It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Campaign Cuts Off Interviews With Florida TV Station

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Oh I can even name more than that. But when you have your husband who works for the camp and then the wife gives an obviously biased interview then it makes it obvious who shes in the bag for. Once again the questioning in my eyes is not over the top they should of been easy to as a VP candidate. Doesnt mean it wasnt biased however and an agenda wasnt in play. Let me ask you this do you think she was biased towards one candidate than another? It happens on both sides this one happens to be a McCain apologist. Still doesnt mean there wasnt anything there.




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



Originally posted by mybigunit
But as long as the top 1% continues to pay around 15% in taxes while I pay 33% then something is not right. So spread baby spread.

Oh I hope you enjoyed giving the 700+ billion in bailout dollars to the banks. That wasnt spreading wealth was it?


Look at it from a total dollar amount instead of a percentage:


The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

www.american.com...

You must agree that the top earners (and payers) provide seed money for small businesses that employ the majority of Americans, right?

And you must agree that your tax dollars fund the gov't, right? They are using that $700 billion to buy an ownership in banks. That's the same as nationalization, i.e., socialism.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I think that the woman has a right to ask those questions to Joe Biden. And at the same time the campaign has a right to cut off talking to them as well.

I mean, would Palin consent to any interviews at all with NPR or MSNBC or something like that ? I seriously doubt so. They know it wont do them any good and want to protect their interests by avoiding trouble spots. Same with the Obama campaign.

You cant blame them for doing whats in their best interests .


However on a side note, I found it absurd how average Americans are so averse to Socialism, the label when they practice socialism on such a grand scale without even knowing about it right under their noses with Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps etc.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


We all know that our gov't has some socialistic practices. We are trying to stem the tide of those practices, and the seizure of private property and the punishing taxes that go along with total socialism.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


No you dont look at the dollar amount. That is misleading because the reason why they pay so much is because they HAVE and CONTROL so much of the money. Keep in mind all the money they DONT pay taxes on because their money is sitting in offshore accounts. I have told you this before and I still believe it. The income tax for ALL should be eliminated but this idea that I pay 33% of my income and they pay 15% is disgusting. If they paid the same % as me I would not complain one bit. At that point they would be paying their share. But using the dollar amount is a farce because when you have and control the money they have...pfft of course the dollar amounts are going to be high.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


She may have been biased. But that's the only way the tough questions get asked.

Nearly every journalist/analyst has bias. Almost every one.

Biden should have been able to answer the question instead of feigning surprise. Or the Obama campaign should send someone that can handle tough questions.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


OK, so let's adopt a flat tax. Everybody pays 15%. How about that?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mybigunit
 


OK, so let's adopt a flat tax. Everybody pays 15%. How about that?


Deal. That was solved easy wasnt it? Mybig/JSO Pres 2008


[edit on 28-10-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Sounds good. I'll take the second seat, you be the Prez and take the heat. But I'll be behind you all the way.

Now, let's get working on an energy policy...



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Sounds good. I'll take the second seat, you be the Prez and take the heat. But I'll be behind you all the way.

Now, let's get working on an energy policy...


Energy is simple Drill baby Drill and earmark baby earmark the oil directly to America, Solar baby Solar, Nuke baby Nuke, nat gas baby nat gas, coal baby coal and earmark it all baby earmark to America First World Market 2nd. That solves that



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Great!

Now a tougher one...what do we do about Social Security?

What do you think of the proposal to privatize SS?

Edit - it won't be long till we're told to take this to another thread.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mybigunit
 


OK, so let's adopt a flat tax. Everybody pays 15%. How about that?


I'm fine with that... the only concern I have is that it might be too much of a burden on the really low income families. Suppose you only make 200 a week... that means after taxes you only come home with 170 bucks (if we adopt your 15%)

$200 isn't really enough to live on... those $30 would be better spent on groceries, gas and other necessities.

I would completely support your tax idea, if we enabled our lower income families to get foodstamps for the value of the taxes paid out of their paychecks.

We'd also have to do the math on a federal level to make sure the 15% is enough to support our country... I currently pay in the neighborhood of 32% income tax... 15% might cut our federal funding short...



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by IAF101
 


We all know that our gov't has some socialistic practices. We are trying to stem the tide of those practices, and the seizure of private property and the punishing taxes that go along with total socialism.


Then why are so many people so afraid of the label "Socialist" like its being a Nazi or something ??

Socialism in its essence is about egalitarianism, whats so wrong about it that makes Americans cringe, especially when its been going on for decades ?

Are you saying that the Federal Government should not collect taxes, yet you expect them to keep America safe and maintain one of the most powerful military machines in the world ?? Even during the Revolutionary War, not everybody fought for free.

Also, do you want to stop practices like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicaid etc because they help the majority more than it helps the individual ? Do you accept Americans starving to death on your block because the government would probably have to tax you to give them food stamps ?

Do you believe in the concept that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ??



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Great!

Now a tougher one...what do we do about Social Security?

What do you think of the proposal to privatize SS?

Edit - it won't be long till we're told to take this to another thread.


Thats one I cant solve on a whim that subject my friend is a very complicated one. Not only do we owe 52 trillion to the funds but because of inflation the money the people will end up getting wont even cover the cost of living. Thank all the presidents from Regan to the Current Bush for robbing the funds and leaving IOUs in there. Another sign the 2 party dictatorship has failed us.

On energy I just want to make something clear. The thing about Palins drill baby drill is she doesnt earmark the oil directly to America. It puts the oil on the open market which does us no good. We need to worry about Americas energy first and when our energy obligations are fullfilled then we can export our excess energy. But earmarking to America might seem socialistic to some but I dont care. Im all about America first. We get taken care of first and then when we are we can export the rest.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


This is why government has to shrink. We just need to look to the constitution and see what the federal government should and should not be doing. I liked Huckabees plan. The first 12K I think was tax deductible for everyone in the nation so you could spend 12k without paying a dime in taxes, so the people in poverty really dont pay taxes. By a flat tax it also brings out all the underground drug and prostitution money and also the money over seas that is otherwise not in our equation. This will increase the governments tax receipts. A flat tax makes perfect sense to me.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by mybigunit]

[edit on 28-10-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 



Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mybigunit
 


OK, so let's adopt a flat tax. Everybody pays 15%. How about that?


I'm fine with that... the only concern I have is that it might be too much of a burden on the really low income families. Suppose you only make 200 a week... that means after taxes you only come home with 170 bucks (if we adopt your 15%)


I would be in favor of a lower tax on people below a certain income level. Not a total exemption, but maybe as low as 1%, to make everyone know that they have an obligation. This would increase up to the 15% level as their income increased.



$200 isn't really enough to live on... those $30 would be better spent on groceries, gas and other necessities.


Agreed.



I would completely support your tax idea, if we enabled our lower income families to get foodstamps for the value of the taxes paid out of their paychecks.


A flat tax would have such benefits that food stamps would be unnecessary. Charity would increase dramatically. But the lower tax I proposed would help them. I would not want any family to go without adequate food, clothing, or housing.



We'd also have to do the math on a federal level to make sure the 15% is enough to support our country... I currently pay in the neighborhood of 32% income tax... 15% might cut our federal funding short...


Yes, agreed. Studies have been done that suggest that a 17% tax would suffice. More studies need to be done.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


You dont need income taxes to fight wars and do what the government under the constitution was set up to do. There are other taxes and keep in mind income taxes didnt even exist until 1913. I think we did fine up until then dont you? Im not saying we should get rid of ALL taxes. You cant do that and run a government. Im just saying get rid of the individual income tax.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Ever think that elected officials should be paid the median income of the area they are representing? That way they have a vested interest in raising the over-all quality of life for the areas they represent?

This would also hugely cut government spending.

I've also thought that we could either do away, or expand term limits. But while we do that, once you are elected into office, all your assets are siezed and liquidated by the government. a surefire way to eliminate corruption. I think this would shift the power away from the uber-rich, and give it to the average citizen...

These two ideas might be considered socialism though...



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 



Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by IAF101
 


We all know that our gov't has some socialistic practices. We are trying to stem the tide of those practices, and the seizure of private property and the punishing taxes that go along with total socialism.


Then why are so many people so afraid of the label "Socialist" like its being a Nazi or something ??


I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say that there are no historical examples of where Socialism worked.

After that, I would say that the basic tenets of Socialism are at first glance nice, but repugnant at deeper consideration.

Nationalization of resources.

Redistribution of wealth

By necessity, it creates an elite society who has they power to decide who gets what.

It stifles productivity and entrepeneurism, since there is no incentive to work hard if you can get what you want from the gov't.



Socialism in its essence is about egalitarianism, whats so wrong about it that makes Americans cringe, especially when its been going on for decades ?


Egalitarianism says that all men are equal.

Americans believe that all men are created equal. That means we all have the same basic rights.

Socialism distorts that to say that all men are deserved of the same economic result regardless of contribution.



Are you saying that the Federal Government should not collect taxes, yet you expect them to keep America safe and maintain one of the most powerful military machines in the world ?? Even during the Revolutionary War, not everybody fought for free.


Absolutely not. I know that taxes are necessary.



Also, do you want to stop practices like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicaid etc because they help the majority more than it helps the individual ?


No. The problem is, people that have paid in, and are paying in, are being screwed because the fund has been raided. I support the privatization of SS.



Do you accept Americans starving to death on your block because the government would probably have to tax you to give them food stamps ?


Never. I would never let another human being starve to death. But giving taxes to the gov't so that they can dole it out is not the answer. Give it directly to the charities.



Do you believe in the concept that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ??


No. Not always. Case-by-case.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I don't think earmarking the energy to the US is Socialistic, though some might call it Nationalistic.

We need to take care of ourselves first. As long as the oilcos get a fair profit for their work ( market price with adjustments for the fact that they won't have to bear transport costs, etc.,) I can see no problem with fueling our own furnaces first.




top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join