PDA

View Full Version : Wealth redistribution


MCMLV
10-27-2008, 10:40 PM
Redistribution of wealth. What exactly is that? Taking money from one person or group and giving to another. Right? How about taking money from one and giving food or shelter or some other service to the other? If those things given can be bought for money and in fact are bought by the money taken from some then that is wealth redistribution too. How about if for the money taken, opportunity is created or it is spent on education that is needed for more than a few recipients? It becomes less clear. How about if it creates a better business climate? Lots of good business is good for the economy and the nation. It produces higher profits, more taxes, more money to spend on education, more business opportunity and more food and shelter and what have you. But, if a business is doing a lot better and making lots of profit, then the money used to create that favorable environment is and indirect redistribution, because those who’s money made that environment possible do not all share in the new found wealth.

The simple fact is that ANY taxation system IS a form of wealth redistribution. Whether it is a flat rate, progressive, value added or sales taxes are paid or a combination of them, it is impossible to tax every person only to the extent of their benefit from what the taxes buy, or to tax a person TO the extent that that person benefits from the system. It is impossible. How can it be determined how much exactly any one benefits from everything government, including government itself, provides to and for the people. As such no matter how much one pays, one is either overpaying or getting more than paid for. So much for fair taxation, if that even exists beyond a fantasy.

Let’s look now at more wealth redistribution. How about subsidies? Millions upon millions of tax dollars are spent every year in the form of subsidies to so many different industries, businesses, and causes that attempting to list even a majority of them is a waste of space. Consider some of the biggest to: insurance companies, sugar, farm and ethanol.
It has been mentioned that it is not right for someone to receive money from the government when they put nothing in. Consider this: to receive money from the government even after having no tax liability on still needs to file a tax return. That in turn means that the person is working and contributing to the economy and with the money earned from work and the money given from the government that person will purchase goods and services, as assuredly they will not be in any position to squirrel it away in savings accounts.
Now consider that some farmers get money to NOT produce anything. How is that any better? How is any subsidy different?

Bottom line is that wealth redistribution is a reality that we all are living the only question being on which end of it we stand. Are we giving or receiving more? It is possible that those who object the most are being turned by that objection into hypocrites?

cbrahs
10-27-2008, 11:21 PM
Redistribution of wealth. What exactly is that? Taking money from one person or group and giving to another. Right? How about taking money from one and giving food or shelter or some other service to the other?

There is a difference when it is taken from me than me giving it to a specific charity or going and taking a homeless guy a meal or paying for a hotel room


If those things given can be bought for money and in fact are bought by the money taken from some then that is wealth redistribution too.

It will be taken from all. bo's 95% tax reduction will end up making the big companies raise their prices and those increased prices will be passed right on to us there slick

How about if for the money taken, opportunity is created or it is spent on education that is needed for more than a few recipients? It becomes less clear. How about if it creates a better business climate? Lots of good business is good for the economy and the nation. It produces higher profits, more taxes, more money to spend on education, more business opportunity and more food and shelter and what have you.

There ya go with INCREASED TAXES [duhhh]


But, if a business is doing a lot better and making lots of profit, then the money used to create that favorable environment is and indirect redistribution, because those who’s money made that environment possible do not all share in the new found wealth.

The increased prices for products and or services are going to bury a lot of people! Small business will be non existent. The SBA has established two widely used size standards – 500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries and $6.5 million in average annual receipts for most non-manufacturing industries. I don't know about you but my business according to the SBA guidelines is MICRO not small. Small business is what keeps this country alive and with the obomination plan, there will be hundreds of "small" businesses out of business.

The simple fact is that ANY taxation system IS a form of wealth redistribution. Whether it is a flat rate, progressive, value added or sales taxes are paid or a combination of them, it is impossible to tax every person only to the extent of their benefit from what the taxes buy, or to tax a person TO the extent that that person benefits from the system. It is impossible. How can it be determined how much exactly any one benefits from everything government, including government itself, provides to and for the people. As such no matter how much one pays, one is either overpaying or getting more than paid for. So much for fair taxation, if that even exists beyond a fantasy.

It is very difficult to determine where the tax money goes, oh, schools, roads, military (to keep your arse protected and allow you to spout off at the mouth in free will), and many other programs. The part that you think is not fair (those are my words) is that businesses have "deductions" as I am sure yours does. I take all the deductions I can get. There is not 1 man that gets the exact same pay as another and pays the exact same tax rate, has the exact same family size ect.... There are way too many variables. But your bo tax plan want to make things "equal" and share the wealth. It will not share the wealth, it will bury this country but trying to get that thru the libs heads is like pulling teeth.

Let’s look now at more wealth redistribution. How about subsidies? Millions upon millions of tax dollars are spent every year in the form of subsidies to so many different industries, businesses, and causes that attempting to list even a majority of them is a waste of space. Consider some of the biggest to: insurance companies, sugar, farm and ethanol.

so you don't like to eat? My family owns a farm in Washington and I tell you it is tough for the farmer with the price of equipment and such. Go price a combine or a Holstein cow. Dairy farmers are subsidized because if they are not, YOU and I would not be able to afford MILK!


It has been mentioned that it is not right for someone to receive money from the government when they put nothing in. Consider this: to receive money from the government even after having no tax liability on still needs to file a tax return. That in turn means that the person is working and contributing to the economy and with the money earned from work and the money given from the government that person will purchase goods and services, as assuredly they will not be in any position to squirrel it away in savings accounts.

this is not true. I know people who do not work yet still have to file a return. A single mother who gets child support and does not work still has to file a claim even if they do not work.


Now consider that some farmers get money to NOT produce anything. How is that any better? How is any subsidy different?

they have received money to not produce anything. Back in the late 80's and early 90's there was a program called CRP, the farmers planted grass or similar plant to not farm the land for a number of years because at that time, there was an overage of grain (using wheat farmers as an example)

Bottom line is that wealth redistribution is a reality that we all are living the only question being on which end of it we stand. Are we giving or receiving more? It is possible that those who object the most are being turned by that objection into hypocrites?

the only reality of wealth redistribution is what bo proposes and it will be a very large mistake.

RAMRODD
10-28-2008, 12:08 AM
Let’s look now at more wealth redistribution. How about subsidies? Millions upon millions of tax dollars are spent every year in the form of subsidies to so many different industries, businesses, and causes that attempting to list even a majority of them is a waste of space. Consider some of the biggest to: insurance companies, sugar, farm and ethanol.

Now consider that some farmers get money to NOT produce anything. How is that any better? How is any subsidy different?



As soon as the Government would quite screwing around with our trade farmers wont need any subsidies. It is a form of control, if their is no incentive to be in the farm program. Farmers will not be in it. Some will survive without some will not.

What is more important to you Food or a Military?? Both are essential for national security.
If you think it is bad not being energy independent. Could you imagine if OPEC controled our Wheat/Corn :o Food in the US is very cheap compared to other parts of the world.

I am not a big Ethanol fan. McCain said he will cut the subsidies on ethanol and basicaly allow Brazil to ship in as much as they want. The US ethanol industray may fail from this. If you are for ethanol fill you car/truck with a 10% blend which has been 10-12 cents cheaper at the pump and get a little of you tax money back.

I have yet to see a program where you get payed to raise nothing. The closest would be CRP but thier you have to plant it and control the weeds to stay in compliance. Definetly not a something for nothing!!

Cuba is begging to import food from the US guess what the Government wont allow it. Is that fair to the farmer? Then because the Government won't let us trade the farmer needs a subsidy to survive. Then a city slicker gets ticked off because the farmer is getting a subsidy[nonono] All I can say is if your kid is eating a hot lunch at a public school, That is part of the farm program.

staarma
10-28-2008, 09:07 AM
As soon as the Government would quite screwing around with our trade farmers wont need any subsidies. It is a form of control, if their is no incentive to be in the farm program. Farmers will not be in it. Some will survive without some will not.

What is more important to you Food or a Military?? Both are essential for national security.
If you think it is bad not being energy independent. Could you imagine if OPEC controled our Wheat/Corn :o Food in the US is very cheap compared to other parts of the world.

I am not a big Ethanol fan. McCain said he will cut the subsidies on ethanol and basicaly allow Brazil to ship in as much as they want. The US ethanol industray may fail from this. If you are for ethanol fill you car/truck with a 10% blend which has been 10-12 cents cheaper at the pump and get a little of you tax money back.

I have yet to see a program where you get payed to raise nothing. The closest would be CRP but thier you have to plant it and control the weeds to stay in compliance. Definetly not a something for nothing!!

Cuba is begging to import food from the US guess what the Government wont allow it. Is that fair to the farmer? Then because the Government won't let us trade the farmer needs a subsidy to survive. Then a city slicker gets ticked off because the farmer is getting a subsidy[nonono] All I can say is if your kid is eating a hot lunch at a public school, That is part of the farm program.

You just gave one of the best reasons to not vote for Obama that I've heard yet.

$oC@l CTD
10-28-2008, 11:47 AM
Want to hear of some SERIOUS "Re-Distribution" issues that are already going on DAILY that many of you all probably don't know about? I am stationed out of one of the "Big Three Letter Facilities" (not allowed to name which one) and if you all could just SEE what your tax dollars are currently paying for, you would throw up. I'm not talking programs that can benefit the warfighter, etc...I'm talking about these awesome "meetings" and "lunches" and "retirement ceremonies" and "parties" etc that the big timers convene on the organization's dime...really adds up I'm sure.

MCMLV
10-28-2008, 08:26 PM
There is a difference when it is taken from me than me giving it to a specific charity or going and taking a homeless guy a meal or paying for a hotel roomI am talking strictly about government. In this case food stamps, homeless shelters and the like. In that context it is taken from all of us.

It will be taken from all. bo's 95% tax reduction will end up making the big companies raise their prices and those increased prices will be passed right on to us there slickNot if we have a free economy that is governed by supply and demand.

There ya go with INCREASED TAXES [duhhh]You got that wrong. I do not mean more taxation just more revenues from better running businesses. Like in paying $x from profit and paying $2X from double profits.
Again, not higher taxes.

The increased prices for products and or services are going to bury a lot of people! Small business will be non existent. The SBA has established two widely used size standards – 500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries and $6.5 million in average annual receipts for most non-manufacturing industries. I don't know about you but my business according to the SBA guidelines is MICRO not small. Small business is what keeps this country alive and with the obomination plan, there will be hundreds of "small" businesses out of business.I do not think so.

It is very difficult to determine where the tax money goes, oh, schools, roads, military (to keep your arse protected and allow you to spout off at the mouth in free will), and many other programs. The part that you think is not fair (those are my words) is that businesses have "deductions" as I am sure yours does. I take all the deductions I can get. There is not 1 man that gets the exact same pay as another and pays the exact same tax rate, has the exact same family size ect.... There are way too many variables. But your bo tax plan want to make things "equal" and share the wealth. It will not share the wealth, it will bury this country but trying to get that thru the libs heads is like pulling teeth.I take all deductions allowed too. There is nothing to support the "equality" you assert. It is not about equality.

so you don't like to eat? My family owns a farm in Washington and I tell you it is tough for the farmer with the price of equipment and such. Go price a combine or a Holstein cow. Dairy farmers are subsidized because if they are not, YOU and I would not be able to afford MILK!Man, I love to eat. My wife is a great cook and an awesome baker and honestly not just by my judgment. She is great. I am not questioning why any subsidies are given, only raising general questions about them.

this is not true. I know people who do not work yet still have to file a return. A single mother who gets child support and does not work still has to file a claim even if they do not work.You mean like every man, woman and child in Alaska is getting from Gov. Palin? They don't even have to file returns. Yet she accuses the dems of socialist practices. The demographic you cite is but a small minority and I don't believe it is a real issue, correct me if I am wrong.

they have received money to not produce anything. Back in the late 80's and early 90's there was a program called CRP, the farmers planted grass or similar plant to not farm the land for a number of years because at that time, there was an overage of grain (using wheat farmers as an example)Again I was just listing them.

the only reality of wealth redistribution is what bo proposes and it will be a very large mistake.The point is that is it not as you say. It is far more common, but depending where one stands one finds them objectionable.

MCMLV
10-28-2008, 08:28 PM
As soon as the Government would quite screwing around with our trade farmers wont need any subsidies. It is a form of control, if their is no incentive to be in the farm program. Farmers will not be in it. Some will survive without some will not.

What is more important to you Food or a Military?? Both are essential for national security.
If you think it is bad not being energy independent. Could you imagine if OPEC controled our Wheat/Corn :o Food in the US is very cheap compared to other parts of the world.

I am not a big Ethanol fan. McCain said he will cut the subsidies on ethanol and basicaly allow Brazil to ship in as much as they want. The US ethanol industray may fail from this. If you are for ethanol fill you car/truck with a 10% blend which has been 10-12 cents cheaper at the pump and get a little of you tax money back.

I have yet to see a program where you get payed to raise nothing. The closest would be CRP but thier you have to plant it and control the weeds to stay in compliance. Definetly not a something for nothing!!

Cuba is begging to import food from the US guess what the Government wont allow it. Is that fair to the farmer? Then because the Government won't let us trade the farmer needs a subsidy to survive. Then a city slicker gets ticked off because the farmer is getting a subsidy[nonono] All I can say is if your kid is eating a hot lunch at a public school, That is part of the farm program.You are proving my point. Some redistribution is OK, it just depends on one's political views.

COUNTRYBOY
10-28-2008, 08:42 PM
SNOWED, that's all I can say about Obama supporters snowed bad.... aka blinded from BO's BS.... :cool:<-- blind man Excuse me sir can you help a fellow man out? I was so blinded from BO's speeches that I couldn't see what was really going to happen and I lead the country into deeper term oil than it was already in... [dummy]

GMScott
10-28-2008, 11:49 PM
Yes, I agree that there is already a certain amount of wealth redistribution going on in this country today. And yes, it matters from which side of the fence you look at it. Most of the wealth redistribution programs are called "Entitlement" programs and the longer they have been around the faster our politicians run from them. They know that touching these so-called entitlement programs will cost them votes. These programs are like junk to a junkie and the junkies don't want nobody messin' or takin' away their junk.
Now we got Wall Street and the banks gettin' hooked on Ole Uncle Crack, I mean Uncle Sam. The Repubs should have held their ground, but it is an election year and the press was mopping the floor with them, connecting them to the current administration, despite the Dems being in power for the last 2 years. Jeesh, even the President caved and did an about face to come up with a way to appease the masses and salvage the Republican party. The press has been brutal and we can and will see the results, no matter what the facts are or how they're presented. The masses want someone to blame for THEIR greed. I mean how can you go and get a mortgage that costs $1,000.00/month when you only bring home either that much or a little more?? They blame the lenders with false advertising and deceptive practices, well what about the people who sign on the dotted line?? Are they that stupid?? Yes, I guess they are and whoever is the President at the time will pay the PRICE. O will get his due in 4 years when things are even worse. Who will they blame then, when they have a full house goin' on??

mcoleman
10-29-2008, 09:41 AM
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon257.htm

Good article on nobama's redistribution policies.

John_P
10-29-2008, 11:46 AM
Another post by MCMLV to "spin" the Democratic idea of "wealth distribution"
to his benefit![laugh] Nice try MCMLV.......but your thread/post has not changed my mind on what the Democrats want to do no matter how YOU or anyone else wants to "spin or re-word" it!

BTW,......the amount that B.O./Biden have suggested for "tax breaks" has been LOWERED down to 150,000 dollars!! Biden said so yesterday. Eventually it will get to that original amount of $42,000.00. I hope they "get into your pockets" real good MCMLV!;)

--------
John_P

Mcmopar
10-29-2008, 11:58 AM
Four years from now, the morronic masses that flocked to be saved by Obamanation will really be in bad shape.

Ask yourself this: how many poor people have ever given you a job? Take more from the rich and they will hire fewer people!!

Obama--Bad for the country, good for the overseas terrorists

MCMLV
10-29-2008, 12:10 PM
Another post by MCMLV to "spin" the Democratic idea of "wealth distribution"
to his benefit![laugh] Nice try MCMLV.......but your thread/post has not changed my mind on what the Democrats want to do no matter how YOU or anyone else wants to "spin or re-word" it!

BTW,......the amount that B.O./Biden have suggested for "tax breaks" has been LOWERED down to 150,000 dollars!! Biden said so yesterday. Eventually it will get to that original amount of $42,000.00. I hope they "get into your pockets" real good MCMLV!;)

--------
John_PIt seems that you have great difficulty understanding my posts.

Just for the record, I did not spin anything, merely pointed out that wealth redistribution is far broader and more common than most people want to admit or see. Nor have I attempted to change your or any one's mind.

Last but not least, you need not worry about my pockets, I'll take care of that just as I have done till now.

John_P
10-29-2008, 12:29 PM
It seems that you have great difficulty understanding my posts.

Just for the record, I did not spin anything, merely pointed out that wealth redistribution is far broader and more common than most people want to admit or see. Nor have I attempted to change your or any one's mind.

Last but not least, you need not worry about my pockets, I'll take care of that just as I have done till now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MCMLV:

No, IMHO,.....you do a lousy job of explaining everything you say Sir. And as usual, like all you other "liberals" here, you want to "reword or rephrase" everything to YOUR liking.[laugh] And if you will go back and look at my post I NEVER SAID I was "worried about your pockets." Why would I "worry about you?" I said "I hope the Democrats get into your pockets!" [dummy] Go back and read it again! Now who has the problem "reading and understanding?"

---------
John_P

Adaminak
10-29-2008, 12:47 PM
You mean like every man, woman and child in Alaska is getting from Gov. Palin? They don't even have to file returns. Yet she accuses the dems of socialist practices.

Glaring errors in your statement above need correction.

1) It's called a Permanent Fund Dividend for starters, and it's not welfare. 2) Not every Alaskan gets it: No felons, no illegal immigrants, no deadbeat parents who won't pay child support for example. 3) You ARE required to complete an application, which actually gets reviewed. False statements on an application get you a misdemeanor conviction and banned from ever receiving the dividend again (not that we'll ever be able to say the same about welfare recipients).

The big picture:

The biggest difference between Obama-brand government handouts and the PFD is that Alaska isn't taking the money from rich people and "redistributing" it to "less fortunate" people. The money paid to the state of Alaska for land leases of the Alaska Pipeline route was put into a treasury fund where it is continually invested. The investment profits are used to fund most of the state government, a portion is put into the state's "Rainy Day Fund", and the remainder is doled out EQUALLY to all eligible state residents who complete an application prior to the submission deadline date. What do most Alaskans do with their dividen check? Spend it on durable goods such as a new vehicle, or a downpayment on a house, things that stimulate the local economy and further boost city coffers. I would say it's a pretty remarkable program as there is no state sales tax, no state income tax, no state vehicle ownership tax, the Alaskan housing market specifically and the overall economy in general is strong, and the budget is always in the black.

What's your comeback now?

John_P
10-29-2008, 01:00 PM
Glaring errors in your statement above need correction.

1) It's called a Permanent Fund Dividend for starters, and it's not welfare. 2) Not every Alaskan gets it: No felons, no illegal immigrants, no deadbeat parents who won't pay child support for example. 3) You ARE required to complete an application, which actually gets reviewed. False statements on an application get you a misdemeanor conviction and banned from ever receiving the dividend again (not that we'll ever be able to say the same about welfare recipients).

The big picture:

The biggest difference between Obama-brand government handouts and the PFD is that Alaska isn't taking the money from rich people and "redistributing" it to "less fortunate" people. The money paid to the state of Alaska for land leases of the Alaska Pipeline route was put into a treasury fund where it is continually invested. The investment profits are used to fund most of the state government, a portion is put into the state's "Rainy Day Fund", and the remainder is doled out EQUALLY to all eligible state residents who complete an application prior to the submission deadline date. What do most Alaskans do with their dividen check? Spend it on durable goods such as a new vehicle, or a downpayment on a house, things that stimulate the local economy and further boost city coffers. I would say it's a pretty remarkable program as there is no state sales tax, no state income tax, no state vehicle ownership tax, the Alaskan housing market specifically and the overall economy in general is strong, and the budget is always in the black.

What's your comeback now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaminak:

Great post and explanation Sir!

---------
MCMLV:

Here was some of your "advice" to me:

__________________________________________________ _____________

"....... but as I suggested before to you , you would do yourself a favor by being better informed about issues you comment on."
__________________________________________________ ______________

Looks to me like you ought to "look in the mirror!" I will be curious to see your reply to what DTR Member Adaminak just said to you. Now who is it that is
"uninformed" about the issues??

MCMLV
10-29-2008, 04:37 PM
Glaring errors in your statement above need correction.Only if you look at the big picture through a pin hole.

1) It's called a Permanent Fund Dividend for starters, and it's not welfare. 2) Not every Alaskan gets it: No felons, no illegal immigrants, no deadbeat parents who won't pay child support for example. 3) You ARE required to complete an application, which actually gets reviewed. False statements on an application get you a misdemeanor conviction and banned from ever receiving the dividend again (not that we'll ever be able to say the same about welfare recipients).Yea those are great exceptions. Let me guess those are but a small minority that would not receive anything in any state, but a good diversion on your part.

The big picture:

The biggest difference between Obama-brand government handouts and the PFD is that Alaska isn't taking the money from rich people and "redistributing" it to "less fortunate" people. The money paid to the state of Alaska for land leases of the Alaska Pipeline route was put into a treasury fund where it is continually invested. The investment profits are used to fund most of the state government, a portion is put into the state's "Rainy Day Fund", and the remainder is doled out EQUALLY to all eligible state residents who complete an application prior to the submission deadline date. What do most Alaskans do with their dividen check? Spend it on durable goods such as a new vehicle, or a downpayment on a house, things that stimulate the local economy and further boost city coffers. I would say it's a pretty remarkable program as there is no state sales tax, no state income tax, no state vehicle ownership tax, the Alaskan housing market specifically and the overall economy in general is strong, and the budget is always in the black.

What's your comeback now?Yes lets look at the big picture. Alaska being blessed with natural resources does not need to impose a whole range of taxes that are common place in the lower 48 states. That IS a great thing. But in light of the fact that Alaska DOES take earmarked money for bridges to nowhere which they refuse but accept the money anyway, it is fair to say that they are not redistributing their money and their wealth, but are redistributing the money the rest of us are paying in taxes. Maybe because that is Alaska there it is called conservative financial practice.

Thanks for the post though, at least some people learned from it.

MCMLV
10-29-2008, 04:39 PM
Now who is it that is
"uninformed" about the issues??I stand by my original post.

crobtex
10-29-2008, 05:00 PM
'Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!

I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink

He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!

' On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi'
He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think
On this one final note-

IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

MCMLV
10-29-2008, 05:25 PM
That IS funny. [laugh][laugh][laugh]

John_P
10-29-2008, 09:37 PM
I stand by my original post.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah,.....well I stand by what I have told you too![nonono]

COUNTRYBOY
10-29-2008, 09:51 PM
Misery loves company!!! Just wait Obamanation is going to ruin our nation. I can't wait for this election to be over! I've never been so stressed about a campain, but then again a terrorist lover/sider has never been running for office.

Danderson
10-29-2008, 10:01 PM
The homosexual mock lynching of Sarah Palin in West Hollywood somehow evaded Obama and his $600,000,000 support crew's comment. From a black man's point of view I would have expected him to admonish this behavior. It would have bought him some more votes that his exorbitant fundraising program somehow missed. No comments from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton either. Strange days indeed mama! This guy's a charlatan.:(

BigHornCTD
10-29-2008, 10:52 PM
. But in light of the fact that Alaska DOES take earmarked money for bridges to nowhere which they refuse but accept the money anyway, it is fair to say that they are not redistributing their money and their wealth, but are redistributing the money the rest of us are paying in taxes. Maybe because that is Alaska there it is called conservative financial practice.

You would be correct, if Alaska was the only state that was allowed earmarks or federal funding in general. But since every state in the union takes advantage of federal funding, it is not redistribution of wealth.

I might add that, in general, public works projects benefit the population as a whole, not solely for one specific class of citizens. Again not redistribution of wealth.

GMScott
10-29-2008, 11:38 PM
The homosexual mock lynching of Sarah Palin in West Hollywood somehow evaded Obama and his $600,000,000 support crew's comment. From a black man's point of view I would have expected him to admonish this behavior. It would have bought him some more votes that his exorbitant fundraising program somehow missed. No comments from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton either. Strange days indeed mama! This guy's a charlatan.:(

I guess this is a little off topic, but where are ALL the feminists when stuff like this happens?? You'd think they'd be appalled at such behaviour!!

Adaminak
10-30-2008, 06:33 AM
Yea those are great exceptions. Let me guess those are but a small minority that would not receive anything in any state, but a good diversion on your part.

Not quite true: Many felons and illegal immigrants receive state and in some cases even federal support in the form of welfare, WIC and even some social security benefits. A misdemeanor conviction bars nobody from receiving federal handouts, and I have yet to find a state (4 checked) where it does either. I'm not going to waste time looking at all 50 state's eligibility laws, so I'll concede it may in some places.

Yes lets look at the big picture. Alaska being blessed with natural resources does not need to impose a whole range of taxes that are common place in the lower 48 states. That IS a great thing. But in light of the fact that Alaska DOES take earmarked money for bridges to nowhere which they refuse but accept the money anyway, it is fair to say that they are not redistributing their money and their wealth, but are redistributing the money the rest of us are paying in taxes. Maybe because that is Alaska there it is called conservative financial practice.

Thanks for the post though, at least some people learned from it.

You're pretty good at diversion yourself. You specifically compared the Alaska PFD program to national redistribution on the state level; I corrected your misstatement and you spun my factual reply to meet your own goals by comparing it to earmarks in the federal budget voted on by the entire congress. A politician's glib tongue you have my friend, but I've been an investigator about a decade now, and I don't fall for the word disassociation games. Stick to the same point of argument and you'll have to admit you were wrong.

Furthermore, your attempt to discredit Gov Palin by associating her with a program you wrongly label as socialism equivalent to what Obama wants to do on a national level fails to pass muster. The program was voted into law by the state's legislature 30-odd years ago. As she was a teenager at the time, I very much doubt she had anything to do with its passage. Your attempt to keep the ball in your court by smoothly sliding in the "Bridge to Nowhere" argument is pretty slick though. FYI: The state never accepted the money for the bridge. Guess that fact slipped through as well.

crobtex
10-30-2008, 08:49 AM
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into
office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping
with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common
pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to
give those of you who are under-achieving a 'fair shake.'

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime,
into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those
who are 'too busy for overtime' to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.


3. All top management will now be referred to as 'the government.' We will
not participate in this 'pooling' experience because the law doesn't apply to us.


4. The 'government' will give eloquent speeches to all employees every
week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard 'for the good of all.'


5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's
'good to spread the wealth around.' Those of you who have underachieved
will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had
success will feel more 'patriotic.'


6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't
feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare,
free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll
let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all
Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!


If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

MCMLV
10-30-2008, 09:35 AM
You would be correct, if Alaska was the only state that was allowed earmarks or federal funding in general. But since every state in the union takes advantage of federal funding, it is not redistribution of wealth.No, I am right as it is, you only disagree because it does not support our point of view. According to your logic, if one does something bad then it is OK for everyone to do it. Not only that, but because everybody does int it somehow becomes something else. That is a good excuse, just not an acceptable one. Moreover, the other states do not distribute money to their residents. Alaska is the only one that takes federal funding in order to distribute their own revenues.

MCMLV
10-30-2008, 09:44 AM
You're pretty good at diversion yourself. You specifically compared the Alaska PFD program to national redistribution on the state level; I corrected your misstatement and you spun my factual reply to meet your own goals by comparing it to earmarks in the federal budget voted on by the entire congress. A politician's glib tongue you have my friend, but I've been an investigator about a decade now, and I don't fall for the word disassociation games. Stick to the same point of argument and you'll have to admit you were wrong.

Furthermore, your attempt to discredit Gov Palin by associating her with a program you wrongly label as socialism equivalent to what Obama wants to do on a national level fails to pass muster. The program was voted into law by the state's legislature 30-odd years ago. As she was a teenager at the time, I very much doubt she had anything to do with its passage. Your attempt to keep the ball in your court by smoothly sliding in the "Bridge to Nowhere" argument is pretty slick though. FYI: The state never accepted the money for the bridge. Guess that fact slipped through as well.I think you did not investigate this very well. The fact is that Alaska did accept the funds but did not use it for the bridge. They will use it for other purposes in the state. That is to say that they will not use their own revenues for the betterment of their state but use money from others to pay for those projects.
I do not know how you look at finances, but I prefer the simple method. It goes like this: I have a source of income. I use that to pay for the needs of my family. If I asked you for additional money even if I put it in the same pocket as my money was in and used that money to pay for the needs of my family I would still be using your money too. That would be so even if I was just getting of the merry go round or doing pirouettes. The spin would not negate that your money was in my pocket.

MCMLV
10-30-2008, 09:45 AM
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into
office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping
with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:I think you need to stop working for those commie bastards and find a new job.

staarma
10-30-2008, 09:51 AM
I wonder about the Indian reservations in discussions like this. Ever been to one? The majority sit around and wait for the "check" to come in. It's really hard to get weened off of it and even harder to become motivated by it. Is this what we all have to look forward to? It is welath distribution in the rarest form. The medicine is socialized as well as the police. Ever tried to get any offical business done on a reservation? I have and it's like dealing with another world with totally different laws and structure. The government has done them more harm then good but it's a little too late for the majority. Sure, some take the benefits and put them to good use but the percentage is very, very, very low. They can pretty much go to college for free but less than 10% actually even go and less than that graduate. It would make you very sad to drive through a reservation up here. Could this be foreshadowing our future for all Americans?

BigHornCTD
10-30-2008, 10:16 AM
No, I am right as it is, you only disagree because it does not support our point of view. According to your logic, if one does something bad then it is OK for everyone to do it. Not only that, but because everybody does int it somehow becomes something else. That is a good excuse, just not an acceptable one. Moreover, the other states do not distribute money to their residents. Alaska is the only one that takes federal funding in order to distribute their own revenues.

You need to re-read my reply. I never said taking earmarks was OK because every state does it. In fact I am very much against it in many cases. You however, were trying to argue that it was redistribution of wealth to Alaska, which it is not because Federal funding is available to every state.

You also seem to be confusing State revenues with Federal revenues. So you think Alaska (or any other state for that matter) is not entitled to a portion of federal funding simply because they run a surplus in their state budget? What about the Federal taxes those citizens pay? Do they give up benefits tied to federal funding simply because other states are irresponsible in how they handle budgets and "need the money more"? That sounds more like 'redistribution of wealth' to me.

staarma
10-30-2008, 10:17 AM
What about the Federal taxes those citizens pay? Do they give up benefits tied to federal funding simply because other states are irresponsible in how they handle budgets and "need the money more"? That sounds more like 'redistribution of wealth' to me.

Yes, they do under BHO's new proposal.

BigHornCTD
10-30-2008, 10:29 AM
I wonder about the Indian reservations in discussions like this. Ever been to one? The majority sit around and wait for the "check" to come in. It's really hard to get weened off of it and even harder to become motivated by it. Is this what we all have to look forward to? It is welath distribution in the rarest form. The medicine is socialized as well as the police. Ever tried to get any offical business done on a reservation? I have and it's like dealing with another world with totally different laws and structure. The government has done them more harm then good but it's a little too late for the majority. Sure, some take the benefits and put them to good use but the percentage is very, very, very low. They can pretty much go to college for free but less than 10% actually even go and less than that graduate. It would make you very sad to drive through a reservation up here. Could this be foreshadowing our future for all Americans?

You are very much correct with this post, and it is a perfect example of why a system like that does not work.

BTW I spent the first 18 years of my life on a reservation.

Adaminak
10-30-2008, 12:53 PM
You also seem to be confusing State revenues with Federal revenues. So you think Alaska (or any other state for that matter) is not entitled to a portion of federal funding simply because they run a surplus in their state budget? What about the Federal taxes those citizens pay? Do they give up benefits tied to federal funding simply because other states are irresponsible in how they handle budgets and "need the money more"? That sounds more like 'redistribution of wealth' to me.

Well said sir. And my point exactly. I still pay the same percentage of federal taxes regardless if I live in a state that effectively manages its budget or a state that squanders it wastefully. Why shouldn't a state accept federal transportation money for road maintenance? The tax on a gallon of gasoline is both Federal and State. Why shouldn't a state accept money for wildlife and resource conservation? The tax (in the form of a migratory bird or salmon stamp) goes to Federal coffers. Anything less would result in an outrage of that state's citizens because they would be supporting others who can't figure out how to pay their own way. Much like Obama's redistribution plan.

Oh yeah MCMLV: You still didn't stick to the facts: Alaska accepted Federal transportation money for road infrastructure maintenance and expansion. The bridge to nowhere money was in addition to that already allocated, and was sent back. The last I'd heard Louisiana was trying to get it for the reconstruction of New Orleans, because as everybody knows...it's smart to rebuild a flooded city below sea level.

staarma
10-30-2008, 12:53 PM
You are very much correct with this post, and it is a perfect example of why a system like that does not work.

BTW I spent the first 18 years of my life on a reservation.

I wish Montana at least would spend more energy and time trying to figure out a different strategy for our reservations and people. There has to be a better way. It is tragic. It feels so good to hear of the good stories but it is bitter sweet because you know there are 10 bad stories for every good one.

BigHornCTD
10-30-2008, 02:39 PM
I wish Montana at least would spend more energy and time trying to figure out a different strategy for our reservations and people. There has to be a better way. It is tragic. It feels so good to hear of the good stories but it is bitter sweet because you know there are 10 bad stories for every good one.

I agree. I think solid economic development is a key component to turning things around. Now this might sound like a political cliche, but it does have some merit. There are some opportunities on the horizon, specificially with coal to liquids development in the southeast corner of the state, that could go a long way towards turning things around.

While it looks good on paper, it isn't quite that easy. This has been tried before with other industries, and often times companies must deal with a workforce that is unambitious and lacks responsibility, which ultimately will break the company. So a change in attitude of the work force is also necessary. I think that is the more difficult component to address, but continued hand-outs or subsidies certainly counteract the whole process.

Just so I am clear, this applies to everyone, not limited to a reservation or a particular race of people. I am sure most people can find examples of this in their particular area of the country.

John_P
10-30-2008, 03:06 PM
Not quite true: Many felons and illegal immigrants receive state and in some cases even federal support in the form of welfare, WIC and even some social security benefits. A misdemeanor conviction bars nobody from receiving federal handouts, and I have yet to find a state (4 checked) where it does either. I'm not going to waste time looking at all 50 state's eligibility laws, so I'll concede it may in some places.



You're pretty good at diversion yourself. You specifically compared the Alaska PFD program to national redistribution on the state level; I corrected your misstatement and you spun my factual reply to meet your own goals by comparing it to earmarks in the federal budget voted on by the entire congress. A politician's glib tongue you have my friend, but I've been an investigator about a decade now, and I don't fall for the word disassociation games. Stick to the same point of argument and you'll have to admit you were wrong.

Furthermore, your attempt to discredit Gov Palin by associating her with a program you wrongly label as socialism equivalent to what Obama wants to do on a national level fails to pass muster. The program was voted into law by the state's legislature 30-odd years ago. As she was a teenager at the time, I very much doubt she had anything to do with its passage. Your attempt to keep the ball in your court by smoothly sliding in the "Bridge to Nowhere" argument is pretty slick though. FYI: The state never accepted the money for the bridge. Guess that fact slipped through as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaminak:

Yes Sir,.......I agree with you on MCMLV being "good at diversion" and then "spinning factual replies to his benefit!" BTW,.....don't EVER look for him to "admit he is wrong" because he THINKS he is always right![laugh]

-------
John_P

Mike D
10-30-2008, 04:57 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

Here's a good link to learn about Obama's tax plan. He's creative with his language, I'll give that much.

Ray Roton
10-30-2008, 05:57 PM
Obama says he is not a socialist, some of his supporters, but not all, believe him. I say he absolutely positively is a socialist. So, what exactly is socialism?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as. An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Winston Churchill defined Socialism as "a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Alexis de Tocqueville said "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude".

Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s, was correct when he said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Socialists believe that your life must be guided from birth to death by the government. There is no question that the American principles of capitalism and free enterprise are under attack. The question is, will America hold to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise or will it embrace elements of Socialism, Marxism and Communism?

In an attempt to confuse the electorate, Obama and his loyal followers cleverly avoids any use of the words Socialism or Marxism and use euphemisms to mask their agenda. They use words like "Progressive" which is Obamaspeak for Socialist, "economic justice" means redistribution of wealth, "restoring fairness to the economy" is code for taxing the rich, "social justice" is an expansion of the welfare state, and "investments" are wealth transfers that fund the socialist agenda.

In unguarded moments, the far Left slips and we see what they actually believe. During a hearing in the House of Representatives, far-left congress critter Maxine Waters said, "Well, I can see that this congresswoman is going to favor nationalizing the oil companies, and making sure the prices go down." Not to be outdone, Maurice Hinchey said, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets into the market."

Senator Hillary Clinton said in 2004, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This sounded uncomfortably like Karl Marx, who said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And Barack Obama is saying the same thing when he says we need to "spread the wealth."

This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio recently. She said that "Americans needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers."

Michael Reagan wrote in a recent column about attending a Hollywood luncheon crammed with producers, directors, writers and other film industry notables. One of the speakers was Larry Gelbart of "MASH" fame. Larry told the group that since capitalism has failed, why don't we try socialism? I suspect the majority of the ultra-liberal Hollywood crowd completely agree.

Hey Larry, here's a news flash for you. Capitalism didn't fail. Capitalism and the free market functioned flawlessly for years until the democrats started jacking around with it. The straw that finally broke the camels back was when they (democrats) decided to put poor people into houses which they knew full well they couldn't afford. You don't really think Fanny and Freddy have anything in common with capitalism do you?

Socialism does not encourage self-reliance, responsibility or personal wealth. In fact, shirking responsibility is accepted. Socialism does not reward anyone for working hard because everyone receives the same reward. The best worker and the slacker are rewarded the same. Socialism equalizes misery and poverty while productivity and efficiency suffer.

One need look no further than Cuba to see the long term effects of socialism. Even Obama's supporters opposed redistributing wealth and income 54% to 28%. Obama's popularity will crumble as soon as they realize that Obama is pushing a Socialist agenda that they oppose. But by then it may be too late.

Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If elected, Obama will take that oath of office knowing full well he is lying.

Here is a P.S. for Herb.
If Obama is elected, he will be taking some of your hard earned money and giving it to me. I will be thinking of you while I am spending it.

MCMLV
10-30-2008, 06:03 PM
You need to re-read my reply. I never said taking earmarks was OK because every state does it. In fact I am very much against it in many cases. You however, were trying to argue that it was redistribution of wealth to Alaska, which it is not because Federal funding is available to every state.

You also seem to be confusing State revenues with Federal revenues. So you think Alaska (or any other state for that matter) is not entitled to a portion of federal funding simply because they run a surplus in their state budget? What about the Federal taxes those citizens pay? Do they give up benefits tied to federal funding simply because other states are irresponsible in how they handle budgets and "need the money more"? That sounds more like 'redistribution of wealth' to me.If you consider the fact that Alaskans received more funding per capita than any other state then it becomes clearly visible that what goes on is wealth redistribution. Funds are funds state local or federal. The simple fact that there is no way to collect funds from tax payers on a true "fair" basis, all spending by government at every lever is a form of wealth redistribution. All tax cuts are wealth redistribution, all programs such as SS, Medicare etc. are wealth redistribution. Certainly subsidies as are the McCain proposed Tax Credits for health care. The list can go on and on. The only essential difference is that some people do not recognize some of them as such and accept others because it suits their political agenda, while knocking others that do not. I have no problem with the pursuit of a political agenda, but at least is should be based on facts and done with honesty.

MCMLV
10-30-2008, 06:43 PM
Obama says he is not a socialist, some of his supporters, but not all, believe him. I say he absolutely positively is a socialist. So, what exactly is socialism?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as. An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Winston Churchill defined Socialism as "a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Alexis de Tocqueville said "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude".

Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s, was correct when he said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Socialists believe that your life must be guided from birth to death by the government. There is no question that the American principles of capitalism and free enterprise are under attack. The question is, will America hold to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise or will it embrace elements of Socialism, Marxism and Communism?

In an attempt to confuse the electorate, Obama and his loyal followers cleverly avoids any use of the words Socialism or Marxism and use euphemisms to mask their agenda. They use words like "Progressive" which is Obamaspeak for Socialist, "economic justice" means redistribution of wealth, "restoring fairness to the economy" is code for taxing the rich, "social justice" is an expansion of the welfare state, and "investments" are wealth transfers that fund the socialist agenda.

In unguarded moments, the far Left slips and we see what they actually believe. During a hearing in the House of Representatives, far-left congress critter Maxine Waters said, "Well, I can see that this congresswoman is going to favor nationalizing the oil companies, and making sure the prices go down." Not to be outdone, Maurice Hinchey said, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets into the market."

Senator Hillary Clinton said in 2004, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This sounded uncomfortably like Karl Marx, who said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And Barack Obama is saying the same thing when he says we need to "spread the wealth."

This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio recently. She said that "Americans needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers."

Michael Reagan wrote in a recent column about attending a Hollywood luncheon crammed with producers, directors, writers and other film industry notables. One of the speakers was Larry Gelbart of "MASH" fame. Larry told the group that since capitalism has failed, why don't we try socialism? I suspect the majority of the ultra-liberal Hollywood crowd completely agree.

Hey Larry, here's a news flash for you. Capitalism didn't fail. Capitalism and the free market functioned flawlessly for years until the democrats started jacking around with it. The straw that finally broke the camels back was when they (democrats) decided to put poor people into houses which they knew full well they couldn't afford. You don't really think Fanny and Freddy have anything in common with capitalism do you?

Socialism does not encourage self-reliance, responsibility or personal wealth. In fact, shirking responsibility is accepted. Socialism does not reward anyone for working hard because everyone receives the same reward. The best worker and the slacker are rewarded the same. Socialism equalizes misery and poverty while productivity and efficiency suffer.

One need look no further than Cuba to see the long term effects of socialism. Even Obama's supporters opposed redistributing wealth and income 54% to 28%. Obama's popularity will crumble as soon as they realize that Obama is pushing a Socialist agenda that they oppose. But by then it may be too late.

Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If elected, Obama will take that oath of office knowing full well he is lying.

Here is a P.S. for Herb.
If Obama is elected, he will be taking some of your hard earned money and giving it to me. I will be thinking of you while I am spending it.

Even the definition provided by you contradicts you. It is the state control or rather ownership of the means of production that is central to socialism. That is the mechanism that make the so called redistribution of wealth possible. In actuality it is NOT a redistribution of wealth, because onece nationalized the factories, farms and so on are not redistributed in any form to the population. People become workers in those facilities and are compensated according to some leadership decided extent. Since Obama's plan is NOTHING like that, there goes you theory, amounting to nothing more than fear mongering.

But lets stick with the wealth redistribution, since that seems to be the flavor of the day.
The sticking point is that Obama's plan will "give" those less fortunate a better way to improve themselves and access to normal health care. For the simple act caring he is labeled every name anyone can come up with. But the idea of taking care of the less fortunate, originates not with Marx or any other proponent of "commonly held means of production" but with Adam Smith, the person credited with laying the foundation of free trade and capitalism. He wrote on distribution of wealth: "What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Teddy Roosevelt, one of the beloved Presidents was also attacked as a socialist, because he supported the Square Deal, because he fought trusts seeking to control of some products. Trust busting was not exactly welcomed.

The policies of G W Bush are nothing less than wealth redistribution, yet other than the occasional 'I don't like everything he does' he is not vilified as a socialist or a wealth redistributor.

Makes one wonder where if it existed, did objectivity go?

Mike D
10-30-2008, 07:00 PM
This from the Tax Foundation explaining Obama's Redistribution Plan:

The Tax Policy Center's recent analysis of the presidential tax plans has received a considerable amount of attention in the press. While much of the focus has been on how much or how little each plan benefits "middle-class" taxpayers, little attention has been paid to how each plan affects the overall distribution of the nation's tax burden.

On this account, the plans are vastly different. Under the McCain plan, since every taxpayer gets a tax cut, the overall distribution of the federal tax burden remains roughly the same as it is today. Under the Obama plan, because some taxpayers get a tax cut and others get a substantial tax increase, the overall distribution of the federal tax burden changes quite considerably.

In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers. In 2009, for example, Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.

These figures do not include the impact of Obama's proposal to apply Social Security payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined.

To put the Obama plan in context, it is important to understand how divided America's tax burden already is between a large group of Americans who pay little or nothing and a shrinking group of upper-income taxpayers who shoulder the lion's share of the burden. For example:

* In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. By 2006, the number of non-payers had grown to nearly 44 million, one-third of all income tax filers.
* According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2005, the top 20 percent of households paid 86.3 percent of income taxes while the bottom 80 percent paid a collective 13.7 percent of the income tax burden. The top 1 percent of households paid 38.8 percent of income taxes.
* Looking at all federal taxes, in 1990, the bottom 80 percent of households paid 42 percent of the tax burden while the top 1 percent of households paid about 16 percent. By 2005, the share of all federal taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent of households had fallen to 31 percent, while the share paid by the wealthiest households had risen to nearly 28 percent.
* A recent Tax Foundation study found that in 2004, the nation's tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households.

The chart below shows the tax changes that would result from Obama's plan in 2009, in raw dollar amounts, for taxpayers separated into income quintiles, or fifths. The top quintile has been split into smaller income bands to illustrate the amount of income shifting between the groups. The top 1 percent of taxpayers would see a tax hike of $131 billion while the other groups would see a tax cut of $155 billion. Presumably, the residual tax cut of $24 billion would be deficit financed.

While the majority of the redistribution is targeted to taxpayers in the middle three quintiles, a surprising large amount—$40 billion—would flow to taxpayers in the 80th to 95th percentile (those earning roughly $93,000 to $192,000 per year). This is largely due to the extension of the AMT patch.

Figure 1
Tax Increases or Decreases Faced by Different Income Groups under Obama's Plan

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/ff132_fig1.jpg

Source: Tax Policy Center

Table 1 presents the share of total federal taxes currently borne by each income group compared to the changes that would occur under the Obama plan. A couple of figures jump out. First, the table illustrates how few taxes are paid by Americans at the bottom end of the income scale and, thus, how difficult it is to give them tax relief.

According to Tax Policy Center tables, there are roughly 72 million tax units in the bottom two quintiles, representing 48 percent of all tax units. Under current policies, these people pay just 4.8 percent of all federal taxes. Those in the lowest quintile would receive $22 billion in various tax credits under the Obama plan, which would reduce their overall federal tax liability by an average of $567. However, since these 39 million people currently pay an average of only $489 in federal taxes, they would see their federal tax liability fall below zero, meaning they would get money back from the government in excess of any taxes paid. For those in the second quintile, the Obama plan would cut their current average tax liability of $2,995 by 30 percent, or $892.

At the other end of the scale, the Obama plan would boost the average tax bill for the top 1 percent of taxpayers by $115,974, from $559,181 to $675,155. The overall tax burden on the top 1 percent would climb from 25.7 percent of all federal taxes to 31.3 percent. Thus, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would shoulder a greater burden of all federal taxes than the bottom 80 percent combined. Again, these figures do not include Obama's proposed increase in payroll taxes on high earners.

Impact of Obama Plan on Federal Taxes Paid by Income Quintile

Tax Units* Share of Federal Taxes
Cash Income Percentile* Number (thousands) Percent of Total Current Share of Total Change Under Obama's Proposal New Shares Under Obama's Proposal
Lowest Quintile 39,102 26.0% 0.8% -0.90% -0.12%
Second Quintile 32,942 21.9% 4.0% -1.16% 2.84%
Middle Quintile 30,075 20.0% 10.7% -1.18% 9.53%
Fourth Quintile 25,152 16.7% 17.9% -1.15% 16.75%
Top Quintile 22,287 14.8% 66.5% 4.39% 70.88%
All 150,241 100.0% 100.0% 0% 100%

Addendum
80-90 11,264 7.5% 14.1% -0.88% 13.23%
90-95 5,439 3.6% 10.4% -0.52% 9.88%
95-99 4,454 3.0% 16.3% 0.16% 16.48%
Top 1 Percent 1,131 0.8% 25.7% 5.63% 31.29%
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/Excel/T08-0114.xls.
* Quintiles have equal numbers of people but unequal numbers of tax units

MCMLV
10-30-2008, 07:31 PM
I think that information of this nature should be presented in a balanced way, so that comparison can be made. Since you did not do that, it makes me wonder why did you do it? Is it good, bad, just for info?
To compensate for that, here is a portion of the executive analysis:

"Both candidates prefer to compare their plans to the “current policy” baseline, which would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and indefinitely extend an indexed AMT “patch”—and collect nearly $3.6 trillion less than under current law over the coming decade. Against that baseline, Obama would raise revenues by about $600 billion over the decade, while McCain would lose $600 billion. But choice of baseline doesn’t change how the proposals would affect the budget picture; without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion on top of the $2.3 trillion increase that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts for the next decade."

As a practical matter, discounting partisanship, Obama's plan is the net better one.

crobtex
10-30-2008, 07:47 PM
Depends on how you look at it, and depends where the cuts in spending come from. If the cuts come from reducing welfare dependence and forcing people to be productive, that's good. If the cuts come from a reduced military and national security programs, that's not good.

I think that information of this nature should be presented in a balanced way, so that comparison can be made. Since you did not do that, it makes me wonder why did you do it? Is it good, bad, just for info?
To compensate for that, here is a portion of the executive analysis:

"Both candidates prefer to compare their plans to the “current policy” baseline, which would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and indefinitely extend an indexed AMT “patch”—and collect nearly $3.6 trillion less than under current law over the coming decade. Against that baseline, Obama would raise revenues by about $600 billion over the decade, while McCain would lose $600 billion. But choice of baseline doesn’t change how the proposals would affect the budget picture; without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion on top of the $2.3 trillion increase that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts for the next decade."

As a practical matter, discounting partisanship, Obama's plan is the net better one.

MCMLV
10-30-2008, 08:12 PM
Those are strictly tax cuts, not spending cuts.

capt.Ron
10-30-2008, 09:14 PM
Those are strictly tax cuts, not spending cuts.

And of course you couldn't support spending cuts on wasteful social programs could you??? It wouldn't fit the socialist ideology.

crobtex
10-30-2008, 09:29 PM
Those are strictly tax cuts, not spending cuts.

Increasing the debt is one thing, but I was referring cuts that in the long run would offset the spending. obama has a history of backing welfare type programs and will only increase government control and government spending to support them. He will increase the $600 million by increasing taxes and driving prices up for us common folks while making the welfare crowd more dependent on him. When has them totally dependent on, he will be more dangerous than he is now.

Did you ever see or comment on this?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

BigHornCTD
10-31-2008, 12:28 AM
If you consider the fact that Alaskans received more funding per capita than any other state then it becomes clearly visible that what goes on is wealth redistribution. Funds are funds state local or federal.

How can anyone possibly make this statement? Again you are incorrect in assuming that State, Federal or local funds are on the same level, which proves your absolute ignorance on this subject. But on behalf of others who may be watching this thread, who may actually be able to understand the levels of our basic system of government, I will continue. As the gentleman from Alaska pointed out, the STATE funds are distributed equally, which they are entitled to on behalf of the STATE. This has absolutely nothing to do with the FEDERAL Government. FUNDS ARE NOT EQUAL, FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHERWISE. STATE funds are collected from STATE taxes. FEDERAL funds are collected from FEDERAL taxes. If you live in a COUNTY or CITY which levies taxes, those are collected at the LOCAL level. Specifically the funds you are referring to are a portion of the FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND DOLLARS COLLECTED VIA THE FEDERAL GAS TAX and allocated by Congress using guidelines established under the SAFTEA-LU act of 2005. How much clearer of a definition do you need? It is absolutely nuts that anyone feels that all funds are the property of the Federal government and that they are doing us a favor by letting us keep 60-75% of our earned money.

All tax cuts are wealth redistribution, all programs such as SS, Medicare etc. are wealth redistribution.

Once again you are wrong. Eligibility is supposed to be based on what you contribute to the system. Or at least that was the intent until the latter day politicians got ahold of it. Who knows at this point, from what I hear, people who have never contributed to SS are collecting from it. And we haven't even begun to feel the ramifications of entitlement spending due to SS and Medicare. Even Obama said he would not deal with it until his second term. Hold on, we are in for the most crippling ride this country has ever experienced. So far no President (or Presidential candidate for that matter) has come up with a solution. The circus clowns who are running now will add to the problem, not correct it. But who cares, right? Let the next President deal with it. After all, it's all about buying votes for the moment of fame right? You can say you won so that's all that matters. It really has nothing to do with the best interests of the country in the long term.

The only essential difference is that some people do not recognize some of them as such and accept others because it suits their political agenda, while knocking others that do not. I have no problem with the pursuit of a political agenda, but at least is should be based on facts and done with honesty.

It would benefit everyone if they actually understood the role of government. So far the majority are banking on hope and change. So you think I am pursuing a political agenda? I challenge you to name the agenda I am pursuing.

BigHornCTD
10-31-2008, 12:36 AM
both plans would sharply increase the national debt[/B]. Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion on top of the $2.3 trillion increase that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts for the next decade."

As a practical matter, discounting partisanship, Obama's plan is the net better one.


So because McCain's tax plan incurs more national debt, it is OK for Obama to incur national debt. Didn't I recently see logic explained to my flawed analysis in a recent thread? In other words it's okay for one as long as the others do it? And by the way, Obama's plan is not the 'net better one'.

BigHornCTD
10-31-2008, 12:56 AM
Even the definition provided by you contradicts you. It is the state control or rather ownership of the means of production that is central to socialism. That is the mechanism that make the so called redistribution of wealth possible. In actuality it is NOT a redistribution of wealth, because onece nationalized the factories, farms and so on are not redistributed in any form to the population. People become workers in those facilities and are compensated according to some leadership decided extent. Since Obama's plan is NOTHING like that, there goes you theory, amounting to nothing more than fear mongering.

You know, I had a post about this also, but after thinking about it, there are only so many ways to make a point and I think I have exhausted mine.

Ray Roton
10-31-2008, 01:32 PM
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-overestimated-my-fellow-americans.html

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 05:26 PM
So because McCain's tax plan incurs more national debt, it is OK for Obama to incur national debt. Didn't I recently see logic explained to my flawed analysis in a recent thread? In other words it's okay for one as long as the others do it? And by the way, Obama's plan is not the 'net better one'.No that is not the logic. I did not try to excuse it, merely pointed out that if one side is presented, presumably to show how bad it is, then it is only fair to show both sides for comparing purposes. When two sides are shown a practical person would choose the better side. Don't yo agree?

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 05:40 PM
How can anyone possibly make this statement?It is a fact that Alaska receved more federal funds per capita than any other state. That is indisputable.
Again you are incorrect in assuming that State, Federal or local funds are on the same level, which proves your absolute ignorance on this subject. I equated those funds only by their common thread, namely that they do not come from the sky or tooth fairy, but are collected from people and businesses. The distribution of any of those funds in EQUAL manner is wealth redistribution. If Alaskans do NOT use the money they get from their natural wealth, and pay not state income taxes and local income taxes and sales taxes, but receive money by having their "projects" paid by others that is ALSO wealth redistribution.

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 05:52 PM
Increasing the debt is one thing, but I was referring cuts that in the long run would offset the spending. obama has a history of backing welfare type programs and will only increase government control and government spending to support them. He will increase the $600 million by increasing taxes and driving prices up for us common folks while making the welfare crowd more dependent on him. When has them totally dependent on, he will be more dangerous than he is now.

Did you ever see or comment on this?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.htmlHave not seen it till now. It is either erroneous or purposefully misleading. I will not speculate which.

It states that Obama does not consider letting the Bush tax cut laps a tax increase. That is largely false, because the allowed lapse is for only a very small minority of tax payers. I did not continue from there on. Why bother with falsehoods?

Mike D
10-31-2008, 05:58 PM
Thanks Peter... Sounds like Alaska is the place to live!


Here in NC, we have loads of 20 something men walking the streets in the middle of the day, drinking malt beverages by the bag full while I'm going to work like some kind of moron. I sure hope Obama puts all these potentially useful members of our society to work. I know their just dieing to contribute if only they were given the chance.

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 06:06 PM
Thanks Peter... Sounds like Alaska is the place to live!


Here in NC, we have loads of 20 something men walking the streets in the middle of the day, drinking malt beverages by the bag full while I'm going to work like some kind of moron. I sure hope Obama puts all these potentially useful members of our society to work. I know their just dieing to contribute if only they were given the chance.Believe me they exist everywhere and not only in the US. I'd venture to say that they always existed and always will to some extent. They exist in good times and bad times, they exist in good places and bad places. At times I get ticked off too, but I still go and do my work, because there is something in me and I bet all of us here that dictates that we have to. We have to because our dignity demands it, we have to because our obligations demand it, we have to because we believe that our lives must have a purpose. I simply refuse to give those reasons up, just because I see and know about some people who do not have any of those. Who knows, maybe one of them some day will learn from us.

Mike D
10-31-2008, 06:20 PM
You bring up a great point. In Europe it's even worse, their Socialist society is a breeding ground of contempt. There's no motivation to advance yourself. The Turks in Germany have the system down to a science and most of the Germans hate them for it. They like to act like alles ist gut in Deutchland on the face or when they're being critical of us here in the United States.

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 06:36 PM
You bring up a great point. In Europe it's even worse, their Socialist society is a breeding ground of contempt. There's no motivation to advance yourself. The Turks in Germany have the system down to a science and most of the Germans hate them for it. They like to act like alles ist gut in Deutchland on the face or when they're being critical of us here in the United States.You seen it too?
Anyway, we may disagree on how to go forward, but keep in mind that those who are on welfare do not work and do not file tax returns. It is also important to keep in mind that this like any election is not a covenant for eternity. If things do not work out it can be changed again. Lets be honest just a bit, Bush screwed it up, it is time to try a different approach. For now, and I say for NOW, I think Obama's approach is the better one. Many smart people have aired their oppinons on the candidates and their policies, but I do not recall anyone addressing the human sentiment at any time. Lets face it, people are ****** and when people are ****** the right solution in not always the one that is proposed by experts.
The test is two years. In two years if it does not work congressional majority can be changed again. If republican policies of the last eight years did not work out, it is logical to change policies, at least till republicans can come up with the new and correct ones.

Mike D
10-31-2008, 07:09 PM
You seen it too? First hand experience, imagine that!

As for your second part, while your plea sounds great, I just can't go there with you because I've never heard much out of Obama that was substantive. He himself is starting to admit that he won't be able to bring all the change he's promised over this election... kind of saw that one coming. When Bill Clinton told the story about how Obama asked for his advice on the economy and Obama said would "sell it", my suspicions of him were correct. He doesn't have the experience needed to lead our country, despite the grand speeches to the bleachers.

McCain, no doubt has questionable associations, Obama's are far worse in my view. I may be small minded in this regard, I think there's some merit to being as forth coming as possible when seeking the highest office in our land.

BigHornCTD
10-31-2008, 07:22 PM
It is a fact that Alaska receved more federal funds per capita than any other state. That is indisputable.
I equated those funds only by their common thread, namely that they do not come from the sky or tooth fairy, but are collected from people and businesses. The distribution of any of those funds in EQUAL manner is wealth redistribution. If Alaskans do NOT use the money they get from their natural wealth, and pay not state income taxes and local income taxes and sales taxes, but receive money by having their "projects" paid by others that is ALSO wealth redistribution.

You still aren't paying attention, I can't for the life of me understand why a simple concept is so misunderstood. Once again, Alaskans pay federal gas tax just like anyone else. That money goes to the Highway Trust Fund, which then gets allocated to the states, according to a formula primarily based on the amounts contributed to the fund. The states are also required to post matching funds out of their own coffers. This is one of the few government programs that is actually designed to be self sufficient and paid for by the users (modeled after Social Security actually). But of course the government has this nasty habit of spending more money than they take in, so naturally this trust fund is projected to be bankrupt in the next couple of years (sound familiar?). I haven't heard either one of the clowns talk about this issue yet.

Of course anyone who gets earmarks are getting more than someone else. Take a look at the list of earmarks in the Highway Bill. Every state gets them at some point in time, and yes a lot of them are bad projects sought merely because some congressman wants to make a name for himself. But you are unfairly singling out Alaska on this issue, and trying to say they are redistributing federal funds to the citizens. They are not, and in fact Highway Fund dollars must be used for transportation projects or reallocated to other states if not used. They are not for the state to spend at free will.

Montana also gets a very high percentage per capita simply because we have a low population and a lot of federal highways. In fact we got our own earmark to rebuild a portion of Going to the Sun Highway in Glacier National Park. Is it reasonable to expect us to maintain all those roads on our own? No, they are federal highways whos primary use and benefit is interstate commerce.

Is it wealth re-distribution? Hardly. But call it what you want if it makes you feel better. You are trying to make quite a stretch to justify your position, so have at it. [laugh]

BigHornCTD
10-31-2008, 07:27 PM
When two sides are shown a practical person would choose the better side. Don't yo agree?

Actually I start looking at the third side. [coffee]

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 07:43 PM
First hand experience, imagine that!

As for your second part, while your plea sounds great, I just can't go there with you because I've never heard much out of Obama that was substantive. He himself is starting to admit that he won't be able to bring all the change he's promised over this election... kind of saw that one coming. When Bill Clinton told the story about how Obama asked for his advice on the economy and Obama said would "sell it", my suspicions of him were correct. He doesn't have the experience needed to lead our country, despite the grand speeches to the bleachers.

McCain, no doubt has questionable associations, Obama's are far worse in my view. I may be small minded in this regard, I think there's some merit to being as forth coming as possible when seeking the highest office in our land.That is fair, a reasonable position to stand on.
Can you imagine a world where everyone agreed? How would we ever validate our positions?

Where in Germany did you go? Did some "real driving" while there?
The situation is also present in Eastern Europe.
As a side note: A while back after the fall of the communist regimes I was there and in talking to a lot of people who were not working (the situation was a mess, still) I was inquiring about their intentions. Everyone was going into "some kind of business" which meant buying something and selling it. No one wanted to produce anything. I was amazed and asked them the following: If one man can get a loaf of bread and resell it at a profit to another who will also resell it ans so on, till one of them will eat is because he will be hungry, What will you guys sell if no one bakes bread? "I DON'T KNOW" was the answers I got.
I told them to better think about it, because someone has to start baking bread and soon or they will starve.
Why did I tell you this? It shows that people who depended on government to run their lives did not know how to overcome their problems, but had a desire to "have more." It supports you and my view that reliance on government, at least for long periods does not work out well.

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 07:45 PM
Actually I start looking at the third side. [coffee]I can not find fault with that.

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 08:18 PM
You still aren't paying attention...For the record, I am not trying to single out Alaska. I just felt that it made a good example. The most important point that I tried to make is that "wealth redistribution" is a BIG FACT of American life. It has been here for a long time and will stay in the future. At times it is a lot at times it is less, at times it reverses but never fully. The biggest difference we have if the direction of those small reversals. That is fine, to be honest I'd like it less if it was going away from me, but I do accept it even then.
The question left is whether you agree with this so far. If so why be upset at the next swing? Because it is not going in the direction you want? OK but at least admit to the underlying principle: We ARE redistributing wealth all the time.

Mike D
10-31-2008, 08:47 PM
I've driven all over Europe, but unfortunately the car I had would only do 180 kpm . I lived in Germany for over 5 years, but don't tell rkelly that, he still thinks I live on the farm.[laugh]

I managed a bar in Ansbach that was part of a chain, below is a link to the sister bar in Nurnburg.

http://www.green-goose.com/

Germany is a great place to visit. I remember a concert I went to in old east Germany, a city called Zwickau. I realized then how different the world truly was... An English Punk band sang F the USA and everyone knew the words. Talk about getting noticed in a crowd, I felt like everyone was singing the song to me.[laugh]

There's a stark difference between how Europeans think and govern. When you can get a ticket for flipping someone the bird, something stinks in Denmark.[laugh] Can you imagine! I remember some guy in the bar asked that I call the Polizei because someone called him a bauer, and he was dead serious! Some of those folks would have a hard time adjusting in America.[laugh]

MCMLV
10-31-2008, 09:07 PM
I've driven all over Europe, but unfortunately the car I had would only do 180 kpm . I lived in Germany for over 5 years, but don't tell rkelly that, he still thinks I live on the farm.[laugh]

I managed a bar in Ansbach that was part of a chain, below is a link to the sister bar in Nurnburg.

http://www.green-goose.com/

Germany is a great place to visit. I remember a concert I went to in old east Germany, a city called Zwickau. I realized then how different the world truly was... An English Punk band sang F the USA and everyone knew the words. Talk about getting noticed in a crowd, I felt like everyone was singing the song to me.[laugh]

There's a stark difference between how Europeans think and govern. When you can get a ticket for flipping someone the bird, something stinks in Denmark.[laugh] Can you imagine! I remember some guy in the bar asked that I call the Polizei because someone called him a bauer, and he was dead serious! Some of those folks would have a hard time adjusting in America.[laugh]Awesome. I bet you are glad for the experience and insights you gained. Yea people can be and are "different" even for me, an "Americanized" one from there.
But I must ask, what attracted you to the "conservative" side? Usually travelers tend to be liberal.

I spent very little time in Germany, Last year drove the length of Italy then Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary and Romania It was a great time. Driving in Italy was fun. I came to realize they do not have traffic laws, just mild suggestions [laugh][laugh][laugh]

Mike D
10-31-2008, 09:31 PM
But I must ask, what attracted you to the "conservative" side?Ronald Reagan or as we used to say back then, Ronald Ray Gun.

Usually travelers tend to be liberal.Total myth in my view. I just think liberals believe they can't be liberal unless they've experienced the "world community". You would be amazed how many people throw their country under the bus just to fit in.

Driving in Italy was fun. My only experience while driving in Italy that drove me nuts was the toll boths at every exit off the Autostrada... and I can't forget the traffic jams.

I came to realize they do not have traffic laws, just mild suggestionsI thought the same while in Paris.

Mike D
10-31-2008, 09:33 PM
I forgot to ask. What country are you from?

$oC@l CTD
10-31-2008, 09:41 PM
On the record, Reagan blew at economy and his people as much as BOTH the Bushes...just a fact.

crobtex
11-01-2008, 12:31 AM
The Hill Report
A Weekly Newsletter from Congressman Pete Sessions
Week of October 26 – October 31, 2008

This week, the Commerce Department announced that 3rd quarter gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3 percent, marking the first quarter of economic contraction in five years. American businesses are downsizing, unemployment is rising, and consumers are spending less.

These stark economic realities underscore the need for fiscal responsibility in federal government economic policies. I understand that providing tax relief for American families and small businesses and instituting fiscal discipline in federal spending creates real economic growth and jobs.


Tax Relief for Job Creation, Economic Growth
Allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars has proven to encourage consumer spending and promote investment – which means more businesses creating jobs and growing the economy out of deficit status.

That is why during this Congress, I joined Congressman David Dreier (R-CA) and 10 other Republican colleagues to introduce The Fair and Simple Tax (FAST) Act (H.R. 5105)—a comprehensive, pro-growth tax plan designed to relieve the tax burden on American families, encourage business investment and job creation, and facilitate economic growth.

First, the FAST Act simplifies the tax code for all Americans with a new, one-page tax filing form. This new form is made possible by creating a simplified structure for income taxation:

• 10% tax rate for income up to $40,000
• 15% tax rate for income between $40,000 and $150,000
• 30% tax rate for income over $150,000

Second, this legislation would also create new, flexible tax-free savings accounts, further allowing taxpayers to keep more of what they earn so they can save and invest through the following provisions:

• New Retirement Savings Accounts and a new Lifetime Savings Account for up to $5,000 of tax-free contributions per year.
• New, tax-free Lifetime Skills Account for workers to save up to $1,000 of tax-free contributions per year for training and education.
• New health care deduction of $7,500 (individual) and $15,000 (family) for those under the age of 65 who do not have employer healthcare coverage – with unspent money allowed to be used for out-of-pocket health expenses.

Third, the FAST Act would permanently extend the tax relief passed by a Republican Congress in 2001 and 2003, including an increase in small business expensing, reduction in marginal rates, and deduction for state and local sales tax. As the below chart shows, this tax relief is particularly important for the real job-creators of our economy: American businesses.
http://sessions.houseenews.net/images/user_images/Pages_from_Att_Emily.jpg

Many of these tax relief provisions are set to expire in 2010, and American businesses should have certainty in their tax obligation in order to invest strategically for future growth. By permanently extending the Research and Development Tax credit and business expensing provisions, American business can continue to have the important tools they need to expand, hire new employees, and compete in a global marketplace.

Finally, the FAST Act includes the following pro-growth, job creation provisions:

• Repeal of the Estate and Gift taxes
• Indexing of the Individual and Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation
• Reduction of the Corporate Income Tax from 35% to 25%
• Reduction of the Individual Capital Gains tax rate from 15% to 10%, while indexing it to inflation

These common-sense tax relief provisions stand in clear contrast to Democrat plans to increase capital gains tax rates to 20% for many current investors and to maintain the corporate income tax rate at 35%, which is the second highest business tax rate in the world.

I believe that American families and businesses deserve a reduction in and increased certainty in their tax obligation to the federal government. That is why I support common-sense tax solutions such as the FAST Act, allowing families to keep more of their own money and ensuring that American businesses can grow, create jobs, and remain competitive with foreign companies.


Fiscal Discipline in Government Spending
Clearly, American taxpayers are already doing their part to grow the economy and reduce the deficit. Yet our fiscal stability and deficit reduction requires more than continued revenue growth—spending restraint is critical. The federal spending spree must end, because every dollar the government spends, whether financed by taxes or borrowing, is a dollar no longer available for individuals and businesses to invest. While there is great merit in committing federal resources to worthy programs, these commitments should be made wisely, should cost no more than necessary, and should never displace what market forces can do more efficiently.

For FY 2006, President Bush proposed to terminate or reduce 154 programs to save nearly $15.8 billion. The Republican Congress delivered savings of $6.5 billion by following through on 89 of the Administration’s recommendations. For FY 2007 and FY 2008, the budget proposed to reduce or terminate 141 discretionary spending programs for an additional savings of $12 billion.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) commented that the President’s budget was “just more of the same fiscal irresponsibility and misplaced priorities.” However, the new Democrat majority in 2007 failed to take the opportunity to save the American taxpayers billions of dollars, opting instead to spend $6.1 billion more for FY 2008 than the current spending level at the time. This year, the federal budget for FY 2009 pushes discretionary spending to over $1 trillion—a spending increase of $241 billion (8.8%) over 5 years.

Instead of this reckless spending approach, I support balancing the budget through spending restraint, which includes eliminating wasteful or ineffective programs and prioritizing spending obligations. However, holding the line on discretionary spending is only part of a fiscally responsible solution; the coming mandatory spending crisis must be addressed promptly and effectively.

Unlike discretionary spending that is subject to annual review and oversight, mandatory spending (also called “entitlement spending”) continues going and growing on “auto pilot.”

While the federal government’s entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, provide valued assistance to millions of Americans, their costs have grown out of control. According to the House Committee on the Budget, mandatory spending continues to increase each year at an average annual rate of 6 percent—faster than the economy, faster than inflation, and far beyond the government’s means of sustaining it—and is estimated to reach $1.922 trillion in fiscal year 2012.
http://sessions.houseenews.net/images/user_images/Pages_from_Att_Emily-2.jpg
With mandatory spending currently consuming over 53% of the budget, we must address this problem by reforming and improving mandatory spending programs so that they provide better services at a more efficient cost for taxpayers. In 2040, the three primary entitlement programs without reform – Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone – will consume 20 percent of the U.S. economy, which is equivalent to the entire federal government today.

In the coming days, Americans will decide which economic policies are implemented: tax-and-spend policies or pro-growth tax relief policies. As your Member of Congress, my top priorities will continue to be job creation, economic growth, and fiscal discipline, and I look forward to working in Congress to achieve these goals to ensure that America’s best days lie ahead.

crobtex
11-01-2008, 12:32 AM
On the record, Reagan blew at economy and his people as much as BOTH the Bushes...just a fact.

Huh? Please explain......no opinions please, just the facts.

crobtex
11-01-2008, 01:12 AM
Why does that not surprise me! :rolleyes: If it's not your thoughts or something that you agree with, it's never worth your time. You seem like a pretty smart guy and have some good points and opinions, but your communication skills suck. I know this may come as a big shock to you, but you don't know everything and your opinions are not always right. You go beyond debate, you resort to drivel and sarcasm. I don't want to get banned, so I'll quit before I really say what I think. Have a nice life on that one way street.

Nothing personal, just my opinion.

Have not seen it till now. It is either erroneous or purposefully misleading. I will not speculate which.

It states that Obama does not consider letting the Bush tax cut laps a tax increase. That is largely false, because the allowed lapse is for only a very small minority of tax payers. I did not continue from there on. Why bother with falsehoods?

Adaminak
11-01-2008, 07:34 AM
MCMLV,

When you talk about Alaskans receiving more money per capita than any other state, are you still referencing the Permanent Fund Dividend or are you talking about federal funds in the national budget approved by congress? If it's the PFD I'll explain how the system started and works. If it's just federal allocation based upon the small number of folks who live in the largest state with the longest highways, I'll leave it be.

crobtex
11-01-2008, 07:45 AM
Don't get your drawers in a wad. I just thought it was funny.

http://www.dieseltruckresource.com/pics/data/500/Joe_the_Plumber.JPG

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 07:58 AM
Huh? Please explain......no opinions please, just the facts.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I think that the NASTY deficit climb under the three should speak for itself...when the deficit goes up as shown, lay offs begin hence putting a crunch on the economy...Clinton was doing SOMETHING right, yet gets bashed as the "starter of our problems"

crobtex
11-01-2008, 08:20 AM
Nice graph, but no doubt, the views are from a liberal perspective.

#1 probably helped create jobs, etc, but should have had better control. #2 was not a total Bush problem. Both sides agreed to go into Iraq with the same information they ALL had. I pretty much agree with #3....not near enough oversight. Not sure how much it effected the graph, but had action been taken on his and McCains warnings about fanny may and freddy mac.............

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I think that the NASTY deficit climb under the three should speak for itself...when the deficit goes up as shown, lay offs begin hence putting a crunch on the economy...Clinton was doing SOMETHING right, yet gets bashed as the "starter of our problems"

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 09:17 AM
Nice graph, but no doubt, the views are from a liberal perspective.

#1 probably helped create jobs, etc, but should have had better control. #2 was not a total Bush problem. Both sides agreed to go into Iraq with the same information they ALL had. I pretty much agree with #3....not near enough oversight. Not sure how much it effected the graph, but had action been taken on his and McCains warnings about fanny may and freddy mac.............

I'm sorry, but can you show me the CONSERVATIVE graph of our economic/national spending over the years? I failed to find that one when I did a search...they all looked the same to me? Maybe I'm wrong though...

If you are referring to the points BELOW the graph, I didn't post the link for them...I posted it purely to show spending throughout the years...that was the full intention of the post.

Deesil
11-01-2008, 09:34 AM
All any of this proves is that you can't change political minds that are made up. Trickle down economics has brought this country to the brink of financial collapse, yet it's still staunchly defended. Insanity. Always with the same argument. I just hope that the country puts aside it's prejudice for five minutes and does what is right for the country.

I think it's comes down to this, if you voted for Bush in 2004 you should admit that you have very poor judgement and should just stay home on Tuesday. [coffee] [duhhh]

ramlovingvet
11-01-2008, 09:36 AM
All any of this proves is that you can't change political minds that are made up. Trickle down economics has brought this country to the brink of financial collapse, yet it's still staunchly defended. Insanity. Always with the same argument. I just hope that the country puts aside it's prejudice for five minutes and does what is right for the country.

I think it's comes down to this, if you voted for Bush in 2004 you should admit that you have very poor judgement and should just stay home on Tuesday. [coffee] [duhhh]

Your history is warped. But you will never admit it. Bush my not be a republican Hero but if gore or kerry had been elected we would be so far in the toilet we couldn't see the rim.

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 09:46 AM
Your history is warped. But you will never admit it. Bush my not be a republican Hero but if gore or kerry had been elected we would be so far in the toilet we couldn't see the rim.

Just trying to get some clarity here...but how can you say what you just said? That is an opinion. For all we know, we MAY have ended up debt free under one of them whereas W Bush is one of the biggest spenders ever...not trying to stir the pot, just curious.

MCMLV
11-01-2008, 10:16 AM
if gore or kerry had been elected we would be so far in the toilet we couldn't see the rim.I have a proposal for you. I'll trade you my crystal ball for yours. Yours seems to predict only what democrats will do, mine is the same for republicans. That way we can foresee what our own candidates will do. How about it?

Deesil
11-01-2008, 10:54 AM
we could be at 40% unemployment, financially dead as a country, in the middle of a civil war and the die hard GOP's would still say if Gore or Kerry won we would be in a worse situation. Unbelievable. Some people just can't get passed party politics. Sad times we live in.

I hope the 4th is a verdict on failed policies and not a blind vote on fear.

McCain has run this entire campaign on be afraid of the other guy, not a policy debate. There's no substance, no real message other than calling Obama names. If McCain would run the country the same way he has run his campaign, then we will probably need the guns after all.

ramlovingvet
11-01-2008, 11:12 AM
as I have said before I don't want either of the clowns in office. That being said I do believe o will try to dis arm the people and be worse for the economy. In other words I see the lesser of evils. If I am wrong and it shows I will admit it. I also go back to the undisputed fact that o supports murdering the unborn. and I could never vote for a pro death candidate.
and if O trys to take our guns or ammo we may well have a civil war in our country.

ramlovingvet
11-01-2008, 11:15 AM
Just trying to get some clarity here...but how can you say what you just said? That is an opinion. For all we know, we MAY have ended up debt free under one of them whereas W Bush is one of the biggest spenders ever...not trying to stir the pot, just curious.


We will never be debt free under either party as long as we try to wipe every nose and support all the special interests..ON BOTH SIDES!
you think O will spend less/
I doubt it.

ramlovingvet
11-01-2008, 11:16 AM
now after those post will one of my left leaning friends show me proof I am wrong on either post. The parties are separated by very few ideas.
Wake up guys politicians are all like diapers.

Deesil
11-01-2008, 11:48 AM
now after those post will one of my left leaning friends show me proof I am wrong on either post. The parties are separated by very few ideas.
Wake up guys politicians are all like diapers.

Well opinions can't be wrong, that's the nice thing about opinions. They can however be unsubstantially biased. I'll admit that I was very disappointed when Obama and Hillary were the only two in the hunt for the DNC. I Knew it would come to this. This was the election for the DNC to lose. There is still a lot of prejudice in this country (unfortunately). And I'll admit as a white guy I've made my fair share of racial jokes, but I don't care if the guy is purple, if I think he's got the best policies and the best ideas to help get us out of this mess he's got my vote, which is why I'm hoping Obama gets to the white house.

makakoa
11-01-2008, 11:49 AM
I thought Liberals weren't allowed to drive Diesel Trucks? I thought we set some rules around here?

Republican: If it smokes I'll drive it.
If it has a trigger I'll shoot it.
If it blows up I like it.
If its in the Bible I believe it.
If he wears the uniform you support and respect him.
If they broke into the country, send em home.
If you mess with my friends or family you mess with me.

Liberals: I Like windmills and solar panels
I'm scared!
I like terrorists!
I drive a Prius.
I think the rich should pay for the lazy poor.
Oil is bad.
I hate rednecks

Well its ok, cause rednecks hate you too.

Sorry I couldn't resist, to each his own, unless your a Lib. :)

Adaminak
11-01-2008, 12:13 PM
... W Bush is one of the biggest spenders ever...

By raw dollars you may be correct, I haven't found the figures, and I don't feel like wasting time on raw data...it's usually meaningless without a context to base it from. That said, here are your biggest spenders, percentage wise:

Top 3 Increases in Federal Spending, not including defense, over the course of a President's tenure (from the National Taxpayer's Union, a non-profit, non PAC organization):

Franklin Roosevelt: 697% (Can you believe it?! During a depression nonetheless...no wonder he couldn't get us out even after 12 years)
Woodrow Wilson: 292%
Lyndon Johnson: 31%

To be balanced and fair, George W. Bush comes in 8th at 27.9%.

The same source ranks our congressmen/women on their propensity to vote for tax increases. The lower the number, the more likely a person is to vote in legislation that increases taxes. The top 20 taxpayer friends with the highest scores were all Republican. The bottom 20 taxpayer "friends" were all Democrats. It doesn't specifically rank Obama (probably because he wasn't around when the study was conducted) but Hillary Clinton ranks third from the bottom of the combined houses (or #532 out of 535), and during the primaries Obama admitted to voting for more tax increases than Clinton.

If Obama isn't going to spend more money, why is he so interested in raising taxes?

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 12:20 PM
I thought Liberals weren't allowed to drive Diesel Trucks? I thought we set some rules around here?

Republican: If it smokes I'll drive it. I have one and I'm not a set Republican
or Democrat. If it has a trigger I'll shoot it. Oh, I'll shoot it, just don't think
civilians have any business owning assault rifles and the like.
If it blows up I like it. I'll buy it...until some untrained fool blows
his own hand off because he doesn't know what he's doing. If its in the Bible I believe it.
If he wears the uniform you support and respect him.
If they broke into the country, send em home. Tell that to Bush!
He has some pretty opposing views on what to do with illegals
compared to what you just typed. If you mess with my friends or family you mess with me. 100%
agree and I'm sure that everybody else out there feels the same,
both Republicans and Democrats.
Liberals: I Like windmills and solar panels. Heck, who wouldn't if it makes
energy bills go down?! I'm scared! Don't get it?
I like terrorists! Heck do they? I have never met somebody that
thinks that terrorists are good folks.
I drive a Prius. With the cost of things: fuel, groceries, etc...I wish
that I had one too!
I think the rich should pay for the lazy poor. Naa...
Oil is bad. Really? If they feel that way (never met one) they
park their vehicles and walk.
I hate rednecks. So far, I am probably considered a liberal by people
on here because I like Obama better than McCain...yet I am from a
place in Southwest Virginia that I bet unless you're on here and from
there you have never heard of it...what was your point?
Well its ok, cause rednecks hate you too.

Sorry I couldn't resist, to each his own, unless your a Lib. :)

Just a couple of inputs...

Adaminak
11-01-2008, 12:38 PM
Okay Derek,

I've been holding off a while now hoping you'd say something to make me think otherwise; a little courtesy to a brother of the uniform. Unfortunately it hasn't happened, and I just can't help myself anymore:

What do you define as an assault rifle, and why do you think it's unacceptable for "civilians" to own them?

crobtex
11-01-2008, 01:13 PM
Did I say anything about not believing the graph? It's the simpleton explanation that was given that I though was tilted.

I'm sorry, but can you show me the CONSERVATIVE graph of our economic/national spending over the years? I failed to find that one when I did a search...they all looked the same to me? Maybe I'm wrong though...

If you are referring to the points BELOW the graph, I didn't post the link for them...I posted it purely to show spending throughout the years...that was the full intention of the post.

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 01:16 PM
Okay Derek,

I've been holding off a while now hoping you'd say something to make me think otherwise; a little courtesy to a brother of the uniform. Unfortunately it hasn't happened, and I just can't help myself anymore:

What do you define as an assault rifle, and why do you think it's unacceptable for "civilians" to own them?

I think that ANY weapon that fires in bursts such as M-16s, AR-15s, AK-47s or ANY fully automatic weapons are considered assault rifles...then you have uzis, mack 11s, etc etc...

The reason that I don't believe that they should be in the hands of civilians is because in the wrong hands are very dangerous...not only to themselves, but to society in general. One squeeze of the trigger on some of these weapons relinquishes 3-5 rounds IMMEDIATELY...some MORE.

Are general firearms dangerous too, such as bolt action rifles and revolvers...yes...are they in the hands of the wrong people daily...yes...are they AS dangerous as an assault rifle? NO.

Just in another forum, you and I had a discussion about the level of additional training that is required for just a semi-auto pistol as compared to a revolver to make the user safe...tell me that there wouldn't be MUCH more training behind an assault rifle to make the user safe than a bolt action rifle.

Having EVERYBODY out there legal to be in possession of assault rifles makes them more easily accessible to children and thieves who MIGHT use them for wrong.

Aww, what's the point in explaining why I don't think that assault rifles and fully automatic weapons don't need to be wielded by any Joe Sixpack out there? I'm not going to change anybody's mind or opinion on things when they already have their mind made up, whether they wear a uniform like me or not.

How about you tell me why you think that assault rifles and fully automatic weapons SHOULD be in the hands of civilians...oh and while you're at it, tell me why you think that McCain thinks that it is ok for Joe Sickpack to have access to frigging armor piercing ammunition for those assault rifles as well...

makakoa
11-01-2008, 01:20 PM
ahhh the classic assault rifle line....its funny that you hand a untrained lib a Ruger Mini14 ranch rifle and then a custom built AR-15 and of course the AR is much more dangerous even though they fire the same round at the same speed and both have the ability to hold more than 10 rounds with the right mag.

And in my opinion if you support Barack you are either a lib, just plain foolish, or someone slipped you the koolaid. No personal attack meant there Derek, just my redneck speaking. Just messin with ya!

Deesil
11-01-2008, 01:25 PM
I thought Liberals weren't allowed to drive Diesel Trucks? I thought we set some rules around here?

Republican: If it smokes I'll drive it.
If it has a trigger I'll shoot it.
If it blows up I like it.
If its in the Bible I believe it.
If he wears the uniform you support and respect him.
If they broke into the country, send em home.
If you mess with my friends or family you mess with me.

Liberals: I Like windmills and solar panels
I'm scared!
I like terrorists!
I drive a Prius.
I think the rich should pay for the lazy poor.
Oil is bad.
I hate rednecks

Well its ok, cause rednecks hate you too.

Sorry I couldn't resist, to each his own, unless your a Lib. :)

wow. That has to be one of the most impressively ignorant posts I've read yet. Is that the new Republican strategy? Just spew enough hate to scare people to vote for who you'd like to see in the white house? I can only imagine that you voted for Bush 4 years ago huh? That worked out so well for all of us. But I'm sure you are still in the 22% of America that think good 'ole Bush has done a swell job! I voted for Bush in 2000 because I thought he would be a good president. However, he turned out to be a disaster so I admitted I was wrong and voted for Kerry in 2004. You apparently have no idea what the Bible says or what it teaches. You sound much more like a hate spewing terrorist than anything else. [laugh] This new strategy is pretty easy! If someone disagrees with you....just call them a terrorist! It's working for John McCain [duhhh] It's working so well that this type of hate/fear and finger pointing is driving undecided people away from the GOP....so by all means, keep it up.

makakoa
11-01-2008, 01:27 PM
oh, and in most states its illegal to own a fully auto firearm, actually its a federal law but I think some states let it slide. Unless you are a specially licensed dealer or in the movie firearms prop business good luck finding one, unless you pay $10K plus for a pre-ban.

Get your facts straight, what you ignorant libs call armor piercing we call hunting rounds, I even heard some moron politicial lady say the the .50BMG was a heat seeking bullet and could bring down 747's....lol. I wonder if the make buck seeking bullets to, id like to get my hand on some of them...

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 01:28 PM
ahhh the classic assault rifle line....its funny that you hand a untrained lib a Ruger Mini14 ranch rifle and then a custom built AR-15 and of course the AR is much more dangerous even though they fire the same round at the same speed and both have the ability to hold more than 10 rounds with the right mag.

And in my opinion if you support Barack you are either a lib, just plain foolish, or someone slipped you the koolaid. No personal attack meant there Derek, just my redneck speaking. Just messin with ya!

What is the rate of fire on that Ruger compared to that AR-15? Assault rifles kill MORE in LESS time...that is why our military uses them rather than a bolt action rifle which has MUCH better range and is more accurate...why do you think that is? Kill more in LESS time...Civilians don't have any need for a weapon of this sort unless they are planning to kill MORE of something in LESS time...most assault rifles are illegal to hunt deer with (in my state anyway, don't know about the other 49) due to being too small in caliber...

You can call me a lib or just plain foolish...that's fine...everybody is entitled to an opinion. I don't like koolaid though...But I don't SUPPORT Obama, I just like him better than McCain

makakoa
11-01-2008, 01:30 PM
wow. That has to be one of the most impressively ignorant posts I've read yet. Is that the new Republican strategy? Just spew enough hate to scare people to vote for who you'd like to see in the white house? I can only imagine that you voted for Bush 4 years ago huh? That worked out so well for all of us. But I'm sure you are still in the 22% of America that think good 'ole Bush has done a swell job! I voted for Bush in 2000 because I thought he would be a good president. However, he turned out to be a disaster so I admitted I was wrong and voted for Kerry in 2004. You apparently have no idea what the Bible says or what it teaches. You sound much more like a hate spewing terrorist than anything else. [laugh] This new strategy is pretty easy! If someone disagrees with you....just call them a terrorist! It's working for John McCain [duhhh] It's working so well that this type of hate/fear and finger pointing is driving undecided people away from the GOP....so by all means, keep it up.


Oh don't get your panties in a bunch I was just tryin to be funny. I'll lay off the funny business as it gets you guys a lil worked up.

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 01:39 PM
oh, and in most states its illegal to own a fully auto firearm, actually its a federal law but I think some states let it slide. Unless you are a specially licensed dealer or in the movie firearms prop business good luck finding one, unless you pay $10K plus for a pre-ban.

Get your facts straight, what you ignorant libs call armor piercing we call hunting rounds, I even heard some moron politicial lady say the the .50BMG was a heat seeking bullet and could bring down 747's....lol. I wonder if the make buck seeking bullets to, id like to get my hand on some of them...

You must be undereducated or something to call me an "ignorant lib" in regards to weapons...I have a PRETTY good grasp on them as I have been around them my whole life. If you think that there is NO difference in a soft point core lokt round or a steel tipped or bronze tipped (both of these are designed for bear hunting more or less to penetrate thick hide and bone NOT STEEL or bullet proof vests) round and THIS then you are mistaken...

http://vpcblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/thve.jpg

I find it funny how quickly strict right siders are to start with the name calling and put downs when a soft spot gets rubbed by somebody who simply disagrees...[dummy]

makakoa
11-01-2008, 01:51 PM
So when was the last time you stepped into a gun shop and saw a fully auto assault rifle for sale?

When was the last time you saw specific armor piercing round on the shelf at the same shop?

If you are so educated on weapons then why do you say that a semi auto AR will fire faster then a semi auto mini14?

I can make my Ruger 10/22 fully auto with some modifications. The fact is that the black market guns trade will never die, but all of us law abiding gun owners will be punished for the criminals actions and left with no way to defend ourselves.

I live in Ca. and have to jump through hoops to have my collection of weapons, I have a file an inch thick at every government agency of the guns I own and that's fine with me because I don't commit crimes with them.

But I won't give up my right to own specialty weapons because one group of people think they look scary!

crobtex
11-01-2008, 02:12 PM
Huh? I didn't take it serious and though it was pretty funny.

He may be one of the 22% that thinks George did a good job, but I doubt if if he's one on the 9% that think your lib congress is doing a "swell job".

wow. That has to be one of the most impressively ignorant posts I've read yet. Is that the new Republican strategy? Just spew enough hate to scare people to vote for who you'd like to see in the white house? I can only imagine that you voted for Bush 4 years ago huh? That worked out so well for all of us. But I'm sure you are still in the 22% of America that think good 'ole Bush has done a swell job! I voted for Bush in 2000 because I thought he would be a good president. However, he turned out to be a disaster so I admitted I was wrong and voted for Kerry in 2004. You apparently have no idea what the Bible says or what it teaches. You sound much more like a hate spewing terrorist than anything else. [laugh] This new strategy is pretty easy! If someone disagrees with you....just call them a terrorist! It's working for John McCain [duhhh] It's working so well that this type of hate/fear and finger pointing is driving undecided people away from the GOP....so by all means, keep it up.

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 02:22 PM
So when was the last time you stepped into a gun shop and saw a fully auto assault rifle for sale?

When was the last time you saw specific armor piercing round on the shelf at the same shop?

If you are so educated on weapons then why do you say that a semi auto AR will fire faster then a semi auto mini14?

I can make my Ruger 10/22 fully auto with some modifications. The fact is that the black market guns trade will never die, but all of us law abiding gun owners will be punished for the criminals actions and left with no way to defend ourselves.

I live in Ca. and have to jump through hoops to have my collection of weapons, I have a file an inch thick at every government agency of the guns I own and that's fine with me because I don't commit crimes with them.

But I won't give up my right to own specialty weapons because one group of people think they look scary!

It's been a few months, but on the drive out here from San Diego, I stopped at a gun shop in Kansas and saw a pretty good selection, actually. Their governor made fully autos legal there a little while back...not a problem to find them at all...don't need a permit or anything.

As for the ammo...heck, do a google shopping search...you can buy armor piercing rounds ANYWHERE! LOL

As for the AR-15 assault rifle...they can be made fully auto EASILY. The paramilitary Ruger can not.

makakoa
11-01-2008, 02:24 PM
Derek,

So this web link you posted, did you happen to notice that those are French armor piercing rounds? And anyone listening to the crap spewed on that website better check their facts before buying any of it.

Read this site for yourself, man talk about socialist.

http://vpcblog.wordpress.com/

According to the gun violence statistics X number of people die every year from gun violence...now here is something I bet you didn't know. Those statistics include suicide, justifiable homicide, justifiable homicide by law enforcement agencies, and then good ol homicide and gang violence. It is estimated that up to 60% of those stats are suicide.

I am sure you are a good guys and we would sit down have a beer and a great debate and walk away as friends, so don't get butt hurt over any of this...I'm just a heckler by nature.

And trust me McCain was not my first pick, I was a Thompson and Huckabee supporter. Although you probably didn't like them even more than McCain.

makakoa
11-01-2008, 02:32 PM
You can make almost any semi-auto firearm fully auto with the right machining. You can make a Glock fully auto and put a 25 round extended mag in it. Should we ban those too? You can run down a crowd of people waiting for the bus with your Ram, should we take that away as well?

Mike D
11-01-2008, 02:48 PM
If you're a law abiding citizen with no felony charges or violent history you should be able to own any gun you want.

All the guns I own are either shotguns or rifles, my 30/30 brush gun is the largest. I don't need a assault style weapon but if someday I wake up and decide I would like to have one, I don't need anyone to tell which guns I can or can not have. If you're so worried about the public at large here in the United States, get out more and meet your neighbor so you won't have to live in fear! If you're still scared, get more guns than your neighbor and clean them often on your front porch.[laugh]

Of all the anti gun people I've heard talk, none of them have ever presented a good argument. It's always someone who thinks they know what's best for someone else.[yuk] Get over yourself and get out of my business![director][nonono]

makakoa
11-01-2008, 02:53 PM
If you're a law abiding citizen with no felony charges or violent history you should be able to own any gun you want.

All the guns I own are either shotguns or rifles, my 30/30 brush gun is the largest. I don't need a assault style weapon but if someday I wake up and decide I would like to have one, I don't need anyone to tell which guns I can or can not have. If you're so worried about the public at large here in the United States, get out more and meet your neighbor so you won't have to live in fear! If you're still scared, get more guns than your neighbor and clean them often on your front porch.[laugh]

Of all the anti gun people I've heard talk, none of them have ever presented a good argument. It's always someone who thinks they know what's best for someone else.[yuk] Get over yourself and get out of my business![director][nonono]


AMEN! Could not have said it better myself.

$oC@l CTD
11-01-2008, 04:01 PM
Derek,

So this web link you posted, did you happen to notice that those are French armor piercing rounds? And anyone listening to the crap spewed on that website better check their facts before buying any of it.

Read this site for yourself, man talk about socialist.

http://vpcblog.wordpress.com/

According to the gun violence statistics X number of people die every year from gun violence...now here is something I bet you didn't know. Those statistics include suicide, justifiable homicide, justifiable homicide by law enforcement agencies, and then good ol homicide and gang violence. It is estimated that up to 60% of those stats are suicide.

I am sure you are a good guys and we would sit down have a beer and a great debate and walk away as friends, so don't get butt hurt over any of this...I'm just a heckler by nature.

And trust me McCain was not my first pick, I was a Thompson and Huckabee supporter. Although you probably didn't like them even more than McCain.

I wasn't posting that link about any of the information on it, but for simply the photo of the cartridges...we make our own armor piercing rounds as well....that was just one of the first pics that came up is all...

Mike D
11-01-2008, 04:42 PM
Holy cow! Those freaks are nutz on the vpcblog... I was only able to stomach about 1 minute of browsing...[yuk] They're the code pink of gun control.

kbbt
11-01-2008, 05:11 PM
On the record, Reagan blew at economy and his people as much as BOTH the Bushes...just a fact.

I haven't posted on here yet but I have read every post and this has to be the most ignorant statement I have seen yet.

Under Reagan we had the longest period of sustained economic growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.

ramlovingvet
11-01-2008, 05:17 PM
you see he didn't have to make a living back then I was in the Service under carter and it was Reagan that brought us out of the toilet. Both the economy and Military. But if o wins he will see when they have no budget to serve. But our young friend wouldn't know that because schools don't teach history. They preach liberalism.

Adaminak
11-02-2008, 05:17 AM
I think that ANY weapon that fires in bursts such as M-16s, AR-15s, AK-47s or ANY fully automatic weapons are considered assault rifles...then you have uzis, mack 11s, etc etc......

There are selective fire, auto-fire and semi-auto only versions of every one of your listed weapons. The only difference between an AR-15 at Wal-Mart and an M-16 stolen from a government arsenal for example, is the trigger group which allows the M-16 to fire in burst or auto mode. These weapons (and the specific parts that allow conversion, like the trigger group) are already heavily regulated (in violation of the 10th Amendment) and not available to the general public. Only persons possessing a Class III Federal Firearms License may apply for the right to purchase one. Every single purchase of an auto-fire weapon (burst or full) is screened, reviewed and approved by the BATF.

The reason that I don't believe that they should be in the hands of civilians is because in the wrong hands are very dangerous...not only to themselves, but to society in general. One squeeze of the trigger on some of these weapons relinquishes 3-5 rounds IMMEDIATELY...some MORE.

Yes they do. We've already established that any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street can't buy an auto-fire weapon, and even if they could, the consequences of four beers and a set of car keys is much more dangerous to the general populace.

Are general firearms dangerous too, such as bolt action rifles and revolvers...yes...are they in the hands of the wrong people daily...yes...are they AS dangerous as an assault rifle? NO.

Here's a statistic for you to ponder: More people are killed by baseball bats every year than by firearms. Baseball bats are available everywhere, to anybody, regardless of age, criminal record, and mental stability. In countries that have banned lawful carrying of firearms (Great Britain, Australia, and Japan for example), baseball bats were the weapon of choice for most street gangs until they could establish their network of illegal firearms importing.

Just in another forum, you and I had a discussion about the level of additional training that is required for just a semi-auto pistol as compared to a revolver to make the user safe...tell me that there wouldn't be MUCH more training behind an assault rifle to make the user safe than a bolt action rifle.

We did have that discussion. And we both agreed...training is key to the successful implementation of a weapons system in times of stress. This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the possession of "assault weapons". It applies to training, and we can likely agree that most people need additional training in many things from driving a motor vehicle to managing a simple checkbook register.

Having EVERYBODY out there legal to be in possession of assault rifles makes them more easily accessible to children and thieves who MIGHT use them for wrong.

We've already established not everyone can legally own an auto-fire weapon. The remainder of your argument speaks great deals to how we are failing our children. I grew up in a house with firearms. A gun rack in the living room, another two in the basement, and depending on what hunting season it was, a rifle and/or shotgun in the garage by the back door. I knew if I touched any of those weapons without explicit approval from a parent I would not see the outside of my room except to go to school and come home. I also knew I would not get a hunting or fishing license that year, and I could count on losing any school activities, academic or athletic. In other words, I was taught responsibility, and that there was a consequence for my negative actions. I was also taught that good behavior merits rewards, and my Dad gave me my first centerfire rifle for my 15th birthday. I didn't run to the liquor store and rob the place, or hold up a bank. I cleaned it, and learned every little detail about how it works and what I could do to make it work better. I respected that rifle, and every weapon I've owned since.

Aww, what's the point in explaining why I don't think that assault rifles and fully automatic weapons don't need to be wielded by any Joe Sixpack out there? I'm not going to change anybody's mind or opinion on things when they already have their mind made up, whether they wear a uniform like me or not.

Sounds somewhat defeatist to me, but I'll tell you why anyway. This is still America, and intelligent discussion is the only way people are ever going to be afforded the opportunity to make their point heard. I was pro-choice for much of my adult life. What right did I have to tell a woman what to do with her body? Then I overheard a conversation that mentioned the rights and body of the unborn child, and I realized the woman can speak for herself, but the child has nobody to speak for it. I had already believed our Constitution affords everybody (born and unborn) the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It wasn't a very big step to tie the two together and change my view.


How about you tell me why you think that assault rifles and fully automatic weapons SHOULD be in the hands of civilians...oh and while you're at it, tell me why you think that McCain thinks that it is ok for Joe Sickpack to have access to frigging armor piercing ammunition for those assault rifles as well...

I'll ignore your smart @** tone. I've been nothing but professional to you, and I'd like to think you could continue to try the same.

Armor piercing handgun rounds, all incendiary and all explosive tip ammunition is already illegal. Same rules as auto-fire weapons, only this time the applicant has to explain why they want them and may be interviewed by BATF at their discretion.

As far as owning guns...I believe any law abiding citizen should have the right to possess any weapon of their choice. I don't care where they live or why they want it. The key here is that a law-abiding citizen by definition follows the law. There are laws in place that say you can't murder another person. There are laws in place that say you can't take another's property from them by force or deceit. It appears to me your entire premise is based around a fear of the general populace, and you'll feel safer if they don't have guns. The general populace doesn't commit violent crimes. Criminals do. Here are a few simple facts dating back to biblical times: People kill people. People will continue to kill other people until the last evil person is put away or dead. Bad people will continue to find ways to kill other people so long as there is a brain in their head. The only way for good people to ensure they remain living is the ability and will to defend themselves.

Blaming an in-animate object for a violent act is like saying McDonald's makes poor people fat.

jd03ctd
11-02-2008, 08:33 AM
Just a quick note.. People are tired of the wealth being distrubited upward.. IE oil company record profits. The govt has structured the regulations to make this possible. Meanwhile the general public suffers. Look at the bail out of AIG, then the upper management goes on a all out vacation retreat. Left to do what they want with little regulation. Management will ALWAYS take care of their own FIRST. My company is a good example. They started a bonus program for all employees... To reward good team performance we would get an annual bonus check. For the first three years each employee got the same percentage of annual salary. This year management decides they get up to 35% and everyone else gets up to 15%. What an incentive to try harder knowing they will always get more than 2x my amount.

crobtex
11-02-2008, 09:06 AM
I respectfully agree and disagree.

The oil companies profits are flashed on the the news in $$$. I haven't looked at their profit %, lately, but it has never been outrageously high. It's been awhile, and I don't remember who they were, but several well know companies had a higher profit percentage than Exxon. I don't have a problem with them making a profit. They employee thousands of people and provide a product this country cannot operate without.

I pretty much agree with you on the bonus programs and have seen the same thing where I worked. Some of the managers that controlled their operations well and produced a profit for the company deserved a good bonus. Too bad there was a bunch of worthless ones that got the same bonuses. [verymad]

Just a quick note.. People are tired of the wealth being distrubited upward.. IE oil company record profits. The govt has structured the regulations to make this possible. Meanwhile the general public suffers. Look at the bail out of AIG, then the upper management goes on a all out vacation retreat. Left to do what they want with little regulation. Management will ALWAYS take care of their own FIRST. My company is a good example. They started a bonus program for all employees... To reward good team performance we would get an annual bonus check. For the first three years each employee got the same percentage of annual salary. This year management decides they get up to 35% and everyone else gets up to 15%. What an incentive to try harder knowing they will always get more than 2x my amount.

Deesil
11-02-2008, 10:33 AM
The reality is you have to account for people's greed. On paper trickle down economics should work. It's a sound concept, again, on paper. The problem is that the ultra wealthy do not stimulate the economy in the same way that an increase in middle class people do. We've tried both policies (trickle down and trickle up) and it's been proven time and time again that trickle down does not work as well. In truth the ultra wealthy are in deep trouble when the middle class is in trouble. Recent example??? Look at the current financial crisis. The entire crisis has been a direct result of the common man not paying his mortgage payment. Some couldn't make the payment, some just chose not to pay the mortgage because of the value of their house dropped so much it was a better financial decision to let the house go and get a more reasonable payment. The wealthy are losing a large amount of wealth in the down turn in the stock market as a result of the common man doing poorly. It doesn't work the other way so much.

It's also a case of relativity. The top executives in the 60's were making 30x the average wage of their employees. There was still plenty incentive to work hard and make it to the top. Now the top exec's are making 300-400x the average wage. This means there are more people making less, and less people making more.

On the issue of gun control. I'm a staunch supporter of every american without a felony history of owning guns. Period, I don't care if it's a hunting rifle or an assault rifle. Law abiding citizens should be able to own whatever gun they can legally obtain. I also understand there are smart well-meaning people on the other side of the argument. My preferred candidate Obama is one of those people. Just because he votes for gun control doesn't mean he will enact new gun laws. It would be political suicide to do so and he knows it. The american people want their guns, he knows that, and besides there are much larger issues to address anyway. Just because a candidate has an opinion about a controversial issue doesn't mean he will try to pass legislation to promote it. For example, most GOP's are pro-life. The have had executive control for 20 out of the last 28 years and still the 35 year old Roe v. Wade still stands...why? More recently the GOP had control of congress AND the presidency for 6 out of the last 8 years and still Roe v. Wade still stands.

So stop voting for a candidate on one controversial issue. The controversy in the issue whether it's guns or abortion precludes a president to effectively do anything about it. The key is who will be the best president, not where he stands on one issue. The country isn't a group of tree hugging liberals v. a group of right wing bible thumping conservatives. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, which is why most presidents tend to avoid those controversial issues that are better left up to the individual states anyway.

patdaly
11-03-2008, 11:28 AM
Are general firearms dangerous too, such as bolt action rifles and revolvers...yes...are they in the hands of the wrong people daily...yes...are they AS dangerous as an assault rifle? NO.

Just in another forum, you and I had a discussion about the level of additional training that is required for just a semi-auto pistol as compared to a revolver to make the user safe...tell me that there wouldn't be MUCH more training behind an assault rifle to make the user safe than a bolt action rifle.


1.) You have never seen a decent shotgunner with a double BBl and 000 Buck. Bet I can wipe out a bunch more with it than you do with a semi AK.

2.) To say a Revolver is safer than a Semi is insane, unless said Revolver is UNLOADED, but then so would the Semi be safe...

The point is, bad things happen to stupid people, training improves stupid people.

Banning things just makes people more stupid..........

D2 Cat
11-03-2008, 09:01 PM
Is this how it will work?



In a local restaurant, my server had on a "Obama 08" tie again. I laughed
as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the
coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him
that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept He stood
there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his
tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The
server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the
waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application.

Ray Roton
11-03-2008, 09:14 PM
Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

GMScott
11-04-2008, 12:01 AM
Is this how it will work?



In a local restaurant, my server had on a "Obama 08" tie again. I laughed
as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the
coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him
that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept He stood
there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his
tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The
server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the
waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application.


Ha HA!! That's pretty funny, I don't care who ya are!! Unless of course you're the fellow who worked for the money and had it "re-distributed" to someone more in need!!
Make sure you vote to insure this DOESN'T HAPPEN here in America!!

Totallyrad
11-04-2008, 03:29 AM
Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full.
One from the white collar,
And two from the blue.
But come to think of it, non from you!
So get out your wallet and your check book.
Get out anything that my President hasn't already took.
Your retirement, your savings, your 401K,
I want it all and I'm taking it today!
It's called redistribution and I like it you see.
I've got what you've got, it was so easy,
No work involved, it was really quite a breeze.
Thank you for asking about my bags of wool.
But you should have kept your mouth shut,
And voted you fool!

Totallyrad
11-04-2008, 04:34 AM
The reason that I don't believe that they should be in the hands of civilians is because in the wrong hands are very dangerous...not only to themselves, but to society in general.

Are general firearms dangerous too, such as bolt action rifles and revolvers...yes...are they in the hands of the wrong people daily...yes...are they AS dangerous as an assault rifle? NO.

Just in another forum, you and I had a discussion about the level of additional training that is required for just a semi-auto pistol as compared to a revolver to make the user safe...tell me that there wouldn't be MUCH more training behind an assault rifle to make the user safe than a bolt action rifle.

Derek, one could make a similar argument about the vehicles on the road today. Take a diesel pickup for instance. You own one of those so this should easy. You purchased a vehicle that was manufactured to a certain set of specifications that met the laws on the books at the time the truck was manufactured. At the time the truck was built, it had the capability to kill, if used irresponsibly. And keep in mind, as the manufacturers do, accidents happen and good people make mistakes. Now, you have modified your truck to make it perform better. Your exhaust has been modified, probably removing the cat which violates Federal law, just like modifying the trigger assembly to make a firearm function as a fully automatic weapon is a violation of Federal law. You added programmers that changed the power output of your truck which also changed it's emission output. According to your sig, you increased the horse power output around 100 hp. That's almost 1/3 more than it was designed with and what additional training have you had to teach you how to drive it? I admit they may be out there but I haven't seen a performance diesel driving school advertised, yet. What, other than possibly high school driver's ed do most people ever receive in their life to prepare them for driving let alone driving a vehicle capable of over 800 hp? For the record, I'm a retired LEO. I agree that there needs to be some level of control as to the firearms available to the general public but I also think any more regulation is going too far. There aren't many things out here that can't kill you if used irresponsibly, firearms are just one of them.:cool:

rattlerbob5.9
11-04-2008, 07:32 AM
Is this how it will work?



In a local restaurant, my server had on a "Obama 08" tie again. I laughed
as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the
coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him
that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept He stood
there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his
tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The
server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the
waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application.


Excellent lesson i hope it sinks in after he gets over being PO and then at least tries to enlighten some of his fellow sheeple ..