Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

"spreading the wealth" is the Robin-Hood effect.

Posted By: Raising taxes in bad economy only hurts.nm on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: Equal percentage is right, I think....nm - aw

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

R-O-B-I-N H-O-O-D! Robin Hood or
nm
I think they are jealous and think Robin Hood could
nm
He is a radical.. wants to be Robin-Hood.
nm
Robin-Hood-Obama is not the answer here.
nm
I agree, too. Unfortunately, Robin Hood Obama
nm
O has talked about "spreading the wealth."
That basically means those who have are going to be taxed so that the have nots get more than what they work for.
Ridiculous. Robin Hood Obama is the fraud here.
nm
I so agree with you, Robin........
.
I'm not sure it will have much effect
I actually sort of supported John McCain when he was in the mix the last time (shocker!). I thought he had some good things to say. However, I could not vote for him now because of his stance on the war, no matter who backed him. I think that this election is somewhat different than others in the past. People are concerned with the issues more than ever, not just who is charming or has experience in this or that. They want the candidate that represents their views on a variety of issues, which include the war in Iraq. So, I'm not sure independents will be swayed by who Lieberman supports.
Robin Williams on the election

http://politicalirony.com/2008/11/30/robin-williams-on-obamas-election/


 



To the Bradley effect
You seem to have a negative effect on people.  My, my.  I just read a few of your posts.  Such great anger in such a small person.  I saw that you had mentioned God and his Word.  You must have skipped a few things in your reading because there are quite a few references in God's word as to loving your neighbor and doing unto others.....we are all created in God's image..... ya know, that kind of stuff.  Have you started your own religion yet?  Maybe you should.  Ya know the kind where you pick and choose what works for you and then just kind of chalk the rest up to mumbo jumbo.  I would be careful what you take away or add to the Bible, as God also mentions something in there, actually in Revelations, about changing his word.  But if you didnt read THAT part, I guess You don't have to worry. 
The obama effect

A very good link. - Says a lot.  I'm going to be getting this movie.  Explains some things.


http://www.hypemovie.com/?gclid=CKPSn--wzZYCFRsRagodZWPJyQ


 


I can see apologies have no effect on the likes of you. SM
Thank you for demonstrating that. It's funny, because several times liberals have mistakenly posted on the conservative board and then apologized and we never attacked.  A good example between the two mindsets, I would say.
Please remember the Bradley effect...

which I think will be the case here.


The Bradley effect is a fact,,,
perhaps you should read up on it. Don't be so touchy and defensive!
How about that trickle up effect Obama's been touting....sm
how soon do you think those homeless people and lower end workers are going to be helping out the economy, hmmmmmm?????????

Think they're gonna be putting anything in your stocking next year?



Obama and the Palin Effect (by Deepak Chopra) sm

Obama and the Palin Effect



Deepak Chopra - September 04, 2008


Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.




She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses . In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.



www.deepakchopra.com


Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect







Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst


"Sheehan has been involved in protests against Bush since last year. She founded Gold Star Families for Peace...She said she decided to seek another audience with Bush when she heard his comments about the war last week, after a spike in American deaths. The fallen men and women "died in a noble cause," Bush said Wednesday. "Their families can know that we will honor their loved ones' sacrifice by completing the mission."


"Sheehan said she wants to tell Bush not to use her son's death as a reason to continue the war, and to ask "why (Bush's twin daughters) Jenna and Barbara and the other children of the architects of this disastrous war are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble." ArmyTimes.com, August 8, 2005


For some, Cindy Sheehan's lonely journey through the shock and sorrow of her son Casey's death in Iraq is of no interest. What, they ask, is the big deal? One soldier killed, one mother grieving – so what? Mothers have no business meddling in the manly business of war, or expressing inconvenient, disloyal, unpatriotic feelings like grief or anger. Get over it, critics command, and think about "the mission" instead, a mission that "we should see through" so that other people can't make fun of us for "cutting and running."


Instead of focusing on one poor misguided woman, or on how many more Americans and innocent Iraqi families will be killed in this war, we're told to think about how great it will be when other people admire us for killing every terrorist and future terrorist in the whole wide world. Instead of thinking about the new fundamentalist Islamic "democracy" that Bush's war has ushered in for the poor girls and women of Iraq, think about "the good news" way, way down the road when they get used to wearing the burqa and live happily ever after. In short, Americans should focus on "the big picture."


But for mothers – even those who've tried valiantly to believe the president when he exclaims that the war on Iraq is a "noble cause" – there IS no big picture. For mothers of slain soldiers, there are only little pictures: their lost child smiling at 10 months in his high chair; riding his first bike without training wheels; opening Christmas presents (Hot Wheels, Transformers, or GI Joe); and making silly faces for the camera.


The little picture encompasses all those times when parents stay up all night with their sick children, or protect them from bullies, or wipe away their tears after a friend's rejection. It's not just the happy times that mothers remember, it's the multitude of little moments, little pictures in a parent's mind, of time and love invested in one's offspring. When this enormous investment is squandered by reckless military adventures that zip kids into body bags, parents are owed great compensation. And they are owed the truth.


Do George and Laura Bush ever imagine how it would feel if all they had left of their beloved child was, as Cindy Sheehan has, a few snapshots and an abyss of sorrow in their hearts? Must they suppress their natural compassion in order to convince themselves of their own administration's spin – that it's "worth it" when American kids die far away from home for reasons that have consistently turned out to be false?


Do the Bushes feel the earth tremble beneath their feet at the mere thought that thousands of parents of slain soldiers are beginning to ask questions, to see the folly for which their children died…to find their voice?


Cindy remembers the little picture, which is why George has been hiding from her. She is his worst nightmare, for she is not just Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey. She is Every Mother. And, no matter how uncomfortable it gets, she's not going to dishonor her son by saying, "Well okay, if you say so, I guess this war was worth my boy's life."


Support Our Wars or Else


What does it really mean to "honor" a soldier's death…and life? To say that he or she willingly died "to end terrorism" (impossible), or "make Iraq a democracy" (ditto)? Unless they were suicidal when they enlisted (I know one boy who was), dying in Iraq is not the soldier's "sacrifice" because by definition, a sacrifice is something that we choose and willingly make. Most young people never imagined when they enlisted – often for reasons their recruiters understood but their parents didn't, such as finding a sense of belonging, or escaping bad neighborhoods or dead-end jobs, or finding a way to afford college some day – that they'd be dead within a matter of months.


To swallow ridiculous, ever-changing reasons for the futile war that has killed over 1800 idealistic youths with their whole lives ahead of them is to take the easy, socially acceptable way out. Pro-war pundits and politicians constantly threaten parents with social disapproval and even hatred if they dare to question those reasons – and it's worked for a long time. Parents have felt pressured to mouth the hawks' lines, lest their love for their child be called into question.


What a devilishly mean but perfect system for subduing the parents of fallen soldiers! Politicians and talk show hosts threaten: "Support our troops (the war), or we'll accuse you of dishonoring your dead child." The last thing that worried or grieving parents can bear is the suggestion that they're "dishonoring" the memory of the one they love. And so they have acquiesced. They have submitted. Archie Bunker would be pleased: Like Edith, they've learned to stifle themselves.


Until now.


Protective Fury: The Tipping Point


One day, back when Americans lived in peace and we'd never even heard of the Bush dynasty or the plotting neocons whose reckless ambitions it would serve, I was watching a nature show about grizzly bears in their natural habitat. I will never forget one particularly electrifying scene that comes to mind whenever I hear about Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Mr. Bush's gated compound.


A large male grizzly came upon two adorable little grizzly cubs, who looked up at him with wonder and naivete; clearly, they didn't realize the danger they were in. To my great surprise, however, the male grizzly stood bolt upright as though startled, then starting running away from those harmless little cubs. Why on earth did he do that, I wondered. The narrator explained that the male knew instinctively that there's nothing more dangerous than a mother grizzly who senses that her cubs may be harmed.


As the huge male ran off into the woods, the narrator continued: "While the male grizzly is larger and could probably kill the female, he knows that in the process, her protective fury would leave him seriously, if not mortally, wounded. Mother grizzly bears will fight to the death for their young, ripping the flesh of any animal, no matter how large, that threatens their cubs. Coming upon the youngsters frightened the adult male so badly that he ran and hid because the mother, unseen but without a doubt somewhere near by, could at any moment sniff his presence and roar into action."


Human males can also sense danger, and know very well the hazards of facing protective mothers – particularly when other mothers are watching, too. This explains why the mainstream media has worked so hard to make antiwar parents of fallen soldiers look pitiful, and why George Bush is hiding inside his compound, hoping that Ms. Sheehan will lose interest and go away.


But what the president doesn't understand is this: She's not going to lose interest, and furthermore it isn't just Cindy Sheehan anymore. Parents of servicemen and women all over the country are beginning to see the little picture again. This is the tipping point, a showdown fueled by motherly devotion that will embolden other families to start questioning the integrity and fitness of this administration and this president: It's what I call the Sheehan Effect.


And that's the worst news ever for a man who can only see the "the mission," the big picture, and how noble it will look under "Bush, George W." in the history books.


against wealth redistribution

I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for.  My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes. 


Second issue.  It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon.  The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so.  Think about it.   Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a  mistake?  Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected.  The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected.  This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.


 


 


I don't really think a redistribution of the wealth
is the answer and don't necessarily agree with it either. What I would like to see though are these corporations, and individuals, that don't fairly pay taxes start paying what they are supposed to. They hide their money in off-shore accounts and redistribute it so they don't have to pay so much. I know that this happens, I started out in accounting in college and we had big long discussions about this. But I didn't have to have a class to know that this happens.
What exactly do you think spread the wealth
xx
I say YES to spreading the wealth

I am happy that FINALLY someone is standing up for the middle class.  I am happy that finally we will be given some tax breaks.  The wealth does NOT trickle down when the tax breaks are given to the upper class/business that fall in that tax bracket.  They do not create more jobs, therefore strengthening the middle class/economy.  What they do is line their pockets and get rich  and then save even more money and get even more tax breaks by sending work overseas and hiring people that will gladly work for way less an hour, therefore driving the value of American jobs down so that the rest of us, who are stuck trying to make it, find a decent paying job, are screwed.  I am voting for Obama and I think he is going to win.


spreading the wealth
no I dont and I dont want to.  But I do know about working my butt off and my husband his.  My husband has lost his job as a finish trim carpenter because of this ecomony.  I also know that since Bush has been in office, our lives have been that much harder.  Prices have gone up on EVERYTHING but our pay has not.  I also know that McCain did nothing but support Bush over the last eight years and only just recently has tried to separate himself from him.  Even McCain has said that he voted 90 percent of the time with Bush.  That is ALL I need to know.  By the way, not everyone who is having a hard time these days are people who refuse to work.  Not everyone that votes for Obama are people that are on welfare.  I have never been on welfare and would never be on welfare.  But unfortunately, the days of just simply working hard and getting ahead are gone.  It is NOT true.  I have been smart with my money, I work hard and I have been responsible with my credit but I cant see where I am getting anywhere. 
"Spread the wealth around"..also known as...
we are penalizing those who have worked hard, make a decent living, pay our bills and don't live above our means so that those who don't or won't do the same can ride our coat tails and not have to be responsible for themselves and feel some sort of entitlement. Some plan, placed squarely on the shoulders of hard working Americans who have done the right thing. Can you say SOCIALIST STATE?
Too bad that redistribution of wealth
won't benefit most of us.....it will benefit the low income people who want to mooch off of the government.  Besides, I still says that the middle class is fair game to Obama.  He will raise our taxes too....you just wait.
Redistribution of wealth...
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the 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 hom eless 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."


Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer.  Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.


Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?


The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct.  I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.


Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying
reparations, just not as blatant.
Redistribution of YOUR Wealth
Obama and Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. That will cost each of us MTs about $1,200 or so a year. He is proposing 3 new separte payroll taxes (new separate deductions) including his own bill now in Congress to "fight WORLD hunger." Sounds nice, but I would rather fight hunger at my house. If you think you are going to get a bunch of free stuff in return for all these new taxes, think again - that stuff will all evaporate after the election but the tax increases will remain, just like with Clinton. I heard last night that 57% of Americans think Republicans now control Congress - and these morons vote - scary.
Yes, need to spread that wealth around. LOL nm

So restribution of wealth

isn't taken away someone's rights even though it penalizes hardworkers by taking their money and giving it to people who don't?  I do believe that is taking away someone rights....the rights to keep the hard earned money that they earned and make their life better because that is what they worked for and we voted for that when we voted in Obama.


They still have the right to be together as a couple.  No one is telling them that they can't go out in public and declare they are a couple, etc.  However, to allow their union and call it marriage is something that many people cannot agree with and they have that right to their opinion and their vote has made that decision.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  If homosexuals want to be legally bound to each other......call it something else but keep the definition of marriage as a man and woman.


He is already promising redistribution of wealth and he ...
doesn't even have the job yet. That is not a lie. He has campaign commercials about it and he is Barack Obama and he approved that message. Have you read anything about his voting history and the people he has associated with most of his adult life? Of course he is socialist. Way left socialist.

I never said Democrats were socialists. I did say Hillary Clinton was one, and Obama is to the left of her on that particular issue.

You think calling someone a socialist is name calling?
talking about "redistributing the wealth" --
do you not think that is already being done? How about the earned income credit? Why should some people get back $5000-7000 on their taxes, never pay anything in, and all because their income is lower? That is definitely redistributing my wealth!
our government already redistributes the wealth...
I don't know why this is now an issue when it has not been being one - nobody cares about the redistribution of our wealth when tax time rolls around and all these people get thousands and thousands of dollars back from the IRS that they did not pay in, will never pay in, did not earn! Where do you think that money comes from - from us of course.

For example, I have a relative who makes $13.00 an hour but she never pays in a single penny of tax during the year and she gets a rebate of at least $5000 every year because of earned income. That effectively means, she makes $27040 tax free. That $5000 does not go toward income requirements for anything - she still qualifies for any government programs without including that extra $5000 as income.

Wake up people - our wealth has been being redistributed for years!
About all that redistribution of wealth silliness
That would be $1200 to nearly every Alaskan in addition to their already existing $2000 annual rebate. In a nutshell, Palin levied a windfall profit tax against oil companies, then will pay a portion of the revenues out as bonus checks to residents.

One might even suggest that, since Alaska has no state income tax, this was a almost straight redistribution of wealth using higher taxes on the oil companies to redistribute wealth to individuals. It's almost...socialist. Go Gov. Palin!!!
Correct. The *redistribution of wealth* is just that...

those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.


I think not. both related to redistribution of wealth...nm

An argument for redistribution of wealth

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


FY 2007


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 


Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes                               35%


Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)


Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  


3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%


4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 


Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 


5.     "Other"                                          2%


 


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    


 


If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   


 


A couple of other points of interest: 


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


 


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:


 


Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 


 


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    


                                  


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  


What pat of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
THAT is socialism and THAT is what he wants to do. Said so himself. Remember spreading the wealth? C'mon. Admit it. He's a socialist. Fair tax cuts go to EVERYONE. Not the rich to redistribute to those who do not even PAY taxes. THAT is socialism.
He's not lying about redistribution of wealth...
unfortunately. He is wholly committed to that one.
I'm going shopping before O can spread my wealth around! nm

//


No, wait! Not until he spreads enough wealth
nm
Obama's redistribution of wealth
I challenge all of you who are making such a big deal about Obama's plan for "redistribution of wealth" to do a little research.  Then come back and talk about it.  It's a matter of where the distribution is to go.  Republicans want it to go to the top i.e. Reagan's "trickle down economics"  and the institution of the earned income tax credit goes to him as well.  Tell me, who has benefited?  Maybe it's about time we go back to trickle up economics....sorta like FDR's "chicken in every pot."  Ya thank????
Once placed in context of unequal distribution of wealth,
So you decided the information here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth. didn't matter? What about here? http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html?

You cannot talk about dollar amounts of tax burden for rich or poor without talking about distribution of wealth. Economics 101. There is a reason they pay higher percentages of total revenues. Some of them make 345 times more money than the average mean income in the US, for starters.

This is the kind of thinking that will drive JM/SP to certain defeat in November. Do you not understand how out of touch this issue is with the mainstream?

The explanation you gave for the $6 billion tax you claim O would impose on small businesses is now applied to an entirely different context. The trillion dollar boondoggle still remains the descent from $559 billion suplus inherited from BC to the $400 billion dollar deficit we have after Bush's economic policies and war. BTW, lest we forget, JM voted to support 90% of these plans.

Sam, do not expect the American public will have this same short attention span you demonstrate on these issues or that the spell the NeoCons and femocons seem to be under in never-never land has been cast over the rest of us "lower brackets" with the economy in free-fall and no end in sight.
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us?  Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
obama's share the wealth plan

So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:


Obama_tax_returns_2


Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?


Share the wealth -- Karl Marx...
as usual, take from those who have worked hard, achieved something and made something of themselves and give to those who are lazy and irresponsible and who think they are entitled just because life hasn't been fair to them. What an incentive for a great country.
Redistribution of wealth American style.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.  Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.  Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).  Employee's share of this is 17.5%.


3.     Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues. 


4.     Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues.  Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.


5.     "Other"  2%


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.  Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:  Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items.


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s. 


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.


Spreading the wealth in action...love it!
nm
Good for you! Then you won't mind sharing your wealth (NM)
x
This sharing the wealth...the pub mantra that escapes no one.
"collective ownership of resources" in Alaska (straight out of the moose's mouth)....that VERY different, too?

BTW, tax cuts, tax credits, progressive tax system is VERY American and not the least bit socialist. Letting tax cuts expire and tax rates return to their previous levels is hardly a radical policy. Rich folks have ALWAYS paid higher tax rates under the progressive tax order. Until that system is replaced, there is nothing unusual at all about the proposal to adjust the rate, or the candidate who is proposing to do it.

Run and hide if you like, but don't expect to pull the wool over anybody's eyes except the choir members whose votes are already in McC's pocket. This hypocrisy will not be escaping the undecided independents whose votes can make or break the pubs bid for the White House.