Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth.

[editec]

This continuous ongoing debate about capitalism V socialism reminds me of the debate:

Who would win: superman or batman?​

Laisse fair capitalism is impossible since in order to have markets, one must have rules (and a legal tender) to see to it that markets can even exist.​

There is one bedrock foundation in the constitution which assures us that we live in a capitalist society...​

“"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​

 

[sealybobo]

I paid my way through school in the mid 90’s without taking any loans, and tuition costs at state schools here in Washington haven’t gone up that much so I would wager that you could still pay for school yourself working full time.

I don’t think I ever argued against taxing corporations, did I?

My point was that if you have attended a State College or University 50-80% of your costs were subsidized by the government. Even though I paid $950/quarter for school the state’s tab was an additional $2,500. So, for 5 years I received a “welfare” benefit of $7,500 per year. At the time that was considerably more than a single mother of 3 would receive from the government through AFDC.

Me too. My dad helped, but for the most, I paid. Trust me Turbo, it isn't that easy today. If it's now $10k a year, that's hard to do. Keep inflation in mind. So you can do it, but you'll probably need to take out loans where we didn't have to. But I'll agree there is no excuse for financing the entire thing, which a lot of people do. Dumbasses. They'd rather relax over the summers instead of work and save like we did. They want to live up at school too where I had to move back home each summer to live free at my parents so I could save the max possible. My dad didn't let me spend my checks because then he would have to contribute more of HIS money. So I signed my checks, made about $4000 in the summer, and my dad kicked in the extra $1k. And my brother was going to school too, so $2k he had to kick in each year. At $40K a year, that was a lot of money. I love him for it. But man was he CHEAP!! LOL.

 

[sealybobo]

yet he, and you, will vote for someone that will raise taxes on those that dont pay them, and never will
they will always pass those taxes onto YOU

And you will vote for the people who always pass them on to you.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.

The following bears repeating:

Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
The tax system is the enemy and the rich are the scapegoat.

On this thread alone I have proposed a national sales or property tax as a solution to the class warfare and the encroachment of the .gov on your civil liberties. Yet, you insist on demonizing the successful and attempting to impose by force your vision of what is moral and just without addressing solutions that allow everyone to win except the politicians.

It isn't my fault that someone is poor. Nor is it bill gates fault that I and my wife work two jobs each, and collect a retirement pension, and still fall in under 100K. Trust me I know exactly what the working middle class is all about. And yet, I don't begrudge Mr Gates his success.

Phil,

Do you like having roads and bridges? Do you appreciate the ability of your neighbors to read, write and cipher? I am assuming by your posts that you have a private education, but most of the rest of us are thankful for public education. Do you like sleeping peacefully at night, knowing that the US military is on the job?

Dude - if you can appreciate any of the above, you appreciate government. Someone has to pay taxes for it. I don't mind paying my fair share, do you?

If Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett need to trim their personal budgets by 10% of their income they will still have billions in personal assets.

If my father has to trim his budget by 10% he has to eat Alpo twice a week.

Doesn't it make sense in these tough economic times to leave my dad alone and ask Bill and Warren to 'hitch up their belts' and buy the Mercedes instead of the Ferrari?

Obviously this is an analogy of extremes...

-Joe

 

[Navy1960]

Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right.

America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.

The Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

Economic freedom is freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. Economic freedom is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract.

Economic freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons


Amendment Text | Annotations
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The constitution has many instances of "economic and property rights" . All it takes is the time to look it up.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson

"[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to... the acquisitions of our own industry." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural

 

[Turboswede]

Me too. My dad helped, but for the most, I paid. Trust me Turbo, it isn't that easy today. If it's now $10k a year, that's hard to do. Keep inflation in mind. So you can do it, but you'll probably need to take out loans where we didn't have to.QUOTE]

It was tough back then and I am sure it would be tough today, but if you are determined you can still make it work. Back in school I lived in a house with 5 other guys and all of us were paying our way through school. There were months where one of us would pick up the other’s share of rent because the guy just couldn’t make ends meet that month. I think I ended up being the house bank because I always had cash (I got tips).

I was looking at tuition costs the other day because I have set up 529 accounts for my 2 kids and wanted to see how much it will probobly cost to put them through school. It would be tougher today in WA state, from 1995-2008 tuition has gone up by 86% while the minimum wage has gone up by 66%.

Like I said, it can probobly be done today but I remember always being broke and it looks like the past 15 years would have eroded about 20% of my “real” income (at minimum wage) when compaired to tuition. The same probobly holds true for living & transportation costs as well.

 

[N4mddissent]

First, I hate hearing about "class warfare" from either side. The rich are greedy and often look upon those with less as undeserving, the poor see the rich as greedy and undeserving. There are conflicts, but it isn't class warfare yet. Ask Louis XVI to describe "class warfare".

2nd,

Purpose of the Constitution
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish Justice
3. Ensure domestic tranquility
4. provide for our common defense
5. promote the general welfare
6. secure the blessings of liberty.

I'm pretty sure high economic disparity threatens 1 and 3. Numbers 2 and 4 require taxes. Programs that provide food, shelter, and healthcare are definitely within the domain of 5.

 

[DiamondDave]

First, I hate hearing about "class warfare" from either side. The rich are greedy and often look upon those with less as undeserving, the poor see the rich as greedy and undeserving. There are conflicts, but it isn't class warfare yet. Ask Louis XVI to describe "class warfare".

2nd,

Purpose of the Constitution
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish Justice
3. Ensure domestic tranquility
4. provide for our common defense
5. promote the general welfare
6. secure the blessings of liberty.

I'm pretty sure high economic disparity threatens 1 and 3. Numbers 2 and 4 require taxes. Programs that provide food, shelter, and healthcare are definitely within the domain of 5.

Promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING the general welfare...

Forming a more perfect union did not entail a socialist system... rather a system of freedom and liberty, which were/are the founding fathers' ideas of a more perfect union

Domestic tranquility is not appeasement and confiscation for others, while violating the rights of the earners and those who have had success

To run government, taxes and/or tariffs are indeed a necessity... it takes money to run a country... but this does not empower the government o act as an allowance giver or to act as Robin Hood

 

[N4mddissent]

Promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING the general welfare...

Forming a more perfect union did not entail a socialist system... rather a system of freedom and liberty, which were/are the founding fathers' ideas of a more perfect union

Domestic tranquility is not appeasement and confiscation for others, while violating the rights of the earners and those who have had success

To run government, taxes and/or tariffs are indeed a necessity... it takes money to run a country... but this does not empower the government o act as an allowance giver or to act as Robin Hood

So you're saying that social programs do not promote the general welfare?

And the founding fathers were just being redundant when they said "a more perfect union" and then later said "securing the blessings of liberty"

Keep in mind that I did not mention these in support of a specific solution. I was simply stating how they might be applicable, but it is still reasonable to debate how they might be achieved. Take for example that income disparity threatens domestic tranquility does it not? If so, how would you propose to ensure domestic tranquility within that context?

 

[DiamondDave]

So you're saying that social programs do not promote the general welfare?

And the founding fathers were just being redundant when they said "a more perfect union" and then later said "securing the blessings of liberty"

Keep in mind that I did not mention these in support of a specific solution. I was simply stating how they might be applicable, but it is still reasonable to debate how they might be achieved. Take for example that income disparity threatens domestic tranquility does it not? If so, how would you propose to ensure domestic tranquility within that context?

They were VERY careful in their choice of words... promoting the general welfare is not the same as providing the general welfare or even providing for the general welfare....

Plus you should also understand that welfare as the word is used today was not how it was used back then....

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Not having enough sex could threaten domestic tranquility as well.. ain't the job of the government to ensure you get enough of that either

How would I propose ensuring domestic tranquility? Simple.. ensure our freedoms are upheld.. Ensure that we can still live by the consequences of our decisions and choices made from those freedoms, both good AND bad... ensure equal rights for opportunity... but also that you cannot make all of the people happy as a government.. but as long as you ensure that the political groundwork is there for those to derive their own happiness thru any legal efforts they wish to use

 

[AVG-JOE]

Promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING the general welfare...

Forming a more perfect union did not entail a socialist system... rather a system of freedom and liberty, which were/are the founding fathers' ideas of a more perfect union

Domestic tranquility is not appeasement and confiscation for others, while violating the rights of the earners and those who have had success

To run government, taxes and/or tariffs are indeed a necessity... it takes money to run a country... but this does not empower the government o act as an allowance giver or to act as Robin Hood

Dave, you seem to have this idea that somehow people are going to start drawing a monthly paycheck from Uncle Sam just for being here... Can you back this belief up?

-Joe

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, you seem to have this idea that somehow people are going to start drawing a monthly paycheck from Uncle Sam just for being here... Can you back this belief up?

-Joe

Hmmm... starting with people who don't pay any taxes, that suddenly start getting tax money back under Obama's plan??? Hmmm.. people gaining entitlements at the expense of others, such as universal healthcare... hmmm....


Yep indeed... drawing something from the government, that the government controls thru confiscation and redistribution

Truly the American way dreamed up by our founding fathers

 

[Care4all]

Hmmm... starting with people who don't pay any taxes, that suddenly start getting tax money back under Obama's plan??? Hmmm.. people gaining entitlements at the expense of others, such as universal healthcare... hmmm....


Yep indeed... drawing something from the government, that the government controls thru confiscation and redistribution

Truly the American way dreamed up by our founding fathers

that happens right now with bush as president with the earned income credit....so what is new with obama?

 

[SwingVoter]

Yep indeed... drawing something from the government, that the government controls thru confiscation and redistribution

Truly the American way dreamed up by our founding fathers

Then why doesn't the GOP repeal the massive expansion to Socialized Medicine it created with the $40 Billion a year Medicare Drug plan?

 

[pegwinn]

Nonsense. If everyone's justifyable wealth is equal to the economic contribution that each of them have made to society, then the 'wealthy' are a bunch of thieves. They have universally accummulated their wealth by depriving working people of the wealth which they deserve.

Underpaying people is THIEVERY.

You are free to hold that opinion. I am not rich yet I don't feel I have been stolen from. And, how do you support your assertion of deprivation and that anyone "deserves" to be wealthy. As to economic contribution; I would say the creative spark that envisioned McDonalds and guided its' expansion and success is at least as valuable as the mass of people who say "Would you like to supersize that?" Last note: What would happen due to a massive shift upward in wages....?

Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right. First, the Declaration is not a legal document. Second, see the 9th Amendment.

America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.

Slavery? Come now. Show me a slave.

can you name a rich person that is being soaked? Do you personally know one?

care

No, I don't know a "rich" person getting soaked. I do know a well off person getting soaked, my boss at work. My disdain for the folks who want to scapegoat the rich is simply the numbers and stats showing who pays the most. I simply believe in fairness. If everyone paid 10% I would have less of a beef. My issue is with the tax system, not the tax payer.

Phil,

Do you like having roads and bridges? Do you appreciate the ability of your neighbors to read, write and cipher? I am assuming by your posts that you have a private education, but most of the rest of us are thankful for public education. Do you like sleeping peacefully at night, knowing that the US military is on the job? Public HS, No college except for the occasional night course while in the service for my own purposes. I have no beef with public education excepting the feds involvement. I believe it should be managed totally at the local and state level since there is no enumerated power in the Constitution to authorise the feds involvement. I sleep great because I spent 22 years on active duty. So I know the quality of the young Americans on the job, I trained a lot of them.

Dude - if you can appreciate any of the above, you appreciate government. Someone has to pay taxes for it. I don't mind paying my fair share, do you? Absolutely not. I object to the system and the skewed notion of fairness it presents. I object to the removal of civil liberties and the creation of a lifelong dossier maintained by the IRS in violation of your right to privacy. I would prefer a national sales tax. Under that system you are taxed on spending. Who spends more? Rich or Poor?

If Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett need to trim their personal budgets by 10% of their income they will still have billions in personal assets. True. And they still will have been stolen from.

If my father has to trim his budget by 10% he has to eat Alpo twice a week.

Doesn't it make sense in these tough economic times to leave my dad alone and ask Bill and Warren to 'hitch up their belts' and buy the Mercedes instead of the Ferrari?

Obviously this is an analogy of extremes...

-Joe

How about this for extremes.... Substitute the word Gay, Lesbian, Black, Hispanic, or Woman in place of Rich. AS in, "Let's make all the Blacks and Women pay ten percent more in taxes." Wrong is wrong no matter how you label the scapegoat. What is needed is a system that normally guarantees the anonymity of the payer. A sales tax does that.

Nice talking to you Joe.

-Phil

First, I hate hearing about "class warfare" from either side. The rich are greedy and often look upon those with less as undeserving, the poor see the rich as greedy and undeserving. There are conflicts, but it isn't class warfare yet. Ask Louis XVI to describe "class warfare".

2nd,

Purpose of the Constitution
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish Justice
3. Ensure domestic tranquility
4. provide for our common defense
5. promote the general welfare
6. secure the blessings of liberty.

I'm pretty sure high economic disparity threatens 1 and 3. Numbers 2 and 4 require taxes. Programs that provide food, shelter, and healthcare are definitely within the domain of 5.

Let's try this again from a different angle. Why is income based taxation best in your view? I understand the need for taxes.

What I cannot condone is a systemic focus for special attention of the government towards a minority segment of the population.

Did you notice how the preceding can be applied to any case of substantiated discrimination? Rich, poor, women, blacks, hispanics, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, income, personal success.......

 

[Care4all]

You are free to hold that opinion. I am not rich yet I don't feel I have been stolen from. And, how do you support your assertion of deprivation and that anyone "deserves" to be wealthy. As to economic contribution; I would say the creative spark that envisioned McDonalds and guided its' expansion and success is at least as valuable as the mass of people who say "Would you like to supersize that?" Last note: What would happen due to a massive shift upward in wages....?



Slavery? Come now. Show me a slave.



No, I don't know a "rich" person getting soaked. I do know a well off person getting soaked, my boss at work. My disdain for the folks who want to scapegoat the rich is simply the numbers and stats showing who pays the most. I simply believe in fairness. If everyone paid 10% I would have less of a beef. My issue is with the tax system, not the tax payer.



How about this for extremes.... Substitute the word Gay, Lesbian, Black, Hispanic, or Woman in place of Rich. AS in, "Let's make all the Blacks and Women pay ten percent more in taxes." Wrong is wrong no matter how you label the scapegoat. What is needed is a system that normally guarantees the anonymity of the payer. A sales tax does that.

Nice talking to you Joe.

-Phil



Let's try this again from a different angle. Why is income based taxation best in your view? I understand the need for taxes.

What I cannot condone is a systemic focus for special attention of the government towards a minority segment of the population.

Did you notice how the preceding can be applied to any case of substantiated discrimination? Rich, poor, women, blacks, hispanics, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, income, personal success.......

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you don't believe in a progressive income tax system? Is this your argument?

Care

 

[Care4all]

seriously, you CANT soak the rich
they pass those taxes onto everyone else

bullcrap divecon...

we are NOT TALKING ABOUT A BUSINESS, we are talking about an INDIVIDUAL'S income aren't we....?

care

 

[editec]

It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.

Yes it is. Except nobody's calling for anyone to "soak the rich"

After over thirty years of pillaging the middle class, it is hardly immoral to return some of the booty which the superwealthy have bleed from this economy's middle class via foolish taxation and trade policies.

In fact, to continue with these policies is the immoral act.

 

[AVG-JOE]

...How about this for extremes.... Substitute the word Gay, Lesbian, Black, Hispanic, or Woman in place of Rich. AS in, "Let's make all the Blacks and Women pay ten percent more in taxes." Wrong is wrong no matter how you label the scapegoat. What is needed is a system that normally guarantees the anonymity of the payer. A sales tax does that.

Nice talking to you Joe.

-Phil



Let's try this again from a different angle. Why is income based taxation best in your view? I understand the need for taxes.

What I cannot condone is a systemic focus for special attention of the government towards a minority segment of the population.

Did you notice how the preceding can be applied to any case of substantiated discrimination? Rich, poor, women, blacks, hispanics, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, income, personal success.......

I think you are being silly suggesting anyone would support taxation based on sexuality, race or gender - and I believe that you know that.

As far as fair tax policy goes, I believe that you and I are pretty much on the same page here Phil...

Check this link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...he-consequences-in-the-future.html#post840798

-Joe

 

[DavidS]

Do you guys pay zero taxes?

I certainly don't. Do you guys get money taken out of your paychecks every week?

Here's what the media (left wing included) isn't telling you guys.

You know when you go to a job and you fill out the W2 forms and you declare yourself head of household, or a dependent, etc.? That basically determines the amount of "witholding", i.e. payroll tax which is a form of income tax, that someone pays. So when you get your paycheck at the end of the week, and you see the amount deducted for taxes, that's what every single working American pays. At the end of the year, you take your W2 to the accountant and show him what you've earned and what you've paid in payroll taxes. After all of the deductions and tax credits you get, most of us get a tax refund check or don't have any income tax liability. That's what Sean Hannity means about not paying any taxes.

EVERYONE pays payroll tax.

Under Obama, the amount of money you pay in payroll taxes stays the same. You earn $769.23 a week, you get 14.5% of that taken out in payroll taxes. Then you have your FICA (social security and medicare) deducted. Your net pay is $598.39 per week. Then let's say you get health insurance that costs $100 per week. So your net pay is $498.39 per week.

At the end of the year, your gross income of $40,000 goes up against tax credits and deductions. If you're single, you automatically get a $5,450 deduction and let's say you have $2000 in extra credits and deductions from using your car to drive to and from work to having a child, your new gross salary is $32,550. Under Obama, your new income tax bracket is 11.4%. So your final tax bill due to the government is $3710.70. But you've already paid $5800 in taxes to the government, so you get a tax refund of $2,089.30.

Under McCain, your tax bracket is 14.5%. So your tax bill due to the government is $4719.75. But you've already paid $5800 in taxes, so you get a tax refund of $1080.25.

Currently, under Bush, your tax bracket is 15%. So your tax bill due to the government is $4882.50. You get a tax refund under Bush of $917.50.

Many people already get a check from the IRS from the government. So all Obama is doing is increasing that check that someone in the middle class gets. This is with an average income of $40,000 a year.

Now the trickle-up theory states that the extra $2089.90 that you have in your pocket is money that you're going to spend. Under Obama you have $1172.40 than you would have under Bush. So the trickle up theory says with that $1172.40, you go out and buy new clothes. You go out and take your wife out for dinner. You go out and buy things and you spend that money on the economy. Now multiply the $2089.90 by 100 million people who earn around $40,000 a year. You're talking about over $2 trillion that people are going to spend on the economy. That's more jobs that corporations have to create, that's more supplies from other corporations that businesses have to order... that's increased demand because people have more money.