DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on April 10, 2012, 10:52:33 PM
-
Obama: I'm not trying to 'redistribute wealth'... (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-im-not-trying-redistribute-wealth/473116)
-
IIRC, Obama has even said he favors this notion of raising taxes on "the rich" by virtue of (their twisted definition) "fairness", EVEN IF it doesn't result in increased revenues
-
Basically Liberals want to redistribute the wealth.
Well....let's break this down a little.
If you go by the Forbes 500 list of the richest Americans and
tally up their assets you get roughly $500 billion dollars.
There are more than 300 million people in this country.
So if you just stripped them of their wealth entirely and divided it equally
among every American that would be a one-time distribution of $1,667!
Of course, you'd need that $1,667 for food because there would no longer be any jobs.
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/b117cfe8.jpg)
-
Of course, you'd need that $1,667 for food because there would no longer be any jobs.
==========================================
Because the members of the Forbes 500 are the only employers in the country?
That is balderdash. Most jobs are with companies owned by mutual funds and pension funds and shareholders who are not mega tycoons or companies not owned by mega tycoons.
-
Because the members of the Forbes 500 are the only employers in the country?
There you go again with "gotta be 100%" non-sense again
Most jobs are with companies owned by mutual funds and pension funds and shareholders who are not mega tycoons or companies not owned by mega tycoons.
Yes & those successful companies were almost NEVER founded/created
by mutual funds, pension funds, or shareholders
they were founded by men with vision...
something you wouldn't know much about
because it's almost daily apparent you are a "follower"
it's best to not punish/discourage the men with vision or you get less of it.
We dont need less of it....we need more of it.
we need more risktakers, more venture capital, more new companies, more startups
and before your typical little diversion
the point still remains
if you took all their wealth
the nanny state would still quickly be broker than hell!
-
and before your typical little diversion
the point still remains
if you took all their wealth
the nanny state would still quickly be broker than hell!
Precisely....since the issue has never been about compassion or the left's mutation of the term fairness, but about CONTROL.
-
Before we address the progress of Democrats' favorite class warfare gambit, the inevitable Republican coalescence is underway, with Santorum's top money man rushing to Romney's aid:
Foster Friess, the retired investor who spent nearly $1.7 million boosting Rick Santorum’s presidential run, is ready to help Mitt Romney. “I’m obviously going to be of help in whatever way I can,” Friess told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon, hours after Santorum suspended his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, cementing Romney’s status as the party’s presumptive nominee. “I’ve got some plans as to how I might be able to be of help,” said Friess. “The bottom line is, I’m going to be very supportive and I’ll probably have plans to share with you a little later on.”
Some of the commentariat noted that Rick Santorum did not explicitly endorse (or even mention) Romney in his remarks yesterday, causing a minor "snub" tempest that I view as overblown. The Pennsylvanian's campaign suspension announcement focused primarily on the people he had met along the trail, as well as his animating values. He spoke movingly of family and faith -- and of protecting society's vulnerable and marginalized. His speech did not lend itself to rote pronouncements of party loyalty. A full embrace of Romney will come, I have no doubt, but yesterday was a different sort of moment. Foster Friess' instant defection reflects the mind set of the vast majority of center-Right voters -- including those who have bitterly opposed Romney's nomination: We must defeat President Obama. As Republicans seek to keep pace with the Obama money juggernaut, some eyes may also shift Newt Gingrich's chief SuperPAC bankroller. Sheldon Adelson and his wife gave tens of millions to Newt's quasi-over campaign, but finally cut off the spigot last month. Will the Adelsons open their wallets for Romney in a general? The billionaire has hinted that he's open to crossing over to Romney when the time comes, and you can be sure the development team at Restore Our Future is courting him hard. I'll leave you with a few reminders of why the entire Republican field entered this race to begin with. Here's President Obama angrily insisting that he has no desire to redistribute wealth:
"So these investments -- in things like education and research and health care -- they haven't been made as some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another," the president said today at Florida Atlantic University. "This is not some socialist dream," Obama added, as he called for tax increases on millionaires today to pay for those investments.
He sang a decidedly different tune in his infamous moment of candor with Joe the Plumber in 2008, of course. The Romney campaign released a web ad "welcoming" Obama to Florida, where he made the claim quoted above:
President Obama Has Failed Florida Workers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6652e0aTI3I#ws)
Finally, here's White House spokesman Jay Carney defending the Buffett Ruse, which would have negligible impact on our exploding deficits, and won't create a single job:
Obama White House Says People Who Say Rich Can Pay More Voluntarily Are Idiots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWopbqiWE6o#ws)
The issue isn't rich people volunteering to pay any taxes, it's sanctimonious rich liberals refusing to put their own money where their statist mouths are, even as they advocate for higher mandated tax rates (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/04/11/obama_im_not_interested_in_redistributionbut_we_must_pass_the_buffett_rule).
-
No one has proposed taking all the money of these fatcats anyway.
You set up a strawman and knock it down in a fit of apostolic rage. All you accomplish is making yourself look silly.
-
No one has proposed taking all the money of these fatcats anyway.
Talk about strawman.......WHO CLAIMED ANYONE PROPOSED THAT??
You set up a strawman and knock it down in a fit of apostolic rage. All you accomplish is making yourself look silly.
LOL....noticed that mirror, did you? Taking lessons from the Master, Mr Obamination himself, it would appear
-
"Christians" proposed that, of course.
He said,
So if you just stripped them of their wealth entirely and divided it equally
among every American that would be a one-time distribution of $1,667!
-
IF?? You're using his hypothesis on "IF"?? In other words he never claimed it as if thats what was being proposed
But as i said, nice strawman attempt. You have a ways to catch up to the master, Obama, I'm afraid
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/d6d44449.jpg)
-
"Christians" proposed that, of course.
He said,
So if you just stripped them of their wealth entirely and divided it equally
among every American that would be a one-time distribution of $1,667!
If this is mathmaticly true , then the discussion of paying for any government program or entitlement with a minor increase in taxes on a small number of us is rediculous.
There just isn't enough there, there.
-
Bares repeating......
“Apparently, I’m supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine.” ...... Jerry A Allen, USMC (Ret).
-
No one has proposed taking all the fatcats money.
The proposal is to tax them at around 33% on income over $250,000.
-
No one has proposed taking all the fatcats money.
Nor has anyone said that anyone proposed so. We've gone over this strawman attempt of yours, already
The proposal is to tax them at around 33% on income over $250,000.
No, the proposal is in ADDITION to the already higher income tax they pay, that they are ALSO taxed HIGHER on their investments/capital gains.
MOST folks who are making just over 250K are NOT merely living on their investments, like Soros. They are generating an income, by virtue of the job they managed to raise up in, or the business they run, not to mention the employees they hire, to help run it. You and Obama not only want higher income taxes on them (which are ALREADY HIGHER than "the poor"), you want higher capital gains taxes on them so Soros & Obama can feel better about the distortion of their being taxed less than his Secretaries. Nevermind the checkbook they both have that could solve their guilt complex
But as the quote clearly helps highlight, the frequent efforts to criticize Romny, is based on nothing more than he has made alot of money. Why should anyone care, much less be angry, as long as he earned it legally?? the FAR MORE EGREGIOUS ACT GOING ON HERE IS WHAT OBAMA AND THE DEMS ARE DOING WITH ALL OF OUR MONEY, AS OUR DEBT AND DEFICITS GO COMPLETELY GREECE-LIKE OUT OF CONTROL
-
No one has proposed taking all the fatcats money.
The proposal is to tax them at around 33% on income over $250,000.
You think that Capitol gains should be taxed at 33%?
Seems as if this would impede the retirement plans of many middle class.
Suppose it happens that the tax rates become just as President Obama and Warren Buffet reccomend, is it not true that the increase in revenue has no potential for being enough to meet the need ?