Obama's REAL Religion

[PoliticalChic]

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???

4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine


a. Liberal folks regularly complain about religion in the public arena, carping about turning our nation into a theocracy….but without an economic basis for taxation, it is no more than a religious belief to set policy on such a basis.





But Obama, sr and jr represent the socialist religion that is undergoing a 'reformation' elsewhere....



5. "The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


Our President is not smart enough to catch what is blowin' in the wind.

 

[Indofred]

My father was an industrial chemist - I am not.

Your post, sweet darling, is crap.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My father was an industrial chemist - I am not.

Your post, sweet darling, is crap.

I note that you didn't specify any specific errors....

...was that so that I couldn't take you to the woodshed?

 

[RDD_1210]

Holy fuck, please get a job. You obviously have way too much time on your hands. If all of you nutjobs made productive use of your time our country would be much better off.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Holy fuck, please get a job. You obviously have way too much time on your hands. If all of you nutjobs made productive use of your time our country would be much better off.

Wouldya look at that!

Another empty post by a fear-filled Lib!
Now, why is it that at its source....you guys always suggest that opposition voices be silenced?


How surprising that you couldn't actually find any teensy-weensy error in in the thesis!


Dismissed...you can get back to your comic books now.

 

[Seawytch]

The ODS is strong in the OP.

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan raised capital gains taxes, so he had no religion either, or no religion, whatever mythical metaphoric analagy you want.

This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality

Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?

 

[Sallow]

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???

4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine


a. Liberal folks regularly complain about religion in the public arena, carping about turning our nation into a theocracy….but without an economic basis for taxation, it is no more than a religious belief to set policy on such a basis.





But Obama, sr and jr represent the socialist religion that is undergoing a 'reformation' elsewhere....



5. "The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


Our President is not smart enough to catch what is blowin' in the wind.

Without getting into how this pertains to the president..

1. Correct. Each and every time you have power and wealth in the hands of a few..revolution breaks out.

2. That's correct. Our own constitution has no limit on tax rates.

3. You guys support 0 or close to 0 tax rates. Tax rates are the lowest in this country right now then they have been in many years. Where's the benefit? And by benefit..I ain't talking about the Koch Brothers.

4. "Capital gains" is a euphemism for money for nothing. And it relies on government infrastructure to make it possible. So? You like the money for nothing thing? Vote Republican".

5. You guys hold a religious litmus test to each and every candidate. That's not very constitutional of yas..

Done..without the cut and paste..

 

[VaYank5150]

My father was an industrial chemist - I am not.

Your post, sweet darling, is crap.

I note that you didn't specify any specific errors....

...was that so that I couldn't take you to the woodshed?

Errors? I am still looking for relevance?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan raised capital gains taxes, so he had no religion either, or no religion, whatever mythical metaphoric analagy you want.

This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality

Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?

Very nice, drop-draws!


You embarrass the other Libs in this thread: you are the first one to actually add something to the thread!

"Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?"

First....because it is an advantage in the economic system to have investment.

A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally abolished, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral.
See chapter seven of Sowell's "Economic Facts and Fallacies."


Follow so far? Good.
Now...why should an investor give money to one who has only an idea (a business model)?
No collateral = risk.



Second....because risk capital is taxed three time!


1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes.

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The ODS is strong in the OP.

OMG!

Another no-effort, no IQ Liberal.


Back to the dumb row.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My father was an industrial chemist - I am not.

Your post, sweet darling, is crap.

I note that you didn't specify any specific errors....

...was that so that I couldn't take you to the woodshed?

Errors? I am still looking for relevance?

You are a fool.

1. Va is in the United States

2. Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

3. This President has done an atrocious job at managing the economy.

4.The OP explains why: he is an ideologue.

5. On the off-chance that you didn't understand the meaning of the vocabulary you chose,

rel·e·vance (rl-vns)
n.
1. Pertinence to the matter at hand.



Dunce.

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan raised capital gains taxes, so he had no religion either, or no religion, whatever mythical metaphoric analagy you want.

This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality

Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?

Very nice, drop-draws!


You embarrass the other Libs in this thread: you are the first one to actually add something to the thread!

"Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?"

First....because it is an advantage in the economic system to have investment.

A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally abolished, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral.
See chapter seven of Sowell's "Economic Facts and Fallacies."


Follow so far? Good.
Now...why should an investor give money to one who has only an idea (a business model)?
No collateral = risk.



Second....because risk capital is taxed three time!


1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes.

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216.

I never used any collateral, I bought and paid cash for my business.
Your tax mode is for earning monies to invest, afterthe initial tax the profit from the investment can be rolled over and no taxes paid on earnings.

The estate tax is for those having over 500k, does not affect me, so as long as I keep it under a certain amount then I pay no estate taxes.

Final, taxes on corps are taxed at the net, not gross level, many companies pay little or no taxes after business deductions, and taxes are not charges on dividends paid by the corporation to the share holder

 

[Seawytch]

The ODS is strong in the OP.

OMG!

Another no-effort, no IQ Liberal.


Back to the dumb row.

Oh...so to br considered "intelligent" I need to cut and paste someone else's opinion?

Yup I was right...ODS.

 

[Sallow]

I note that you didn't specify any specific errors....

...was that so that I couldn't take you to the woodshed?

Errors? I am still looking for relevance?

You are a fool.

1. Va is in the United States

2. Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

3. This President has done an atrocious job at managing the economy.

4.The OP explains why: he is an ideologue.

5. On the off-chance that you didn't understand the meaning of the vocabulary you chose,

rel·e·vance (rl-vns)
n.
1. Pertinence to the matter at hand.



Dunce.

Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf..oh..that would be you..Red Riding Hood.

1. Bwuh?

2. Yes he is..and by winning both the Electoral college and the popular vote.

3. By "atrocious" I suppose you are using Bush's economy as a benchmark. I'll take atrocious over that.

4. As are you.

5. Physician heal thy self.

And you do know what happens to Red Riding Hood in the end..don't ya? And I mean the real Grimm's Brother ending..not the "cleaned up" version..

Scary!

 

[8537]

Reagan raised capital gains taxes, so he had no religion either, or no religion, whatever mythical metaphoric analagy you want.

This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality

Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?

Very nice, drop-draws!


You embarrass the other Libs in this thread: you are the first one to actually add something to the thread!

"Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?"

First....because it is an advantage in the economic system to have investment.

Wait what?!?!?! That's the dumbest fucking argument i've ever heard. We have massive unemployment and you think we should be incentivizing people to invest in...capital?

You know what's advantageous in the "economic system"? People working. Cut taxes on that.

1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes.

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40%

No, it's not. Profits are taxed, not revenues.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???

4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine


a. Liberal folks regularly complain about religion in the public arena, carping about turning our nation into a theocracy….but without an economic basis for taxation, it is no more than a religious belief to set policy on such a basis.





But Obama, sr and jr represent the socialist religion that is undergoing a 'reformation' elsewhere....



5. "The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


Our President is not smart enough to catch what is blowin' in the wind.

Without getting into how this pertains to the president..

1. Correct. Each and every time you have power and wealth in the hands of a few..revolution breaks out.

2. That's correct. Our own constitution has no limit on tax rates.

3. You guys support 0 or close to 0 tax rates. Tax rates are the lowest in this country right now then they have been in many years. Where's the benefit? And by benefit..I ain't talking about the Koch Brothers.

4. "Capital gains" is a euphemism for money for nothing. And it relies on government infrastructure to make it possible. So? You like the money for nothing thing? Vote Republican".

5. You guys hold a religious litmus test to each and every candidate. That's not very constitutional of yas..

Done..without the cut and paste..

1. "Correct. Each and every time you have power and wealth in the hands of a few..revolution breaks out."
How about we stick to the United States...not some third world monarchy.

In the United Stats there is no...as in zero....perennial rich class, no eternal "1%.

There is both social and economic mobility. In fact, in a recession, the top earners lose more than other.

Sadly...your mode of learning is to accept what Leftist media and schooling tells you, rather than research and study.
I admit that your method is easy....but you wind up being wrong and manipulated.



Sally....I appreciate that you, at least, made an effort....but you are so ignorant, when I read your post, I shake my head so fast you could mix paint in my mouth!


" That's correct. Our own constitution has no limit on tax rates."

You don't understand that the Constitution (capital "C") is not an economic text, it is a document explaining liberty!

Don't you understand that every time command and control economies are compared to capitalism, there is no comparison????

When Haitian refugees flee their island, do they aim for Cuba (53 miles), Turks and Caicos (110 miles), Jamaica (124 miles), the Cayman Islands ( 440 miles), or Florida (523 miles ) ? Why is that?


Finland and Estonia

In 1939 Finland and its southern neighbor Estonia were identical in many ways. Then, in 1940, the USSR occupied Estonia, and it remained under communist rule for 50 years. Here are the words of Mart Laar, Estonia’s former prime minister, stating what communism did to his country:

“Look at what happened in this context during these fifty years and then you can understand how terrible the communist system really is. And it’s not only in the economy. This is in all fields of life—the social structure, cultural standards, education, healthcare, or whatever. When you compare those two countries, which were exactly the same in 1939, in 1989, then you will find what communism really means, and how bad it is. Our economy, our nature, and our environment was [sic] destroyed.”
The conclusion:

their economic and social differences grew so large that no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect that communist rule had on occupied Estonia.
The Filter^: Finland and Estonia

In 1991 Estonia became capitalist, and experienced massive economic growth. They discovered the errors of progressive class warfare.


"...no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect..."




"You guys support 0 or close to 0 tax rates. "
Horsefeathers.
Don't make things up! Prove it!


"...relies on government infrastructure to make it possible."
Wrong again!
If business needed a road, it would build it.
Government's function is to establish law and order.
Not pick winners and losers.

"You guys hold a religious litmus test to each and every candidate. That's not very constitutional of yas.."
Another fib designed to make yourself feel better.
No religion is a religion for the left. It is based on belief....'taxation for fairness."


Wise up.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Reagan raised capital gains taxes, so he had no religion either, or no religion, whatever mythical metaphoric analagy you want.

This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality

Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?

You shouldn't. Government shouldn't be taking 30% of ANYONE'S money!

 

[Liberal]

So, to sum up your inflammatory rhetorical drivel:

Taxation "without" economic basis = A Religious belief

Oh wow.. I mean really.. Oh, wow..

Just when I think you can not get any more stupid, you proceed to blow my mind. What an amazing "woman".

I think I am in love.

 

[8537]

So, to sum up your inflammatory rhetorical drivel:

Taxation "without" economic basis = A Religious belief

Oh wow.. I mean really.. Oh, wow..

Just when I think you can not get any more stupid, you proceed to blow my mind. What an amazing "woman".

I think I am in love.

GIve political chic some credit - she spent a lot of time typing up all that drivel!