6
   

OBAMA VERSUS MCCAIN: ARGUMENTS FOR WHO IS BETTER FOR MOST AMERICANS

 
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 27 Oct, 2008 11:35 am
If Obama were to be elected, the USA federal government, while ignoring the supreme law of the land, could annually redistribute wealth as long as there exists wealth to redistribute. If it were my wealth that was threatened with redistribution, I'd take me and my wealth out of the USA. But if unable to do that, I'd stop trying to earn more wealth and dismiss my employees. Then when my wealth was exhausted, I'd go on welfare.

What would you do if you were wealthy and your wealth were being redistributed?
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Tue 28 Oct, 2008 10:28 am
Obama says he wants us Americans to abandon the current rule of law for Obama's rule of law. If elected he will violate his oath to "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;" that is, support our Constitution, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama should be aware that those Americans who support the rule of law including our Constitution, will violate Obama's rule of law that abandons our Constitution, and do whatever else is required including use of violence to rescue our Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 01:27 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

If Obama were to be elected, the USA federal government, while ignoring the supreme law of the land, could annually redistribute wealth as long as there exists wealth to redistribute. If it were my wealth that was threatened with redistribution, I'd take me and my wealth out of the USA. But if unable to do that, I'd stop trying to earn more wealth and dismiss my employees. Then when my wealth was exhausted, I'd go on welfare.

What would you do if you were wealthy and your wealth were being redistributed?


How is your "wealth" being redistributed?

Your tax dollars--my tax dollars--everyone's tax dollars are being spent to erect, build, or repair roads, bridges, dams, traffic signals, schools, colleges, etc. Your tax dollars are spent to hire air traffic controllers to make your air travel safer. Your tax dollars are spent to hire teachers to educate your children. Your tax dollars are spent to hire police officers to make your communities safer. Your tax dollars are spent to pay the salaries of your judges, legislators, and government executives. Your tax dollars are spent to help your society prosper--which inures to your benefit.

If Obama is elected, your first quarter of a million dollars in taxable income that you place in your pocket will be taxed at a lower rate. If you are in the TOP tax bracket, your income taxes will be increased by approximately 3 percent. That means for the next million dollars in taxable income that you place in your pocket, you will pay an additional $30,000 in tax. Taxable income means income that you can put in your pocket AFTER you have paid all your deductible business expenses including the wages of your workers.

It is ABSURD for you to claim that you would rather close down your business and lay off all your workers rather than pay an additional $30,000 in tax on that extra million dollars you put in your pocket. You might not want to pay your fair share of the cost of that bridge you're crossing, but I guarantee that you will find doing so much more preferrable than having that bridge collapse into the river or "going on welfare." Rolling Eyes
ican711nm
 
  0  
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 05:04 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
How is your "wealth" being redistributed?

Your tax dollars--my tax dollars--everyone's tax dollars are being spent to erect, build, or repair roads, bridges, dams, traffic signals, schools, colleges, etc. Your tax dollars are spent to hire air traffic controllers to make your air travel safer. Your tax dollars are spent to hire teachers to educate your children. Your tax dollars are spent to hire police officers to make your communities safer. Your tax dollars are spent to pay the salaries of your judges, legislators, and government executives. Your tax dollars are spent to help your society prosper--which inures to your benefit.

You neglected to mention that if Obama is elected much more of my tax dollars will be illegally distributed to people who did not earn them.

If Obama is elected, your first quarter of a million dollars in taxable income that you place in your pocket will be taxed at a lower rate. No they won't. At best they will be taxed at the same rate specified in Bush's tax plan. If you are in the TOP tax bracket, your income taxes will be increased by approximately 3 percent. That means for the next million dollars in taxable income that you place in your pocket, you will pay an additional $30,000 in tax. Taxable income means income that you can put in your pocket AFTER you have paid all your deductible business expenses including the wages of your workers. .Not true! My taxes would be increased at least 5%, and probably 20% to pay for all the increased expenditure Obama plans.

It is ABSURD for you to claim that you would rather close down your business and lay off all your workers rather than pay an additional $30,000 in tax on that extra million dollars you put in your pocket. You might not want to pay your fair share of the cost of that bridge you're crossing, but I guarantee that you will find doing so much more preferrable than having that bridge collapse into the river or "going on welfare."Obama's tax increases will have to be confiscatory for every tax payer to pay for all he plans to give awayto others. The man has proven all by himself that he does not tell the truth!
Debra Law
 
  2  
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 05:07 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
You neglected to mention that if Obama is elected my tax dollars will also be illegally distributed to people who did not earn them.


Who are these people whom you claim that Obama going to give your tax dollars to? Who are they?
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 06:48 pm
Do you live in a red state, ican? If you do, my tax dollars have been illegally taken from me to give money to you which you did not earn. Blue state people pay more in taxes than they get back. Red staters get more tax dollars than they pay. WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK. OTHERWISE, SHUT UP.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:33 am
@Debra Law,
Obama repeatedly specifies "who are these people whom claim that Obama going to give [my] tax dollars to."

Listen to what would-be-gangster Obama actually says and ignore how charmingly and eloquently he says it. If I were to say it, you wouldn't believe me anyway.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:51 am
@MontereyJack,
For example, New York and California are blue states. New York and California residents get more Constitutionally illegal, federal tax dollars per capita than they pay. Some of my tax dollars have been illegally taken from me to illegally give money to those blue state residents "which they did not earn." I WANT THAT STOPPED NOW. OTHERWISE, I WILL NOT SHUT UP.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 12:16 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

For example, New York and California are blue states. New York and California residents get more Constitutionally illegal, federal tax dollars per capita than they pay. Some of my tax dollars have been illegally taken from me to illegally give money to those blue state residents "which they did not earn." I WANT THAT STOPPED NOW. OTHERWISE, I WILL NOT SHUT UP.


You're an idiot who doesn't know the facts.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Per the Tax Foundation, NY and CA pay out 1.00 for every 79 cents they get back in funding.

The average Red State receives 1.2 dollars for every one they put in.

Please try. At least a little.

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  2  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 03:53 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Obama repeatedly specifies "who are these people whom claim that Obama going to give [my] tax dollars to."

Listen to what would-be-gangster Obama actually says and ignore how charmingly and eloquently he says it. If I were to say it, you wouldn't believe me anyway.


Who are these people whom you claim that Obama is going to give your tax dollars? If Obama has repeatedly named these people as you allege, it should be easy for you to provide an answer and a link. If you can't substantiate your allegation, just say so.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I posted:
Quote:

For example, New York and California are blue states. New York and California residents get more Constitutionally illegal, federal tax dollars per capita than they pay. Some of my tax dollars have been illegally taken from me to illegally give money to those blue state residents "which they did not earn." I WANT THAT STOPPED NOW. UNTIL THEN, I WILL NOT SHUT UP.

That's false.

I should have posted:
Both red and blue states get Constitutionally illegal, federal tax dollars. For example, the state and local governments of New York, California, Texas, and Florida, get per capita, respectively, $2608, $1,542, $1,262, and $1,158.

Some of my tax dollars have been illegally taken from me to illegally give money to STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS which they did not earn." I want that stopped. Until that stops, I won't shut up.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:44 pm
@Debra Law,
Obama has not repeatedly named individuals to whom he is going to transfer tax dollars. He has named groups of individuals to whom he is going to transfer tax dollars: for example, from the wealthy to the middle class. He has done this on TV and radio.


Listen up!
ican711nm
 
  1  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, I forgot to note that the per capita numbers I used in my previous response to you, were obtained from your link's specification of federal expenditure amounts per capita given to state and local governments for the year 2004 and not 2008.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:09 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Obama has not repeatedly named individuals to whom he is going to transfer tax dollars. He has named groups of individuals to whom he is going to transfer tax dollars: for example, from the wealthy to the middle class. He has done this on TV and radio.


Listen up!


You're not telling the truth. Obama has NOT said that he is taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the middle class. Why are you lying?
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:44 pm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:51 pm
@Debra Law,
I'm not lying. You are! Why?

Obama has said very clearly that he wants to share the wealth of the wealthy with those who are not wealthy. More specifically he said he is going to accomplish this by increasing the taxes of those whose incomes are more than $250,000 per year, and by decreasing the taxes of those whose incomes are $250,000 or less per year. Then later he said he would do this by increasing the taxes of those whose incomes are more than $200,00 per year and by decreasing the taxes of those whose incomes are $200,000 or less per year . Then even later Biden said Obama would do this by increasing the taxes of those whose incomes are more than $150,000 per year and by decreasing the taxes of those whose incomes are $150,00 or less per year.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 08:16 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Obama has said very clearly that he wants to share the wealth of the wealthy with those who are not wealthy.


That's NOT true. Why are you prevaricating? Provide a link.


Quote:
More specifically he said he is going to accomplish this by increasing the taxes of those whose incomes are more than $250,000 per year, and by decreasing the taxes of those whose incomes are $250,000 or less per year....


Regardless of anyone's tax bracket, ALL income taxes paid by all persons go into a common fund to pay for our common welfare. Obama is not going to take money from the rich people give it to people making less than $250,000 per year.

When people making $250,000 or less benefit from lower taxes, that means they have more money to spend. That means, for instance, that more people can afford to hire a plumber. If "Joe the Plumber" has a lot more customers who can afford his services, that means his business will prosper. That's what it means to "spread the wealth around." That's capitalism. Do you understand now?





0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:30 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Ican: I'm not lying.


No, you couldn't be lying, Ican. That would entail that you understand these processes. It's abundantly clear you don't. You just repeat wing wing memes/lies/BS.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:41 pm
When there is a flat tax (i.e., uniform tax) on income, each dollar of income is taxed the same. For example, suppose all dollars of income are taxed at the same rate, say 10%, and A-people's income were $10,000, B-people's income were $100,000 and C-people's income were $1,000,000. A-people's annual income tax wouild be $1,000, B-people's annual income tax would be $10,000, and C-people's annual income tax would be $100,000. Each would then be taxed in direct proportion to the benefits they obtain living in our country.

On the other hand, suppose A-people were taxed 2% of their income or one-fifth the 10% rate , B-people were still taxed 10% of their income, and C-people were taxed 50% of their income or five times the 10% rate. Then A-people would be taxed one fifth and C-people would be taxed five times direct proportion to the benefits they obtain living in our country. C-people would in effect be forced to pay for 80% of the benefits A-people obtain living in our country.

That seems to me to be a violation of an original tenet of our country: "equality under the law." Up until 1913, we were making great progress toward achieving that for every one. However, since then our nonuniform tax rates have become increasingly discriminatory against C-people, and for A-people.



ican711nm
 
  1  
Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:02 am
@ican711nm,
Barack Obama won the election for president!

Now what?

(1) Will the USA government agree with the Iraq government to pull our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011?
(2) Will the USA government authorize more domestic oil rich areas for private industry to drill for oil?
(3) If so where?
(4) Will the current income tax schedules be retained after 2010?
(5) Will the Clinton Administration's tax schedules be re-established?
(6) Will the current income tax schedules be replaced before 2010?
(7) Will union secret ballots no longer be required?
(8) Will federal expenditures increase faster than currently scheduled?
(9) Will Fanny&Freddie be continued?
(10) What will happen to the stock and bond markets?
(11) Will the federal government institute an expanded redistribution of wealth?
 

Related Topics

Criminals For Gun Control - Discussion by cjhsa
Team Oinkbama reading Mein Kampf.... - Discussion by gungasnake
Messiahs: Jesus vs Oinkbama - Discussion by gungasnake
The case for poured pyramids - Discussion by gungasnake
Get thee behind me, Satan - Discussion by Letty
Increase the wages and wage not a war - Discussion by Ramafuchs
Zionism and the Third Reich - Discussion by Zippo
Divorce - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/11/2024 at 10:42:16