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: Rich "Can Afford To Give Back A Little Bit More"

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

"It's a basic reflection of our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more. Moreover, this belief hasn't hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, they continue to do better and better with each passing year," President Obama said at an address about the budget at George Washington University.


First, who does he think he is talking to and second he mentions "our belief". Whose belief??

Third, Give Back? Did they steal something? I think its the govt who should be giving back.

Obama is simply alluding to his never ending quest to redistribute wealth and to continue stoking the coals in the battle between the haves and the have-nots.

This rhetoric has to stop because he is fueling the SEIU/ACORN/AFL-CIO union rage.

Perhaps Obama didn't do his homework before his speech before yet another staged audience. The top 1% of our nation's wealthy pay 30% of the taxes.

www.realclearpolitics.com...




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   


Third, Give Back? Did they steal something?


Pretty much. Here I'll point you to this article.
www.rollingstone.com...
Read the article and let me know what you think.

I think that the rich are getting sweetheart deals and I think that if you're making money off the backs of the taxpayers you should be taxed for it.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There even more to it.




The top 1% of our nation's wealthy pay 30% of the taxes.


That's "if" they are paying taxes on that money. The tax code is like swiss cheese. Look at GE.
www.huffingtonpost.com...



The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States. Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.


While I agree with you in principal. The truth is that we need to get the rich to start pay taxes. There's no reason why a company with billions in profit should be getting a tax benefit. Once the tax break reaches 0 it shouldn't go past that mark. We don't get rebates on money we didn't pay in. Why should the rich?
edit on 13-4-2011 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year. That's at a tax rate of 100%, and that's not just the rich, that's the middle class as well.

Who exactly are all these "wealthy" that everybody keeps wanting to tax? $100K doesn't go very far these days, and a huge part of that $100K is already going to taxes: social security, medicare, as well as federal, state, and local taxes.

When you start taxing people at 100%, what's the point of working?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Let's see here. I paid hefty taxes on what I made last year which was less than 100k.
GE made over 30 Billion in PROFIT alone and got a 3.2 billion dollar tax refund.

I suppose when I drive on roads and have a cigarette, I do tons of damage but GE trucks and plants make roads better and the air cleaner?

How about we talk about Wall Street and the banks that drove us into the grand canyone in the first place. You like paying their share of taxes too? Because they are creating jobs? Where? Investing in innovation? Where?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Please don't forget to steer your anger to those in DC who have enabled everything that you are complaining about in regards to the banks and corporations. Obama's speech yesterday was purely political/campaign BS. He is attempting to charge his weakened base once again by calling out all of the usual targets and by vilifying the wealthy. Obama is playing the corporate game and has willingly taken their money for his campaign with one hand while demonizing them with his other hand.

Furthermore, someone needs to tell Mr. Obama that this nation cannot spend its way out of trouble. The problem is not revenue based its all the damn spending. Its common sense. If I spent my money and used up my credit like this I would be left with nothing but a weekly room rental in a flea bag motel and a 1976 Plymouth Volare. When spending far outpaces revenue, you have a problem. Its fundamental and its clear that Obama wants this nation to head into chaos so he can rebuild it.

Obama directed this speech at Paul Ryan's proposal and proceeded to make every attempt to derail it and silence it without ever offering an alternate rational proposal of his own. I'm tire of his games and his wordplay. He is all over the board with his nonsense and utter ignorance of his own deficit commission last year. Spend Spend Spend is Obama's plan to collapse this nation.

This was nothing more than a campaign speech filled with deception and the same smoke and mirrors that he employed during his last campaign. That's why he is reusing his logo. Now all of those 2008 bumper stickers affixed to 1976 Plymouth Volares can be used once again.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Please don't forget to steer your anger to those in DC who have enabled everything that you are complaining about in regards to the banks and corporations.

Please do not forget to worry about yourself and not even try to tell me where to direct what. K?

Obama's speech yesterday was purely political/campaign BS. He is attempting to charge his weakened base once again by calling out all of the usual targets and by vilifying the wealthy. Obama is playing the corporate game and has willingly taken their money for his campaign with one hand while demonizing them with his other hand.

Yeah, you do not like Obama. I get that. What I do not get is your rebuttal of what he said instead of him just existing. You can call his speech all sorts of derrisive words if you like but that does nothing to change the fact that he said some things that are true and need to be said.



Furthermore, someone needs to tell Mr. Obama that this nation cannot spend its way out of trouble. The problem is not revenue based its all the damn spending.


How about you tell us what the Bush tax cuts did for our country. We had a surplus and positive job growth, we got the Bush tax cuts and then...?

Its common sense. If I spent my money and used up my credit like this I would be left with nothing but a weekly room rental in a flea bag motel and a 1976 Plymouth Volare. When spending far outpaces revenue, you have a problem. Its fundamental and its clear that Obama wants this nation to head into chaos so he can rebuild it.

Because running the government is exactly the same as your personal credit card. This makes me rather concerned with why instead of having some high position controlling the economy, you are just some other random forum poster just like me. Odd.


Obama directed this speech at Paul Ryan's proposal and proceeded to make every attempt to derail it and silence it without ever offering an alternate rational proposal of his own. I'm tire of his games and his wordplay. He is all over the board with his nonsense and utter ignorance of his own deficit commission last year. Spend Spend Spend is Obama's plan to collapse this nation.


You do not like the fact that he called it out for what it is? Old, recycled Heritage Foundation claptrap that promised that today we would have millions more jobs thanks to the Bush Tax cuts. That did not quite work out, did it? Well, maybe Ryan slapping a new coat of paint on Reganomics will make it finally work this time. Maybe 30 years is just not long enough. Perhaps we just tax the poor way more and the rich way less, America will return the economic boom we had back when...well back when the rich paid pretty high taxes but shhhhhh about that.


This was nothing more than a campaign speech filled with deception and the same smoke and mirrors that he employed during his last campaign. That's why he is reusing his logo. Now all of those 2008 bumper stickers affixed to 1976 Plymouth Volares can be used once again.


Har har har. An empty statement followed by a lame attack on the cars owned by Obama voters. Awesome! What was it you were just trying to say about empty speeches?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 

Now, over the past 30 years our progressive tax structure has actually resulted in negative tax liablity for a good portion of this nation and a greatly reduced liability for another large segment. Jacking everyone who makes over $250k is not the solution and Obama is simply pandering to his dwindling base by bringing the issue back up again.

So, what happens IF he successfully raises taxes on this segment of the nation? My guess is that spending will continue to increase in proportion to a new found source of revenue via tax increase. No savings, no austerity no spending discipline and above all NO DEBT reduction. Kind of like getting a 10% pay raise and ditching the Volare for a splurge on a new/used Chevy Sprint because you are now living Phat.

If spending habits don't change all of the tax increases in the world will be irrelevant and the attempt to stick it to the rich will be a failure. I have seen no plan from Obama to reign in absurd spending. The deficits just keep piling up.

Remember Clinton's luxury tax? Remember what happened to the industries and the jobs attached to them? RV's, boats and private planes all seized. The tax targets stopped spending their money and the desired revenue was never collected.

Obama wants the wealthy to give back a little more (its already a problem when 1% pays 30% of the tax burden). Perhaps Obama can give a little less in the form of bailouts, stimulus and entitlements etc. Stimulus=failure, Bank Bailouts=record executive bonuses

Glad you're back BTW. How did you do on the pageant circuit?
edit on 14-4-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by jibeho because: clarity



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
What is the good in keeping money, money is made to be used, and not kept in a bank. they should put money back in the systeme.www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
What is the good in keeping money, money is made to be used, and not kept in a bank. they should put money back in the systeme.www.abovetopsecret.com...


So true!

Has anyone ever seen that show on A&E called Hoarders? If not, then here is the show's premise:


Each 60-minute episode of Hoarders is a fascinating look inside the lives of different people whose inability to part with their belongings is so out of control that they are on the verge of a personal crisis.


www.aetv.com...

It would be great to see some of these super rich be subjected to the scrutiny of this show. The could have a psychiatrist come in and properly medicate these mentally ill people and get them into some counseling...then maybe they can be rehabilitated and learn to let go of their money by pumping it back into the economy. Otherwise, I believe they will be facing a "personal crisis" when they are forced to cough it up via taxation.




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by mkkkay
What is the good in keeping money, money is made to be used, and not kept in a bank. they should put money back in the systeme.www.abovetopsecret.com...


So true!

Has anyone ever seen that show on A&E called Hoarders? If not, then here is the show's premise:


Each 60-minute episode of Hoarders is a fascinating look inside the lives of different people whose inability to part with their belongings is so out of control that they are on the verge of a personal crisis.


www.aetv.com...

It would be great to see some of these super rich be subjected to the scrutiny of this show. The could have a psychiatrist come in and properly medicate these mentally ill people and get them into some counseling...then maybe they can be rehabilitated and learn to let go of their money by pumping it back into the economy. Otherwise, I believe they will be facing a "personal crisis" when they are forced to cough it up via taxation.


Very good analogie, i would give 2 stars if i could.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
And here come the socialists. The greedy greed-head rich people (anyone who makes over 250k a year) are to blame for the unemployment, inflation, our poor economy, the wars, and that chick who lost on Idol last week.

Does anyone remember when unemployment was at 4.5 percent? Higher taxes didn't get us there. More government spending didn't get us there. Obama has had 3 years to spend like crazy and it has failed.

So what's his solution? Spend more.

Right now I'd vote Linsey Lohan for president just to get rid of this guy!



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by mkkkay
What is the good in keeping money, money is made to be used, and not kept in a bank. they should put money back in the systeme.www.abovetopsecret.com...


So true!

Has anyone ever seen that show on A&E called Hoarders? If not, then here is the show's premise:


Each 60-minute episode of Hoarders is a fascinating look inside the lives of different people whose inability to part with their belongings is so out of control that they are on the verge of a personal crisis.


www.aetv.com...

It would be great to see some of these super rich be subjected to the scrutiny of this show. The could have a psychiatrist come in and properly medicate these mentally ill people and get them into some counseling...then maybe they can be rehabilitated and learn to let go of their money by pumping it back into the economy. Otherwise, I believe they will be facing a "personal crisis" when they are forced to cough it up via taxation.





So, the super rich are now mentally ill? Wow! I guess I'd rather have a neighbor who hoards Ferraris than dirty litter boxes.

Taxing only puts the money into the hands of the govt and not into the economy. But, you already know that.

edit on 14-4-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
And here come the socialists. The greedy greed-head rich people (anyone who makes over 250k a year) are to blame for the unemployment, inflation, our poor economy, the wars, and that chick who lost on Idol last week.

Does anyone remember when unemployment was at 4.5 percent? Higher taxes didn't get us there. More government spending didn't get us there. Obama has had 3 years to spend like crazy and it has failed.

So what's his solution? Spend more.

Right now I'd vote Linsey Lohan for president just to get rid of this guy!


Exactly, Obama can't have class warfare if he does not have an enemy to fight. I say make the tax increase on this segment optional. If you want to give more, just check the little box on the post card. This would enable Obama and his "bundlers" to publicly display that they chose to give 80% of their income to the govt. Yeah for them!!

Not gonna happen, they would rather pay $35,000/plate to eat grits and greens with Obama.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I suppose it depends on how rich the people are and how much they want them to give back. This probably doesn't apply to the uber-rich people, but most people tend to live near the ends of their means. If a 100k house fits in their budget, then most people would get the 100k house. Imagine how you would feel if you were making ends meet and the government suddenly said, "sorry, you need to sell your house and buy a cheaper one. We need more money."

The same could probably said about cutting funds for government programs.

You're at work at the post office collecting a very good salary when the government decides they're spending too much on mail carriers and you're out of a job along with your fellow employees. How would you feel?



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join