Anyone see the democratic mouthpiece on Fox this morning?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


You are over generalizing, you are either trolling or want me to engage you in a futile and endless arguement, thats not how I operate here. But I will address your post.

No I'm not joking and no Obama's plan at its core is not design to redistribute wealth, is about giving relief to thos that most needed and thats the middle class, I'm in the middle class so I'm happy about his plan, last time I check I pay taxes.

If there is something that McCain and Obama agree is that the middle class is in dire need and I happen to think that Obama has the better plan to increase and provide relief to us.

That something that if McCain would have focus more on, could very well giving him an advantage or at least level the playing field against Obama, the problem with McCain's plan is that he has no plan.


Could you explain how he would give a tax cut to people who pay no income tax?

Could you explain where he plans to get the funds lost from his "tax cuts"?

Mind explaining his plan to "spread the wealth around"?




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Does the Constitution authorize income redistribution?

Does the Constitution authorize taking from one and giving to another?

Ever read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Does the Constitution authorize income redistribution?

Does the Constitution authorize taking from one and giving to another?

Ever read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution?


Wow, you are really good at arguing the wrong thing with the wrong people. What did I say about income redistribution?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Well the items you cited (roads, schools, utilities, etc) aren't part of a socialist system, so I really dont think you know what you are talking about.

Obama wants to practice even more income redistribution, which actually is socialist in nature.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


Actually the things that I cited are indeed part of a socialist system. We all pay for them whether we like it or not. We all get to use them as a result. The government collects the money from all of us and maintains them. That is how things work in a socialist government. What you are specifically talking about is going on right now. Redistribution of wealth...what do you think high taxes on the poor and middle class and tax cuts to the richest 1% is? What do you consider this bailout? Redistribution of wealth is what keeps our economy going. Socialist systems keep much of our contry running. We just have to keep it to a limit. I was just curious what your limit was but I guess you just want to argue that Obama is a commie so go ahead. Keep arguing it for 3 weeks cuz that is all ya got according to the latest polls.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Uh, if you are referring to the income tax, the poor pay none, and large chunks of the middle class pay little to none.

The lions share of the tax burden rests on the shoulders of the "wealthy", yet those who pay none reap the rewards.

Socialism has no place in this nation, regardless of who is proposing it.

The atrocity known as public education is both unconstitutional and a giant money vacuum.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 

Regardless of what you or I call it, the fact is that BOTH candidates have been changing their policies, more often than most of us change underwear. As I've said to you awhile back, I don't think there's much difference in either candidates' positions, because, essentially, they are changing frequently, and in the long run, corporate America, the Lobbyists, and the real powers, will dictate what can and will be done. I will not vote for either one, but will vote for Ron Paul, as the only one that correctly tagged what really caused our problems.
Obama is now adopting a policy that he condemned when Hillary proposed it:

Obama today rolls out another set of proposals for dealing with the economic crisis, one focused more on the human consequences of the crisis.

The plan includes helping out states and localities, allowing people to cash out part of their retirement savings without tax penalties, and an arrangement with banks that would include a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for many homeowners.

The plan is a striking sign of how far this crisis has moved, and a sign that Obama has shifted toward a more populist approach. In February, after Hillary Clinton proposed a similar foreclosure moratorium, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama condemned her plan:

In San Antonio on Tuesday, Obama said that Clinton’s foreclosure freeze was potentially “disastrous,” rewarding “people who made this problem worse” by benefiting banks that profit from high mortgage rates.



And McCain, in the last "debate", posed a "new" proposal to buy up current at-risk mortgages. The problem is that this proposal is ALREADY in the Bailout Bill, that is now, unfortunately, the law of the land.

Both candidates are just throwing XXXX against the wall to see what sticks. I have no respect for either candidate, and less for those that buy their malarkey.

It is truly time for a REAL third party to break the strangle-hold that the 2-party(really 1 party, the Republicrats) system has on all of us.

Americans are fooling themselves if they think that either of these candidates have any REAL understanding of what the average American goes through. In the time that I have been a member of ATS, I have gotten to know quite a few members that I profoundly respect. Many of those are having a very hard time making ends meet. Neither McCain or Obama have that problem. I don't condemn them for it, of course, but I subscribe to the philosophy of "walk a mile in my shoes".
We may disagree about this election, but I respect you, because you do post what you logically believe is a sound presentation.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


Right, public schools, roads, postal service...like I said.

Aside from the fact that you have no stats to back up your fanciful little statement about taxes....

Now that you acknowledge what I was asking and got off your high horse, care to explain. Ok so you think public shools are unconstitutional. What else...? Public roads...etc.? Please calm down and realize I am just asking questions. If they really bother you, ignore me. To lash out and spew things at me that fit nowhere in the conversation and then rant this lie about taxes with nothing to back it up is just silly. You do not have to answer me, you also do not have to say stupid things in response that you later have to acknowledge I was right about and then deflect and be rude some more. Just ignore me. That is what freedom is all about.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
Could you explain how he would give a tax cut to people who pay no income tax?

The Obama campaign has already address this, people that pay no federal income tax, don't mean that don't work, the bottomline is that you can be working pay no taxes by methods of deductions and a lower income and still have payroll deductions that cuts into your paycheck, if you mean that it should be a tax credit instead of a tax refund then you have a point, a very valid point, but still like I said Obamas tax policy is aimed to provide direct and tangible relief, so they decided that a tax refund was the way to go, still you have to file taxes.


Could you explain where he plans to get the funds lost from his "tax cuts"?

I already explain this in my previous post. But let me add, if Obama's plans work in stimulating the middle and lower income families to spend through this tax policies and his Keynesian economics approach to our situation we could very well see a spike in our GDP and could very well cut short our recession and make us avoid it altogether. Making companies profits grow and then you get the trickle-down effect that creates a economic boom.


Mind explaining his plan to "spread the wealth around"?

That right now under the current policies, wages have been stagnant, jobs are been lost ,the tax burden is unfair and the middle class is hurting, so he has a plan to spread the country's wealth in a more fair and balance way. You might disagree with it, but I happen to believe is true.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


When you are actually right about something, trust me, I wont ignore it.

What stats would you like to see in regard to taxes?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


When people receive full refunds of any taxes withheld, or more (EITC), they are not paying taxes, hence they should not benefit from a tax cut.

Exactly how is the tax burden unfair? Hopefully you mean the top pays too much, because that indeed is the case.

How is it fair to take money from one group and give it to another?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 



The atrocity known as public education is both unconstitutional and a giant money vacuum


So you are not admitting that the public school system is socialism?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Is it socialism? No

Could it be construed as part of a socialist system? Yes.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


originally posted by me

Actually the things that I cited are indeed part of a socialist system.


So I was right. Wow, I cannot believe that you took that many posts to try to run in circles to get away from just admitting that I was right to begin with. Now that I see how far you will go to cover for having to admit something, I am certain anything else you supply will be just as suspect as the behavior displayed so far.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Post YOUR definition of socialism.

Your idea of it is obviously skewed.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


Ok, whatever dude. You disagree and then agree and then disagree with the exact same statement. Public schools are part of a socialist system yes or no?

here are you answers so far...no, yes, no.

Get over it. Argue with yourself in little circles. I have better things to do with my time than say the same things over and over and over just to satisfy your ego. You explained how I was right yet refuse to admit it. OK. You also have to ask what stats on taxes I want because you cannot back anything up there either and that will go in circles. You know what I have said and what I have asked for. I thought I might just get a serious answer to a serious question. Instead I got on another one of your merry go rounds. Here is your thread back ok, I will waste my time elsewhere with people that might be able to answer something the first 2 or 3 times it is asked. Have fun, kids.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by Bunch
 



When people receive full refunds of any taxes withheld, or more (EITC), they are not paying taxes, hence they should not benefit from a tax cut.

I understand your position and to me is very valid we just happen to disagree in this one, I think the middle class and lower income need tax relief and a tax refund should be the way to go, we just have to agree to disagree on this one.


Exactly how is the tax burden unfair? Hopefully you mean the top pays too much, because that indeed is the case.

Proportionally adjusted to income is not and you seem to be pretty smart person so you should now that.


How is it fair to take money from one group and give it to another?

Because that was tax policy is all about, common this is not new, this is politics at is best, what Bush did during his term? Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. What Clinton did? tax raise, tax raise.

They raise them, they lower them is always a game of giving money from one group to another, a money that I believe should be going to the people, of course in a perfect world, you might be an idealist I dont know, but I'm more of a realistic.

In an ideal world Ron Paul would be on his way to the White House and Kucinich might even be his VP, in a realitic world I happen to think that Obama has better ideas this time around to play the game.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


You asked for stats in regards to taxes. Ever heard of not being vague? Want stats showing the poor pay no income tax? Want stats showing the wealthy pay the lions share of the taxes? I can provide you with any number of sources for my comments as long as you promise to cram them up your obnoxious ass afterwards.


You asked if public education was socialism. Socialism is an economic policy, not a public school.

Want clear answers? Know what you are talking about and ask direct questions moron.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


I understand we disagree, but respectfully I have one last question:

How can one receive a tax refund when they pay no taxes?

Its like you walk into a store and demand a refund for an item you didnt purchase in the first place.

Why should a tax rate be based on income? Why not a single percentage for all?

Why should I pay 35% if you only have to pay 19%, or worse, nothing at all?

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar

How can one receive a tax refund when they pay no taxes?

And I aready answer this, you might not agree with the premise but I do think it would be of great relief and it would be a good way to stimulate the economy, and when the economy grows everyone benefits specially the top earners.


Its like you walk into a store and demand a refund for an item you didnt purchase in the first place.

You can see it like that, again I think is needed, much more like these bailouts, the middle class needs a bailout.


Why should a tax rate be based on income? Why not a single percentage for all?

Flat tax? You got to be an idealist. Its not realistic.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Radio Presents - Bushcraft On Fire Radio ***On The AIR !!! ***
read more: Bushcraft On Fire Radio : 04/17/2014: Basic Packs, More on Police Encounters and PLANTS!!!!