Spread the Wealth

[Ravi]

It is not just the super rich that are going to have their wealth redistrubuted. It is any business that has a gross income of 250k.

Wrong. Anyone that owns a small business isn't fooled by this idiocy.

 

[doeton]

It is not just the super rich that are going to have their wealth redistrubuted. It is any business that has a gross income of 250k. That figure is not that high and it will affect MANY small businesses.

IT'S NET INCOME PEOPLE!!!

 

[doeton]

CRACKING ME UP.

how stupid would it be if your business was taxed on gross income. LOL

this only goes to show that the people making this suggestion are clueless when it comes to business.

 

[glockmail]

It's true that we have been doing this. But it's upward that we have been spreading it since Reagan first started his war on the middle class.

The gap between the haves and the haves not has increased.

Some people just love to vote against their best interest.

It is the middle class that makes this country work.

Reagan cut the high end tax rate from something like 75% and the result was the longest period of economic growth in US history. How does taxing the rich at a higher percentage and giving it way to the deadbeats help the economy?

 

[DiamondDave]

Reagan cut the high end tax rate from something like 75% and the result was the longest period of economic growth in US history. How does taxing the rich at a higher percentage and giving it way to the deadbeats help the economy?

It doesn't... but it makes the liberals feel good to be generous with the earnings of others... and it allows the lazy and greedy, who want something for nothing, to continue their ways. All they have to do is vote in the control freaks continually, so they can suck off of society's tit

 

[glockmail]

It doesn't... but it makes the liberals feel good to be generous with the earnings of others... and it allows the lazy and greedy, who want something for nothing, to continue their ways. All they have to do is vote in the control freaks continually, so they can suck off of society's tit

That's basically it in a nutshell. The whole idea is to have a majority of dumb voters who are beholden to an elite group of controllers so that the elite can maintain their power indefinitely. I'm really surprised that the GOP doesn't explain this to people in campaigns.

 

[Bern80]

Wrong. Anyone that owns a small business isn't fooled by this idiocy.

The real idiocy is what isn't being talked about. McCain only hinted at it briefly in the last debate and that is why is Obama contemplating raising taxes on anyone at all? Who cares what his threshold is the fact is he wants to raise taxes on a sector of the economy who's help we sorely need to get out of this downward spiral we're in. And apparently his solution is simply to make that harder.

Nevermind the economic climate why is no one talking about the fact that he feels it necessary to grow government. It should be his (and any politicians) singular goal to figure out ways to get government to spend LESS money. Not figure out ways to come up with more.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It doesn't... but it makes the liberals feel good to be generous with the earnings of others... and it allows the lazy and greedy, who want something for nothing, to continue their ways. All they have to do is vote in the control freaks continually, so they can suck off of society's tit

Well, Wall St. makes the Repugnicans feel good about themselves to be generous with tax dollars and earnings of others. It allows the lazy and greedy of Wall St, as well as the CEO's of companies to continue to receive something for nothing to continue their ways. AIG is a good example of this. All they have to do is continually vote in the people that will deregulate the market, so they can suck of the government's tit.

Over 880 BILLION so far, and still rising.......

I'd also like to know why American tax dollars are buying into FOREIGN banks.

 

[DiamondDave]

You think I support or supported the bailout? You think I support corporate welfare when I condemn private welfare or entitlements?

Nope...


but nice try

But because I am unhappy with that, does not mean I will stupidly vote for a candidate or party that is touting more social programs, more entitlements, more punishment tax systems, more wealth redistribution

 

[rayboyusmc]

t is the rich that employee the middle class... You don't bite the hand that feeds you!

It is the middle class that let the rich stay rich by putting their labor into the business so the businesses work. You don't shit on the people who make your corporations work.

It's a two way street.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is the middle class that let the rich stay rich by putting their labor into the business so the businesses work. You don't shit on the people who make your corporations work.

It's a two way street.

If your skills are in demand.. generally you are 'shit on' less and you can demand what you want

When you are one of 400 Million who qualify to say "You want fries with that?" or "Welcome to WalMart", you generally do not get to demand a lot because you can be replaced in 15 seconds

 

[user_name_guest]

Without businesses, we would be a lot like sealybobo and rayboy, unemployed and very dependent on government keeping us online. They rather see all mediocre so we can be equal since they couldn't make it to the top. Their mentality: "If i can't succeed, i want no one else to". "If you make more money, punish you with higher taxes or proportion of income taken so people who didn't climb could earn it".

Imagine if they had this philosophy in sports. It is like benching the star player (say, Michael Jordan, NBA legend) in the game so sealybobo can play. Outcome, the team will lose. The result, keep people like sealybobo happy and able to get the re-distribution of playing time. Now put that in income-producing property.

 

[ABikerSailor]

But because I am unhappy with that, does not mean I will stupidly vote for a candidate or party that is touting more social programs, more entitlements, more punishment tax systems, more wealth redistribution

If you voted for Bush in 2004, then you stupidly voted for more social programs for the WEALTHY in the form of bailouts.

If you vote for McStupid, same deal.

 

[DiamondDave]

If you voted for Bush in 2004, then you stupidly voted for more social programs for the WEALTHY in the form of bailouts.

Yet still less than what we would have had with liberal leadership.... and the same with McCain in comparison to Obama...

 

[dilloduck]

If you voted for Bush in 2004, then you stupidly voted for more social programs for the WEALTHY in the form of bailouts.

If you vote for McStupid, same deal.

and a Democratic Congress just bailed out the wealthy too----ohhhhhhhh noooooooooo Mr Billlllll What's a guy to do ????????????????

 

[user_name_guest]

If you voted for Bush in 2004, then you stupidly voted for more social programs for the WEALTHY in the form of bailouts.

If you vote for McStupid, same deal.

That's why you don't vote liberals in. Especially ones pretending to be centrist (Obama) or conservative (McCain or Bush). Remember in 2004, we got two liberals to elect, Bush or Kerry. [Bush gave tax cuts to all Americans, a form of welfare, see tax brackets before 2001 and now. A liberal policy. Bush increased government. Stealth liberalism at its finest. Bush went against the constitution, liberal move. By labeling Bush a conservative, he gives the right a very bad name. Mission accomplished by the left. They have a guy in the office that tainted the meaning of conservatism. I prefer the independent mode, fiscal conservative, social moderate] Bush is leading the socialist movement by buying out banking institutions. Whoever voted for both of them are stupid. Just as stupid if you vote for either McCain or Obama. The last economic policy that was passed, they all voted for it. And remember the subject: failed economic policies of the last eight years, McCain, Obama, Bush voted for one as recent as October. If Obama proclaimed he's a leftist, people won't vote for him. Now why is McCain trying to get the conservatives to vote for him. He's moderate leaning left.

 

[Ravi]

The real idiocy is what isn't being talked about. McCain only hinted at it briefly in the last debate and that is why is Obama contemplating raising taxes on anyone at all? Who cares what his threshold is the fact is he wants to raise taxes on a sector of the economy who's help we sorely need to get out of this downward spiral we're in. And apparently his solution is simply to make that harder.

Nevermind the economic climate why is no one talking about the fact that he feels it necessary to grow government. It should be his (and any politicians) singular goal to figure out ways to get government to spend LESS money. Not figure out ways to come up with more.

Um, you're making me laugh. McCain seemed bent on growing the government in the last debate as well. And Bush cut taxes on capital gains as soon as he could...didn't seem to help the little guy or the country at all.

 

[glockmail]

and a Democratic Congress just bailed out the wealthy too----ohhhhhhhh noooooooooo Mr Billlllll What's a guy to do ????????????????

Oops. Damn facts get in the way again!

 

[ABikerSailor]

The democrats had to bail out Wall St. It was the Republicans and their de-regulation of the markets that put us in this mess.

 

[Bern80]

Um, you're making me laugh. McCain seemed bent on growing the government in the last debate as well. And Bush cut taxes on capital gains as soon as he could...didn't seem to help the little guy or the country at all.

I never said I endoresed the plans McCain has detailed so far. It is interesting that you avoided the substance of the post all together. Should I make assumptions of you then that you support growing government?