TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama: "My plan will spread the wealth around"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama: "My plan will spread the wealth around" - Page 6  

post #151 of 174
A good article from the WSJ on how BHO's plan will NOT be attainable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html

Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.


The NYP reports as do several others, that the continued fall in the market is in advance of a possible Democratic spending spree post-election.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008...ic__133374.htm

I look at Obama's record differently. From his days as a community activist, to his years in the Illinois Senate and now his brief time in the US Senate, he has shown little inclination to deviate from his party's tax-and-spend orthodoxy.

And if he governs like a liberal ideologue - with a belief that the government that works best is the one that's biggest and raises taxes the most - he won't even have to work hard to get his way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't stop him - the Democratic majorities in Congress are only likely to grow.

And the markets know this - even if pundits (even many of the financial ones) refuse to face it.

No one can blame the faltering stock market solely on Obama's tax plans or McCain's own inanity on economic issues. But stock prices reflect current market conditions plus best guesses of what's coming down the road. And I keep hearing nervous traders and investors talk about "a lack of leadership from Washington."

post #152 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
A good article from the WSJ on how BHO's plan will NOT be attainable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html

Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.
IMO it doesn't matter whether it's Obama's plan or McCain's plan - either one will have to. Raising the debt by $1+ trillion into an economic downturn where tax receipts are going to fall across-the-board?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
The NYP reports as do several others, that the continued fall in the market is in advance of a possible Democratic spending spree post-election.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008...ic__133374.htm

I look at Obama's record differently. From his days as a community activist, to his years in the Illinois Senate and now his brief time in the US Senate, he has shown little inclination to deviate from his party's tax-and-spend orthodoxy.

And if he governs like a liberal ideologue - with a belief that the government that works best is the one that's biggest and raises taxes the most - he won't even have to work hard to get his way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't stop him - the Democratic majorities in Congress are only likely to grow.

And the markets know this - even if pundits (even many of the financial ones) refuse to face it.

No one can blame the faltering stock market solely on Obama's tax plans or McCain's own inanity on economic issues. But stock prices reflect current market conditions plus best guesses of what's coming down the road. And I keep hearing nervous traders and investors talk about "a lack of leadership from Washington."

MODS: I know we're supposed to stick to the discussion of taxes in relation to the "spreading the wealth around" so if this should be in its own thread, please feel free to start a new thread with it. But I have to respond to the idea that the stock market is falling because of the potential of a "tax and spend" President.

The stock market is falling because every day it looks more and more like a punishing global recession is upon us. Sony (Japan), Daimler (Germany), Microsoft (US), Samsung (S. Korea) - company after company in countries around the globe are coming out with weaker-than-expected outlooks. Many are providing HUGE ranges - some are just pulling previous estimates that were put out there. I mean - google just provided a 4th quarter revenue range of $1 billion dollars! That's UNHEARD of at a company where quarterly revenues are around $6 billion. At a time when people need clarity, the outlook is getting hazier. And it spirals - fear results in people pulling their money out of funds, which results in margin calls, which puts pressure on stock prices - so you get the "push-and-pull" of forced selling, bargain hunters, and then more outlooks that push the reality of a deep global recession closer to reality - and you get more selling. What's going on in the stock market has very little - if anything - to do with the potential of a democratic president. WHOEVER would win, that person is going to inherit a huge budget deficit and an outrageous debt bill.

Everyone points to valuations on the S&P, and they tend to use the "multiple of earnings" and the dividend yield. HELLO? Those earnings projections are coming down - and by boatloads. And companies are cutting those dividends. So point to valuations all you want - the stock market continues to fall because those numbers continue to fall. I won't bother providing links because they're just "gibberish," but if anyone wants documentation, I have it.

Laurie
post #153 of 174
But how does anyone know for sure that's why its falling? Why can't other analysts have other theories, such as the market is looking far forward? I don't distrust your theory, since you work in the field. But I am willing to consider any and all opinions, and I found several that agreed with the possibility that the markets are reacting to a future with limited opportunities.
post #154 of 174
Someone better rein in the Democrats trying to spend more monies.... that'll subvert BHO's plan for "cutting spending"

http://townhall.com/news/us/2008/10/...ebuild_economy

Even though Congress is in recess, Democrats have held several hearings this week to make the case for a $150 billion or more economic stimulus measure to follow the $700 billion bank rescue passed three weeks ago. A round of tax rebates and business tax breaks passed in February was credited with giving the economy a modest boost over the summer, but fears of a protracted recession after the credit crisis have Democrats promising more.



Maybe they need to do some mailouts and share notes???? Doesn't sound like they're on the same page to me.
post #155 of 174
Looks like he's had this idea for awhile. A 2001 interview with WBEZ in Chicago.

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



“One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement…was..the tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities…through which you bring about Redistributive Change.”

post #156 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Looks like he's had this idea for awhile. A 2001 interview with WBEZ in Chicago.

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



“One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement…was..the tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities…through which you bring about Redistributive Change.”

Obama in that interview said, "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted."

That's the whole quote.

If someone could come along and tell me how that equals Socialism I'd be happy.
post #157 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
Obama in that interview said, "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted."

That's the whole quote.

If someone could come along and tell me how that equals Socialism I'd be happy.
Erm, sounds like he wants the Constitution out of the way.

I listened to and read the whole thing. I think he misinterprets the Constitution as a document to be evolved into what the Government is allowed to do to us, not what they are prevented from doing. Saying the SCOTUS isn't set up to handle it, that the legislative sdie has to.

The Constitution exists to put limits on what they can do. BHO wants to scrap that. He calls it "a charter of negative liberties." The founders intended it to show the limits of the Federal government, not leave it open and add to it forever and ever.

And for the record, "redistribution of wealth" is Marxism, not Socialism. All those ism's get confuzzling for people. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.
post #158 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Erm, sounds like he wants the Constitution out of the way.

I listened to and read the whole thing. I think he misinterprets the Constitution as a document to be evolved into what the Government is allowed to do to us, not what they are prevented from doing. Saying the SCOTUS isn't set up to handle it, that the legislative sdie has to.

The Constitution exists to put limits on what they can do. BHO wants to scrap that. He calls it "a charter of negative liberties." The founders intended it to show the limits of the Federal government, not leave it open and add to it forever and ever.

And for the record, "redistribution of wealth" is Marxism, not Socialism. All those ism's get confuzzling for people. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.
Obama is a Marxist now?

Okay.

Somehow rolling back the Bush tax cuts makes a man a Marxist. Who knew?

It's this kind of name calling that is going to drive people away from the Republican party.
post #159 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
Obama is a Marxist now?

Okay.

Somehow rolling back the Bush tax cuts makes a man a Marxist. Who knew?

It's this kind of name calling that is going to drive people away from the Republican party.
Sorry Heather, I never called him either. Just defining principles.

And this goes beyond rolling back tax cuts.
post #160 of 174
Obama wants to spread our wealth around but not his own.

First there was his tax records which showed a minute amount of charitable donations.

Then his poor brother in Kenya living a 1 dollar a month that Barack can't be bothered to help.

Now this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5042571.ece

Quote:
Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama's best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston. A second relative believed to be the long-lost "Uncle Omar" described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a "sawed-off rifle" while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.
If a person doesn't help their own family, why would anyone think he cares about the American people.
post #161 of 174
Awww, looky. A new version of his plan.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-new-atta.html

"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.



Pffftttt.
post #162 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
And for the record, "redistribution of wealth" is Marxism, not Socialism. All those ism's get confuzzling for people. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needsâ€.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each...s_contribution

Marx never actually said that. He did say some very similar things, however.
post #163 of 174
That is what kills me, he sure is generous with my money but not his own. That is hypocritical to me.
He doesn't help his family , he doesn't even give to charity. He gave next to nothing until this past year when he knew he was running for president, he upped it a few grand, but still very, very low charitable donations for his total income.

Especially hypocritical, such low donations for a man that professes
to care so much about his fellow Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us...in&oref=slogin

Quote:
The Obamas’ returns are striking on a number of levels. They show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.
See what I mean? He is a total phony. He wants to spread MY wealth around but, oh no, don't touch Barack's wealth.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...-releases.html

The percentages listed are for his adjusted gross income, so base it on his total gross income and those percentage rates for charitable donations go down to almost nothing.
His hypocrisy makes me ill.

Oh, and one more thing, where is his 2007 tax return that he promised to release? Another lie I guess. And people call poor old Joe the Plumber a liar.
post #164 of 174
Holy Cow, I didn't think it could get any worse than Obama's dismal record of charitable donations until I decided to look up Joe Biden's

Good grief, he is a miser, he should be called, Uncle Scrooge.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...able-donations

My dogs give more to charity than Biden the scrooge and his wife.

Quote:
Despite income ranging from $210,432 - $321,379 over the ten-year period, the Bidens have given only $120 - $995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06% - 0.31% of their income. [...]

It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% - 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007. During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity.

Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"

Update: Independent Sector reports that 89% of American households contribute to charity, with an average contribution of $1,620 -- 3.1% of income.

IRS statistics reveal that the average taxpayer with AGI over $200,000 makes over $20,000 of charitable contributions.
Talk about NOT walking the walk, the sheer gall of these two, to even talk the darn talk, is unbelievable
post #165 of 174
In the interest of being fair and balanced, here are the links to my two.

Palin
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260733
Quote:
Sarah Palin released her tax records for the years of 2006 and 2007, showing her income, and how much she paid in income taxes. She has given more to charity compared to Joe Biden's combined totals since 1998.

The Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin and her husband Todd, earned $166,080 in 2007 and paid out $24,738 in income taxes, which is in line with national averages at 14.9 per cent of their income.

McCain, now I realize he has a very wealthy wife who is heir to a fortune, they also have a Pre-Nup. Cindy McCain and John McCain file separately.
http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=4437
Quote:
John McCain Discloses Data on His Charity Giving

By Grant Williams

Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has released his tax returns for the past two years, including details about the money he donated to charitable causes.

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.
post #166 of 174
Watch and weep. And notice the middle class is left out in this grand plan, revealed months ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueCxeXZAUU
post #167 of 174
Video no longer availble Neet. I think the Gestapo had it removed.
post #168 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Video no longer availble Neet. I think the Gestapo had it removed.
It just came up for me. Maybe you just caught it when the servers were too busy
post #169 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
Obama is a Marxist now?

i.

yes obama is a marxist
post #170 of 174
Maybe he should have spread some of the wealth he could have dispersed as a community organizer into his own district.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnESx4KDeQI

Sad. These are people he represented. And he wants to expand the federally-subsidized housing programs.
post #171 of 174
That is sad. It just goes to show you, throwing money at a problem does absolutely no good. But Democratic politicians will continue to throw money at it with no result, over and over and over and over again. It is how they buy votes.
post #172 of 174
I would've thought people making over $250k a year would have better things to do.

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280

Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

"I want my money today! It's my money. I want it right now!" yelled one former campaign worker.

A former spokesman for the Obama campaign said 375 people were hired as part of the Vote Corps program and said people signed up to work three-hour shifts at a time. Three hours of canvassing got workers a $30 pre-paid Visa card
post #173 of 174
So Joe the Plumber still doesn't believe in sharing the wealth? Fox News dissed him for collecting welfare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPzW2XELAfw

It's interesting to hear the things that Fox News is starting to broadcast post election.
post #174 of 174
Could this be what Obama was talking about when he mentioned a civilian service plan?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama: "My plan will spread the wealth around"