Obama 1998--speech--"I actually believe in redistribution"--aka Socialism

[oreo]

Here is a youtube video of an Obama speech where he actually states "I actually believe in redistribution."

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

Now it all makes sense--tax the RICH--while campaigning on not raising taxes on the 47% that pay no federal income taxes anyway.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.

Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.

A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.

"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.

President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.

One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.

As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

"When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama

 

[copsnrobbers]

Yes, and Roberts said it best. Throw them out, and we will!

 

[Salt Jones]

Here is a youtube video of an Obama speech where he actually states "I actually believe in redistribution."

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

Now it all makes sense--tax the RICH--while campaigning on not raising taxes on the 47% that pay no federal income taxes anyway.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.

Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.

A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.

"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.

President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.

One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.

As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

"When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama

I agree with Obama. Let's distribute the white folks' money.

 

[Sherry]

"I think the trick is..."

 

[Lakhota]

That video was a fake. Already a thread on this lie.

 

[blackhawk]

Oh look at this the chosen one get's caught in his own words and it's a fake hell I found the story on the Huffington Post so they are putting out lies about Obama wow.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4]Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is a youtube video of an Obama speech where he actually states "I actually believe in redistribution."

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

Now it all makes sense--tax the RICH--while campaigning on not raising taxes on the 47% that pay no federal income taxes anyway.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.

Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.

A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.

"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.

President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.

One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.

As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

"When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama

I agree with Obama. Let's distribute the white folks' money.

Yeah,

Because your people are too fucking stupid to make it themselves. No wonder 2/3rds of your race is starving. Pathetic.

Wake the fuck up.

 

[Salt Jones]

Here is a youtube video of an Obama speech where he actually states "I actually believe in redistribution."

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

Now it all makes sense--tax the RICH--while campaigning on not raising taxes on the 47% that pay no federal income taxes anyway.


47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

"When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama

I agree with Obama. Let's distribute the white folks' money.

Yeah,

Because your people are too fucking stupid to make it themselves. No wonder 2/3rds of your race is starving. Pathetic.

Wake the fuck up.

Just using the Spanish, Portuguese, English, Belgian, French model.

Why make it, when you can take it?

 

[copsnrobbers]

That video was a fake. Already a thread on this lie.

Lakhota, The guy is a Socialist.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why do we need to go back to 1998? He said this very same thing on the campaign trail in the 2008 race.

I really don't see how anyone could not realize this man is economically inept and stands in contrast to our principles in this nation.

 

[copsnrobbers]

If you're a 47er it's not your fault. You didn't make that happen. Somebody else made that happen.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQu2SVFF-cU]U Didn't Build That by MC 'Bama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Moonglow]

These bums are the rights most hated in society.But you RWer's would gladly go down on the spot to these people cause they is rich. get them lips ready.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Nobody's really talking about this slice of the pie, but Mitt Romney's "47%" who pay no federal income tax include several thousand of the highest-income households in the country.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million ended up with zero federal income tax liability in 2011. Another 14,000 made between $500,000 and $1 million.

4,000 of the richest in Romney's '47%' - Sep. 18, 2012

 

[Moonglow]

And oh my God! These parasites of the right pay no taxes or very little also, but let the RWer's beat up on old people, the poor and the crippled. typical hate from the right.

One problem with the Republican theory is that many big corporations actually pay little, if any, federal income tax. For example, The New York Times has reported that General Electric, the sixth-largest corporation in the United States, earned $14.2 billion in 2010, but disclosed in federal filings that it had no federal tax liability.

Bruce Bartlett: Some Big Corporations Don't Pay Taxes, Either - NYTimes.com

 

[TakeAStepBack]

These bums are the rights most hated in society.But you RWer's would gladly go down on the spot to these people cause they is rich. get them lips ready.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Nobody's really talking about this slice of the pie, but Mitt Romney's "47%" who pay no federal income tax include several thousand of the highest-income households in the country.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million ended up with zero federal income tax liability in 2011. Another 14,000 made between $500,000 and $1 million.

4,000 of the richest in Romney's '47%' - Sep. 18, 2012

That's in the OP. All you had to do was stop frothing long enough to read and you wouldn't have wasted your time.

 

[lukelk]

you do know that taxes are at the lowest rates now than at almost any time in us history. Also I do not think you guys understand some simple things. There needs to be compramise. This is the reason the majority people feel disconected from the republican party right now. It is starting to show that they are un willing to. It also depends on the issue as well. to start rights are rights, and they are off the table. But in things like the econ. the most reasonable thing to do it take ideas from both sides, yes CUT some spending, things like:Military, health care. At the same time raise taxes. I will also remind you. the dems proposed this for ever 9 dollars we cut, we need to raise 1, but the repubs refused a 9.1 ratio. I do see on these boards a lot fo finger pointing, when it should be reaching across the isle.

 

[Moonglow]

and you wonder why I stoppped being a republican?I don't have the heart to hate for no real reason and whine about how the US govt. is sstealing my money and giving it away to those pariahs that are so hated by those good ole church going folks.
And tax cuts from repubs usually always means a tax increase on the lower wage earners, while the rich get to keep more. Stupid Reagan repubs and Ind. being used as a party tool to pass on lies and biased opinions.

 

[LilOlLady]

If the wealth is not redistributed, the have nots will take what the haves have by force. And there will be no government to help you because the have has dismantled law enforcement. If the poor don't eat, no one eats.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And oh my God! These parasites of the right pay no taxes or very little also, but let the RWer's beat up on old people, the poor and the crippled. typical hate from the right.

One problem with the Republican theory is that many big corporations actually pay little, if any, federal income tax. For example, The New York Times has reported that General Electric, the sixth-largest corporation in the United States, earned $14.2 billion in 2010, but disclosed in federal filings that it had no federal tax liability.

Bruce Bartlett: Some Big Corporations Don't Pay Taxes, Either - NYTimes.com

You really are a thunder DOLT, aren't you? You realize Obama bailed this company out, right?

Now it's a problem they didn't pay taxes and we're suppose to believe this is ROmney's fault?

 

[Moonglow]

I never said anything about Romney. Try again.