Question for the Obama Haters

[quote]100meters wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
100meters wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
forlife wrote:
From the responses to far, it seems most of you dislike Obama because you disagree with the “Robin Hood doctrine”.

I can see letting people keep their own money, instead of forcing them to give it to others. It’s really a question of how much you take though, since I’m sure most of you agree that a government requires a certain amount of wealth redistribution in order to function.

Anyway, it’s interesting that most of you oppose Obama primarily on economic grounds rather than on other issues like his approach to international policy, social issues, etc.

Actually, the government doesn’t need to redistribute any of my wealth. They require a certain amount of taxation to defend this country, pay the people that defend this country, keep the infastructure running as well as make sure there are emergency response services on the road(local level). The federal government should not govern everything.
How is Obama redistributing YOUR “wealth”?

I pay taxes. Obama wants to give that money to people who don’t pay taxes.
You contradicted yourself.

Wait you think because he is taking less of my money that some how he is giving something to me? I earned it, it was mine to begin with. He still wants to take thousands of dollars from me and use portions of that money to give to people that don’t pay anything.

Who doesn’t pay anything? And the point is Obama would be taking less of your money and thus “give” less to those who “don’t pay anything”. So good, you’re voting for Obama.[/quote]

No, he wants to increase entitlement spending, thus giving a larger percentage away.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
JASE72 wrote:

what difference does it make weather your in the top 5% or not? The simple fact is this, those who are in the 5% have the same rights to do whatever they want with their money.

They worked damn hard (most of them) to get to the top, so why on earth should they “share” their money with the millions of leaches in this country that dont do shit for our country but expect everything!!!
NOBAMA!!!

Like I said, I completely understand why the top 5% don’t like Obama. However, Obama’s tax policies don’t hurt me at all. I have the same right to act in my self-interest as the wealthy do, and fortunately there are enough of us that it looks likely Obama will win next week.

So pretty much you agree that what he wants to do to the “wealthy” is wrong, but it’s not happening to you so f’em.

If that is what you are saying, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. You don’t care about the economy, you don’t care what is right or wrong, you don’t care that the government is exploiting people or have issues with what the government has the right to do, as long as you get yours today.

All I can say is that some day they will be knocking on your door and maybe your neighbors won’t care because it’s not happening to them.

How could a vote for McCain possibly equal “caring about the economy” ? No credible economist would vote for McCain, why would any voter? Are you a serious person or just another troll?

Seriously, McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy, said he would probably rely on his veep for economic wisdom—I mean what in the hell are you talking about?

What has happened to middle-class wages the past 8 years? What about the top 1%? And you’re talking about exploitation? Because they’re going to go back to the Clinton tax rate?

C’mon you really need to focus here, you vote republican cause you’re scared of teh gay and mistakenly think God cares about abortions. No republican cares about the economy! Get with it!

You’re right, McCain isn’t a great economic-minded candidate, at all. Then again, Obama’s socialism-lite is far worse.

Edit: Is Barack Obama really a socialist? - CSMonitor.com

Again, there is NOTHING socialist about returning to the Clinton tax rate on one quintile. Reagan wasn’t a socialist, nor Nixon, nor IKE. All had tax rates higher.

Don’t forget Obama’s programs and initiatives to “spread the wealth.”

For example?

He specifically said that the idea behind his policies was to spread the wealth. That a good example?[/quote]

That was his tax policy, which clearly isn’t socialist (Reagan, Nixon–not socialist although tax rates higher)

[quote]BillO21 wrote:
Let me start by saying I would like there to be 5 parties and candidates to choose from. Rigging an election between two parties is hardly democracy.

I am also not a hater of either person.

McCain wants to cut taxes for the “rich” and Obama wants to raise taxes for the rich.

Think about it, McCain cutting taxes for the rich is actually raising taxes for everyone else. Why should the middle class pay higher taxes than the wealthy?

I see a seperation growing in this country between the classes. This is a very dangerous thing to happen. If people do not have the basics met they do crazy things. Think about it, they have nothing to lose.[/quote]

I agree with more parties, I for one am completely disenfranchised.

However, the “middle class” will never pay anything close to what the “wealthy” do.

People do crazy things when you start robbing them too. Like take their money and business somewhere else.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Food for thought. The top 1% of wage earners earns twice as much as the bottom 50% does. The top 1% pays 13 times the amount of tax that the bottom 50 does. How much more of the burden should they carry?

I bust my ass working overtime to make 6 figures. If I can do this with no college education and only 5 years of military experience, any one can.

I have never been given anything from any one, I have always paid my bills and saved my money. I detest the fact that one party in this country thinks I need to support the “less fortunate”.

Now, because I bust my ass my wife and son have everything they need and want. Fuck anyone who wants more of my money.

Do you really think baby jesus can add all this new spending and cut taxes for 95% of sheeple?[/quote]

If you are making less thank 250K you will not have your taxes raised. So if McCain’s plan goes into law you will be paying more of the tax burden.

Your money will go to the poor no matter who is elected.

[quote]100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
I don’t know what the dollar cutoff is, only that the top 5% are the only people that will see a tax increase. Others will stay the same or see a tax decrease under Obama. So I’m wondering why this is such a big issue, given that it is unlikely to affect most of the people on this board.

If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity. These are the people that own all the capital used to grow the wealth of a “nation”. These are the people that provide income to everyone.

The more you tax them (and the wealth they produce) the less they have for their ventures and hence the less that a “nation” will have in the way of income as well as tax revenue.

Laughably wrong, or please post proof that Clinton’s tax rate KILLED productivity and/or revenue.

Honestly WTF are you talking about?

Point to where in my post I said it would kill all productivity. In fact, I distinctly said there would be LESS productivity.

Kill is a metaphorical verb not to be taken literally. Your argument is non sequitur anyway and doesn’t negate the essential feature of my argument. More taxation does indeed reduce productivity.

I don’t know what Clinton has to do with taxation in general.

Ok, let me point to it:
“If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity”

Since you’ve changed your tune a bit…please point to how Clinton’s tax rate “reduced” prodcuctivity. (These are the rates Obama is returning to after all)

You won’t be able to point to it, because you’re making stuff up, because clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what you’re saying.[/quote]

I never changed my tune you just read what you wanted and inferred (incorrectly) what you wanted it to mean. It is not my fault you cannot recognize a logically sound argument.

But whatever, it is exactly how I already said. All taxation removes wealth from productive means that then can’t be used to produce more stuff – and therefore productivity is always reduced.

Since more productivity DOESN’T happen it is impossible to make a comparison of what might have been. It’s what’s not seen that you have to deduce from simple logic. It is apodictically certain that what I say is true.

Any amount of taxation is not as advantageous as no taxation in terms of productivity. You cannot prove otherwise.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Let me start by saying I would like there to be 5 parties and candidates to choose from. Rigging an election between two parties is hardly democracy.

I am also not a hater of either person.

McCain wants to cut taxes for the “rich” and Obama wants to raise taxes for the rich.

Think about it, McCain cutting taxes for the rich is actually raising taxes for everyone else. Why should the middle class pay higher taxes than the wealthy?

I see a seperation growing in this country between the classes. This is a very dangerous thing to happen. If people do not have the basics met they do crazy things. Think about it, they have nothing to lose.

I agree with more parties, I for one am completely disenfranchised.

However, the “middle class” will never pay anything close to what the “wealthy” do.

People do crazy things when you start robbing them too. Like take their money and business somewhere else.[/quote]

True…I was talking about paying more as in percentage. Why should the lower clases pay a higher percentage of their pay in taxes?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
100meters wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
100meters wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
forlife wrote:
From the responses to far, it seems most of you dislike Obama because you disagree with the “Robin Hood doctrine”.

I can see letting people keep their own money, instead of forcing them to give it to others. It’s really a question of how much you take though, since I’m sure most of you agree that a government requires a certain amount of wealth redistribution in order to function.

Anyway, it’s interesting that most of you oppose Obama primarily on economic grounds rather than on other issues like his approach to international policy, social issues, etc.

Actually, the government doesn’t need to redistribute any of my wealth. They require a certain amount of taxation to defend this country, pay the people that defend this country, keep the infastructure running as well as make sure there are emergency response services on the road(local level).

The federal government should not govern everything.
How is Obama redistributing YOUR “wealth”?

I pay taxes. Obama wants to give that money to people who don’t pay taxes.
You contradicted yourself.

Wait you think because he is taking less of my money that some how he is giving something to me? I earned it, it was mine to begin with. He still wants to take thousands of dollars from me and use portions of that money to give to people that don’t pay anything.

Who doesn’t pay anything? And the point is Obama would be taking less of your money and thus “give” less to those who “don’t pay anything”. So good, you’re voting for Obama.

No, he wants to increase entitlement spending, thus giving a larger percentage away.[/quote]

So you acknowledge he takes less? And if he has economic policies that lead to less people who “pay no taxes” (don’t know what that means), leads to more money in your pocket, my pocket, and Buffet’s pocket, this bothers you why?

[quote]BillO21 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Let me start by saying I would like there to be 5 parties and candidates to choose from. Rigging an election between two parties is hardly democracy.

I am also not a hater of either person.

McCain wants to cut taxes for the “rich” and Obama wants to raise taxes for the rich.

Think about it, McCain cutting taxes for the rich is actually raising taxes for everyone else. Why should the middle class pay higher taxes than the wealthy?

I see a seperation growing in this country between the classes. This is a very dangerous thing to happen. If people do not have the basics met they do crazy things. Think about it, they have nothing to lose.

I agree with more parties, I for one am completely disenfranchised.

However, the “middle class” will never pay anything close to what the “wealthy” do.

People do crazy things when you start robbing them too. Like take their money and business somewhere else.

True…I was talking about paying more as in percentage. Why should the lower clases pay a higher percentage of their pay in taxes?[/quote]

No one has taken Warrenn Buffett up on his bet…

[quote]100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
I don’t know what the dollar cutoff is, only that the top 5% are the only people that will see a tax increase. Others will stay the same or see a tax decrease under Obama. So I’m wondering why this is such a big issue, given that it is unlikely to affect most of the people on this board.

If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity. These are the people that own all the capital used to grow the wealth of a “nation”. These are the people that provide income to everyone.

The more you tax them (and the wealth they produce) the less they have for their ventures and hence the less that a “nation” will have in the way of income as well as tax revenue.

Laughably wrong, or please post proof that Clinton’s tax rate KILLED productivity and/or revenue.

Honestly WTF are you talking about?

Point to where in my post I said it would kill all productivity. In fact, I distinctly said there would be LESS productivity.

Kill is a metaphorical verb not to be taken literally. Your argument is non sequitur anyway and doesn’t negate the essential feature of my argument. More taxation does indeed reduce productivity.

I don’t know what Clinton has to do with taxation in general.

Ok, let me point to it:
“If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity”

Since you’ve changed your tune a bit…please point to how Clinton’s tax rate “reduced” prodcuctivity. (These are the rates Obama is returning to after all)

You won’t be able to point to it, because you’re making stuff up, because clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what you’re saying.[/quote]

And you obviously do ,which is why you refuse to discuss me on any point you raise yourself?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
I don’t know what the dollar cutoff is, only that the top 5% are the only people that will see a tax increase. Others will stay the same or see a tax decrease under Obama. So I’m wondering why this is such a big issue, given that it is unlikely to affect most of the people on this board.

If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity. These are the people that own all the capital used to grow the wealth of a “nation”. These are the people that provide income to everyone.

The more you tax them (and the wealth they produce) the less they have for their ventures and hence the less that a “nation” will have in the way of income as well as tax revenue.

Laughably wrong, or please post proof that Clinton’s tax rate KILLED productivity and/or revenue.

Honestly WTF are you talking about?

Point to where in my post I said it would kill all productivity. In fact, I distinctly said there would be LESS productivity.

Kill is a metaphorical verb not to be taken literally. Your argument is non sequitur anyway and doesn’t negate the essential feature of my argument. More taxation does indeed reduce productivity.

I don’t know what Clinton has to do with taxation in general.

Ok, let me point to it:
“If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity”

Since you’ve changed your tune a bit…please point to how Clinton’s tax rate “reduced” prodcuctivity. (These are the rates Obama is returning to after all)

You won’t be able to point to it, because you’re making stuff up, because clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what you’re saying.

I never changed my tune you just read what you wanted and inferred (incorrectly) what you wanted it to mean. It is not my fault you cannot recognize a logically sound argument.

But whatever, it is exactly how I already said. All taxation removes wealth from productive means that then can’t be used to produce more stuff – and therefore productivity is always reduced.

Since more productivity DOESN’T happen it is impossible to make a comparison of what might have been. It’s what’s not seen that you have to deduce from simple logic. It is apodictically certain that what I say is true.

Any amount of taxation is not as advantageous as no taxation in terms of productivity. You cannot prove otherwise.[/quote]

Ok, you said “killed” productivity. “KILLED”.
But nothing backs that up.
All you have to do is answer how Clinton’s tax rate lowered productivity, that’s it.

[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
I don’t know what the dollar cutoff is, only that the top 5% are the only people that will see a tax increase. Others will stay the same or see a tax decrease under Obama. So I’m wondering why this is such a big issue, given that it is unlikely to affect most of the people on this board.

If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity. These are the people that own all the capital used to grow the wealth of a “nation”. These are the people that provide income to everyone.

The more you tax them (and the wealth they produce) the less they have for their ventures and hence the less that a “nation” will have in the way of income as well as tax revenue.

Laughably wrong, or please post proof that Clinton’s tax rate KILLED productivity and/or revenue.

Honestly WTF are you talking about?

Point to where in my post I said it would kill all productivity. In fact, I distinctly said there would be LESS productivity.

Kill is a metaphorical verb not to be taken literally. Your argument is non sequitur anyway and doesn’t negate the essential feature of my argument. More taxation does indeed reduce productivity.

I don’t know what Clinton has to do with taxation in general.

Ok, let me point to it:
“If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity”

Since you’ve changed your tune a bit…please point to how Clinton’s tax rate “reduced” prodcuctivity. (These are the rates Obama is returning to after all)

You won’t be able to point to it, because you’re making stuff up, because clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what you’re saying.

And you obviously do ,which is why you refuse to discuss me on any point you raise yourself?

[/quote]

What? I thought I was talking to someone else?

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
No one has taken Warrenn Buffett up on his bet…[/quote]

Warren Buffet is a good investor but really does not know economics. Or he does he just doesn’t care because he’s flippin loaded already.

He has also spoken out about his belief that he thinks government should be able to take people’s property when they die because he thinks aristocracy would happen without government to intervene.

“‘Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit,’ Warren Buffett told the New York Times in 2001. ‘[Repeal would be like] choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics.’”

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=warren+buffet+%2B+aristocracy&btnG=Google+Search&aq=1&oq=

[quote]100meters wrote:
All you have to do is answer how Clinton’s tax rate lowered productivity, that’s it.[/quote]

I already did. If you disagree show how they did not. The argument goes both ways.

[quote]forlife wrote:
I seriously don’t understand why some people are so vitriolic towards Obama. Yes, I agree he doesn’t have as much experience as would be ideal. But I still think he has the leadership ability and vision to take our country in a positive direction.

Anyway, here’s my question. If you were to choose ONE single reason that you believe Obama will destroy our country, what would that reason be? What is the one biggest beef you have with him?[/quote]

First thing I take issue with your assertion that those of us who have not bought into the Obama cult of personality are motivated by hatred. It is insulting and it is denigrating.

It seems to me that you are very closed minded and bigoted since you have to denigrate our considered opinions as hatred rather than understand that we have a difference of opinion that is the result of a different point of view.

I have several issues with Obama, several of which cause me to consider him very dangerous.

Obama is a serious threat to freedom and democracy. If you look around the world at our various friends, allies and here at home there is a very alarming trend of societies moving towards police states.

Where modern technology gives governments powers of monitoring the people that are way beyond the wildest dreams of this countries founding fathers. As technology advances it is going to get worse.

Faced with an ever increasing police state the right to keep and bear arms becomes ever more important. Take away that right first and all the other rights can easily evaporate. This is what happened in Britain. If you didn’t like the patriot act consider where we would be if it had included a firearms ban.

Obama’s sudden change of heart on the matter wreaks of insincerity motivated purely by political considerations. Or in other words he is telling us what we want to hear figuring we will be dumb enough to trust him and elect him.

Then when he no longer has to play political game of supporting this important right he will be free to have another radical change of belief.

So the problem is a matter of trust, I don’t trust his flip flops.

Here’s another example of his flip flopping. All his adult life he has advocated for worldwide nuclear disarmament. It’s in his election manifesto and his college thesis was on Russian nuclear disarmament.

But when he wanted to sound tough during the Democratic debate he said he would use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and in the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan. Now what are we to believe, that he wants to do away with all nukes or he is willing to be the first president since Truman to use them?

Besides the whole concept of worldwide nuclear disarmament is childish and naive. It is a radical ideology that has no basis in common sense.

I do not trust his changing his stance from being opposed to various types of weaponry to all of a sudden finding that they have a legitimate purpose. Especially when he has espoused a certain point of view all his life then in a matter of months he has completely reversed himself.

He has changed his point of view so quickly that I have no doubt that once he is President he would have another epiphany that would revert him back to his original set of beliefs.

Obama is just another dishonest politician who happens to be much smoother at lying than most. But once we get him off of the teleprompter his bullshit becomes obvious.

Then there is his foreign policy beliefs. Obama will be risk averse and unwilling to use American power unless it will cost him politically not to do something and then it will only be a half hearted display of force.

ie Bill Clinton using a couple of cruise missiles to blow up sand dunes as a response to AlQaeda blowing up our embassies and causing hundreds of casualties.

When it comes to killing someone who needs killing Obama will find an excuse not to do it, just like Clinton.

Then there are his economic policies like redistribution of wealth. I have seen what decades of this has done to ruin Britain. In fact much of what Obama wants to do has been tried in Britain with disastrous results. If you want to see how things will go wrong read the British newspapers.

I have much more but I don’t want to turn this into a rant.

[quote]BillO21 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Food for thought. The top 1% of wage earners earns twice as much as the bottom 50% does. The top 1% pays 13 times the amount of tax that the bottom 50 does. How much more of the burden should they carry?

I bust my ass working overtime to make 6 figures. If I can do this with no college education and only 5 years of military experience, any one can.

I have never been given anything from any one, I have always paid my bills and saved my money. I detest the fact that one party in this country thinks I need to support the “less fortunate”.

Now, because I bust my ass my wife and son have everything they need and want. Fuck anyone who wants more of my money.

Do you really think baby jesus can add all this new spending and cut taxes for 95% of sheeple?

If you are making less thank 250K you will not have your taxes raised. So if McCain’s plan goes into law you will be paying more of the tax burden.

Your money will go to the poor no matter who is elected.
[/quote]

You seem to be of the sheeple. Actually just the other day BHO said 200K and then Biden stated 150K. I do fall in to the 150K, add my wife and we cross 200K. Again why should the top bear any more burden?

You really believe someone with such a blatant socialist agenda is not going to tax us into double digit interest rates and inflation. This is going to make Jimmy Carter look conservative. Do you also believe the military budget should be cut by 25%?

The premise question for this thread comes as a bit silly - it sounds like there is an undertone of “what could you possibly dislike about the guy?”.

Anyway, since time is short, here is a 30 second bullet point, and I could go on:

He thinks in Marxist categories about wealth and productivity.

He sees wealth as a zero-sum game of winners and losers.

He champions a tax regime based on the discredited economics of cradle-to-grave wealth distribution.

He wants a tax regime that incentivizes capital to flow elsewhere, both investment dollars and labor, not only sending wealth somewhere else but unwittingly aggravating the problem of “shipping jobs overseas”.

He sees the economic troubles in America as a chance to shoehorn an ideological paradigm shift in government that includes many issues that aren�??t in need of “fixing” outside of the immediate problems.

He wants a tax regime that creates a class of citizens interested only in the Bread and Circuses that government can provide, thus reinforcing citizens as “consumers” of government policy and public monies, and not trustees of them.

He wants judges that undermine a republican form of government and encourages anti-democratic decisionmaking at the national level.

He invites aggression abroad.

He has no track record of any kind of leadership.

He has a track record of avoiding difficult policy questions, either to protect his political ambitions or because he isn’t particularly principled �?? neither is a good answer.

He has no accomplishments of any note, except a couple of narcissistic autobiographies that made him enough to move into Hyde Park.

He traffics in radical circles of politics, but then remains opaque about those relationships �?? as such, he is either a radical himself, or an opportunist playing to those radicals, and neither is good.

He consistently tries to play on “oppression guilt” as a way of shutting down debate and criticism of himself or his policy positions.

He isn’t particularly impressive “on the fly”, and the toughest challenges Presidents will face are the spontaneous surprises.

He has no command presence �?? and gives the impression he can be overwhelmed by stronger personalities.

He is the postmodern, emasculated beta-male that isn’t the kind of person you seek out to solve large problems.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Food for thought. The top 1% of wage earners earns twice as much as the bottom 50% does. The top 1% pays 13 times the amount of tax that the bottom 50 does. How much more of the burden should they carry?

I bust my ass working overtime to make 6 figures. If I can do this with no college education and only 5 years of military experience, any one can.

I have never been given anything from any one, I have always paid my bills and saved my money. I detest the fact that one party in this country thinks I need to support the “less fortunate”.

Now, because I bust my ass my wife and son have everything they need and want. Fuck anyone who wants more of my money.

Do you really think baby jesus can add all this new spending and cut taxes for 95% of sheeple?

If you are making less thank 250K you will not have your taxes raised. So if McCain’s plan goes into law you will be paying more of the tax burden.

Your money will go to the poor no matter who is elected.

You seem to be of the sheeple. Actually just the other day BHO said 200K and then Biden stated 150K. I do fall in to the 150K, add my wife and we cross 200K. Again why should the top bear any more burden?

You really believe someone with such a blatant socialist agenda is not going to tax us into double digit interest rates and inflation. This is going to make Jimmy Carter look conservative. Do you also believe the military budget should be cut by 25%?
[/quote]

I agree the top should not get a large increase in taxes. I think there should be cuts in the budget and a redistribution of taxes. That that is where the money should come from.

A 25% decrease in the defense budget I honestly can say I do not know. I think it should be cut and we should not be sending our children to another country to get killed over something that did not exist. (WMD)

The Iraqi people are more prejudice with regards to religion than Americans are racist. Think about it, is racism still rampant in this country? How long do you think it will take for the Iraqi people to be tolerant to religion? Decades? Centuries? Remember they have been hating each other long before were a country.

We will need to have a large presence there for a long time to create change.

[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
I don’t know what the dollar cutoff is, only that the top 5% are the only people that will see a tax increase. Others will stay the same or see a tax decrease under Obama. So I’m wondering why this is such a big issue, given that it is unlikely to affect most of the people on this board.

If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity. These are the people that own all the capital used to grow the wealth of a “nation”. These are the people that provide income to everyone.

The more you tax them (and the wealth they produce) the less they have for their ventures and hence the less that a “nation” will have in the way of income as well as tax revenue.

Laughably wrong, or please post proof that Clinton’s tax rate KILLED productivity and/or revenue.

Honestly WTF are you talking about?

Point to where in my post I said it would kill all productivity. In fact, I distinctly said there would be LESS productivity.

Kill is a metaphorical verb not to be taken literally. Your argument is non sequitur anyway and doesn’t negate the essential feature of my argument. More taxation does indeed reduce productivity.

I don’t know what Clinton has to do with taxation in general.

Ok, let me point to it:
“If you tax wealthy people you kill productivity”

Since you’ve changed your tune a bit…please point to how Clinton’s tax rate “reduced” prodcuctivity. (These are the rates Obama is returning to after all)

You won’t be able to point to it, because you’re making stuff up, because clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what you’re saying.

And you obviously do ,which is why you refuse to discuss me on any point you raise yourself?

What? I thought I was talking to someone else?[/quote]

I know. You always are.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Food for thought. The top 1% of wage earners earns twice as much as the bottom 50% does. The top 1% pays 13 times the amount of tax that the bottom 50 does. How much more of the burden should they carry?

I bust my ass working overtime to make 6 figures. If I can do this with no college education and only 5 years of military experience, any one can.

I have never been given anything from any one, I have always paid my bills and saved my money. I detest the fact that one party in this country thinks I need to support the “less fortunate”.

Now, because I bust my ass my wife and son have everything they need and want. Fuck anyone who wants more of my money.

Do you really think baby jesus can add all this new spending and cut taxes for 95% of sheeple?

If you are making less thank 250K you will not have your taxes raised. So if McCain’s plan goes into law you will be paying more of the tax burden.

Your money will go to the poor no matter who is elected.

You seem to be of the sheeple. Actually just the other day BHO said 200K and then Biden stated 150K. I do fall in to the 150K, add my wife and we cross 200K. Again why should the top bear any more burden?

You really believe someone with such a blatant socialist agenda is not going to tax us into double digit interest rates and inflation. This is going to make Jimmy Carter look conservative. Do you also believe the military budget should be cut by 25%?
[/quote]

And If you cut taxes for the rich you are in essence raising the tax burden on the lower classes… Is that fair?
It is the same as raising taxes for the middle class.

I am not an Obama lover… I just dislike hime less than McCain. Do you really want Palin as Pres??? McCain is one lack of a heartbeat away from her taking office… Think about it, In his biggest decision he has made he chose her as his running mate…

And he has been pretty consistan that a family making below 250K will not see a tax increase.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
JASE72 wrote:
what difference does it make weather your in the top 5% or not? The simple fact is this, those who are in the 5% have the same rights to do whatever they want with their money.

They worked damn hard (most of them) to get to the top, so why on earth should they “share” their money with the millions of leaches in this country that dont do shit for our country but expect everything!!!
NOBAMA!!!

Like I said, I completely understand why the top 5% don’t like Obama. However, Obama’s tax policies don’t hurt me at all. I have the same right to act in my self-interest as the wealthy do, and fortunately there are enough of us that it looks likely Obama will win next week.

So pretty much you agree that what he wants to do to the “wealthy” is wrong, but it’s not happening to you so f’em.

If that is what you are saying, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. You don’t care about the economy, you don’t care what is right or wrong, you don’t care that the government is exploiting people or have issues with what the government has the right to do, as long as you get yours today.

All I can say is that some day they will be knocking on your door and maybe your neighbors won’t care because it’s not happening to them.

How could a vote for McCain possibly equal “caring about the economy” ? No credible economist would vote for McCain, why would any voter? Are you a serious person or just another troll?

Seriously, McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy, said he would probably rely on his veep for economic wisdom—I mean what in the hell are you talking about?

What has happened to middle-class wages the past 8 years? What about the top 1%? And you’re talking about exploitation? Because they’re going to go back to the Clinton tax rate?

C’mon you really need to focus here, you vote republican cause you’re scared of teh gay and mistakenly think God cares about abortions. No republican cares about the economy! Get with it!

You’re right, McCain isn’t a great economic-minded candidate, at all. Then again, Obama’s socialism-lite is far worse.

Edit: Is Barack Obama really a socialist? - CSMonitor.com

Again, there is NOTHING socialist about returning to the Clinton tax rate on one quintile. Reagan wasn’t a socialist, nor Nixon, nor IKE. All had tax rates higher. [/quote]

Yup. Even my buddy who works for a hedge fund told me a bump in capital gains to Clinton levels would have little effect on the rich.

I wouldn’t dream of voting for Obama because he is the most prominent advocate of infanticide we have ever had in this country. He is more extreme than NOW and NARAL. Everything else is secondary to that.