Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’, page 13

privacy

Pages: << 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 12:48 PM by EarthCitizen07

reply to post by Nightflyer28

The solution is not in increasing the tax rates for the wealthy rather closing all the loopholes that are taylor made for them. In fact 35% is too steep in my book and is counter-productive since it makes people cheat.

If you made $300,000 would you be willing to pay 1/3 of that to some corrupt government? I think 8 out of 10 people will say NO! The most I would pay is around $50,000.

The real problem is that all governments mismanage their funds and we end up paying much more than we get. We don't need more tax money, we need better management.

reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 04:46 PM by truthquest

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
I don't get this line of thinking at all. For the last eight years the middle class have been shouldering the burdon of the corporate tax breaks in the hopes that these corporations would use the money to create jobs. Instead they pocketed the money and shipped jobs overseas. Now it's their turn to shoulder the burdon. That's the bottom freaking line. If you don't like it don't vote for him, which I assume you weren't going to anyway.

Your entire idea is actually shooting yourself in the foot, if not in the head. Let see... where does every last cent corporations earn come from in the end... oh... from consumers. So you go ahead and approve of taxing corporations. Then at the point you'll find the basic needs corporations that provide you food, clothing, and shelter are all taxed at the same rate as luxury goods corporations. YOU will end up paying every last cent of your increased corporate tax. Corporate tax is a filthy hidden tax on the poor and there is hardly any tax I despise more than corporate income tax. Why? Because it is so well hidden simple minds can't even recognize that it is a hidden tax on the poor and so they let it fester and leech the poor without even realizing it.

reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 05:05 PM by truthquest

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
reply to post by nyk537

I think it's funny (not necessarily just ha-ha funny) when people who say they love this country and love the achievements they've made in this country grumble at being asked to give back a little more to this country, to shoulder a little more of the burden (I hate cliches but that's the only phrase that works) so those who have less to begin with can do more with what they have, and possibly achieve similar successes at some point in the future.

What you mean is that they grumble when they are forced to have more than half of their property ripped away by the some distant government based over 1,000 miles away in Washington DC. The money they are forced to have torn from them is not doing anything for their community or even their entire state in most cases! So no it really is not ironic at all.

reply posted on 6-11-2008 @ 04:24 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by nyk537

That's right. Obama thinks keeping your hard earnedmoney is "selfish". Read the full article for a little more of his comments regarding governments apparent need to provide for us.

This is really the area of question.

Just because someone HAS something doesn't mean they have EARNED it.

We have allowed those who have to abuse the system to get more. Why not even out the playing field so everyone has a chance?

Is that not the American dream?

To go from nothing to something.

Not from a lot to more.

reply posted on 6-11-2008 @ 08:58 PM by feydrautha

Originally posted by Jezus
Is that not the American dream?

To go from nothing to something.

Not from a lot to more.

sure it is, but not by stealing from others.

earning is one thing, shaking down those who take the time to work hard is quite another.

where is the motivation to take risks, and create innovation if there is no reward?

why should i have to share my rewards with shiftless layabouts who do not pay taxes at all?

why should i not be a shiftless layabout if i can do very well without producing anything?

we have the fattest, and richest poor people on the planet, in the history of mankind.

remember BO's infomercial? that lady who claimed not to be able to afford a gallon of milk?

anyone notice her very nice acrylic fingernails?

people who own space age microwave ovens, own a car, have 100 channels on the telly, cel phones, internet access, etc... and they are still considered poor?

well done, why do anything at all?

the producers will bear the burden of the takers on our backs.

Makers and Takers

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 03:47 AM by Anonymous ATS

we have the fattest, and richest poor people on the planet, in the history of mankind.

Certainly not true. The USA has an immense poverty problem, a huge class gap between rich and poor, especially when compared to Scandinavian countries, Australia, etc etc.. you're deluding yourself mate.

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 01:58 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by feydrautha
sure it is, but not by stealing from others.

How come it is not stealing when the money goes up? Only down...

The upper class has made it abundantly obvious that the way to become rich and powerful is to manipulate the system not just play within it.

Originally posted by feydrautha
the producers will bear the burden of the takers on our backs.

Exactly.

The producers (the workers) have beard the burden of the takers for far far too long. It is time for a change.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Jezus]

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:24 PM by Gregarious

Wasn't it Obama who said 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'? He is admittedly the most Leftist senator, but his 'truthfulness' is supposedly still in question, as opposed to the SRNC who all have a track record of lies. I say any burearat is first and foremost a liar. 'Woe to you lawyers' still stands. Relax, tho. He still is not sworn in, and could possibly be deported, and have his degrees recinded due to the lies on his apps. Oh, after he serves a long sentence, and if he is still able to.

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:29 PM by Gregarious

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Nightflyer28

The solution is not in increasing the tax rates for the wealthy rather closing all the loopholes that are taylor made for them. In fact 35% is too steep in my book and is counter-productive since it makes people cheat.

If you made $300,000 would you be willing to pay 1/3 of that to some corrupt government? I think 8 out of 10 people will say NO! The most I would pay is around $50,000.

I have a problem with your figures. Add the SPENT budgets of; Federal, local, county, and state, and you have the amount they actually spend. Deduct that from the GNP, and you have the amount of the government spending. Take it as a percentage, and you have 75%. The lower class pays no federal, so they pay close to 55%. The upper class pays virtually no federal, so they also pay close to 55%. Leaving the middle class to pick up the tab. At least over 80%, but I can't say for sure.

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:38 PM by drsmooth23

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nyk537

I think it is selfish when my hard earned money goes for corporate welfare. Why is it so difficult for some to see that Obama is simply taking back the corporate welfare so I can keep more of my paycheck.

This fear mongering over taxes is.... well....breathtakingly stupid.

because your job and business will fail without the "corporate" wellfare. get a skill or hobby that allows you to produce goods that you can sell , quilting, wood carving, metal work and stuff.

what good is money if there is no business to buy from?

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:38 PM by Gregarious

Originally posted by Jezus

The producers (the workers) have beard the burden of the takers for far far too long. It is time for a change.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Jezus]

'Change' (sigh), that is the mantra of every political campaign since George Washington, and it is also history, that there is no change. Just broken promises, and lies. The producers have bourne the burden for far too long, but they still don't 'get' it, and realize the rampant corruption in Washington. It has to start with the individuals integrity, at home and at church. If I add 'mosque', I'll also have to add violence.
Did you hear that after the election, Baraq put on a hat that said 'Proud to be Muslim', and said 'Surprise!'. That was a late night comedy routine I read about.

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:41 PM by MAINTAL

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Nightflyer28

The solution is not in increasing the tax rates for the wealthy rather closing all the loopholes that are taylor made for them. In fact 35% is too steep in my book and is counter-productive since it makes people cheat.

If you made $300,000 would you be willing to pay 1/3 of that to some corrupt government? I think 8 out of 10 people will say NO! The most I would pay is around $50,000.

The real problem is that all governments mismanage their funds and we end up paying much more than we get. We don't need more tax money, we need better management.

Yes I totally agree with all of this post. I might add to your assertion we need better fiscal management with more enforced accountability

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:46 PM by Gregarious

reply to post by truthquest

The invention of the corporation is a wonderful scam. It allows the individual to commit blatant crimes, without bearing any threat of personal responsibility. But he/she can greatly benefit. The corporation will be eliminated, it is all just a scam.

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:53 PM by MAINTAL

Originally posted by Jezus

Just because someone HAS something doesn't mean they have EARNED it

You're correct, they could have stolen it, or had Obama steal it for them.

We have allowed those who have to abuse the system to get more. Why not even out the playing field so everyone has a chance?

You think that success is limited like there is only so much to go around and if I am more successful that takes more away from you.

Ha ha ha that's a minimalist for ya

You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 04:39 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by MAINTAL
You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

Hahahaha

You can absolutely can, especially when the strong use their strength to keep the weak weak.

And that my friends, is the problem with America.

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 04:54 PM by MAINTAL

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by MAINTAL
You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

Hahahaha

You can absolutely can, especially when the strong use their strength to keep the weak weak.

And that my friends, is the problem with America.

You do realize you just said the same thing I did and in both versions the weak stay weak.

You not understanding that is the problem with America

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 05:09 PM by Jezus

reply to post by MAINTAL

You said, "You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong"

However, the strong are using their strength to the keep the weak weak.

So if we "weaken the strong" they will no longer be able to hold the weak down, and the weak, on their own accord, can become strong.

So you most certainly can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong in the world we live in today.

reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 11:53 PM by MAINTAL

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406950/pg13#pid5280695]post

So you most certainly can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong in the world we live in today.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.

You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

So NO you can't

[edit on 7-11-2008 by MAINTAL]