Latest quote on "Spreading the Wealth"

[Modbert]

Here is what Obama is saying now: "A few families are fabulously wealthy, contribute far less than they should in taxes, and are indifferent to the poverty of the great masses of the people." "A country in this situation," he went on, "is fraught with continual instability."

This will be my last thread on here but I saw this and felt I had to post it.

What does everyone think? Is he right?

 

[SwingVoter]

The first part about more taxes is fine, but most people making millions voted for him, so I guess he's now focusing his holier-than-thou smugness on his own supporters.

 

[dilloduck]

Here is what Obama is saying now: "A few families are fabulously wealthy, contribute far less than they should in taxes, and are indifferent to the poverty of the great masses of the people." "A country in this situation," he went on, "is fraught with continual instability."

This will be my last thread on here but I saw this and felt I had to post it.

What does everyone think? Is he right?

I think he's ramping up class warfare--exactly how is that going to provide any stability ? Night Robby, it was great having ya !

 

[SwingVoter]

But I'd also say there's only one way to the balance the budget, especially with the GOP becoming a big government socialist org, you have to raise taxes on high earners like Clinton did. But if Obama goes anywhere near Jimmy Carter's tax rates, he'll share Jimmy Carter's re-election results

 

[Modbert]

But I'd also say there's only one way to the balance the budget, especially with the GOP becoming a big government socialist org, you have to raise taxes on high earners like Clinton did. But if Obama goes anywhere near Jimmy Carter's tax rates, he'll share Jimmy Carter's re-election results

What were Jimmy Carter's tax rates again? About 70% right?

 

[SwingVoter]

What were Jimmy Carter's tax rates again? About 70% right?

Yes.

Everything I've heard is that O wants to go back to 39.6, which was Clinton's top rate. That would be fine and if it were as damaging as the GOP claims, Clinton wouldn't have presided over the creation of 21 million private sector jobs. Still, would help if O got a lot more specific. Election's over, and he needs to replace vague themes like hope and change with specific details on tax rates and economic plans.

 

[SwingVoter]

I think he's ramping up class warfare--

until there's a political party that will cut spending on massive programs like socialist security and medicare, we have to have class warfare to balance the budget, mac's attacks on earmarks just furthered the idea that he had a weak grasp on short division

 

[dilloduck]

Yes.

Everything I've heard is that O wants to go back to 39.6, which was Clinton's top rate. That would be fine and if it were as damaging as the GOP claims, Clinton wouldn't have presided over the creation of 21 million private sector jobs. Still, would help if O got a lot more specific. Election's over, and he needs to replace vague themes like hope and change with specific details on tax rates and economic plans.

He has to make them up first.

 

[Skeptik]

What were Jimmy Carter's tax rates again? About 70% right?

Yes, the marginal income tax rate was 70% during the Carter and Nixon years, down from the 91% rate of the Eisenhower years.

It was around 50% during the Reagan years.

It wasn't until fairly recently that the rate dropped into the high 20's to 30's.

Source:

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

 

[Modbert]

Yes, the marginal income tax rate was 70% during the Carter and Nixon years, down from the 91% rate of the Eisenhower years.

It was around 50% during the Reagan years.

It wasn't until fairly recently that the rate dropped into the high 20's to 30's.

Source:

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Thats actually the link I used to find the 70% mark and posted it here before.

 

[dilloduck]

until there's a political party that will cut spending on massive programs like socialist security and medicare, we have to have class warfare to balance the budget, mac's attacks on earmarks just furthered the idea that he had a weak grasp on short division

As I've said in numerous threads---Where is that party that will cut spending ? Do the liberals just intend to wait for someone else to do it ??
Is this another of those "ain't my job" things ?

 

[DavidS]

Here is what Obama is saying now: "A few families are fabulously wealthy, contribute far less than they should in taxes, and are indifferent to the poverty of the great masses of the people." "A country in this situation," he went on, "is fraught with continual instability."

This will be my last thread on here but I saw this and felt I had to post it.

What does everyone think? Is he right?

Poverty and working class familes are not the same.

Poverty is caused by depression. The only thing that can help the people who don't want to be helped are federal laws banning poverty. We strip their civil liberties and pump them full of anti-depressants. Increasing taxes on the rich will not eliminate poverty.

 

[Skeptik]

Here's an example of spreading the wealth.

Cuomo Investigates Bailout Bonuses At Banking Companies

 

[Jon]

But I'd also say there's only one way to the balance the budget, especially with the GOP becoming a big government socialist org, you have to raise taxes on high earners like Clinton did. But if Obama goes anywhere near Jimmy Carter's tax rates, he'll share Jimmy Carter's re-election results

Clinton didn't balance the budget, he created a surplus. The government doesn't exist to make and horde money. Every dollar taken in SHOULD be spent, rather that's paying down the debt or investing in defense or paying for new energy research...whatever, it doesn't matter. The government should always have $0 at the end of each fiscal year.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Poverty and working class familes are not the same.

Poverty is caused by depression. The only thing that can help the people who don't want to be helped are federal laws banning poverty. We strip their civil liberties and pump them full of anti-depressants. Increasing taxes on the rich will not eliminate poverty.

How in the fuck do you ban poverty?

 

[Turboswede]

How in the fuck do you ban poverty?

I think he ment this as a joke, i.e. it is impossible to ban poverty.

 

[DiamondDave]

But I'd also say there's only one way to the balance the budget, especially with the GOP becoming a big government socialist org, you have to raise taxes on high earners like Clinton did. But if Obama goes anywhere near Jimmy Carter's tax rates, he'll share Jimmy Carter's re-election results

No... there is not only 1 way... though Obama would like you to think that

You can cut the crap spending.. remove entitlement programs.. stop payment on all contracts not being fulfilled.. suspend frivolity spending (lavish govt parties, govt art purchases and support, etc)... and combine this with fair and blind taxation at a rate that can cover the budget

There is no need to punish any 1 earner more than any other

 

[Care4all]

taxes on everyone will have to go up along with major cuts in spending.

We can't keep selling our soul to China and Saudi Arabia and Japan and the UAE -United arab emirates....thru the financing of Debt.

We already had sold our soul to middle eastern oil/natural gas....and LOOK where that has gotten us with wars, 9/11 etc....

Our Sovereignty is at RISK! Our Foreign policy decisions will be made based on who we owe money to instead of what is right for us!

I think the first one is a national security threat that we just are not thinking about...

care

 

[Skull Pilot]

I particularly like this one.

Not to be simplistic or anything

[youtube]QJyS1WJNisM[/youtube]

 

[SwingVoter]

We can't keep selling our soul to China

with their economic growth slowing, their ability to keep buying our bonds is dropping

this will almost guarantee that the socialist Obama increases fed spending at a lower rate than the capitalist Bush