The percentage I saw was not all that impressive...
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: I think if you look at his charitable contributions you will see he does - - Amanda
considering his income, and for someone who so wants to spread the wealth. I understand that you are not concerned nor alarmed by him. That's fine. To each his own. But I am concerned and alarmed. I guess we leave it at that.
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
Wow, impressive.. NOT
x
That's even more impressive
So why did McCain's people call Obama's people if they think he is a "terrorist?" 
Wow! Thanks, that's impressive...
Now that's a great link, I put it into my 'Favorites'!
Very impressive post! (sm)
I am being very serious when I say that I really enjoyed reading your post. It was very well thought out and well written. Excellent thoughts and ideas for problem solving. Seriously, maybe you should run for office (I am not being sarcastic). We definitely need more intelligence in the government and someone to somehow stop all the wasteful spending.
Great post  Thank you 
Wow. This is impressive. I agree.
You most certainly did do you homework. I am saving this post because I find these talking points extremely interesting and useful. This is a highly informative and painstakingly thorough analysis. Loved the part about the pastors. Some of my favorites among your observations are what would happen in other countries if McCain were elected, 1st amendment rights, "unpatriotic" accusations, the "competent" Bush, the unbelievable stance on torture from a former POW, his lack of support among his fellow senators, temper issues, the profanity and lack self control behaviors, vicious comments about the Clintons, the gloating, jumping up and down in anger, the slugging gestures and slamming his fists on the table (shades of Krushchev…he needs a shoe) and the very sobering point you make about being in control of nuclear weapons.
I had lunch with a missionary friend of mine yesterday and we were discussing the election and our impressions of the Saddleback civil forum. As a pro-life Christian, she finds herself uncomfortable and conflicted by her candidate choices. She is feeling forced to place one of her most focal priority issues (abortion) on the back burner for reasons I found interesting and surprising.
She does a lot of outreach work dealing with poverty, literacy, AIDS, legal assistance to illegal immigrants seeking legitimate status and political refugee orientation to US life while in exile from their country. Her past ministries/missions have taken her all over the world, mainly to most of the Soviet bloc countries, Turkey, Tibet, Mozambique and China, places she lived for various numbers of years. Her current special interest is in the plight of Moslem converts to Christianity who are living under one of the Islamic regimes in the Middle East. She is preparing to go there to live as part of her "calling." She is an amazing, compassionate, giving and courageous American lady who I am fortunate to know.
Her conflict arises out of her tendency to favor the democratic platform in view of her life experiences versus the abortion policy. The most interesting thing she said about this was how offended she is by the way Bush represents himself as an evangelical Christian while engaging in mass murders in Iraq, all the while professing how saved he is and how Jesus is his favorite philosopher, putting himself out there as a mouthpiece for Christians. I am going to forward this post to her and am fascinated by the insight she will have to offer in response to the issues you have raised.
I really would appreciate it if you could cite some of your sources. Clearly, you did not find some of this stuff in the mainstream media...or am I just looking in the wrong places? You could post an email response if you want to keep the attack dogs at bay….I know I would. So far, their silence is deafening in their lack of response to this excellent article. Thank you so much. You made my day.
Being forced to own up. Not impressive.
nm
Equal percentage is right, I think....nm
nm
Lying about a 16-year-old...less impressive.
nm
Sigh. They pay a higher percentage because they
thousands of times more wealth than each average Joe (and I DO NOT mean the plumber). We have a progressive tax system here, American as apple pie, and Obama only wants to adjust the rate back to where it was were 8 years ago....no socialist subversion in that. We all managed to survive the economic boom of the 90s, after all.
Furthermore, before pronoucing any judgements on this issue, check out the disparities in the (here comes that CAPITALIST phrase again) distibution of wealth in the US. If you do not want to research this yourself, just say so and I will post that information for the UMPTEENTH time.
Now, before you go off, Wikipedia is not the Communist Manifesto. Go to the link and scroll down a little better than halfway and read the section on the United States. If you are in the middle class, the information there will make your blood boil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
it's a lot higher percentage than McCain's - nm
x
Start with yourself - did you donate and what percentage?
Bet that is a big no, and $0. Seeing as you're so into helping others who cannot because of no fault of their own.
I don't think anyone on this board ever said we should not help the handicapped who cannot help themselves. Most people here whether they are liberal or conservatives have compassion. It's the ones who can help themselves, who are physically and mentally able to get jobs but they won't because it's easier to sit at home and receive that welfare check. By all means I am not saying everyone on welfare can get a job, but there are a good percentage of those that can (and pay taxes to help those who can't), but why should they when they are getting it for free. And now it will be even easier for them to get something for nothing.
Not everybody is only out for ourselves and screw everyone else. I donate money to a charitable cause - an Indian reservation in Arizona to help provide food and water to them. I wish I could donate more or to more charities, but I'm a one-income three person family, and I send money to my family back east who are having a hard time, which leaves me with nothing left over. Do I want government to take more taxes from me - no way....let me decide for myself which charities I want to donate to.
Not sure what the beef is here. I do not agree that we all are out for only ourselves, but in these economic times and people out of work and losing everything, how can you expect them to want government to take more money out in taxes.
So, I may be misinterpreting this message. Are you for the government taxing us more, or are you just mad at GW and his administration and want to vent. While your venting you should vent about what the Clintons did on their way out to include taking everything not nailed down not only in the WH but also on Air Force One.
What percentage of homes are owned by
Does anyone have numbers?
If someone makes 100 mill a year, you think $20K earner should pay same percentage?
that's just kookoo
Minorities do make up a lopsided percentage of the prison population.
But just stating that as a fact which is self-evident pays no attention whatsoever to the root causes of minority tension in our nation, nor address the fact that rich people with their various crimes tend to be well-connected enough to keep their butts out of jail, thus disproportionately skewing the prison statistics. Many more reasons can be advanced to explain the sad state of America's penal system, but none of that matters in the subject at hand.
Bennett's conclusion (as a member of the wealthy, advataged and least-likely-to-go-to-prison-for-his-crimes club) is that mass genocide would solve our crime problems.
Don't you realize how frightening that is?
|
