Comments for Gallup Poll: Americans Oppose Redistributing Wealth 84% To 13% »
Posted By Klarissa 1 year, 1 month ago in NewsWhen given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today' s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly—by 84% to 13%—prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
Read Full Story at sayanythingblog.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 364
-
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!"
-
-
57%
RedRiverJ1 year, 1 month ago
-
65%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive12 Replies
-
-
-
-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Red, that kind of simplemindedness is what makes you so easy to fleece with a rigged system.
Reply
The Charmed Lives of the Crony Capitalists
Today, we hand our 8 year olds a $13 trillion national debt while our Congress hands Wall Street banksters the national purse without so much as a hearing to determine the cause of the debt collapse. Worse still, the money is doled out to the very same individuals who leveraged their institutions to casino status.
Americans are correctly outraged at the spectacle of U.S. crony capitalism crashing stock and bond markets around the globe while simultaneously watching the poster boys of crony capitalism on Monday, October 13, 2008 march up the granite steps of the United States Treasury building in their Armani shoes and heist a fresh $125 Billion of taxpayer dough in broad daylight.
...What most Americans do not understand, because mainstream media rarely explains it, is the incestuous relationship between the U.S. Treasury and this small band of financial marauders who busted the entire financial system with insane levels of leveraged derivative bets.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/10/17/the-char... -
60%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wish my fellow Christian Conservatives would THINK about the labels they throw around ... like Communist and Socialist.
Reply
You know who supports Communism? George W. Bush - and since John McCain claims he wants to continue the Bush Trickle Down Economics ... John McCain must support Communism as well!
In all my life, I never would imagine that Republicans are so prone to Communism and Socialism.
Here's George Bush ... the titular head of the Modern Republican Party ... who has worked HARD to indebt our nation to the Communists in China with his massive spending.
Why did GW do this?
Because he was working VERY HARD at his pet project WEALTH TRANSFER.
George W. LOVEs the Socialistic Policies of Wealth Transfer. He's been at it since his first day in office!
Transfer the Public Money from the Middle Class to the Rich! The Modern Republicans even have a name for it ... TRICKLE DOWN Economics.
What is it? Intelligent Americans recognize it for what it is ...
Welfare for the Wealthy.
Unsophisticated Americans have been sucked into the Propaganda that ... by necessity ... must accompany this Morally Vacant Ideology.
They've been convinced that ... "We JUST GOT to give money to the Wealthy ... after all ... they must be really really smart and understand the mysterious ways of money .. and they must be better qualified to get this welfare ... and maybe, just maybe ... some of the massive amounts of wealth they get ... will one day ... trickle down ... trickle down like little rain drops ... oh ... I feel some trickling down my leg now .... oh wait ... that's the Republicans peeing on my leg ... oh but wait ... they are telling me that this is Evian Water .... ain't Republicans just grand.:
..-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer
-
-
-
53%
FairNBalanced1 year, 1 month ago
-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer19 Replies
-
67%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. You lack critical thinking skills. That poll was done in June before Americans saw AIG getting bailed out and corporations having $400,000 "retreats" at hotels with rooms that can be booked for pets as well as humans. Get serious.
Reply-
67%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a very substantial chunk of Wall Street Fat Cats that are Dems, my friend. The blithe characterizations of Wall Street as being a bastion of Republicanism is a myth perpetrated by the national media, at a time when the institutions of Wall Street are in crisis. Franklin Raines, who has done as much as anyone to bring on the current financial crisis is Wall Street through and through. Talk about lack of critical thinking skills...
Reply
-
-
37%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This reminds me of the days when JOE-SIX-PACK was known as the Silent Majority. Those are the everyday people who are too busy making a living and taking care of their families to make noise, but they made things unbelievably loud in the voting booth. Good luck JOE.
Reply
McCain- Palin 08-
78%
vor1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Joe Six Pack is the one getting screwed by the current policies. Hopefully he is not too pre-occupied with Jesus, guns and beer to realize this? It will be an American tragedy if we allow this trickle up philosophy to continue. As the British papers trumpeted after Bush's re-election in '04. Are so many Americans really that dumb? The evidence becomes clearer every day.
Reply
-
-
-
56%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, braindead is kinda harsh (plus I already used it in another post). Let's just call your comment a reflection of extremely poor reading comprehension. Forget about the math. The poll is about income redistribution relative to solving the economic problems on Americans' minds back in June.
Reply -
67%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
read the first paragraph again. then go to gallup and read the poll.
Reply
NO ONE IN THIS POLL SAID THEY ARE AGAINST REDISTRIBTUTION OF WEALTH.
FTA: When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today' s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly—by 84% to 13%—prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
so, redistribution of wealth isn't the preferred method when compared to improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States." whatever that means since that phrase is super vague.
whose brain dead? look in the mirror.
-
-
37%
RedRiverJ1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, then why all the hubbub about Obambi?
Reply
He wants you to 'spread the wealth around' so be careful. And rest assured if one of his social programs is running short on cash he wouldn't blink at lowering that $250 thousand down to $40 a year.
If he does will that effect YOU? I am guessing but I'd bet the answer is YES?
With his dodging of the truth on Ayers, Wright, Phleger, Odinga, his mentor being Sal Alinsky, how can anyone believe he will leave taxes for those that earn $250 th. a year?-
-
icono1Comment removed: Spam
-
-
-
icono1Comment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not that complicated. Most of those Bush gave significant tax cuts to over the last 8 years did not need them. Obama's coming after those people to pay for Bush's incompetence and failure. There. No math or need to remember figures at all. ;-)
Reply-
100%
vor1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is a basic return to Clinton era tax rates. There was economic prosperity for many more Americans during that time. The rich are chiefly the ones who have benefitted under the Bush cuts. Certainly not the middle or lower classes. It's been trickle up, not trickle down. The fact that we had sustained economic growth under Clinton should dissolve the myth that Obama's plan would kill investment. You would have to be stoned drunk on the Kool-Aid like Klarissa and Tomato (and others on this board) to believe that. They are little but RNC shills. But they chant their mantra enough and the weak minded could fall for this nonsense.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks Klarissa
Reply
I hadn't seen that. I did hear this afternoon that it was gross, not net from an Obama person, I think it was cnn. I was cleaning house, wasn't sitting in front of the TV so I didn't catch her name. I do wish we had a way to get some of the info on this man beyond the net.-
-
Neutral
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't know his records were sealed. I'll do some reading.......It's not Obamas secrets that decided my vote for McCain. It's his words from his mouth that scare the h e ll out of me. In a speech in July 2008 he says, in talking about national security, "we have to have a national civilian security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded...
Reply
."http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s-
Neutral
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Reply
maybe that'll work........
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
65%
Tcaros1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When did Obama dodge the truth as you stated? You're full of crap CON.
Reply
Did you watch him refute the false accusations on the debate? He didn't know Ayers. You friggin knot head.
I guess since Fox news says something you think it's true. Try some critical thinking skills.
I bet you still think Obama is a muslim with a Christian pastor.-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer
-
-
36%
Georgia501 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama didn't know Ayers?
Reply
roflmao...stop it...you're killin me here...that's just too much...
A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court By William Ayers Published by Beacon Press, 1998 ISBN 0807044032, 9780807044032 224 pages
Page 82 Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama.
Then there's CAC, the fundraisers at Ayers' home, etc.-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well here is georgia lying to Americans again.
Reply
You lose all credibility georgia when you have to attack conservative foundations to try to invent slime about Obama. Why do you keep chanting the lies?
Fact-Checking the Ayers Allegations: So Wrong, It’s “Pants on Fire” Wrong
For most of the election, Sen. John McCain ’s campaign has been somewhat subtle about trying to tie Sen. Barack Obama to the former ‘60s radical William Ayers. No longer. A 90-second Web ad released Oct. 8, 2008, features sinister music, side-by-side photographs of Obama and Ayers, and a series of dubious allegations about their past connections, including this one: “Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together.”
... We’ll look at whether the foundation was radical. But first we have to grapple with whether Obama and Ayers ran it. Ayers “was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge,” and he “never made a decision programmatically or had a vote,” Rolling said.
“He (Ayers) was at board meetings — which, by the way, were open — as a guest,” Rolling said. “That is not anything near Bill Ayers and Barack Obama running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.”.....
Now, was the foundation radical?
Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. Kurtz might just as plausibly have accused Obama and the foundation of “translating Annenberg’s conservatism into practice.”
Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Journalism, and a host of other mainstream folks.-
hyperbolaComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
73%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, there is no hubbub. There's fearmongering and spin from cons who are in a panic because their wartime tax cuts are going to be ripped away from them (as they should be) because they were one of the negative factors contributing to trillions of dollars of debt amassed by Bush and the GOP. No one except cons are talking about "income redistribution" or slavery reparations or any of the other ridiculous CRAP cons are spewing in their desperation to keep a Republican in the White House. America sees through cons. We know that if cons support it, it's probably illegal or dangerous. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
33%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With the last 6 months of government give aways he has to pay for he can not deliver what he promises. Do the math! It can't be done, not 1 economist says it can. Not without raising the deficit higher than McCains plan, which is not exactly doable, either. The difference is McCain uses words like cut spending, spending freeze... Obama says spend, invest in(spend)
Reply-
75%
Tcaros1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why not ask Senator McCain?
Reply
He has 7 houses. Cindy McCain is heiress to the Hensley fortune (300 million net worth).
I guess you didn't know McCain was a son of an Admiral and a wealthy elitist.
Turn the channel- watch something other than Fox Noise. You'll feel better.-
-
63%
Tcaros1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Senator Obama is not an elitist. How so?
Reply
He was raised by a single mom. He put himself through school. He had good grades and went to law school
Now, McCain got into the Navy Academy because of Daddy. He went ot War College because of Daddy. He came home in one peice from Vietnam because he was an Admiral's son. He even admitted this in his account after his release.
So who's the elitist? Can you figure it out without Fox Noise?
-
-
0%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tcaros
Reply
If that was a reply to me, it makes no sense. I know McCains father was an Admiral, so was his Grandfather. I don't see the connection to my point about the proposed budgets. Cindy McCain was an heiress before she knew McCain, and 300M won't support either candidates budget. Did you know Obamas house has 6 bathrooms? Did you know convicted felon Rezko and his wife was connected to the purchase of the mansion? That the same day Obama bought his home, Rezkos wife overpaid for the vacant lot next door, then sold one sixth of that land to Obama? None of which has anything to do with my original post, either.
-
-
-
77%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We're not afraid. Just as cons weren't afraid when Bush told American to go shopping after 9/11, launched two obscenely expensive wars and then doled out unprecedented war time tax cuts to rich cons. Relax. We'll get the money Bush and Republicans stole back into the hands of Americans. It'll take some time and some prison sentences for thieving cons but we'll get it done. Have faith. ;-0
Reply
-
-
35%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everyones attention has been on the 700B+(1Trillion) bailout, but there was the Freddie/Fannie bailout, the AIG bailout, 168Billion stimulus package, 25Billion to retool auto makers factories,on and on! WE ARE BROKE, we're out of money. The top 5% can not, will not, pay for all this PLUS Obamas new spending promises.
Reply -
35%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama: Tax incomes above $250,000
Reply
Candidate says he would apply Social Security tax to wealthiest Americans
updated 10:57 a.m. PT, Fri., June. 13, 2008
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Democrat Barack Obama said Friday he would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000, which would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.
The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all income up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to incomes between that amount and $250,000. But all annual income above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan.
Obama has talked before of establishing such a "doughnut hole" in the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. Friday marked the first time he named a restart level: $250,000 and above. -
-
26%
icono11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting.
Reply
'The One' is going to tax the 250k+ income group then redistribute their wealth thereby creating a de facto welfare state and thereby reinvent the American spirit of innovation and self reliance.
I know the 'O'Messiah works in 'mysterious ways' but damn this is interesting Mystery Math, Voodoo Economics, and Social Engineering all rolled into one.-
-
-
-
-
73%
truthiness1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
here's the idea.
Reply
a) don't MAKE people poor.
b) don't MAKE people rich.
c) we have to tax people's income to keep this government going (which takes me to a different conversation about the fair tax, but another time...)
d) no government action should impede a citizens ability to achieve personal success.
e) a necessary burden should be doled out equitably based on ability to bear it, so that a citizen can shoulder their share without being prevented from the pursuit of happiness.
Therefore the wealthy should pay more than the middle class who, in turn, pay more than the poor. This is not punishment for success, this is paying a fair share into maintaining the system without which you could not have had success.
The poor should receive more services (among those the govt is empowered to provide) because they are less able to provide for themselves. By helping to relieve some of their burden we increase the chances of success for them and their offspring. This improves our nation as a whole.
It may seem counter to capitalism to say this. However, it is the job of the govt in a capitalist nation to provide roads, communications, money, etc. The reason the govt and not the market provides these things is due to the basic common need of their existence for everyone using the marketplace.
Is this not true of the people? Are we not doing all of this for the citizens? While it is not our duty to make sure everyone owns land and has a PHD, surely it falls within our duty to our fellow citizens to make sure everyone has access to food, shelter, healthcare, and a high school education. Not stop gap, fill in the hole measures, but quality care. If we can wage a 3 trillion dollar war, surely we can get check ups for all our citizens. Why do we band together in civilizations of only to ignore each others needs?
Once we have secured the basic necessities, then words like freedom and responsibility really begins to mean something.-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
75%
Ratskii1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are two invalid assumptions being made in this story. The first is that Obama's candidacy is about redistributing wealth. It's not. The second is that the hardest working people are receiving the most wealth. Simply not true.
Reply-
54%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
-
36%
lovemylibs1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
38%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did see that story. Some commentators said it was because the US wants guarantees of no Iraqi prosecution of our troops for crimes committed while there, and it leaves us there until 2011. I don't think it's a good idea to turn over our troops to their courts, but any crimes should be openly prosecuted by ourselves.
Reply-
67%
HannibalBarca1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WHAT ?????
Reply
That is arrogance, just like years ago when an American youth broke the laws of Singapore and was going to get caned, but didn't as to Americans it was too cruel.
Yes it is cruel, but it is their laws.
Do you honestly believe that as an American in another country you should not be subject to their laws.-
-
0%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with your about civiilans, including the caning incident. Not our troops. That has the potential to get us into situations that has our guys deciding whether to follow orders or not if they know they can be turned over/held by those he is (potentially) in combat with. The rogues that raped the 14(?)yr old girl, then killed all her family was prosecuted by us, as they should have been. Who would sign up and go overseaspossibly to their death if they knew they could be left there? Who would decide what was a crime? Other options could accomplish the punishment of crimes without turning our troops over to a foreign authority. I see where you may have had the reaction you did,(you may not have read the last line of my post) but for the most part I agree with you, just not in a war/military situation.
Reply
-
-
-
-
56%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here you go my friendly little propagandist.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
It's a youtube link so you can't come back and say I took it out of context ... like my fellow Christian Conservatives are so fond of doing.-
38%
lovemylibs1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Were you able to hear what McCain said in that video?
Reply
"as long as Americans aren't being injured or killed"
Pretty pathetically propagandish that you would translate that into a 100 year FIGHT in Iraq.
Contextually speaking, your words are propaganda.-
43%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow ... you hear ... and you parse ... I see now how you can support the Modern Republican Party.
Reply
You hear what you want to hear ... and parse what you don't like until it fits with what you want to hear.
Now I ask you, how can you vote ... in good conscience ... you don't even use your rational mind.
You should leave voting for rational citizens.
I mean ... if you cared about this country.
-
-
-
-
-
81%
moxxxxxxxxxx1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People have to decide if they want the "trickle down" method or the "redistribution of wealth" method. Of course the wealthy want trickle down, give me more and more by tax breaks and I will invest in America and create jobs. DIDN'T WORK the wealthy got their tax breaks and we have seen jobs moved out of the country. The wealthy didn't trickle down anything the gap between the haves and have nots has widen and we are seeing the decline of the middle class. Redistribution of wealth is the answer. Unfortunately many people do not understand what is wealth in America. Many middle income people think they are wealthy because they own a home and have a 401k. It would be intersting to know if the peole answering the question defined themselves as wealthy. A job, a new car loan and a mortgage doesn't equal wealth in America.
Reply-
91%
orndorffter1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
moxxxxxxxxxx; I have a new car a job aloan and I own my own home but I do not consider myself wealthy, I'm far from being wealthy, I live from pay check to pay check and I sure dont call it wealth. There are some people who are happy just to be alive and not have all that wealth, I know I am, and thank God for giveing me a nother day. You know its not all of our faults because we arn't rolling in money the more we try the harder it gets and seem things well never get better, and it probley well not, but as long as I'v got love a family who cares for me and them thats all I need because all the wealth in the world couldn't replace that nor would I ever let it. Being wealthy doesnt mean a thing to me I'v always heard that the wealthy wants more wealth and that they are so unhappy. If you have love and happiness thats all that countswe then are rich enough.
Reply
-
-
88%
truthiness1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a "push poll" where the questions are written to skew the answers a certain way. Of course people are going to choose overall economic development over redistribution of wealth.
Reply
What if we ask those same people to choose between having the largest percentage of tax breaks going to the wealthiest vs the middle class? That change is the only redistribution actually being talked about, so why not be specific?
What if we asked people to choose between a plan for overall economic development that relied upon keeping the wealthy secure so that they could continue to create growth versus a plan to safeguard the middle class so that they could stimulate the economy by buying stuff.
The problem with polls and stories like this is that they cater to the lowest common denominator. Rather than asking people to comprehend the nuanced complexity of their nation's government, we attempt to simplify and sloganize our most important decisons into soundbites.
"Improving overall economic conditions" vs "redistributing wealth", as if that carries any recognition of the problems or solutions before us. Why not ask people if they'd like things to be better?
We are at war, on the precipice of economic disaster, and weeks away from choosing a new government. When does the time come for substantive debate? What has to happen for people to stop listening to the fluff and realise that serious times are ahead? -
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer
-
-
69%
cleare1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
so has any of it trickled down to you, pinky. are you making more than $250,000 a year?
Reply
because what i've seen over the past 28 years is that the money has been "pouring up" from the poor, working class and middle class to the rich. we have a greater discrepancy between the poor and the rich than at any time in our history since the gilded age a century ago. the robber barons of today have been just as greedy and much sneakier.
-
-
69%
ISITJUSTME1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John McCain's tax policy is the same as GWB. Nothing is different. Now, look where we are at economically. Bush's tax cuts drove us to this point. What rational leads you to think that the same policy would lead us to something better. A slippery slope just stays slippery. Somebody's taxes has to be raised. Its a simple as that.
Reply
Anyway McCain at first opposed Bush's tax cut. This is just another example how McCain has failed America by not stopping those tax cuts. I guess he did have his maverick hat on.-
25%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think tinkering with the tax code will help any of us. It has to be scrapped, and started over. The more tinkering, the more complex, the harder we get screwed. I'd rather it was left alone than Obamas proposals. It has been proven through history raising taxes doesn't work. I agree what we have doesn't work, but what Obama wants to do simply will make it worse. The 'middle class' may get a small short term break. Maybe. The poor will be no better off, and the people between them and 100,000 get royally screwed. These are the people that can't afford the accountants that will shelter the money of the rich. Corporations don't bear the cost of taxes, it's passed down to consumers.
Reply
-
-
80%
cleare1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
with the economic collapse over the past two months, the june gallup poll cited is completely obsolete and irrevelent.
Reply
more importantly we live in an economic structure that is driven by consumerism. 75% of our economy is consumer based. it doesn't take a post doctorate in economics to see that the more the wealth is spread around, allowing consumers to consume, the more our economy will grow.
if the wealth were redistributed by paying workers living wages (and by not overcompensating executives) those workers will go out and spend that money, thus invigorating the economy with more demand for goods and services. if they use it to pay off debt then that leaves banks free to loan more to others. if they save or invest the money, it will be used to create new businesses and put more people to work...again invigorating the economy. sooner or later the money filters back to the rich, making them even richer (although they may have to work a little harder for it) it's a win-win situation for everyone, even the poor who will benefit from increased charitable giving, if not from better social programs.
people who make more money (up to a certain point) pay more taxes and are less of a burden on the welfare and prison systems, saving more money there.
there is no hole in the bottom of the bucket. the economy is pretty much a closed system. a good capitalist should want a financially strong working and middle class so they can buy their goods and services, thus expanding their markets.
it's like dolly levi said "Money, forgive the expression, is like manure...it should be spread around to help green things grow." -
-
-
31%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is an insult. I was promoted into a better job, twice.
Reply
It was a locked in schedule. There was a lot of competition from working spouses with masters degrees and not many jobs, so basically it was a guaranteed income, but not rewarding for effort.
-
-
-
79%
ISITJUSTME1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This might sound strange to some but here goes. Somebody taxes has to be raised to pay for the services the public needs. Its a simple as that. We can not continue to go into the red. Our capitalistic system begs us to get out of the red and into the black.
Reply
So where do we make the cuts? Military, Education, Green initiatives, Energy or Entitlements. To get out of this repression/depression the government has to make investments in the people who they should dutifully serve. If this is not the case then why did we bailout/rescue Wall Street.
We have to invest in jobs, to rebuilt our infrastructure, to advance alternative fuels and to better educate our children to compete in a global economy. We threw some money at Wall Street why not throw some at Main Street.
If we raise the taxes on the upper 5% of Americans to pay for some of these jobs and more people move out of poverty and more in the middle class start making more than 250 thousand a year, would we not have spread the wealth.
Spreading the wealth is what the trickle down theory was suppose to have done, IT DIDN'T, IT CAN'T. So lets try it from the bottom up. -
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
71%
frctm51 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I couldn't agree more. We have to stop taking money from the middle class and giving it to the economic elite. Working folks are getting a raw deal. Productivity has gone up but real wages haven't . There are only two kinds of people who support the Republican economic policies. The really gullible and the true beneficiaries. The second group is only about ten percent of the population. We just got fleeced for $700 billion dollars. We privatize profit and socialize loss. Republicans are going to be out of power for a very long time. Get used to it. You've run this country into the dirt and now you're going to get run out of Washington. Even red states are turning blue. Some of the most inbred bastions of Republican biblical ignorance are beginning to see the light.
Reply -
75%
rac70761 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think joe the plummer is a classic idiot, who in their right mind goes on national tv and lies about his title and future investment. plummers helper with a pipe dream and in trouble with the IRS. With no common sense , Obammas plan would put some money in his pocket now that we know he s an ordinary joe. hey joe time for a reality check!
Reply -
67%
rac70761 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well america we have seen what corrupt politicians do best , print money and put a lot of it in the pockets of big business and then in turn these thieves bribe government to their advantage. this is a sham anyone who thinks we owe money to other country's is really stupid how can we owe money and still give grants out to the world and spend billions every month over seas while supporting foreign programs and all our bases and troops. these thugs keep printing and spending rather then put it back in the country and its people. they can say we owe this money for a hundred years and yet who s going to collect it. what a smoke screen they have duped the people again like always!
Reply -
-
85%
diogenes21st1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All of us on the progressive side of the fence should be sensitive to issues and opinions like this poll reveals. However, the poll was taken in June, and we all know how much has changed in just the past four months. Here is something from a Rasmussen poll taken just this week:
Reply
Suppose taxes were increased on people who make more than $250,000 a year. Would raising taxes for people who make more than $250,000 a year be good for the economy, bad for the economy, or have no impact on the economy?
51% Good for the economy
31% Bad
13% No impact
And those results are from Missouri, an often Red State and always one of the more cautious states politically.
So there are two important points here - it matters how the question is asked; and it matters when it is asked. How people really feel about these issues shifts depending on all sorts of variables. That's why we elect leaders who are willing to make tough decisions, regardless of polling, and who can and will take a longer view of where the country is heading. -
80%
ADAGUY1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to ask all of you this.
Reply
What is the difference in cutting taxes for the big companies, and watching them pi$$ the excess profits away by building factories overseas as well as giving the CEO and board of directors pay increases that they don't deserve, vs. giving tax cuts for the middle class, as well as low cost medical insurance for the entire population?
You are getting redistribution of revenue either way you look at it. But yet it seems okay, according to you republickins' as long as it is going toward the wealthy.
Can someone explain that to me?-
50%
rimbaud1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
American companies are investing in the new growth markets (which are not in the USA). They cannot afford to not invest. They will build and sell, there, and the required technical and engineering skills are not as hard to come by, there, for cheap. But those nasty corporations are mostly public. That is, they are us! Th profits will come home to Bush's "ownership society" (those rich or wise enought to invest). It's a natural progression for a wealthy people: why should WE study hard learning math and engineering when we can be the gentlemen owners of the world's enterprises. Let the Chinese gloat with what we owe them: they will be paying it all back very soon as their standard of living improvesand their middle class grows. Wait until they are drving GMC (General Motors China) cars and pumping Exxon/Iran gasoline!
Reply
-
-
-
67%
BartomChristian1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is another phony issue manufactured by the McCain campaign. Obama never said he wanted a redistribution of wealth. In his conversation with "Joe the Plumber," he reportedly said he wanted to "spread" the wealth, which is not the same thing. Redistribution means taking money from one person or class and giving it to another. "Spreading" simply means that more people would have more wealth. "Wealth" is not a finite commodity. It is possible to create more wealth, which would be enjoyed by more people. Obama's tax policies would result in cuts for 95% of taxpayers, including, "Joe," who makes approximately $40,000 and is not in a position to buy his employer's business, as he originally stated. It would result in an increase for the top 5% (which includes his supporters Oprah Winfrey and Barbra Streisand)
Reply
but would still be less than what they paid under that conservative icon, Ronald Reagan.-
0%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One problem with Obamas tax policies is it won't be done. We don't have the resources for what he wants to do. The bailouts, plural, have derailled any plans, promises both candidates have made. This plan he wants to implement will not happen as he has proposed, his health care costs can not be reduced to the levels he says.
Reply
-
-
ClockworkorangeComment removed: Abusive6 Replies
-
56%
RedstateLib1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everyone should relax. I think we all know how this plays out. Obama wins. His hand will barely be off the Bible when the corporate media unleashes the dogs. We will spend the next 4 years hearing all the details of every questionable association the Obama's ever had. His entire time in office will be mired in scandal basically paralizing his administration. Nothing much get done for working people, just the way the corps want it. 2012 hello President Huckabee.
Reply-
stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
ETproductionsComment removed: Spam
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
14%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Taxes obama
Reply
"28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)"
"39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit." -
-
-
70%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain's "Joe the Plumber" claims that any progressive tax system is socialism. By that definition, the USA has been a Socialist nation since the income tax was introduced in 1862 to pay for the Civil War. That tax was a progressive, graduated tax with higher rates applying to more wealthy taxpayers.
Reply
After retiring the war debt, the US went back to financing on tariffs (something that would drive today's free traders into an explosive rage).
The current income tax system was introduced in 1913 with the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. Congress enacted a progressive, graduated tax system then, and we have had one ever since. In 1944 the top tier reached 94% to pay for WWII. That rate only applied to incomes above $200,000, a serious fortune in those times. The top rate is now 35%. Most Americans would not call this country a socialist state even though we have had a progressive rather than flat tax for nearly 100 years now.
The reason we can't leave the 35% top rate where it is now is that we are fast approaching $11 trillion in national debt. Like it or not, this IS a tax, one brought to you courtesy of the Reagan Revolution and subsequent Republican administrations. You can see proof of responsibility at zfacts.com/p/318.html
$11 trillion dollars in debt amounts to $110,000 for every tax filer in the USA. So Reagan/Bush tax "cuts" were really massive tax increases left for their kids to pay.-
80%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are 3 ways we can attack the enormous debt that is now threatening the nation's future.
Reply
1 -- Drastically cut spending. Since earmarks account for 1/8th of 1% of the federal budget, McCain's plan to balance the budget by stopping earmarks is like spitting in the ocean to try and raise the tide. The big ticket items are Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Cutting any of them is unacceptable to most Americans.
2 -- We can raise the top tax rate back to where it was when we were actually retiring debt. Under Bill Clinton, it was 39% instead of 35%, We were paying the debt down. Clinton left us with the largest surplus in US history. Bush leaves us with the largest deficit ever, and McSame wants to continue and even extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
3 -- We could go to a flat tax. The Treasure Department calculates that for 2008 that rate would need to be 30.8%. Now before you jump for joy, realize that right now, every American pays the same tax rate on earnings up to each income tier. Even Warren Buffet and Bill Gates pay 10% on taxable income they earn up to $7,825 just like you and I pay. They pay 15% on income from $7,825 to $31,850. Again, all Americans pay that rate. And so forth for each income tier to the top rate.
If we went to a flat tax what would happen? Families suddenly jumping form 10 to 25% tax rates up to 30.8% would be utterly devastated. In fact, only people earning over $349,700 would benefit from this change. All low and middle income earners in America would be devastated by this "fair" tax scheme. Low and middle income earners would no longer be able to afford their mortgages or rent. There would be massive foreclosures and rental evictions. Retail sales would utterly collapse because there wouldn't be enough money in people's pockets to buy much more than basic food. That would lead to the wholesale collapse of the entire banking system -- something the Federal Reserve has nothing near the capacity to repair.
This is the blueprint to convert the USA into a Banana Republic with massive numbers in abject poverty and a tiny handful, less that 1%, owning virtually everything. Why does the Republican party appeal to abortion and Christian Right and fear of creeping socialism and all their other gut-wrenching, hate inspiring issues? Because the party bosses WANT a Banana Republic. But if they came right out and told you they wanted the top 1% to own everything, you probably wouldn't vote for them. Even a good percentage of the most wealthy wouldn't vote for them, because they don't want to see this country turned into something akin to Grenada and other Banana Republics.
Joe the Plumber, it's time we stop ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room. We have to retire the massive debt your beloved Reaganomics have run up. Let's tell the American public the TRUTH about the three ways this can be done, then let them decide which is the best way.-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well done ET:
Reply
I hope you do not mind if I add a little, I am looking at the Federal Budget right now.
Since 1962 we have paid out more than $8.3 trillion in interest.
FY2008 the interest nut is about $430 Billion.
I have made it so that I can sort the budget and Interest on the debt is the second highest thing on the list. SS has paid out $8.58 trillion since 1962.
FY2008 SS paid out $506 billion and took in $877 billion.
Since SS is only collected on the first $100 G of earned income, and is basically a trust (slushy) fund, I think it is fair to say that interest on the dept is the biggest thing paid for with income tax.
FY2008 the Department of Health and Human Services spent $709 billion, compared to $382 billion in 2000.
FY 2008 DOD spent $583 billion according to the budget, compared to $281 billion in 2000. There is a bunch of defense spending that is scattered throughout the budget (the V.A., nuclear weapons, Project Bioshield, retirement pay are some examples).
Another thing worth considering is that the emergency supplemental spending for WOT is not in the budget, (too lazy to look up the number, and I would not believe it any way.)
My personal earnings have not doubled since 2000, but this current administration sure has! FY2000 outlays put the number at $1.7 Trillion and FY 2009 it puts it at $3.1 trillion and that is before bailing out the sinking ships and paying for WOT.
It is interesting to me that the HHS is so close to the most recent gift to Wall Street.
It looks to me like a redistribution of poverty.
I have read a bunch of stuff here about lazy folks buying fancy stuff they can not afford, and that is what is driving the economic crisis.
I agree! I just think the lazy folks look different. -
Neutral
GLee1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I make it simple. I suggest a 'flat rate tax' system for all.
Reply
In an America that we are all attempting to make the BIG BUCKS, why should any of us who achieve such heights be penalized for our accomplisments? After all, those who reach that level are, for the most part, the very one's who provide jobs for all of the rest of us who are reaching out to achieve that very level. INCREDIBLE THEORY...... "Spreading the Wealth"
-
-
-
-
-
88%
vandeewine-531 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder what the Gallup poll would reveal if they asked people if they also favor giving all the money and tax breaks and bailouts to mega-corporations and huge banks that already own everything anyway (and repay the help by shipping jobs overseas) and continuing to let the middle class just struggle the way it has been?
Reply
Because that's the Republican way. Just check the funding sources behind all these Obama smears and you'll see it's nothing but fatcats who are terrified that they might have to actually pay some taxes for once in their lives. -
78%
Om1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you apologists and sycophants for the GOP really believe your candidates stand against socialism? These phony propped articles are a poor excuse for the real issues. The GOP CREATED socialism for the privileged class of criminals, extortionists, and usury pigs who have had their way with this weak-willed administration. Move away from here when Obama wins. Take your hatred and selfish myopia somewhere else. You are on the wrong side of history this time around. Be a good loser. Support traditional American values for a change.
Reply -
KowabungaComment removed: Retracted by user
-
100%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you cons need to learn how to read.
Reply
this poll DOES NOT say that Americans are against re-ditstributing wealth. it says Americans prefer improving overll economic conditions more than re-distributing wealth as a means to getting the economy up and running. and it says it right up front in the article.
now, the fact that re-distributing the wealth might actually spur the improvement of overall economic conditions and the jobs situation is entirely another matter.
but get it straight cons...THIS POLL DID NOT SAY THAT 84% OF AMERICANS DISAGREED WITH RE-DISTRIBUTING WEALTH. this poll merely says re-distributing welath came in second to improving overall conditions, which is a vague term at best.
keep trying... -
100%
CHAM1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OM, you are right on. What most of the Non-Rich and Non-Powerful are missing is that there is a re-distribution of the wealth going on right now and has been for the last 30 or 40 years. Its a flow of wealth from your pocket to the elite.
Reply
And what Obama spoke of about needing a re-distribution was back out of those that have been ripping it out of your pocket, back to your pocket.
Since the 80/20 rule ( Pareto ) came about last century this natural balance 80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the people served the society well. And this natural balance allows for innovation, entrepreneurship, hard work,and reflects a fairness of the system.
But when Government and Big Business came together in an incestuous relationship, the laws began to be shaped to favor the rich and the powerful. Finally by 1990 our government statistics reported that 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people and by 2000 that ratio had changed to 95/5. The trend is toward 99/1.
You people can cry all you want about re-distribution but what you are blind to is that when it gets around to 99/1, if you are not a part of the 1% you're screwed.
You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee. -
-
100%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
if you look at McCain's money it will look just like the numbers you posted above in terms of distribution, but the nunmbers for each category will be smaller since Obama is simply getting more donations across the board, including military.
Reply
but here's a number for you:
$1.3 million
that's how much money McCain has taken from PACs.
$0
that's how much money Obama has taken from PACs.-
0%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Was that a typo, the $0 for Obama?
Reply
2nd highest behind Dodd from Frannie/Freddie alone combined PAC and individuals.
$0 PAC for McCain
He did receive money from individuals, but I'd have to go back to look it up again.
Perhaps we're talking 2 different timeframes or something?-
100%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oops,I was wrong.
Reply
Obama has actually taken $450 (not a typo) from PACs.
you can see for yourself right here:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do
its the Federal Election Committee site and its a GREAT site. lots of info.
just click on "obama" on the left and you can see his donations break-down.
-
-
-
-
75%
ronnierayjenkins1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, let's see they distributed 700 billion dollars of your tax dollars to the wealthiest corporations. Here's how they did it.
Reply
http://www.ronnierayjenkins.com/topics/education/T... -
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!"
Reply -
100%
CHAM1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One more time. The rich are getting richer, the middle class is disappearing, and the poor are getting poorer. There is a wealth re-distribution going on right now.
Reply
The question is do you suckers realize it and if you do when do you expect to try to stop it? When its too late? Reach down grab your ears jerk hard and get you head back in this world. -
donnyg16Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
0%
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Donnyg16
Reply
Despite the assertions of most of the people here, both parties got us to where we are at. The parties I grew up with are not the same organizations they were back then. If Hillary had won the nomination, I would have voted a 3rd party and let the big 2 fight it out. I truly feel we need another viewpoint, another option to shake the hold both Dem and Rep have on us all. Despite what some posters say about Obama, I am voting McCain because of what I hear from Obama himself. It's not his tax policies, and not so much his health care. In a speech he gave in July 2008 he said he would institute a civilian army, as well funded as our military. What does he intend to do with this army? He will mandate our grade school children to do commnunity service, under threat of withholding federal tax dollars for noncompliance. His words, not a Republican pundit. Obamas words. He will give a $4000 tax credit for colledge for 100 hrs community service. That's $40 an hr. for high school students PLUS the costs of the government employees to administer this program on OUR tax dollars. All of this is verifiable, do a google for his July speeches and truly listen.-
Neutral
mmrhe1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What are you saying Glady? That Obama is going to have his own domestic army to keep us in line with his initiatives?!?
Reply
That is one of the most absurd assertions I have seen on here and there have been many.
And while your point about third parties is well taken you may recall it was the third party candidacy of Ralph Nader that helped get us in this mess to begin with.
Message to Ralph: Please don't try to save us every four years.-
Neutral
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"his own domestic army"
Reply
His words, in his speech.Not mine. My question, not assertion, is what does he intend to use a civilian army for?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
I can't find the first video of his speech I saw, he was in just a white shirt, sleeves rolled up...., but in this one he says the same thing.
-
-
-
-
Neutral
GehlLady1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His words "We can not continue to rely only on our military to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We have to have a civilian national security force, just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
Reply
That doesn't sound like a Peace Corps.
-
-
Neutral
mmrhe1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you not find it odd that you alone seem to have picked this out as an issue?
Reply
He could be speaking to many things with a comment like that. Besides, even in it's most paranoid and insidious implication, do you understand that not even the POS can just start his own army without Congressional approval?
I would suggest you are grasping at straws in your effort to find some reason not to vote for Obama. -
Neutral
mtcsottile1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The comment here, and at the referring site, is garbage. As is typical, the quote from Gallup's 2008 Economy and Personal Finance Survey (see it at www.gallup.com/poll/106492/Just-Half-Americans-Com... is misinterpreted. In the poll, 68% of respondents felt that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people.
Reply
READ THE SOURCE, people. Polls are only as good as the questions asked, and you can't twist the answers to get to what you want to hear.
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.