Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

You really ARE un-intelligent, huh? Clueless, too.

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Ever thought of developing a new brain cell, so that the one you have wouldn't be so lonely?

My brain cell(s) isn't(aren't) lonely! Perhaps yours are!

Quote:

"The key in 2010 is to have the GOP represent the Tea Party brand, and the only way to do that is to firmly insist on fiscal restraint and reduction of government as the platform for the election."

Quote:

WHAT can Obama and Democrats in Senate (and House) be thinking??!!??
SIXTY-TWO PERCENT (62%) of Americans do not want this present HealthCare Bill, yet they keep insisting on this unconstitutional mandate and control of America, which will devastate senior citizens.
...
we need to KILL THE BILL before the "complete lives system" kills off all of us over 50
...
What one person receives without working for, another person had to work for without receiving.
___________________________________________________________
The Heritage Foundation is committed to building an America
where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.
http://www.heritage.org

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Part negro? Which part? He is half-white or what you people call yourselves and African from Kenya, not Mississippi or Alabama Black. Funny if you're Irish, you say Irish-American, Italian, Italian American, yet you want to DEFINE/NAME anyone you think looks like a former slave! You racist bastard!

0 Replies

@teenyboone,

teenyboone wrote:

You really ARE un-intelligent, huh? Clueless, too.

You, teenyboone, really ARE un-intelligent, huh? Clueless, too?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'fair, flat tax.' Any tax which is flat is inherently extremely regressive.

TAX RATES
REGRESSIVE --- NEITHER REGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE --- PROGRESSIVE

REGRESSIVE: Taxes the less wealthy at a greater rate than it taxes the more wealthy.

NEITHER REGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE: Taxes the less wealthy at the same rate as it taxes the more wealthy.

PROGRESSIVE: Taxes the less wealthy at a lesser rate than it taxes the more wealthy.

1 Reply

@teenyboone,

teenyboone wrote:

MISTER President, to you!

MASTER PrezBO, to you!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You just proved how ignorant you really are and the Dunce who replied after you!

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

You and IKon are 2 of a kind, half past stoopid!

1 Reply

@teenyboone,

Every single letter that you type here on A2K diminishes PrezBO, your MASTER.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There's no such thing as a 'fair, flat tax.' Any tax which is flat is inherently extremely regressive.

TAX RATES
REGRESSIVE --- NEITHER REGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE --- PROGRESSIVE

REGRESSIVE: Taxes the less wealthy at a greater rate than it taxes the more wealthy.

NEITHER REGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE: Taxes the less wealthy at the same rate as it taxes the more wealthy.

PROGRESSIVE: Taxes the less wealthy at a lesser rate than it taxes the more wealthy.

You are using the word 'rate' incorrectly.

To you, it means 'certain percentage of income' across the board.

But what it really means is 'percentage of income which can be afforded to pay in taxes.'

This is why flat taxes are regressive; they ignore the fact that 20% of someone's income at 20k/year is a much higher fiscal burden than 20% of someone's income at 200k/year. Much higher. And that is why we have progressive taxation in this country, and not your plan; it is eminently fair to ask all to sacrifice to a similar degree, no matter what the level of income is.

Quote:

There is no logical reason why what one pays for government services should vary with anything other than directly with one's income.

Sure there is: 1, they can afford it; and 2, the rich have more to defend than the poor and benefit to a far greater degree from our society's laws and rules than the poor do. Far more.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, I find it funny you are so engaged into making taxes progressive. One of the most regressive activities in this entire country is lotteries, or gambling schemes run by the governments of this country, which I believe are highly regressive, it entices people to throw away their money on schemes for absolutely little benefit, and often the people are the poorest and least able to throw away their money in efforts to get rich quick or turn around their fortunes. Why aren't you out there campaigning against those shady and questionable scams run by most of the states? Its one thing to be takne in by schemes and scams, but it is doubly worse when it is your own government that is doing it to you, and that is the case with these pathetic lotteries all over the country.

2 Replies

@okie,

Ever hear of free choice? Nobody has a gun at their heads forced to gamble, smoke, or drink.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are using the word 'rate' incorrectly.

To you, it means 'certain percentage of income' across the board.

But what it really means is 'percentage of income which can be afforded to pay in taxes.
...
it is eminently fair to ask all to sacrifice to a similar degree, no matter what the level of income is.

Very funny!

You have a very humorous way of redefining terms to suit your arguments.

A tax rate on income is a percentage of some amount of earned income. I advocate the same tax rate for all income for all people earning an income. You advocate different tax rates for different amounts of earned income.

I think it stupidly unfair as well as covetous to tax the incomes of the wealthier at greater rates than the less wealthy. I rather the wealthy spend and/or invest their money to maximize their income. The more they spend, the more income will be obtained by those who supply the wealthier with whatever they want to buy and/or the benefits of whatever they want to invest in.

Giving the government an extra cut of the wealthier's income only diminishes opportunity for the less wealthy to become more wealthy. In fact giving the government that cut maximizes the opportunity for the government to corrupt itself by buying votes from those whose incomes they suppress.

Fundamentally, I believe in the same rules for every adult. I believe that is fundamental for nurturing a fair, prosperous, and healthy society.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

I saw a funny bumper sticker a coupld of days ago. It said "enjoying the trickle up poverty yet?" I may not have every word exact, but I think very very close, and those might have been the exact words. I said, "yes, that guy gets it!" Such as how many jobs do homeless people provide, etc. etc.?

ican, nobody ever became successful by envying the rich or by the government taxing the rich. When I was a kid, my family was pretty hard up, but we never sat around talking about how terrible the rich were, nor did we care. In fact, we often commented on how too much money or fame sometimes worked against people, and their families often ended up in trouble with drugs, too many divorces, alcoholism, and so forth. Sure, not all, and poor people also have those problems, but my parents always taught us that happiness was not about how much money you had or made or whatever. What they did teach was that happiness was being responsible, finding a job or profession that you enjoyed, and happiness was showing up for work every day, doing a good job, feeling good about yourself, being responsible and true to your spouse and family, and basically just doing the right thing. Life is too short to run around feeling envious of others, and truth be known, the rich man was more miserable than you are anyway.

So it constantly mystifies me as to why Obama and like minded liberals are so obsessed with spreading the wealth around or making life fair. Obviously he must have some kind of chip on his shoulder to start with, or he would not be engaging in the politics of envy to advance his own sense of importance and fulfillment that he apparently lacks as a person in his own right. I happen to think it is dangerous to have a man with such a complex in a position of authority. And even worse that so many of his voters also carry around some kind of similar complex, of unfulfillment and envy, and anger at the people that have been successful. In regard to Obama, I think it goes back to a very unfulfilled and sort of unhappy and dysfunctional childhood. He has had to seek power and try to find ways of righting the wrongs of society in order to find the validation that he so woefully lacked as a person growing up.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

In regard to Obama, I think it goes back to a very unfulfilled and sort of unhappy and dysfunctional childhood. He has had to seek power and try to find ways of righting the wrongs of society in order to find the validation that he so woefully lacked as a person growing up.

What's your excuse, Mr. Potter? Why not turn that psychoanalytic raygun on yourself? Obama at least became President; all you do is bitch on the internet.

Freud is boring, by the way.

2 Replies

@Gargamel,

okie is now an expert in psychiatry. He has no limits on skills in any field of endeavor. He's an amazing individual, and we should be thankful for his ability to share his expertise in so many fields.

I'm just wondering if okie ever had a one-on-one evaluation with Obama? If he hasn't, then his skill level far exceeds anything any psychiatrist learns in school.

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie, regardless of what Obama is trying to do, he is increasing the number of people who are becoming like him by having an unfulfilled and sort of unhappy and dysfunctional childhood. That outcome is the natural result of engaging in the politics of envy--the politics of despising those who have more and preventing them from continuing to get and have more.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Okie, regardless of what Obama is trying to do, he is increasing the number of people who are becoming like him by having an unfulfilled and sort of unhappy and dysfunctional childhood. That outcome is the natural result of engaging in the politics of envy--the politics of despising those who have more and preventing them from having more.

And yet Bush, whose economic background is polar opposite Obama's, enabled countless poor to look into the mirror and say, "Bootstrapping it is. then." Right?

Either that, or he made oh, let's see we're at about 10% unemployment now, factor in subprime, the credit crunch, and that comes to, hmmmm, he made the entire country poor to some extent.

So what is it you're trying to say?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops, I find it funny you are so engaged into making taxes progressive. One of the most regressive activities in this entire country is lotteries, or gambling schemes run by the governments of this country, which I believe are highly regressive, it entices people to throw away their money on schemes for absolutely little benefit, and often the people are the poorest and least able to throw away their money in efforts to get rich quick or turn around their fortunes. Why aren't you out there campaigning against those shady and questionable scams run by most of the states? Its one thing to be takne in by schemes and scams, but it is doubly worse when it is your own government that is doing it to you, and that is the case with these pathetic lotteries all over the country.

Well, I have never been a fan of lotteries, though I can see why the states like them. I'm not sure they qualify as a scam, however; they operate in the open for the most part and the odds are usually required to be written on the back of the ticket.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Gargamel,

He's trying to say that the rich kept their wealth, and the middle class and the poor lost out when our economy was humming with jobs for most who wanted to work. From 2000 to 2008, the middle class and the poor lost buying power as Bush gave tax breaks to the rich, and the rich got richer. That's the conservative mantra; phuck everybody else.

Providing universal health care is the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, so people without health insurance can just drop dead on our streets from lack of health care. That's the conservative mantra.

I'm just wondering how wealthy okie, mm, ican, et al are, because they keep talking about wealth redistribution is wrong. I'm still not sure what they mean, because they've never provided evidence or facts to back up their claim.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know