Obama '08?

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

America's Love Affair With Obama Is Over

Interesting Zuckerman article, H2OMAN. When I read his piece, I was puzzled about the whole thing. For example, take the paragraph that I quoted below. He came across to who, and was seen as talented by who, etc. etc. ? I believe it was the press that bought into the almost Messiah image of Obama, but who was behind all the hype, that is the question? I still remember the so-called great speech at the DNC that the press took to brag up the man, but some of us including me never heard a great speech. What we heard was a greenhorn radical liberal that said a bunch of platitudes, thats it. After all, the truth remains, that Obama was a radical out of Chicago, not exactly a breeding ground for greatness. Face it folks, the press trumped this guy up as something special when he never was. He had no credentials, none.

I don't know really who promoted the press into pushing the guy, but I do wonder if George Soros had something to say about it. One thing for sure, some power brokers behind the scenes decided to push Obama over Hillary. Or it could be that Obama became a fad in the mainstream press, and it went from there. It doesn't take much to capture the imagination of the liberal press. Pretty shallow bunch to be sure.

"He came across as a young man in a grown-up's game—impressive but not presidential. A politician but not a leader, managing American policy at home and American power abroad with disturbing amateurishness. Indeed, there was a growing perception of the inability to run the machinery of government and to find the right people to manage it. A man who was once seen as a talented and even charismatic rhetorician is now seen as lacking real experience or even the ability to stop America's decline. "Yes we can," he once said, but now America asks, "Can he?""

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I definitely got the impression

Impression? Her post was not modern poetry. No impressions were involved.

Quote:

Perhaps you did not comprehend what was written

My reading comprehension has always been good. I tested at the college level in 6th grade. My kids did as well.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I am on here for a few minutes to try to talk sense to you

So, you can carry on a conversation about something you know nothing about. That's rather amazing.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I'm sure okie has been successful in confusing many conservatives on these boards with his nonsense. Most, like okie, never bother to check out the truth.

1 Reply

@parados,

Interestingly, okie argued in favor of the subjective value of assets. Wow! I know "good will" has a value when a business is sold, but, I had no idea that the government was interested in the subjective value of assets.

okie wrote:

Quote:

Comparing 100,000 and 10,000,000 in assets is also not a valid numerical comparison, because the 100,000 may very well mean just as much to citizen A as the 10,000,000 means to Citizen B.

So, the value of one's home is not what the market will bear but what it means to you.

0 Replies

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

When the police (government) get two home invasion calls, who benefits more from their response, me or Trump? You or Warren Buffet? Okie or Bill Gates?

I would hope the police would respond just as fast to my house as they would to Bill Gates or Trump's. I consider my house and the lives of my family just as important as Gate's or Trump's. In fact, I believe the constitution and Bill of Rights agrees with that statement. If we as a country have somehow gotten away from that belief, then we have lost our way. I know one thing, I would not want anybody like you as police chief in my community, prioritizing the answering home invasion calls according to the assets of the caller or the importance of the caller. Such is preposterous on its face, squinney, and I reject your argument as un American and inconsistent with our founding documents.

In regard to National Defense, it is for the purpose of defending our freedoms, our lives, and our property. As I have posted already, I believe it is self evident, or intuitively obvious that some peoples lives should not be valued over others lives, nor should our freedoms. In regard to property, sure some people have more assets, but in terms of their value, I think the poor man's property could very well be worth just as much to him as the rich man's property means to the rich man. For example, Ted Kennedy was born with tons of money, but did he actually value it as much as somebody that made a success from scratch? I doubt it. It is evident from observing celebrities that it is not uncommon to see that they do not value their assets, because they often don't take care of them or value them like other people do.

I would suggest, squinney, that you have really gone down the wrong road and do not really intend to argue your point, as mm suggested to you.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

But the real wages of the bottom four quintiles have remained the same since 1979. So, you must think that everyone in the top quintile is a liberal. rush limbaugh earns as much as the combined US Senate and he is as right as one could get with the possible exceptions of okie and ican and you.

0 Replies

@squinney,

You're right: a poor man might not have anything other than his clothes and a few household items to leave his kids. A poor man is only worth his annual salary in terms of the market and poor men are increasing exponentially.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

defending our freedoms, our lives, and our property.

He told us earlier and often that life was more important, and property wasn't an issue when talking about taxation.

He's contradicted himself so often, we don't know whether he's coming or going.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!

0 Replies

@squinney,

Just to clarify for the slow to comprehend among us, and for those that have accused me of wrongly saying that squinney advocated taxing rich people more because they use government services more, according to squinney's reasoning in the following quote. It seems a waste of time to have to post the quote from squinney again, just to prove the obvious, that I was absolutely right about what squinney said. But just in case the poms, the cis, and others might be able to comprehend it the second time, here it is again.

squinney wrote:

Forget national security of assets. I can make it even simpler.

People making less don't drive as much. So why would they pay the same for interstate highways?

People making less don't use as much coal, gas or electricity. Why would they pay the same amount for mine inspectors, oil and gas regulations, subsidies, and all the other related government expenses?

People making less don't fly as much, if at all. Why would they pay the same for air traffic control, airport security and airline bailouts that have been deemed necessary to avoid a monopoly and benefits those with the means to fly by keeping ticket prices low?

People making less don't have stocks and bonds. Why should they pay for federal government department employees hired to regulate the associated industries?

People making less don't consume as much. Why should they pay the same for port security, interstates for transporting goods, farmer subsidies, ...

and on and on.

Why wouldn't those that benefit more due to their ability to afford to take advantage of these benefits, pay more?

1 Reply

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

Okie - The rich benefit from having an organized government more than the poor. Period.
Should anarchy break out, who has the most to lose? The poor man or the rich man? If you consider that both of their physical lives are equal, which you argued above, the rich man still has all of his assets at risk from not having an organized government. The poor man only loses his life.
Who organizes government? The poor or the rich elite? Why do you think that is?
Who has the most interest in not allowing the economy to collapse?
When the economy comes close to collapse, who pulls out and moves their business to another country leaving the rest to fend for themselves?
The rich absolutely benefit more than the poor or middle class by having government. Otherwise, they wouldn't be pouring millions of dollars into elections.

Frankly I find your opinion not only silly, but illogical, squinney. Besides that, I think it is unAmerican and not in harmony with our founding documents. I am sorry to be so hard on your opinion here, but you can't be serious, can you? I am with mm when he questioned your sincerity.

Where did you get these ideas? From your parents? From the educational system? From college? Or did you just come up with all of that out of the blue, using your best attempt at reasoning? I am curious.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, It's not necessary for you to repeat what others write; we can determine on our own whether it makes sense or not.

In your case, we have cut and pasted from your posts followed by questions, but you never answer them.

We have provided proof of claims we have made from outside reliable sources that you have never challenged or proved wrong.

Guess who's side the ball is in this court?

Your advocacy for the rich not to pay more in taxes shows your ignorance, because they themselves are asking to be taxed more.

The conservatives will bankrupt this country with their nonsense about "freedoms" and "tax cuts for the wealthy," because our country cannot sustain this increasing national debt. That's because "you" people do not understand macro-economics. But to give you people a hint, think what is happening to Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.

China will not bail us out like Germany has Greece.

Then what? You have a solution?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Where did you get these ideas? From your parents? From the educational system? From college? Or did you just come up with all of that out of the blue, using your best attempt at reasoning? I am curious.

They are well known ideas okie. Sumptuary laws have existed since Roman times and the French Revolution taught the rich a lesson. squinney is quite right.

Founding documents have nothing to do with economics.

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie –

On Saturday evening you said: (page 1843)

Quote:

If wealthy people are paying the vast majority of the taxes in this country, yes, that means it is effectively being redistributed to the poor, because rich and poor alike all receive pretty much the same benefits of what the government provides. It also means that the rich are paying the way of the no-payers.

By the way, if we actually paid for the benefits being provided, and if all men are considered equal in this country in terms of the rights and benefits of government, such as national security and protection of basic rights, shouldn't everyone in the country pay roughly the same dollar amount in taxes, without regard to what they earn? Given the 2010 budget of about 3.55 trillion, isn't that approximately $10,000 for each man, woman, or child in this country? If we are all going to want to pay our way in this country, why wouldn't that be one fair way to do it? Just a question to give you something to ponder. I am not proposing it, but I am throwing that idea out there as one solution or approach.

I pointed out that we do not all receive the same benefits from what the government provides and why your suggestion would not be fair. In your first paragraph you refer to same benefits. In your second, you refer to rights and benefits of government and give the examples of national security and basic rights. Whether talking about all encompassing benefits of government or specifically national security and rights, the rich benefit more than the poor. Surely you don’t think you benefited equally with the top executives of Haliburton / Brown Root from the bloodshed of two wars over the past decade.

Last night you said:

Quote:

I would hope the police would respond just as fast to my house as they would to Bill Gates or Trump's.

Well, yeah. And they probably would. I wasn’t saying the police have to choose which one to respond to. Barney can go to one and Andy the other. The fact remains that Trump benefits more by having the police respond to avoid losing his Rembrandt than the poorer person does by having the police respond to avoid losing a collectible commemorative plate. No matter how much that plate means to the poorer person, it isn’t worth as much as Trumps fine art. So why wouldn’t Trump pay more to protect his Rembrandt?

If you want to argue that my thinking is illogical, please point out how. I’m really not grasping what you or Mystery Man are saying. If you remove 'property' from the argument, I still find it rather odd that anyone would argue that the defense of life and liberty is equally distributed by the government no matter ones income. That just isn't reality as I see it.

Like I said, if you want to point out my error, please do so.

1 Reply

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

Okie –
On Saturday evening you said: (page 1843)

Quote:
If wealthy people are paying the vast majority of the taxes in this country, yes, that means it is effectively being redistributed to the poor, because rich and poor alike all receive pretty much the same benefits of what the government provides. It also means that the rich are paying the way of the no-payers.
By the way, if we actually paid for the benefits being provided, and if all men are considered equal in this country in terms of the rights and benefits of government, such as national security and protection of basic rights, shouldn't everyone in the country pay roughly the same dollar amount in taxes, without regard to what they earn? Given the 2010 budget of about 3.55 trillion, isn't that approximately $10,000 for each man, woman, or child in this country? If we are all going to want to pay our way in this country, why wouldn't that be one fair way to do it? Just a question to give you something to ponder. I am not proposing it, but I am throwing that idea out there as one solution or approach.
I pointed out that we do not all receive the same benefits from what the government provides and why your suggestion would not be fair. In your first paragraph you refer to same benefits. In your second, you refer to rights and benefits of government and give the examples of national security and basic rights. Whether talking about all encompassing benefits of government or specifically national security and rights, the rich benefit more than the poor. Surely you don’t think you benefited equally with the top executives of Haliburton / Brown Root from the bloodshed of two wars over the past decade.

First of all, thanks for a civil conversation. To try to explain a little more about what I think, in some respects I think we all benefit equally, such as with our life and our rights. In regard to property, I will agree that some of us have more property to protect, however, I do not agree that amount of property is proportional to the amount that the government spends to protect it. For example, the police and fire department may spend far more on protecting poor neighborhoods than they do the more upscale. Besides that, the upscale ones probably pay far more in property tax, perhaps more than they would need to if they only paid for what they are using in terms of government services. I have used the example of ranches in the Great Plains that may pay great amounts of property tax, but may receive little or no effort by government in the way of police and fire protection, perhaps even none most of the time. Add to this that the very rich often live in gated communities and pay for their own security.

Quote:

Last night you said:

Quote:
I would hope the police would respond just as fast to my house as they would to Bill Gates or Trump's.

Well, yeah. And they probably would. I wasn’t saying the police have to choose which one to respond to. Barney can go to one and Andy the other. The fact remains that Trump benefits more by having the police respond to avoid losing his Rembrandt than the poorer person does by having the police respond to avoid losing a collectible commemorative plate. No matter how much that plate means to the poorer person, it isn’t worth as much as Trumps fine art. So why wouldn’t Trump pay more to protect his Rembrandt?

It may not be just a matter of a collectible, squinney, it also involves the life of the residents, which are hopefully of equal value in your eyes.

Quote:

If you want to argue that my thinking is illogical, please point out how. I’m really not grasping what you or Mystery Man are saying. If you remove 'property' from the argument, I still find it rather odd that anyone would argue that the defense of life and liberty is equally distributed by the government no matter ones income. That just isn't reality as I see it.

Like I said, if you want to point out my error, please do so.

I do think your argument is illogical, and I think I have provided ample explanation as to why I think that. To repeat again, the life and rights of a poor man is worth just as much as a rich persons, so that the expenditures on national defense are for all of our benefit equally. I realize not everyone are in favor of those expenditures and how they are spent, but the fact remains that we are all equally defended without regard to what we are worth in property or money. For example, would a poor person not care if this country was destroyed by an enemy, just by virtue of the fact that he owns no property? Tjhat would be silly. Remember 9/11? I remember just as many flags, maybe more being flown from old cars as there were on newer cars on the road. Poor people took just as much offense at that attack as the rich, I believe.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Only you brought up the issue of the equality of life in this country. FYI, that's a given; it's stated in our Constitution - that all men are created equal.

Beyond that, there are issues of property ownership - which is not equal in any shape or form between the wealthy and the poor. You wish to make it so by saying the poor man's property has value to that individual. Your attempts to rationalize simple concepts only makes you look more stupid!

If I'm wealthy and own several businesses, hotels, mansions, yachts, airplanes, and luxury cars, and restaurants, they require more government services. I'm sure that's news to you! Only you see them as equal, because you do not live in the real world. Or your brain is so damaged, that common sense and logic is foreign to you. Only people like Limbaugh make sense to you, and unfortunately there are many just like you in this country.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Only you brought up the issue of the equality of life in this country. FYI, that's a given; it's stated in our Constitution - that all men are created equal.

Thanks for finally acknowledging the obvious. I would add that life is perhaps the principle thing that national security and police protect.

Quote:

Beyond that, there are issues of property ownership - which is not equal in any shape or form between the wealthy and the poor. You wish to make it so by saying the poor man's property has value to that individual. Your attempts to rationalize simple concepts only makes you look more stupid!

Hopefully, if a poor man calls 911 upon being robbed of his property, the police will answer his call before answering a later call from a rich man being robbed. So I am totally correct to point out that the police may not prioritize the property of the rich over the poor.

Quote:

If I'm wealthy and own several businesses, hotels, mansions, yachts, airplanes, and luxury cars, and restaurants, they require more government services. I'm sure that's news to you! Only you see them as equal, because you do not live in the real world. Or your brain is so damaged, that common sense and logic is foreign to you. Only people like Limbaugh make sense to you, and unfortunately there are many just like you in this country.

I will again try to talk logic to you, ci, even though you again go off on your name calling tirades. And I would point out that guys like Limbaugh are not stupid, in fact they may have alot more sense than you. I don't always agree with Limbaugh, but often do. In fact it might be more accurate to say that Limbaugh has a huge listenorship in this country because he agrees with us, not the other way around. He has found a niche because he finally gave a voice to the people that sensed that the elites of the mainstream media had lost their common sense.

In regard to businesses, hotels, mansions, yachts, airplanes, and luxury cars, and restaurants, you need to recognize a few things. First of all, many wealthy people with so-called mansions provide and pay for their own security. An example would be gated communities. The same would be true for businesses. I own one and I have my own security system, and have never had to call the police for any issue, so I have not used any government service in that way, even though my landlord pays significant property tax, which he pays for by collecting rent from me. So I have essentially paid alot of money for essentially no service from the city or county. In fact, some of the property owned by the city and county is some of the most run down and overgrown with weeds. Numerous businesses are the same as mine. In regard to luxury cars, I am sure the owners pay far more in taxes and licensing. Yachts and airplanes, the government does provide service to airfields, etc., but I think airline passengers, airline owners, and airplane owners pay dearly for some of those services that are collected in taxes, etc.

Much of your argument is totally your opinion, not backed up with facts, ci. I have already provided you with some examples of how the rich require virtually no services in comparison to what they already pay in taxes. One example I gave was the vast thousands of acres of ranch and farmland in the Great Plains, that requires little or no expenditure by government to protect, even though the owners pay huge sums of property tax.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

So I have essentially paid alot of money for essentially no service from the city or county.

Sure.. You got no benefit because if the police hadn't existed at all the crime rate wouldn't have changed for you.
Drunk

Quote:

So I am totally correct to point out that the police may not prioritize the property of the rich over the poor.

So okie..
IF the police don't respond to either call and the thieves make off with all the possession of a rich man and a poor man, who lost more monetarily?

2 Replies

THE 2010 INCOME TAXIS THAT WILL BE PAID BY A FAMILY OF FOUR:

Quote:

Schedule Y-1: Married filing jointly--DOLLARS ANNUAL TAXABLE INCOME

IF OVER..........BUT NOT OVER..........TAX IS.....PLUS TAX RATE..........OF AMOUNT OVER
$0......................16,750................0.00................10%................0
16,750................68,000................1,675.00................15%................16,750
68,000................137,300................9,362.50................25%................68,000
137,300..............209,250................26,687.50................28%................ 137,300
209,250..............373,650................46,833.50................33%................ 209,250
373,650..............~~~~~~~................101,085.50................35%................373,650

..........................PER PERSON................NUMBER PERSONS........... TOTAL
Standard Deduction.....$5,700..........................4..........................$22,800
Exemptions............... 3,650..........................4..........................14,600
Deductions + Exemptions..........................................................$37,400

GROSS INCOME................37,400................50,000................100,000
TAXABLE INCOME.................0.00................12,600................62,600
INCOME TAX........................0.00................1,260.00................8,552.49
% TAX ON GROSS.....................0%.....................3%.....................9%

TAXABLE INCOME................962,600................9,962,600................ 99,962,600
GROSS INCOME................1,000,000................10,000,000................ 100,000,000
INCOME TAX.....................307,218..................3,457,218..................34,957,218
% TAX ON GROSS.....................31%.....................35%.....................35%

In 2010, those who earn more will pay a greater proportion of their earnings in taxes than will those who earn less.

................................................................... INCOME RATIO....TAX RATIO
GROSS INCOME......INCOME TAX............... row i/row (6)......row i/row (6)
(1) 37,400~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~ 0.00037 ~~~~ 0.000000
(2) 50,000~~~~~~~~~~~~1,260~~~~~~~~~~ 0.0005 ~~~~~ 0.000036
(3) 100,000~~~~~~~~~~~8,552.49~~~~~~~~ 0.001 ~~~~~~ 0.00024
(4) 1,000,000~~~~~~~~307,218~~~~~~~~~~ 0.01 ~~~~~~~ 0.0088
(5) 10,000,000~~~~~~3,457,218~~~~~~~~~~ 0.10 ~~~~~~~ 0.099
(6) 100,000,000~~~~34,957,218~~~~~~~~~~ 1.00 ~~~~~~~ 1.00

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know