Story Comments
Posted by: Klarissa 1 year, 1 month ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
49%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Americans, at least according to this poll, don’t want to be given other people’s money.
Reply
They want to be empowered to earn their own money. That means pro-growth economics. Lower taxes. Less government. More freedom.
Obama doesn’t stand for any of those things.-
65%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So the 13 percent must represent the wealthy few who love the redistribution of wealth as it's been happening for the past few decades? You know... All that American money flowing into the pockets of overseas corporations like KBR/Haliburton and into the closets of wall street 'mavens' who know how to make trillions of dollars disappear.
Reply
Let's be honest here. Obama doesn't represent redistribution of wealth any more than the GOP. He just wants to see that 'redistribution' help every American instead of the wealthy few.-
43%
icono11 year, 1 month ago
-
61%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
55%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no idea what your point is. If Obama raises income taxes on his own income bracket, he is sacrificing more of his INCOME to the common good. If he doesn't raise taxes on his income bracket he's NOT sacrificing more of his income. ;-(
Reply-
38%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course Obama and the dems are more than willing to give up a little extra of there income. They know it will buy them votes, and they already have more than enough money. You have business, you need money to run it. The only money the dems need to run there business, the government, is more tax money.
Reply-
64%
HannibalBarca1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then try explaining to me why Obama's campaign can and has raised more funds than McC's
Reply
I never saw congress bail him out, so where did all that money come from.
Oh right, those tax payers who Reps have chit on.
Gama submitted a story two days ago, that even in this economic upheaval, the CEO's and bosses on wall street are prepared to give themselves $70 bill in bonuses, $70 flipping billion for the greedy fat cats who helped this mess to happen, but for Obama wanting to somehow get some of that money to "trickle down" (now where did I hear that before) to the lower tax brackets has Reps in a tissie.
Get a life or get laid, but do something to relieve your idiocy.-
27%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"Then try explaining to me why Obama's campaign can and has raised more funds than McC's"
Reply
First try to explain how that has anything to do with my comment.
-"but for Obama wanting to somehow get some of that money to "trickle down" (now where did I hear that before) to the lower tax brackets has Reps in a tissie."
Trickle down economics has nothing to do with taxing the rich and giving the money to the poor. Its about creating more jobs, lowing cost of products, making it easier to the poorer to buy more and find jobs easier and make more money.
-"Get a life or get laid, but do something to relieve your idiocy."
Oh well now don't you sound so intelligent. Even idiots can spout off negative attacks.-
73%
HannibalBarca1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First try to explain how that has anything to do with my comment.
Reply
Easy, you said this
". The only money the dems need to run there business, the government, is more tax money."
So I showed you were they got non Gov money.
next you say
"Trickle down economics has nothing to do with taxing the rich and giving the money to the poor.
Bah humbug!!!, it is the same
Trickle down was supposed to benefit the poorer as the wealth would trickle down from the rich
Obamma's plan is taxing the rich a bit more so he can relieve the taxes of those in lower brackets; it is still money from the top going down; but ray-guns idea relied on people willing to do this; which they didn't, while Obama will try to make it happen.
So I still stand by my comment
"Get a life or get laid, but do something to relieve your idiocy." -
-
-
-
57%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Of course Obama and the dems are more than willing to give up a little extra of there income."
Reply
--I guess...But aren't Republicans buying votes by shielding the ultra-wealthy from tax liability (plus they're giving themselves tax cuts)? I guess what I'm asking is why you're suggesting that you're morally superior somehow in voting for Republicans when they're buying votes from the wealthy? ;-(
-
-
-
-
-
60%
obiefrommuskogee1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of courseit would. Book revenues are income. why would it not be counted, oh ye of poor business intellect?
Reply
If he gets paid directly by the publisher for his writing, it's income.
If he gets a cut of each book sold, it's still income.
All income is taxed.
it's just too easy sometimes -
obiefrommuskogeeComment removed: Spam6 Replies
-
-
-
-
Osbama_lin_BidenComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned20 Replies
-
71%
Candida1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It never ceases to amaze me how greedy Americans are. I used to think that they just want things that others outside the US have, but I'm starting to be convinced that they are envious toward each other. What's even more puzzling is that most Americans call themselves Christians.
Reply
I found the recent media frenzy about Joe the plumber really funny and revealing. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out what his problem was with Obama's tax plan. Since he makes well under $200,000 now, he would enjoy a tax break. Why is he worried about a hypothetical situation that may or may not happen? How do Republicans convince so many people to vote against their own self-interests?
His story reminds me of a folk tale I heard in my childhood. Briefly, it goes something like this:
A man goes home one day and finds his wife in tears. She is looking at his gun and is crying her heart out. He asks what the problem is. She tells him that she is grieving for their son. "What do you mean?" he asks. She tells him: "You are so selfish. You never think of anyone but yourself. You put that gun on that shelf in that cupboard and never even considered that our son could find it and shoot himself accidentally." Puzzled, the man says: "First of all, the gun isn't loaded, and second, we don't have any children." "But one day we could," says the woman, "and if we had a son, he could open that cupboard door, pull a chair there, climb on it, reach the gun, which could be loaded at that time, and shoot himself accidentally."
This is what Joe the plumber sounded to me. Even though Obama's plan would benefit him now, which would make it easier for him to save up some money to buy a business one day, he is against it because if and when he does, and if and when he makes more than $250,000, he will have to pay higher taxes. Who knows what the conditions will be by then if that time ever comes!-
-
83%
italymeetsdixie1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know a few plumbers. Even if they had the inclination to buy the business they for which they had been working, their only possible hope they would have for the purchase would be to use a second mortgage on their house. In this economy, which has been made possible by republican party, his house is nearly worthless.
Reply
Which brings me to my next point. How is he going to keep a plumming business afloat in a housing crisis? Instead of worrying about taxes he might have to pay if he can afford to buy a this business, it looks more prudent to think about saving his money until the crisis is more settled and the housing market starts building.
It is the "American Dream" at work here. Everyone believes that one day they too will be rich and powerful and that at that point the higher taxes will be an issue. It is classic, putting your cart before your horse. -
36%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Blah blah blah. The main point which you are ignoring or are completely ignorant of is that Joe the plumber and 84% of the country do not want wealth redistribution.
Reply
You are also forgetting that Obama and the rest of the Dems will let the Bush tax cut's expire, which will INCREASE YOUR TAXES.-
80%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are right about the fact that America doesn't want Wealth Redistribution.
Reply
That's why George W. Bush has the lowest approval rating of all time.
Americans look at how he's redistributed immense wealth to the wealthiest ... simply because they were already wealthy ... and to pay for this scheme ... he borrowed from Communists in China.
Ideological Idiocy.-
36%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"That's why George W. Bush has the lowest approval rating of all time."
Reply
You're not gonna find me defending Bush when it comes to the bailout and other such policies he's signed for.
You can dodge the issue by bringing up Bush, but the fact is that Obama is for wealth redistribution and we can do something about it. We can't do anything more about Bush. Nice try though.
-"he's redistributed immense wealth to the wealthiest "
Taking less is not giving. Taking without earning is stealing, or taxing if you want to be politically correct.-
-
40%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm "parroting the pathetic and patently false nonsense you heard on the radio?"
Reply
INCOME is taxed and then that WEALTH is giving to others, hence wealth redistribution. You can say anything you want, but taxing someones wealth OR income is still taking money from someone and giving to someone else.
Please stick to the points instead of trying to discredit me which does nothing to validate your views.-
75%
GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wealth is the accumulation of property and assets.
Reply
Income is liquid money earned from employers or interest.
And it DOES make a significant difference:
I can earn $500,000 a year and spend it ALL and not have ANY wealth.
My grandmother earns ZERO and has enormous wealth left to her by her family. She LOVES W's tax plan, particularly the estate tax portion.
-"You can say anything you want, but taxing someones wealth OR income is still taking money from someone and giving to someone else."-
Like Halliburton, Blackwater, General Dynamics and any other corporation subsidized by the government?
You're OK with that because.....why?
To live in a civil society there MUST be a certain degree of equality or civility will not exist.
Those points are very relevant, but because you want to reduce everything to a black and white issue that simpletons can agree with, in order to support your weak assertion really does bring into question your ability to analyze complex situations.
Just as McW planned.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
61%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, both parties need to stop the rigged system of payoffs to the super-rich and corporate welfare queens.
Reply
Anti-democratic nature of US capitalism is being exposed
Bretton Woods was the system of global financial management set up at the end of the second World War to ensure the interests of capital did not smother wider social concerns in post-war democracies. It was hated by the US neoliberals - the very people who created the banking crisis.
...The immediate origins of the current meltdown lie in the collapse of the housing bubble supervised by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which sustained the struggling economy through the Bush years by debt-based consumer spending along with borrowing from abroad. But the roots are deeper. In part they lie in the triumph of financial liberalisation in the past 30 years - that is, freeing the markets as much as possible from government regulation.
...A study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments "socialise their losses," as in today's taxpayer-financed bailout. Such government intervention "has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries", they conclude.
... The financial market "underprices risk" and is "systematically inefficient", as economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalisation and reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and proposing solutions, which have been ignored. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. Ignoring systemic risk leads to more risk-taking than would take place in an efficient economy, even by the narrowest measures.
In a functioning democratic society, a political campaign would address such fundamental issues, looking into root causes and cures, and proposing the means by which people suffering the consequences can take effective control.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/10/12/anti-dem...-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
77%
Blackacereturn1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
79%
italymeetsdixie1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I see it, either plan redistributes the wealth of America. One redistributes it to the systems that will make America stronger and the other redistributes it to cover the mistakes made by the greedy. Either way, I have less money. But since I have to choose, I think that I would rather Obama's plan that has some measure of producing something on the backend.
Reply-
79%
vor1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no doubt that the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. All statistics bear that out. Klarissa is trying to make an absurd point with her usual deceptive numbers. Are the rich working harder than the rest of us? Of course not. The hardest working people I know are often the least compensated. It is simple fairness we desire. We certainly don't see much of that now. Obama is no savior but he is the far better choice for the average American. A reminder that the median annual income in this country is around $44,000 a year. When McCain says Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes just who exactly is he addressing? The vast minority is the clear answer. The Clinton years prove that realistic taxation does not stunt economic growth. That is far more dependent on American ingenuity and innovation. It is only amazing that this race is as close as it is at this point. Many Americans continue to vote against their own economic interests. McCain uses a plumber to suggest he is the better choice? Who is he kidding?
Reply
I admire those like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett who voluntarily give back much of the wealth this country provided to them. I am no Christian but they are following the Biblical principles of caring for those less fortunate. Giving back to a world that provided them such opportunities to accumulate vast wealth. Surely then they will slip through the eye of that proverbial needle. Who do they support in this election?
Does anyone really believe these hedge fund mangers and leaders of these failed lending institutions plan to share the billions they ripped off from the average American? Share those bonuses that we now clearly see that did not deserve. That they feel any compassion for those less fortunate? How hard is their fall when they have enough socked away that they will never have to work again?
Greed has been the downfall of most civilizations. We are but an infant nation yet our fall could be precipitously faster than most in history. Greed has killed the golden goose!
-
-
-
78%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just like you ignore that the Bail Out that George W. Bush DEMANDED ... AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE ... (originally with no oversight ... no accountability ... and no benefit to taxpayers) ... is Pure Socialism.
Reply
We, the people, are now redistributing our tax payer contribution ... to protect Banks and Investment Companies ... including the massive salaries of the 'incompetent stewards' of these companies.
As Barack Obama has said ... he simply wants to have the wealthiest Americans pay ALMOST ... but not quite ... the same level of taxes they paid when Ronald Reagan was president.
But apparently ... the Wealthiest Americans don't care about the nation that gave so much opportunity to them.
Do you know what Modern Republicans believe in?
The believe in Capitalism ... but only when profits are being made ... when threatened with losses ... they run to embrace Socialism.
Capitalism when making Profits.
Socialism when incurring Losses.
How Morally Vacant is that?-
33%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"Just like you ignore that the Bail Out that George W. Bush DEMANDED ... AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE ..."
Reply
LOL, the bailout is crap, the extra 150 billion to get enough votes for it to pass is even worse. I just posted another response to you stating I'm assuming something about you, you just assume and believe it.
I am a conservative. Unfortunately the most conservative party, the republican party, is not very, but is still far better than the democrat party. -
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i DON'T oBAMA IS PLANNING ON TAKING ANYONES MONEY FROM THEM, I THINK WHAT HE IS SAYING IS LIKE CLINTON I AM GOING TO LET THE ENTIRE COUNTRY GET IN ON THE FUN. TAXES WERE HIGH UNDER CLINTON AND NO ONE LEFT...TAXES WERE LOWER UNDER BUSH AND ALL OF OUR JOBS ARE IN OTHER COUNTRIES!
Reply
-
-
-
65%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have to understand, Dionys ... my fellow Christian Conservatives have been reduced to promoting the most extreme jingoisms to promote their candidate.
Reply
I always say ... if you have to resort to 'Code Words' like Wealth Distribution, Terrorists, and such to SCARE voters into voting for a candidate ... well ... that's the biggest Red Flag I can imagine.
And you are right ... Wealth Distribution HAS been occurring.
Wealth Distribution is a HALLMARK of the Modern Republican Party.
Even John McCain continues to endorse it. 'It's' called Trickle Down Economics. You funnel vast sums of taxpayer burden AWAY from the Wealthiest .... (in effect ... Welfare) ... in the hopes that these 'chosen few' ... deign the rest of America with their spending ...
.... as if the Wealthy are somehow better spenders than the Middle Class.
There is one party running in this election that DOES promote SOCIALISM ... and that party is the Republican Party.
If you think I'm wrong ... just look at the Bail-Out pushed by Bush.
Republicans are Capitalists when Profits are being made ... when Losses are being incurred ... they become Socialists for their friends.
How Cowardly ... how Morally Vacant is the Modern Republican Party.
And how telling that people who call themselves Christians ... SUPPORT any economic plan that supports Welfare to the Wealthy ... and deny economic Justice to the Middle Classes.
..-
-
-
67%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly ... thank you.
Reply
Did the Wealthy earn the massive tax cuts that George W. Bush granted them?
Shouldn't the wealthy support our nation the same as the middle class?
Why do they get a lowered tax rate compared to the middle class?
Why?
Even Warren Buffet wonders why he pays a lower tax rate than his employees.
How can a political party believe in such an ideology?
There is only ONE way ... they are Morally Vacant.
That's how they can LIE to promote an arbitrary war.
The Moral Vacancy of the Modern Republican Party is ... I'm sad to say ... impervious to reason.-
45%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"Shouldn't the wealthy support our nation the same as the middle class?"
Reply
You can't be serious. Not only do they support the nation the same, but much more. Everyone knows that the more you make the higher the tax bracket, the higher the tax rate goes.
"Even Warren Buffet wonders why he pays a lower tax rate than his employees."
-Do you pay taxes on money you already have or money that you make? If you have already have millions, you are not continually paying taxes on that money. Buffet knows this, and knows his money would not be effected by a tax increase.
-"Did the Wealthy earn the massive tax cuts that George W. Bush granted them?"
They do not need to "earn" the right to keep more of the MONEY THEY ALREADY EARNED.
You should try to actually think for yourself once in awhile.-
60%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can't be serious.
Reply
There is no amount of pretzel twists you can come up with to make it seem that someone making $1 MILLION should pay a LOWER tax rate than someone making $50,000.
Only someone prone to rationalizing immoral behaviors could pull that off.
Besides, in addition to a lower tax rate ... the wealthiest 1% have so many tax dodges ... they pay even less than their set rate.
Plus . ... ... many more are simply not paying taxes.
George W. Bush, early in his term .. cut the IRS staff IN HALF that monitors the tax returns of people making over $1 Million a year.
My question to you is ... when did you become such a non-thinking apologist for Moral Vacancy?
Or does Moral Vacancy come naturally to you?
---
Oh ... by the way ... over 70% of the wealthiest Americans got their wealth by INHERITANCE ... so I wouldn't go overboard idealizing these people as having some 'Midas Touch'.
LOL!!!
Please .. .. .. do us all a big favor .. .. .. give your brain a kick start before you continue spewing Extremist Drivel.
You are making yourself look like a 'tool'.-
45%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Would you please show me any tax table where you tax rate goes down as your earn more. Please help me so I'm not MORALLY VACANT"
Reply
-"you are making yourself look like a 'tool'.
Why? Because you didn't argue against one of my points, nor give any evidence to backup your claims?-
80%
HannibalBarca1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well there are always two sides to a fence, and many ways to look at only one side if that is your wish.
Reply
The trend for the last 2-3 decades has been that the middle class dwindles as the rich get richer.
Your points are the here and now, but what many believe what Obama is up to is try and reverse the process that got you to the hear and now.
Gama, a very smart man who comments from Europe, submitted an article which shows; that even in this economic mess, CEO's and bosses on wall street are prepared to give themselves$70 billion in bonuses to themselves this year.
Now why would it be wrong of Obama to try and limit this so some of those obvious frauds stop getting richer at tax payers expense.
On the other side, yes there are many who abuse the system and are welfare cases.
Both sides have their crooks, but I would rather pay taxes and help one poor individual than make some millionaire a billionaire.
-
-
-
-
-
-
ClockworkorangeComment removed: Abusive1 Reply
-
50%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Geesh Clockwork ... I suppose I should say 'Thank You' ... your extreme emotional outburst and violence tells me that you are one angry person.
Reply
And of course, this is the base of support for John McCain.
Angry Americans ... oh .. not angry at anything in particular ... just angry.
A non-specific anger that I personally believe comes from the emptiness of their soul.
Of course I'm a Christian. I have been all my life. Have said so many times on many threads.
I further clarify that I'm not a MODERN Christian ... the kind that KICKED JESUS TO THE CURB ... like the Modern American Christian does.
Jesus believed in LOVE ... by your post ... it's clear you are no Christian.
Jesus believed in helping children ... by your support for Republicans ... who FOUGHT AGAINST Health Care for Children ... it's clear you are no Christian.
Jesus preached Peace ... it's clear your support for George W. Bush' extraordinary efforts to launch a purely arbitrary war ... AND LIED TO DO SO ... clearly says you are no Christian.
Jesus preaching Love ... Acceptance ... is at odds with the Modern Republican party that preaches hatred towards Minorities, Catholics, Gays, and yes ... the Poor ... and your support of this party makes it clear you simply CANNOT be a Christian.
So please ... shelve your Mock Indignation ... your anti-Christian message ... (including your angry cursing) and try to act like you have at least the faintest glimmer of light in your heart ... and in your soul ... if your soul hasn't shriveled up and died.
I'm rooting for you.-
33%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"
Reply
The division is between the right and the wrong way. Your translation of peoples disagreements towards other views into hatred, does not make it so. Example is you can be completely against homosexuality without hating the homosexual.-
71%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes ... this is the phrase that my fellow Christian Conservatives point to to justify War, Dissension, Hatred, and of course, Bigotry.
Reply
The Modern American Christian Conservative ignores the Primary message ... above all else ... LOVE.
-
-
-
100%
Engnr1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There is one party running in this election that DOES promote SOCIALISM ... and that party is the Republican Party. "
Reply
So lets get rid of Bush and the rest of the idiots that voted for the Bail Out. Lets see the only candidate that didn't vote for the Bail out was Sarah Palin.
Good Call.
-
-
50%
mivan41 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
for more information on Obama's type of financial plan
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&
-
-
-
88%
awongscreen1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not surprising as it is part of human nature. It all about me, me, me.
Reply
Pro-growth to improve all sounds good but face the fact that we have too many people in the world which this earth can support. When there is no enough resources to be share among all, the only question is how the limited resources can be divided.-
82%
dissent1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
63%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's different for different people.
Reply
But of course ... that's the prerogative to be greedy.
It only becomes the prerogative of a nation ... when this greed becomes so perverted that they seek to foist support for our Governmental System on others.
Of course, there's nothing more Morally Vacant than elected legislators who enable this abdication of responsibility.
That's why America has turned against the Modern Republican Party ... for this Moral Vacancy.-
50%
theido1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It's different for different people."
Reply
Which means NOTHING. I'm not the one telling people they are greedy, you are. If your gonna call someone greedy, it better be based on something besides your jealousy of them.
Again, give us something of substance. God knows Obama doesn't -
70%
reasonable11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not a fan of the Modern Repulican Party either Goppy! I'm also no fan of the Modern Democratic Party. NEITHER are fiscally responsible!! For you to lay it totally at the feet of the Rep. is disingenuous! Do you not acknowledge all of the strange bedfellows who supported the bailout? Bush, Paulson, Pelosi, and 74 members of the Senate. But at least they added a ton of pork to it. That always helps....it is disgusting!
Reply
-
-
83%
rimbaud1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When your wealth comes from taking the risk of investing, rather than from your own labor, you are welcome to the easy profits in good times and, in bad times, the government (we, the taxpayers) will guarantee that your losses will not force you to labor for your wealth: we need your capital so we can loan the money to those who create jobs for others: usually immigrant small business owners.
Reply -
88%
rimbaud1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My generation, the coddled baby-boomers (Paulson's and George w Bush's generation) liked the easy money that came from investing on Wall Steet. But, since the year 2000, there has been little easy money to be made in stocks: so, Wall Street moved from stocks to real-estate, packaging mortgages to market to us. For those more prudent investors (like those, from other generations, used to waiting for long-term returns), they encouraged the investment in mortgage-backed securities by guaranteeing them with credit default swaps (insurance against loss). It turned out not only were the mortgage-backed securities bad, the investment houses never had the capital to back their credit-default swaps. We were the victims not only of bad accounting by the investment houses, but we were crybabies who wanted investments with guaranteed high returns.
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17krugma...
Here's an interesting movie (available on DVD): The Unforeseen -
100%
HannibalBarca1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
theido;
Reply
Years ago I watched Johnny Carson do an interview with David Rockefeller, after a few minutes of small talk, Johnny asked "How much money would it take to keep the average man happy"
David held his thumb and forefinger about an inch apart and said "This much more"
Very true. -
-
-
100%
rimbaud1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redistribution of wealth is built in to any progressive tax system (even 12% of nothing is nothing). I wish we didn't have to account our personal finances to the government, every year. I wish they would just take the money, in mandatory withholdings, and there were no way you could get it back. I realize the accounting industry and the wealthy with their many tax shelters will never allow that to happen!
Reply
-
-
30%
bill29361 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So awongscreen, I take it you favor 'thinning out the herd'? How much genocide do you feel is necessary to accomplish that? Will the tribal genocide of Africa make it to the US with Obama as president? Note his association the leader of the anti-government attacks/rioting/genocide in Nigeria, Raila Odinga to Obama.
Reply-
Neutral
awongscreen1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sir bill. I do favour reducing the world's population. This can be done by birth rate control and over time the overall population will fall. Genocide is unnecessary and only happened because of ugly human nature. It is another way of bad people trying to redistribute inadequate resources to their own benefits.
Reply
Unfortunately this is not what businesses want. The capitalist structure we have today is based on consumption. One way to promote higher consumption is to ensure population growth. That is why the word "growth" has been used like a sacred cow by politicians and businesses.
-
-
-
56%
Tcaros1 year, 1 month ago
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive10 Replies
-
-
71%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because ... for the most part ... Democrats appear to have Christian values.
Reply
This is in comparison to the FAKE Christian values of the Morally Vacant Right.
Only the Modern Republican is so jaded, so callous, that they focus on their own class ... like George W. Bush did when he gained the power he do desperately desired.-
0%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK goppy, I have to consider all this "my fellow Christian Conservatives" is nothing more than an attempt to start an argument, and sometimes you succeed. I'm going to have to join the fray,
Reply
" Democrats appear to have Christian values"
Is that what Bill had on his mind as he cheated his wife, his country, and his moral values as he stained Lewinskis dress in the Oval Office? When he looked directly into the camara and told us lie after lie, then tried to say it wasn't a lie because ******** isn't "sexual relations"?
We could play the tit for tat between the 2 parties for 2 days and not name them all.
As a Christian, your insistence to speak for all Christian Conservatives has irritated me, but I let them pass because I'm not truly conservative, I'm closer to moderate, lean toward libretarian. But puh-leeeeeeze!-
75%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John McCain is a bona fide adulterer.
Reply
You support him.
He abandoned his own children.
You support him.
Rudy Giulianni is an adulterer.
redtomato supported him. (I don't know about you.)
Fred Thompson is an adulter.
redtomato supported him. (I don't know about you.)
But see, Christian Spirit is much more than sexual expression.
Christian Spirit is how you view Children or the Elderly without Health Care ... how you view arbitrary war ... how you view protecting God's Creation ... the Environment ... how you wage a campaign ... launching lie after lie after smear after smear.
The Modern Republican truly has no Christian Values that they hold onto ... only Fear and Smear.
Another name for it is Moral Vacancy.
-
-
-
-
67%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are right Tcaros ....
Reply
Republicans have built their political war chest by accepting donations from corporations who count on them to give them MASSIVE tax breaks ... in effect ... Welfare.
Here's a link to a website built by 'CITIZENS FOR TAX JUSTICE' that points out how Republicans have shifted the burden of supporting The United States of America to ... the Middle Classes.
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
The Neo-Conservative Ideology that pervades the Republican Party these last 20 years is all about 'staying in power'.
And you stay in power with money.
And Corporations have the most money.
Ergo ... Republicans pander to Corporations.
--------
You know, when I was young ... Republicans stood for Tax Fairness ... now they stand for Welfare for the Wealthy and Subsidies for Corporations.
It's called Moral Vacancy.
..-
40%
Georgia501 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again the tutile attempt to educate. There are two kinds of taxpayers.
Reply
1. Those who pass their tax expense to others.
2. Those who must eat their own tax expense whiile purchasing goods and services with tax expenses built into the cost.
For-profit enterprises simply build tax expense into their costs. Their customers pay those taxes. End users, consumers, cannot pass on taxes.
So the reality is that any tax scheme--regardless of where it's directed--leaves the consumer with either greater spending power or less spending power.
Tax benefits to producers means less cost to consumers. Increased taxes on producers means increased costs to consumers. Producers need consumers. Consumers need jobs. Producers hire people. It's functionally symbiotic.
The fly in the ointment comes not so much when taxes are increased, provided we understand the consumer ultimately pays the cost, but rather when government makes an arbitrary decision to impose tax--burdening the worker/consumer--and hands it to that segment of the population that does not offer jobs, does not work, does not give a damn, and only consumes.
You get more of what you subsidize. So subsidize businesses who create jobs, not losers who won't even look for work.
You get less of what you tax. So tax deadbeats, not the businesses we need for economic vitality.-
100%
vor1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then explain the prosperity of the Clinton years? Or have we just become a greedier society. "I got mine keep you hands off of my stack jack". That should be the GOP anthem this year. Of course realize that "Money" is written in the purest of sarcasm.
Reply
-
-
17%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For the year 2008 only contributions to Democrats:
Reply
Insurance donations to democrats: $15,977,057
Commercial banks: $13,112,259
casinos, gambling.$7,856,191
Education: $26,483,437
health professionals: $33,429,532
Hedge funds: $8,809,469
Insurance: $15,977,057
Lawyers, law firms: $126,366,216
lobbyists: $13,958,352
Oil and gas: $5,552,713
pharmaceuticals,health products: $9,796,980
tv,movies, music: $22,830,003-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry Klarissa after I got done doing the work I could not find the comment I intended to respond to. So I am sticking it under your because it is a list of numbers too.
Reply
2007 Outlays all numbers are in $trillions
Total spending $2.730
Discretionary spending: $1.040
DOD: $0.530
HHS: $0.070
DOT: $0.067
Education: $0.060
HUD: $0.048
VA: $0.041
Homeland security: $0.039
Agriculture: $0.024
Energy**: $0.023
Justice: $0.022
International assistance* $0.015
NASA: $0.015
other: $0.013
State: $0.013
Labor: $0.012
Treasury: $0.011
EPA: $0.008
SS: $0.008
Commerce: $0.006
Judicial branch: $0.005
Corps of Engineers: $0.004
Legislative: $0.004
Executive office***: $0.003
PBS+NEH+NEA: -$0.001
*the biggest numbers here are for military assistance.
** the big numbers here are for atomic defense activities
I may not understand the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, but it sounds like a place to look if you are trying to cut the budget.
-
-
-
-
76%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gallup Poll: Many Americans OK With Increasing Taxes on Rich
Reply
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/25/853...
"The percentage holding this view, similar to that found in Gallup polling last year, is up from 1998 and in particular is higher than was found in a Roper poll conducted for Fortune Magazine back in 1939. Although the methods and sampling of polling done in the 1930s may differ significantly from those of today, the rough comparison suggests that Americans appear to have become even more "redistributionist" in their views than they were at the tail end of the Depression.
Other recent Gallup Poll questions underscore the finding that Americans are generally open to the idea of some type of effort to distribute wealth more evenly.
Asked if the distribution of money and wealth in this country is fair or if they need to be distributed more evenly, about two-thirds of Americans agree with the latter response. This is up slightly from last year and, by two points, is the highest "more evenly distributed" response to this question that Gallup has found over the eight times it has been asked since 1984."
The question is how do people feel today (after what has occurred over the last month), Klarissa? -
74%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, Klarissa, the specific question being asked here is if Americans think income redistribution is *the solution to solving "today's" economic woes.* You're trying conflate the findings here with people's views about income redistribution in general. That was a very crafty attempt at spin, I must admit. How many stories do you have to post on "wealth redistribution" to meet your quota and is the extra income you're receiving from the GOP to do this really worth it? Just wondering...
Reply-
29%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meso - the $250,000 is basically a campaign slogan.
Reply
The really wealthy will take stock options, deferred income, off shore interest, tax free bonds, etc.
The people who really hurt are those where a couple have worked really hard to make a good income and won't have millions of dollars from books like Obama.
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
italymeetsdixie1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amervtrn: We would all love to keep all of our money, but that isn't going to happen. It is the right of this government to take money from us, also a founding principle of this country. We need to decide who should receive the money the government takes, and you think major corporations are a better recipient than education, energy independence and infrastructure reform?
Reply
-
-
-
-
73%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well the next question should be whether Americans are in favor of the current system, which amounts to a social welfare system for the super-rich and a corporate welfare system for corporate welfare queens.
Reply
The free market preachers have long practised state welfare for the rich
According to Senator Jim Bunning, the proposal to purchase $700bn of dodgy debt by the US government was "financial socialism, it is un-American". The economics professor Nouriel Roubini called George Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke "a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the United Socialist State Republic of America". Bill Perkins, the venture capitalist who took out an ad in the New York Times attacking the plan, called it "trickle-down communism".
They are wrong. Any subsidies eventually given to the monster banks of Wall Street will be as American as apple pie and obesity. The sums demanded may be unprecedented, but there is nothing new about the principle: corporate welfare is a consistent feature of advanced capitalism. Only one thing has changed: Congress has been forced to confront its contradictions.
...One of the best studies of corporate welfare in the US is published by my old enemies at the Cato Institute. Its report, by Stephen Slivinski, estimates that in 2006 the federal government spent $92bn subsidising business...
... But the Cato Institute's report has exposed only part of the corporate welfare scandal. A new paper by the US Institute for Policy Studies shows that, through a series of cunning tax and accounting loopholes, the US spends $20bn a year subsidising executive pay...-
70%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
... Another report, by a group called Good Jobs First, reveals that Wal-Mart has received at least $1bn of public money.... Sometimes state governments give the firm straight cash as well: in Virginia, for example, Wal-Mart's distribution centres receive handouts from the Governor's Opportunity Fund.
Reply
... Corporate welfare is arguably the core business of some government departments. Many of the Pentagon's programmes deliver benefits only to its contractors. Ballistic missile defence, for example, which has no obvious strategic purpose and is unlikely ever to work, has already cost the US between $120bn and $150bn...
...There is not and has never been a free market in the US. Why not? Because the congressmen and women now railing against financial socialism depend for their re-election on the companies they subsidise. The legal bribes paid by these businesses deliver two short-term benefits for them. The first is that they prevent proper regulation, allowing them to make spectacular profits and to generate disasters of the kind Congress is now confronting. The second is that public money that should be used to help the poorest is instead diverted into the pockets of the rich.
....A report published last week by the advocacy group Common Cause shows how bankers and brokers stopped legislators banning unsustainable lending. Over the past financial year, the big banks spent $49m on lobbying and $7m in direct campaign contributions. ..
.... Taxpayers everywhere should be asking the same question: why the hell should we be supporting them?
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/30/the-free...
-
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
67%
tchef1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You want to know what redistribution of wealth that Americans are upset about? Read this, and remember who it was who said we needed the bailout to begin with.
Reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/exe... -
22%
thinksalot1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama, the self Chosen One, has more than income redistribution in mind for these great United States, even though freebies are very attractive to the lazies and loafers who sponge off the generous American "system". It's the change from a democracy to a theocracy in it's most covert form. How many Judeo Christians want to pray 5 times a day facing Mecca? Not I, said the patriot!
Reply-
67%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're obviously stuck in broadcast mode and not reading the comments here. But we understand. You're a con. No one with a brain thinks everyone or every corporation or industry that is wealthy obtained their wealth through their own hard work. Often that is the case but not always. You need to go somewhere and sit quietly (don't talk, for the love of God) in a corner with a book (start with one that doesn't have words with more than one or two syllables) so you can learn how to read. Also listening exercises might help as well as a serious course in reading comprehension. Then in a few years maybe take a debate class. But don't rush. Take your time.
Reply
-
-
70%
rimbaud1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Joe the Plumber is typical of most Republican voters... They are not rich and will not benefit from electing McCain, but they are wannabe's, only idealogically in the same camp as the few who would benefit from another Republican administration.
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17krugma... -
63%
DarkWizard1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again we can see how a "straw" can be grasped upon and made into an entire story. Or, should I say "yarn" as in a thread that has built a life of its own because the Bush/McCain faithful are looking for anything that can to justify believing in their ideology and ignoring the need for “real” change.
Reply
It doesn't matter that McCain is the one saying "redistribution of wealth" and that Obama has repeatedly shown that his plan is not a redistribution of wealth, but a redistribution of truth, justice, and the American way (anyone remember those concepts?).
This is another example of deflecting from the real issues and hoping beyond hope that a continued stream of ideological lies, from the right, will turn things around. What is missing, in all of this, is that a turnaround is needed, but in a 180° direction away from the way the pseudo-Republican faction that has loosed this financial monster (among other things) upon the world, America, and Democracy in general.
I think the article should read, “Americans Oppose the Continued Lies by the Wealthy 84% (maybe more) to 10%.” -
75%
mark-stevens1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The neo cons have gotten their way, hook or by crook for 8 years. The U.S. is months away from going under. 86 billion a year to communist China just to pay on the interest. 10,000 billion in debt with the tax base decreasing.
Reply
I live in a town of 17,000. The largest employer second only to the city is closing down in 30 days.
The ability to earn a living is overseas. If you don't leave now, you may not have enough money soon to be able to buy a ticket
Polls are a way of lying... do you like paying taxes... odds are the answer is no. Okay, so no roads, fire protection, police, schools... "Oh, that isn't what I meant!"
-
loading ...
dandt1612
Patience
simonsez
PinkyPie
Locky12
CactusAnnie
bill2936
nostalgia
normallysilent
aniokly
icono1
pc25
Sludge-Guzzler
jimdoze
lovemylibs
MereMortal
beavith1
Nixie
redtomato
lichbez
Ciera-Marie
berkeley
bonaroo
ETproductions
ForrestPhelps
hamy
doppich
dadesider
fsev41
Goppy
mesodude
PsychoHosebeast
bruhaha
AntiNeoCon
GWHayduke
blowback
CRYMTYPHON
dissent
Solai
9critters
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.