Let's be honest here

reply to post by bkcrt


Incorrect. He is keeping it the same for those between 200-250k. Above 250k is a tax increase.

reply to post by skeptic1


Good to hear.

I will be more than happy to discuss your unhappiness with possible policy he implements in the future due to your level-headedness now.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by bkcrt

 

Incorrect. He is keeping it the same for those between 200-250k. Above 250k is a tax increase.

Kind of irrelivent. The amount does not matter. The act does. Don't try to change the focus. Stealing is stealing.

reply to post by bkcrt


It's changing the tax bracket. It's been done by virtually every president before him.

Why is it only stealing now? Why wasn't it stealing when Bush did it?

Originally posted by bkcrt
And "spreading the wealth" as he puts it, is socialism.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

But I'll not argue it with you here. You might want to do some research on "Socialism" to find out what it actually is. The term "Spreading the wealth" is highly subject to interpretation, and DEFINITELY does not necessarily mean the dreaded Socialism.

I was just trying to find out what you're really afraid of. And I can see that you might disagree with his tax policies, which, IMO, doesn't necessarily translate to "fear", but rather disagreement. I think people have forgotten what "fear" really means. When they disagree with something, they become afraid... It's too bad, really.

Originally posted by bkcrt
Stealing is stealing.

So... ALL taxes are "stealing", right? We are being stolen from now. Why weren't you afraid before this? Why are Obama's taxes particularly frightening, when the government's been stealing from you all along?

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bkcrt
And "spreading the wealth" as he puts it, is socialism.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

But I'll not argue it with you here. You might want to do some research on "Socialism" to find out what it actually is. The term "Spreading the wealth" is highly subject to interpretation, and DEFINITELY does not necessarily mean the dreaded Socialism.

I was just trying to find out what you're really afraid of. And I can see that you might disagree with his tax policies, which, IMO, doesn't necessarily translate to "fear", but rather disagreement. I think people have forgotten what "fear" really means. When they disagree with something, they become afraid... It's too bad, really.

Originally posted by bkcrt
Stealing is stealing.

So... ALL taxes are "stealing", right? We are being stolen from now. Why weren't you afraid before this? Why are Obama's taxes particularly frightening, when the government's been stealing from you all along?

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Taxing people and spending the money on things they use everyday like roads and military is fine. Taxing people to "Spread the wealth" and using it to fund programs for those who have not earned it is not ok.

Taxes should be used for public works, military and government. Not for social programs. Leave it to the public to develop social programs for themselves or they become dependant on government.

From Dictionary.com:

6 dictionary results for: socialism
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

I think "spreading the wealth" falls under that definition. Oh, and that 3rd bullet in that definition is the scarest part of all.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by bkcrt]

Originally posted by bkcrt
Taxing people and spending the money on things they use everyday like roads and military is fine. Taxing people to "Spread the wealth" and using it to fund programs for those who have not earned it is not ok.

Our taxes ALREADY go to programs like Welfare and Social Services, health care for the poor and so on. Who do you think pays for that? Are you scared yet? If you're not scared of the current tax system (or more specifically the way the taxes were structured under Clinton, when we had all that job growth and great economy), it doesn't hardly make sense that you're scared we'll be going back to those tax schedules.

Were you scared under Clinton?

Or are you just anti-Obama and spouting the talking points?

I think "spreading the wealth" falls under that definition. Oh, and that 3rd bullet in that definition is the scarest part of all.

I understand that you're shaking in your boots about Socialism, but I don't understand why you think going back to the Clinton tax structure is Socialism...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So lets see here..

Godless socialist list:

Obama
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Australia
United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union
Canada.

Gee. These are the godless socialists under republican definition.

Funny that.

reply to post by bkcrt


You conveniently skipped over my post:

Why is changing the tax bracket stealing all of the sudden? It has been done many times in the past. What makes this one different, from say, when Bush changed Clinton's tax brackets?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by bkcrt

 

You conveniently skipped over my post:

Why is changing the tax bracket stealing all of the sudden? It has been done many times in the past. What makes this one different, from say, when Bush changed Clinton's tax brackets?

The Clinton tax changes were bad too. Obamma tax plans are even worse. What they should do is lighten up taxes on EVERYONE to encourage growth.

reply to post by bkcrt


That's not possible with current spending rate. If you think we need to get government spending way down... I am in agreement with you.

Until then, the question is how do they get the money they need? Well, they have to tax someone, and I happen to disagree with the trickle-down effect.

Many of us believe that decreasing taxes for the middle and lower classes will boost the economy more than the opposite. So, if the economy is boosted, and everyone reaps the benefits, who was stolen from?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by bkcrt

 

That's not possible with current spending rate. If you think we need to get government spending way down... I am in agreement with you.

Until then, the question is how do they get the money they need? Well, they have to tax someone, and I happen to disagree with the trickle-down effect.

Many of us believe that decreasing taxes for the middle and lower classes will boost the economy more than the opposite. So, if the economy is boosted, and everyone reaps the benefits, who was stolen from?

Well, we do agree that government spending needs to be cut. They never spend the tax money appropriately. Why give them more money when they can't get things done with the money they already get?

reply to post by bkcrt


They aren't getting more money. The same amount is coming in, he's just taking it from different resources.