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 2001 Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
People should not automatically connect redistribution of wealth directly to radical socialism. It is an economic strategy just like capitalism.

The leaders of the west have brainwashed most people against Communism and connected redistribution of wealth with it. Thus most people are hating the idea of equality simply because the greedy bastards in mansions tells them to do so.

People needs to keep an open mind. There is no worse situation in the economy than monopolies and an obedient populous that is willing to sacrifice their lives to defend a simple principle.

Here in America, teachers are telling students how Communism is bad in every way (It is good in ideology) and thus the redistribution of wealth is bad. The common argument is that the rich "earned it" and "how would you like it if you were the rich one". Well, if they said Socialism was good they would get fired...

If Obama is willing to take this action then he should go for it. Definitely go for it. Every middle class worker in America is chained to loans and credit cards. Maybe we should just do what happened in Fight Club, nah... I'll probably get killed for just saying that.




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Guess how the wealthy will punish people for voting for the O?

Yep, stage a world financial depression. Maybe that would be for the best. As long as people banded together against being forced to buy expensive land or being forced to pay out Zillions for the military, which should be only be 1-5 percent of the cost it is now, release all scientific data concerning alternative energy sources, and our society will improve.

A New World Order is not needed for this. All that has to happen is simple adjustments but as long as the powers that be has its fingers on the nuclear trigger this may never pass. If the PTB can't have power, we can't have power.

Let the depression come, learn how to grow food, get together with your neighbors for protection from thuggish loan soldiers, and the NWO plans would have been a criminal waste of time, an fatal underestimating of the human spirit.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 



A lot of people are kicking and screaming, but has anybody done the math? Has anybody who will be affected by Obama's tax plan actually sat down figured out what their hit will be?

I'd like to see figures.


OK. The answer is 0. President can't raise, set, or lower taxes.

Congress has that duty. In other words what Obama is promising now means squat. Congress will determine what goes up, what goes down, who gets what, who gets nothing. I am sure Obama will find a way to smooth it over. He seems to have managed pretty good at making all of his other problems go away.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 

Obama says he wants to roll back tax rates to what they were during the Clinton presidency.
Here is a table showing the difference then vs now...of course an increase in the capital gains taxes if Obama increases it like he proposes to do:

External Source





According to my numbers, over a 30-year career, a couple could expect to pay over $107,000 more using 1998’s numbers than they would using 2008’s tax rates.


It does seem unlikely that it's possible to stretch this example out to 30 years like the author did, but the tax rates give a good idea of what a middle class family could be looking at if Obama raises the rax rates back to Clintonian era and raising the capital gains tax would make it even higher.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


True, but the President sets the tone though and the difference between the tax rates during Reagan's years, Clinton's years, and Bush's years definitely show that a President has considerable power in pushing his agenda with regard to taxes.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist

I want to add that both the Dems and the Reps are the reason we are in the place we are now. Both have ripped off the public and should be removed entirely from their places of office. But no one wants to believe that there is anything better than the two unholy parties.


I wholeheartedly agree with that. I am not a dem or a repub now, nor have I ever been either. They are both two sides to the same coin. Both are big government capitalists (sorry repubs, your party is not the classical conservative body you wish it still was).

I am just taking it a step further and saying that ideally, realistically, we don't need another party we need another system.

In the interim, I live and vote here in the States and am registered as a Libertarian. Although my ideology is about socialism with anarchism.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
What you all are not getting, not only is he going to redistribute wealth, he is going to change the constitution. He is working on taking over. For the first time in my life I am really scared. He doesn't care about you. He wants power and control. Think back to what Biden said last week, that this man was going to be tested, and it could well be a "generated test" and we are not going to like was has to be done. Does that mean them invoking Marshal Law? Taking away our guns? Locking up anyone who protests? If you really listen to him and the other Dems they are telling you exactly what they are going to do. Here is an example, twice in the last couple of days Biden has been asked some question that he didn't like, and what happened? Those two new stations have been banned! What does that tell you? If you question their authority you will be punished! If they should happen to get a filibuster proof majority in congress they are going to take the power and go right past socialism and on to communism.
This is REALLY scary stuff! Freedom is coming to an end, and the people that have enjoyed living in the greatest country the world has ever known are cheering for its demise!



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

The numbers don't lie. So here they are.*

So, as I said, I make $280,000 annually after business expenses. I'm married and filing jointly. Under Obama, my itemized deductions would actually increase slightly — I'd get $49,420 in itemized deductions, while under McCain I'd get $48,975. But my personal exemptions would increase slightly under McCain — he'd give me $6,911, whereas I'd only get $6,132 from Obama.

That leaves my taxable income at $213, 766 under Obama, $213,433 under McCain. Now we have to factor in the bracket cutoff, which for 2009 is $208,850. Anything below that figure for married couples filing jointly is taxed at the fourth tier, 28 percent. Any income above it, until you get up to near $400,000, is taxed at the fifth tier. And this is where the raving income-redistribution scheme of Barack Robespierre Obama kicks in.

As you can see, my taxable income is about $5,000 higher than the cutoff. McCain is going to tax that $5,000 at the current rate, which is 33 percent. But Obama's crazed plan calls for raising that rate to — get ready for it — 35 percent.

And here's what this means. Under McCain, my total tax bill would be $48,254. Under Obama, it would be $48,511.

That's a difference of $257. I'll say it again: Two hundred and fifty-seven dollars.

That's not two hundred and fifty-seven dollars I, or America, can afford.
Bob the Banker speaks out



Going by the tenor of this thread, one would think that America was headed toward the equivalent of Stalinist Russia.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


The editorial, which is on Barack Obama's tax plans, begins this way:

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?


John McCain has also made this claim. It is, frankly, ridiculous, a little like a child's attempt at a zinger -- they think they've got you, that this point is devastating and proves that Obama is a liar. Except it's, in this context, a meaningless statistic. It's totally irrelevant.

Why? Two words: Payroll taxes.

Notice the qualifier the WSJ used in that last sentence? Not "more than a third of all Americans already pay no taxes at all," but more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all."

But Obama's plan just doesn't deal with income taxes, as the author or authors of that editorial know perfectly well. And with good reason -- as William G. Gale and Jeffrey Rohaly of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center pointed out in 2003, most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes:

In 2003, workers and employers each owe 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $87,000 of a worker’s earnings, and a 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. Although the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split between the worker and the employer, most economists believe that workers bear most or all of the economic burden.

About 74 percent of filers owe more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes, including 85 percent of those with income below $40,000. Among returns with wage earnings, 83 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including 97 percent of those with AGI below $40,000 and 90 percent of those with income below $100,000. If only half of employer payroll taxes are attributed to workers, 48 percent of filers and 53 percent of wage earners pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, including 76 percent of wage earners with income below $40,000.

Sometimes I'm willing to give people credit and assume that they don't know about the falsity of claims like this. But really -- this editorial was written by people who work for the Wall Street Journal. Presumably they know about the details of tax policy. (If not, well, that's even more embarrassing.) So in this case I just wonder: Does the paper think its readers, who presumably also know a little something about tax policy, won't pick up on this?
Economic illiteracy from the WSJ

Get the figures and facts right folks. If this sounds like Marxism -- maybe you could do with reading Marx again.




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by midwestmama
Think back to what Biden said last week, that this man was going to be tested, and it could well be a "generated test" and we are not going to like was has to be done. Does that mean them invoking Marshal Law?


I don't know, I haven't got to that one yet.

I am still working out what McCain meant when he said "My fellow prisoners"


[edit on 27-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
For the person that posted the standard deductions table comparing 1998 and 2008. Those are adjusted up every year. Please pull the lists from 1990 - 2000 and you will see increases in most of the years.

As for the Obama tax plan. Those of us that make under 250K/YR really have no worries. Which, if I recollect is the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. Those making above 250K, sorry for your luck. It's time to quit giving the rich more and more tax breaks and start giving them to the people that need them the most.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I am tired of tinkle down economics.

The wealth of this nation was not made by fat rich guys at the schmorgasborg. It was made by people who do the work.


So what is socialist about people having a chance to work for better pay, and getting to keep some of their hard owned wealth.

What is Democratic and not Socialist about giving Trillions to bail out rich buddies and corporations they own, even though they are sinking because they are too untrustworthy for the other players?



[edit on 27-10-2008 by Cyberbian]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DVDDVD
 


The rich are going to give more also........


more pink papers that is.


Seriously, you guys are only fooling yourself if you think the rich will pay more. They have all the brains working for them. You think they pay them top dollar accountants to make sure they pay more. Seems to me when taxes are low people are more honest.



* IRS data indicate that the richest 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent of the taxpayers are shouldering a larger percentage of the income tax burden than they would had the Bush tax cuts never materialized.
* Preliminary 2005 data just released from the Treasury Department show the amount of tax paid by those earning more than $1 million a year increased to $236 billion in 2005, up from $132 billion in 2003, the year of the tax cut.
* This was a 78 percent increase in taxes paid by millionaire households.


source



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
Get the figures and facts right folks. If this sounds like Marxism -- maybe you could do with reading Marx again.



Hell not even Marx would agree with Marx


He flipped in a similar way to how Freud did. Their early work was good. Both lost touch with humanity as they got older.

But I agree with you. This is not socialism. Obama is not a socialist.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DVDDVD
 


I was quoting an external source to give some idea of the differences between the taxes under Bush and Clinton's administrations. Of course the tax rates are different yearly, anyone who figures and pays taxes knows that. I was using it for a reference to give some idea of the general differences and I clearly cited the source of information so anyone can read the article for him/herself. So far it was the most anyone had done since someone a few posts back asked for someone to give an idea of the differences in taxes that were being discussed.

If you want to pull all off the tax rates and codes from the past twenty years and post them, knock yourself out.


[edit on 27/10/2008 by xtradimensions]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Obama is not suggesting we make the rich give money to the poor. Instead, he is suggesting that the rich pay a little more to the country, so the poor do not have to pay as much and have a chance to not be poor anymore. There is a difference.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by goldbomb444
 


The poor will still be poor if Obama gets elected. If Obama gets elected the rich will still be rich. I think people are over exaggerating this from both sides on this particular issue.

What you said is correct, but it's also over exaggerated.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


Get off your high horse partner.

If you read my post you will see that those I have a problem with being on food stamps are those who I see standing in front of me buying a carton of smokes, a 12 pack of beer, and some lunchmeat for their very poorly dress child that is underweight while they themselves are wearing $100 dollar brand name shoes.

I am sick of see these people have satellite TV and cell phones all the while not working because they chose not to do so. I am well aware there are those who need welfare to get back on their feet (read that again if you must) but it most certainly should not be used to live on for years upon years.

And for the record I have never used either welfare or even unemployment. I found my ways to get food and shelter on my own when it came to it. Nor am I a Neo Con since you want to throw terms around when you have no clue where I stand. Both parties everyone seems to be so happy to bow to are corrupt and have stomped on the Constitution while people more than happily hand over their rights for the might chosen two.

Raist


Okay, so I had a very eloquent and facts-laced post that I just typed out, but then I accidentally hit the "back" button and destroyed it. Ugh.

I thank you for responding to the post though, and I'll type the response out tomorrow haha.

I'll will leave you with two things:

Exactly what poor people are you around all the time that have these amenities and have admitted to you they are on welfare?

Perhaps you don't understand how the welfare state benefits the poor because you have never been a recipient? (and actually, yes you have, you just haven't realized it
)

I apologize if I got riled, but there seems to be a large amount of people who haven't really experienced or worked with entitlement programs, and it makes me a little peeved when I see people attack the recipients and the program. Obviously, it's not perfect (because the government never makes anything perfect), but if you research the loss of money in a program like food stamps as opposed to the benefit in lives and added value to the US economy, I'd think you would have a slightly different view.

Taxes suck, I know, but they are a necessity. Even Ben Franklin knew this



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by goldbomb444
 


The poor will still be poor if Obama gets elected. If Obama gets elected the rich will still be rich. I think people are over exaggerating this from both sides on this particular issue.

What you said is correct, but it's also over exaggerated.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]


I was simply saying that if what Obama purposes actually gets carried out, those that can't afford things like food and shelter because of taxes may stand a chance. Yes the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor. I would rather be poor and be able to live than be poor and rot away...



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by goldbomb444
 


I am more for Obama's plan (the one in question) then I am not. So I agree.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
It's not about taxes anymore, I am not a fan of McCain, I think he will raise taxes too. But Obama is talking about how the constitution is flawed, and that the courts should change it so that instead of limiting what the government can do, it states what the government should do! Then who decides what the government should do? And its always "for the good of the people". Look back through history at societies where the government had unlimited power, I don't recall many of them working out so well, it doesnt take long to go from building walls to keep people out to building them to keep people in...
Lots of posts out here about how the "rich" and the "greedy" need to pay more, ever notice how the government leaders always have nice big houses, limos, jets, ... as they tell us to pay more because its "fair".
Wake up people, before its too late.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join