Share the wealth -- Karl Marx...
Posted By: voteinde on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: obama's share the wealth plan - Peg
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.
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
You and Karl Marx would have gotten along
If I understand you correctly, you're characterizing religious people as either ignorant or lacking in mental capacity.
Are you quite sure that's a position you'd care to defend? If so, let the games begin (but be sure you know a great deal about religion before you answer).
If we can't share the wealth, we can at least share a laugh...nm
x
obama's share the wealth plan
So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:
![Obama_tax_returns_2](http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/images/2008/03/25/obama_tax_returns_2.jpg" "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?
McPalin new FL stump promise: Will SHARE THE WEALTH of
McSocialist: Drill baby drill, my friends, my friends, my friends, my friends. Alternative nuclear energy safety: Blah, blah,, blah, blah!. Yeah, baby!
McSocialist promises to SHARE THE WEALTH from offshore drilling revenues
At least he and SP seem to be on the same page today. SP: "...and Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"....boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, quote "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”
Marx: Centralize credit in the banks.
private property. Right any bells?
I think it was Karl Rove
...who just recently stood up in front of the nation and did the broadest stroking of all concerning conservatives and liberals, didn't he? When you have a Republican President whose #1 spokesperson sees fit to denigrate, insult and impugn the integrity and Americanism of ALL liberals (and what the heck is his job title anyway?) - I don't think liberals are going to waste much more time and patience being too touchy-feely about watching their generalizations concerning conservatives. Of course I'm speaking for myself - but if you can give me a good reason why we should put up with that kind of official pig squeeze and be nice about it too, let me know.
Otherwise I like your post, LOL - it is good to be reminded now and then that there are indeed many shades of gray and not everyone feels the same about every issue, even within a loosely coordinated group. This is very true. Happily this becomes very apparent when people take the time to communicate with others one-on-one and really make an effort to stay civil and keep a feeling of good will.
Of course, after the picture of the Liberal Hunting License I saw today, proudly displayed on the back window of a 40-grand SUV next to an American flag decal - well I sort of lose that sense of humor about conservatives that I normally try to maintain. Maybe someone should hang around and try to communicate with that guy in a nice and civil way? How about you?
Fox said Karl Rove was
working furiously with a ventiloquist as late as yesterday afternoon.
Better yet vote for Karl Rove nm
nm
Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, et al. sm
Hilariously shows how the hipocrasy knows no bounds:
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086
This above is a link to the Daily Show with John Stewart. I love his show, and Stephen Colbert's. I'm not a political junkie (yet) so I need a *lot* of comic relief with my politics in order to stomach it.
Both sides are hypocrites, it's true. But I swear, the Republicans are so much funnier. The mental gymnastics they're having to go through in order to claim SP has "experience" alone is a sight to see. (Watch the clip above if you don't believe me. Oh, and you can see S. Palin making a good point near the end of it for all of you who are fans of hers.) In fact, Jon Stewart said he's putting "county first" in supporting Obama, because McCain being the pres. would make his job (as a comedian) so much easier... 
Oh, and have no fear, anyone. I balance out the political comedy with a healthy dose of serious political coverage too. The most serious I can find lately is the stuff on PBS. You know, the calm, old-style journalism type, free of the crawl at the bottom of the screen, free of all the hype and wild graphics at the bottom of the screen, free of people shouting because they actually take turns letting each other talk. Anybody else miss that kind of reporting, where it's kinda boring to watch and you have to actually listen and pay attention to more than sound bites? Ah, well. I'm rambling...
Karl Rove -- why isn't this moron in jail yet? (sm)
Yep, he has refused to show for yet another subpoena, this time because Bush seemingly wrote a letter 4 days before leaving office saying he didn't have to show up? Give me a break! This guy is such a crook and needs to be put under the jail. I hope they fry him. I wonder what would happen to any of us who refused to show up for a subpoena.....about 3 or 4 times, that is.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240/?gt1=43002
You are wrong. Karl Rove is working FOR the McCain campaign.
.
Please share, then
Please share who they really are, since you seem to know. I've been following this board for 4 years or so and I surely don't know who this poster is. Whoever they are, though, they speak the truth about your postings, Observer. You are not always the "lively" debater you claim to be when you utilize sarcasm, accusation and put-down so frequently.
I do notice that the posters from the Conservative board repeatedly accuse the posters on the Liberal board as all being the same person. Dream on.
probably not- they just share
the same talking points.
okay, let me share something with you
I found myself alone and with two children with NO child support for quite a while and YES, it does stink but you know I found a job and continued to better myself, eventually receiving a little over $200 a MONTH in child support for 2 children. Now, I don't blame anyone for my situation. I made some poor choices along the way and I PICKED MYSELF BACK UP, prayed,and did the best I could. I received AFCD for ONE MONTH... I received food stamps for ONE MONTH and after that the only other thing that helped me was a little bit of help to cover what my insurance through work didn't cover for my children; that lasted about a year. After that, not a thing... I was back on my feet, I was making better money and working two jobs, one from home. There is all sorts of help out there already and it is awful nice that it was there to help me and my children in our time of need but ya know what?? I was grateful for that. I never once thought I was owed that help and never once complained when that help stopped.
I also know a couple of people who took advantage of the financial aid for school, etc. and when they were done they were able to make the money they needed to survive.
I feel for your daughter, I really do..... but it will get better if she keeps going and strives for more than the $10/hour job.... raise her expectations a little bit and she will get there.... You know no one said this life was going to be easy and I've had my share of hardships too, mostly brought on by poor choices. I will pray for your daughter this evening and I hope things will get better for her.
There are good people out and there may be room for more help to the ones who are helping themselves if the ones who are not willing to change their circumstances and are satisfied with all the help they get continue to live off the taxpayers' money.
IMO if someone is receiving ANY kind of government assistance, they need to be drug tested and made to be accountable for every cent they receive. If they can't NO MORE HELP. PERIOD.
There are plenty of people out there on disability for back injuries for instance who are collecting a check and who knows what else YET they go out and paint houses or do construction work and get paid under the table. Do you know that in Indiana, if you receive disability, once you are approved, they do not check again, unless they have received a complaint and even then, no guarantee they would lose it. Funny how I personally know someone who applied for disability and received it within 2 months and I know another person who had to use continuous oxygen and had other real medical issues that kept him from working and he had to appeal a denial for two years, after having to retain an attorney, before they would approve his. There is something definitely wrong with that picture.
Also, there are so many people in the grocery line, using their WIC or food debit cards and then go outside to a nicer car than I have... maybe it's a relatives, who knows? But they are dressed in nice clothes and eating steak and high $$$ food that I can't always fit into our budget, and I see them with 5 kids.
Some people learn from their mistakes and some people don't think they have made mistakes and continue to manipulate the system and quite frankly it disgusts me.
Sorry this is so long, I haven't even said everything I would like, but I sincerely hope something works out for your daughter.
I would try if you had any to share.
x
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.
Thanks, that was great. May I share
You've probably already read it, but it's worth reading more than once.
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
By Garrison Keillor August 26, 2004
Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned—and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.
In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.
The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.
Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.
Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.
The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.
Our beloved land has been fogged with fear—fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.
There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it’s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn’t the “end of innocence,” or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn’t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.
Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.
This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm.
The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.
This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger.
Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.
I don't think it's safe too share too much on here. SM
I did it once and I was crucified for it. Won't do it again. Truthfully, and this is not meant to be mean, I don't think I would have much in common with most on this board at all.
Please share with me how I'm 100% wrong here.
.
I do not share your minimization....
of a very accomplished woman. And I agree that the American people are intelligent enough to realize that fact.
Obama = socialism and redistribution of wealth, and all his "plans" will stick a knife in the heart of an already challenged economy.
NOBAMA. :)
I don't share her views but no need to ban her. nm
Website I'd like to share...
Disclaimer: It will probably not appeal to the McCain supporters, so need for you make snarky remarks about it.
I don't even know how I ended up at this site, but it has so many topics on it, instead of recommending a link just to one or two, I'll give the whole page. Be sure to scroll down.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/ (although I don't consider myself a 'wonk' LOL)
Try the home page too:
http://thinkprogress.org/
One of my favorite political websites, that I've been going to every day (and causing me to spend far less time on this board) is Talking Points Memo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Would anyone else like to share their favorite websites that are lib or nonpartisan? TIA
They share the SAME PHILOSOPHIES!!!
It has nothing to do with Ayers being an advisor, mentor etc. THEY SHARE THE SAME PHILOSOPHIES -- don't you guys get it????
maybe they can share technology....I would take one of these too!
http://www.teslamotors.com/
I wish I could share your confidence. (sm)
Bush made frequent use of "signing statements" in order to get what he wanted, and not all of them were publicized at the time. He would sign the bill and then add a little "P.S." that basically nullified it if Bush so chose.
If this vehicle is available to Obama, as well, then we may not know it for a while. 
Please be so kind as to share where
you get your information. I am interested in reading or watching what has you so concerned. My interpretation of current events is much different than yours appear to be.
Please share the stories of these
Poor mistreated, misguided kids. If this were happening, the nightly news would be flooded with stories, continuously, nonstop day in and day out. That's all you would hear. Please give us a break. You are breaking my heart...
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
|
