Posted: Thu 18 Sep 2008 16:03 Post subject: Obama on being a good neighbor...
Quote:
THAT’S NEIGHBORLINESS??
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008
This is by Neal Bortz on the Nealz Nuze Section
Barack Obama wants to make the highest income earners in this country return to the 39% tax bracket. And the reason, according to Barack Obama, is because those people “can afford that.” In exchange, because he is such a nice guy, Obama says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans … an act which he declares is not class warfare.
Two points: First, when Obama talks about raising taxes on the evil, disgusting, putrid, rancid, stinking rich because they can afford it, he’s merely going back to his Marxist roots. Remember “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs?” Straight from the Communist Manifesto .. just reworded slightly by The
Chosen One. Second; Let’s put this nonsense about tax cuts for 95% of Americans to rest. The bottom 50% of income earners don’t even pay income taxes, so how is Our Savior going to give them a tax break? What Obama is really talking about is tax credits. Here’s how his plan will work. He’ll come up with some fancy new tax credit to reward his minions for some type of acceptable behavior – like voting Democrat. Let’s say the tax credit is $2000. But … these people don’t owe any taxes! So what good is a tax credit to them? Well, this is a new type of credit called a “refundable” tax credit. If you’re eligible for the $2000 credit, and you don’t owe any income taxes, you just get a check form the federal government for $2000. Just a very simple wealth redistribution plan. Remember, Obama and the Democrats think that wealth in the United States is not earned, it’s distributed. It’s the government’s job to re-work that distribution to make it more “fair.”
But now we have something new in the mix. Obama has come up with a new excuse for wealth and income redistribution. He has a new excuse – reason, if you will – to implement the Marxist “from each according to their ability” doctrine.
The new excuse? Neighborliness.
Yes, I kid you not. This is what is fueling Barack Obama’s tax plan. Neighborliness. You know … because it would be the nice thing to do. He explains, “If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t — what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness.”
“What’s the big deal?” Obama says? You’re kidding me, right? The big deal that the government is using its exclusive right to use deadly force to accomplish its goals by forcing you to be neighborly at the point of a gun. If you decide that you need the money you have worked for and earned for your own family – and that you don’t particularly want to give it away to someone who somehow can’t earn more than the minimum wage – then the government simply sticks you up at gunpoint? If the poor, poor pathetic minimum wage waitress did this she would be arrested. No problem though. Barack Obama will just do it for her. Lord how we need this guy.
Here’s a little more from Obama: “What I believe is, is that there are certain things we have to do. We’ve got to help people who are having tough times affording college, so they can benefit like we benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time — they don’t have health care; people who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills…”
Remember .. most of these people who, as Obama says, are having a “tough time,” created their own tough time. “Having a tough time” is another way of saying “living with the consequences of your decisions.”
What would life be like in an ObamaNation? There’s the government sitting there watching you – watching you work – watching you go the extra mile. The government takes note of the fact that you pursued an advanced education. Then the government observes you working 50, 60 maybe 80 hours a week trying to start a business. The government watches your income as it rises. Finally at some point the government says “Enough! You now have more than you need! There are people out there who did not pursue an education like you did. There are people out there who did not work as hard and as long as you did. There are people out there who did not make the careful choices and take the risks you did. Now you have to be a good neighbor. So we’re going to take some of that money you don’t need and ’spread the wealth’, so to speak.”
Do you really want a government that can decide when you have enough .. and take the excess away? Then vote for Obama.
When told that his tax plan is just a fancy way of saying “income redistribution,” which is a tenant of socialism, Obama’s response was, “Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax.” That’s it. That’s his excuse.
So now we have Teddy Roosevelt and neighborliness. How wonderful.
Posted: Thu 18 Sep 2008 17:09 Post subject: Re: Obama on being a good neighbor...
Neal Bortz wrote:
That's Neighborliness? ...
This argues inequality in terms of abstract morality. (Re-distribution of wealth is evil or commmunist or some such thing.) I would prefer to see it argued in light of utilitarianism.
The U.S. Gini index has worsened over the past three decades to the point of shame and disgrace. It is atrocious--worse than any other industrialized Western nation. How much worse can the U.S. gap between haves and have-nots get before something breaks? What fraction of the formerly middle-class population must find themselves impoverished and homeless before patriotism gives way to survival instinct? 10 percent? 30 percent? 50 percent?
"Right" and "wrong" are beside the point. Societies with a horrific imbalance between a few haves and a large majority of have-nots quite simply collapse, usually with a great deal of bloodshed. For many examples, see Will Durant and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: MJF Books, 1968).
The U.S. Gini index has worsened over the past three decades to the point of shame and disgrace. It is atrocious--worse than any other industrialized Western nation. How much worse can the U.S. gap between haves and have-nots get before something breaks? What fraction of the formerly middle-class population must find themselves impoverished and homeless before patriotism gives way to survival instinct? 10 percent? 30 percent? 50 percent?
Bingo. I'm still trying to understand how someone who calls themselves patriotic and a supporter of law and order wouldn't see this trend as a harbinger of the social unrest to come in the very country and people one professes to love.
Quote that comes to mind when I read this article:
"Let them eat cake." We all know what happened to her.
Interesting: I don't know the religious background of the author but I'd bet money he is a Christian. I do find it hilarious that he is criticizing a perspective that seems to totally align with that of his Lord and savior.
Jesus was no stranger to what many would call socialist beliefs.
Now don't try to be slick. Frank correctly cited the author and I'm sure you've heard of Neal Bortz.
I am also familar with the 'Gini index' (thanks, I had forgotten the exact title) and agree that something must be done. What, I do not know. The American Middle Class seems to always be the first pocket Uncle Sam digs into.
As for the other comments, Obama's 'Robin Hood' economic plan probably won't help either and has been debated in other threads. Many are supporting it to 'stick it' to the 'rich', but they forget that we (Middle Class) always seem to pay for it in the end. So, I doubt a 'tax credit' would put $$ back in my bank account either..... I doubt Obama and McCain can really undig the hole.....
P.S. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is still stealing. And as for any teaching about Christianty and money, hmm, we all know the LOVE OF money is the root of all evil, but let's review a parable from Jesus Himself:
Quote:
19:15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading. 19:16 The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your pound has made ten pounds more.' 19:17 And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' 19:18 And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your pound has made five pounds.' 19:19 And he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.' 19:20 Then another came, saying, 'Lord, here is your pound, which I kept laid away in a napkin; 19:21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man; you take up what you did not lay down, and reap what you did not sow.' 19:22 He said to him, 'I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow? 19:23 Why then did you not put my money into the bank, and at my coming I should have collected it with interest?' 19:24 And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the pound from him, and give it to him who has the ten pounds.' 19:25 (And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten pounds!') I bet as in, look, he already has ENOUGH, LOL! 19:26 [b]'I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [/b] Luke 19:23-26
LOL sure I have but I make NO assumptions about his religious views. That's usual the safe bet with Libertarians.
But seriously, right-Libertarians generally do not care about poverty or doing much (for some, anything) to address it. I personally do not equate taxation with theft. The way I see it, I chose to live in a society and taxes come with the territory. Stealing is what I'd call a public servant who diverts or misuses public funds. As long as the country votes for politicians that they refuse to hold accountable (incumbent re-election is about 90% isn't it?), or don't vote because they are fed up with the system, nothing will change.
And since the American public are not prepared to have a hard conversation about Social Security or public education and the costs associated with them, there's no use in blaming the politicians. They are trying to give us what we say we want in order to get elected.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 20:51 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
"Give unto Caesaer what it Caesar's and unto God what is God's." In other words, pay your taxes...
So the money that you earn that belongs to you, really belongs to the government?? We should be thankful that the government lets us keep the money we have?? I'm not saying that no taxes should be paid, but how much is enough?
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:00 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
So the money that you earn that belongs to you, really belongs to the government?? We should be thankful that the government lets us keep the money we have?? I'm not saying that no taxes should be paid, but how much is enough?
My point is that taxes should not be equated with theft. Especially you're going to play the redneck fundy role of bible-thumping.
Being told the rich will pay more, but when its all said and done, the middle class will get tax credits, not money, and the rich will find more loopholes to keep their money and the poor will stay poor due to circumstance and choice: Priceless!
P.S. Disclaimer: I think some people should pay more, revise the tax code, etc, but I have no qualms that the rich will wiggle away. McCain is a joke as he is rich and Obama will waffle (buy a box ), and Obama will not be able to CHANGE anything. We Middle Class will be thrown under the same bus as Rev. Wright, Mom Ann, Hawaii friends, Grandma, etc.
Last edited by Melani23 on Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:20; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:15 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
DChapman wrote:
So the money that you earn that belongs to you, really belongs to the government?? We should be thankful that the government lets us keep the money we have?? I'm not saying that no taxes should be paid, but how much is enough?
My point is that taxes should not be equated with theft. Especially you're going to play the redneck fundy role of bible-thumping.
So is it patriotic to pay taxes??? Or should I say, pay more taxes??
What do you call an institution who threatens you with a gun and prison time if money is not paid. Also who can freeze your assets, garnish your wages, seize your property???
Quote:
Especially you're going to play the redneck fundy role of bible-thumping
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:23 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
Comunist star: $1.00
Being called Rednecky: $100
1. Although used by Communists as well, the Red Star represents Socialism, not Communism. Communism is represented by the Hammer and Sickle.
2. I didn't call you a redneck, or say you were "rednecky" - I said you were behaving like one.
Either way, there are ways to tax the rich and keep it from affecting the poor. The question is, what leader is going to have the b@lls to do it, and not care about being labled a Socialist?
1. Although used by Communists as well, the Red Star represents Socialism, not Communism. Communism is represented by the Hammer and Sickle. Okay. Che's cap sports a star too.
2. I didn't call you a redneck, or say you were "rednecky" - I said you were behaving like one. Fine.
Either way, there are ways to tax the rich and keep it from affecting the poor. The question is, what leader is going to have the b@lls to do it, and not care about being labled a Socialist?
Well, it certainly won't be one who can't even find the balls to claim to be biracial/mulatto. LOL! If you can even stand up for YOURSELF, how are you going to stand up for me?
Last edited by Melani23 on Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:32; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:33 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
Melani23 wrote:
Comunist star: $1.00
Being called Rednecky: $100
1. Although used by Communists as well, the Red Star represents Socialism, not Communism. Communism is represented by the Hammer and Sickle.
ok, so it would be a good thing to redistribute the wealth?
Richard Miller wrote:
2. I didn't call you a redneck, or say you were "rednecky" - I said you were behaving like one.
How does a "redneck" behave?? Because one maybe religious, then one is a "redneck"? Please advise.
Richard Miller wrote:
Either way, there are ways to tax the rich and keep it from affecting the poor. The question is, what leader is going to have the b@lls to do it, and not care about being labled a Socialist?
This reads as if the "poor" pay most of the taxes. You cannot soak the rich. No matter what you make think. The more you try to soak them, the more they will try and hide their money. Tax revenues will decrease. Cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues because people (including "rich" people) will have more money to spend on things on which sales tax and other taxes are paid.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:34 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
Well, it certainly won't be one who can't even find the balls to claim to be biracial/mulatto. LOL! If you can even stand up for YOURSELF, how are you going to stand up for me?
Your implication that he wants to claim to be mulatto in the first place, yet is afraid to do it, baffles me. How, pray tell, did you come to this conclusion?
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:38 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
ok, so it would be a good thing to redistribute the wealth?
Yes
DChapman wrote:
How does a "redneck" behave?? Because one maybe religious, then one is a "redneck"? Please advise.
Only when they try to use it to legislate morality or make other laws.
Richard Miller wrote:
Either way, there are ways to tax the rich and keep it from affecting the poor. The question is, what leader is going to have the b@lls to do it, and not care about being labled a Socialist?
Richard Miller wrote:
This reads as if the "poor" pay most of the taxes. You cannot soak the rich. No matter what you make think. The more you try to soak them, the more they will try and hide their money. Tax revenues will decrease. Cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues because people (including "rich" people) will have more money to spend on things on which sales tax and other taxes are paid.
I guess we'll need some tighter controls then, won't we?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:38 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
Has it ever occured to you that by not paying your taxes, that YOU are stealing?
Yup, you are right!!!! I agree with you.
That is why I think Charlie Rangell should be fired as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe. A man who chairs the tax writing commitee for the Federal Government, did not pay his own taxes.
Well, it certainly won't be one who can't even find the balls to claim to be biracial/mulatto. LOL! If you can even stand up for YOURSELF, how are you going to stand up for me?
Your implication that he wants to claim to be mulatto in the first place, yet is afraid to do it, baffles me. How, pray tell, did you come to this conclusion?
No, I'm not saying that. He is mixed regardless of his identity 'choice'. IMO, he only plays the 'mixed card' when its conveinant. One should make no apologies for who and what they are. He tries too hard in many areas and it comes off as non-authentic, IMO.
Has it ever occured to you that by not paying your taxes, that YOU are stealing?
Yup, you are right!!!! I agree with you.
That is why I think Charlie Rangell should be fired as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe. A man who chairs the tax writing commitee for the Federal Government, did not pay his own taxes.
Come on! You know its only unethical if a Republican does it. LOL!
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I doubt Obama and McCain can really undig the hole..... 
