here's a piece on Obama's view of the Court from back in February of this year. I wrote about it back then, but think it would behoove everyone to take a second look.
-- Jeff
Obama's Class War Court
by Terry Jeffrey, townhall.com
February 27, 2008
When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the "weak" over the "strong."
When the nomination of Sam Alito came up in January 2006, he made the same argument.
Obama does not want a Supreme Court that preserves the rule of law, he wants a Supreme Court that wages class war under color of law.
During the Roberts nomination debate, he argued that most Supreme Court cases involve no real controversy, "so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases."
In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. "In those difficult cases," Obama said, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren't in the right place.
"The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005.
"When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled," Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. "There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless."
Implicitly conceding that Roberts would be confirmed, Obama said, "I hope he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society."
So, in Obama's vision, who are the "weak" and who are the "strong"? Who deserves to win the "hearts" of Supreme Court justices? Who does not?
In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about bringing America together, Obama's Senate speeches against Roberts and Alito revealed a polarizing vision of America. Minorities, women, employees and criminal defendants were among the weak, majorities, men, employers and prosecutors were among the strong.
"In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process," Obama said of Roberts. "In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."
Alito had a similar problem, only with different preferred victim classes.
"If there is a case involving an employer and employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer," Obama said. "If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he will rule in favor of the state."
Obama expressed disappointed that when he interviewed John Roberts he could not get the judge to reveal more of his personal feelings. "Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and deeper feelings," Obama said. "That is not how he is trained."
Rather than trying to get up-close-and-personal with Roberts, Obama should have listened more carefully to the judge's testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It clearly explained why judges must not consider who is "weak" and who is "strong" in a case, or consult their personal sympathies in making decisions that must be based on the facts and the law.
"Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them," said Roberts. "I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."
If Obama becomes president, he will try to stack the court not with umpires, but with players who put their heart in every game -- consistently pitching and batting for Obama's favorite teams.
-
why do so many normal people defend the rich getting richer, while the middle class shrinks?
Is it some sort of moral obligation? Do they not know what 4 or 8 more years of the same economic policy will bring? Do they not turn on the news this morning, and see Asian markets down 12% and the DOw about to jump off a cliff despite another fed rate cut? Q3 and Q4 are going to be be 2% and 4% negative growth - and that's a conservative estimate - I mean we're looking at 4 quarters of negative growth - and you're still pissing and moaning because Obama wants to take some money from Bush, Cheney, and Swiss banks and put it in the pockets of walmart shoppers?
Geez.
You freaking joking right?
-
You freaking joking right?
Don't bother arguing with these fools. They have no clue about what this country was founded upon, have economic education, have never run a business, have never held a job in a small private business, and genrrally have no clue about what makes the economy work.
Their ideas are based upon what their marxist sociology professor told them and their desire to "stick it" to people better off than themselves.