Obama:

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You guys love throwing out the term "Redistribution of wealth" well all taxes are a redistribution of wealth. And taxes have been around for a long time in this country. So are you saying it's ok as long as you set the terms of who is contributing and at what percentage? Because we are paying taxes today, we are redistributing wealth today... So to say he will redistribute the wealth is intellectually dishonest. It would be much more accurate to say he will change how the current distribution of wealth is distributed.

So the way the system is set up right now.....The middle class is pitching money up to me:eek


*runs to mailbox and searches madly for his checks*


That's crap, another story that the dems feed people to incite class warfare.

My income is a direct result of a M.S. in my field and 15+ years of work addiction, I shouldn't have to apologize or hand it down to anyone I don't want to.

And if you think that I don't pay out more money at a 35% tax base than someone who makes half what I make a 20-25 then there's something amiss

 

[siasl]

He's had the book thrown at him?

By whom? CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC they have done everything but drop his pants and suck his dick.

these must be female news organizations, then....right? 'cause them strong masculine ones are doing the same thing for their palin :nod:

And the racism thing....Get the fuck out of here with that. If you equate questioning someones economic beliefs, past connections with KNOWN anti-semetic or otherwise enemies of the state with racism then you have no business voting let alone debating.

enemies of the state....his pastor and muslims...i rest my case

That's the problem with this country, push a HALF....HALF African American (atcually half Nigerian) into the race for the White House, then throw out the race card everytime someone questions him.

the other problem is our getting our boxers in a bunch at the mention of the fact he's IS, in fact, a black guy....

Re-godamn-diculous.

no arguement here.

 

[Tim]

And Tim.....Why is it, that when a Republican brings anything up about Obama, it's written off as "talking point"

Is that a code word for "Walk away now...do not answer"?

If McCain was reported as eating dinner with Timothy McVeigh and going to a coming out party at David Dukes house he political career would have been over in five seconds, as well it should.

It's just another example of the total bag job my the liberal leaning media.

When these points are brought up for shear shock value and not for the substance, then they are talking points.

A great example is the "Death Tax" once upon a time it was called the estate tax. And people inheriting an estate of substantial wealth had to pay a tax on it. Well the vast majority of Americans would never be affected by it and they didn't care. In rolls the Republican spin doctors, they turn the estate tax into one of their talking points. In a coordinated effort they start using the term "Death tax" Now more Americans can relate to that, Hell, I'll die one day. Maybe my family will be taxed on my death... It is a death tax you know...
Now if you want to talk to me about the legitimacy of the estate tax, go for it. But to have terms like "Death tax", "Fairness doctrine", "Ties with terrorists", "Redistribution of wealth", etc are nothing more than talking points. Terms used for "shock" value and to incite an emotional response.

 

[siasl]

Why is the opposition to himany different than it would have been to...Al Gore?

Obama is a far left leaning Democrat, that's what I base my decision off of.

I could care less if he's black, white, polka dotted, blind crippled or crazy.

He stands for everything I'm against...That simple.

That doesn't make me a racist, it makes me a conservative

bad boy...my apologies...it was never my intent to use your post to infer that you were a racist....
i'm sorry for leaving that impression

like i said to the alien, i've little arguement against individual arguements against the guy....he is what he is.....my only point is the way organized opposition to him has presented certain arguments....i find them disturbing as a trend

imo, they are worth looking at, regardless of who you're voting for.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

these must be female news organizations, then....right? 'cause them strong masculine ones are doing the same thing for their palin :nod:



The media has been sickening with its approach to Palin, you must be in a hole wher you can't get mainstream media, they have attacked everything from her shoes, wardrobe all the way to what she named her children.



enemies of the state....his pastor and muslims...i rest my case

No.....Bill Ayers.....And Jeremiah Wright although not an enemy of the state, studies and preaches an ideology called Black Liberation Theology, which is deeply rooted in Marxism, anti-semetic and anti-establishment philosophies.

So it's only racists I guess if it comes from a caucasian? Otherwise it's breaking away from oppression?

I didn't own slaves, I don't condone it, and I don't appreciate being classified in that class. I wouldn't support a candidate that supported a sgeregationalist no matter what color.

What it says is something about character, to be able to sit in a church for 20 years listening to a man who blamed the whites, and the US government fo revery problem of the black community, and vowing to ruin any establishment and any white organbization that stand in the way of freedom....I'm sorry but that's radical for any race.



the other problem is our getting our boxers in a bunch at the mention of the fact he's IS, in fact, a black guy....

Why does that have to be mentioned? Is it not visually obvious? I don't run around saying Hey....I'm white BTW



no arguement here.

It's obvious you have the covers over your eyes. But you'll get our way in a few days.

Oh how we so miss the Carter days:thumbdown

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

When these points are brought up for shear shock value and not for the substance, then they are talking points.

A great example is the "Death Tax" once upon a time it was called the estate tax. And people inheriting an estate of substantial wealth had to pay a tax on it. Well the vast majority of Americans would never be affected by it and they didn't care. In rolls the Republican spin doctors, they turn the estate tax into one of their talking points. In a coordinated effort they start using the term "Death tax" Now more Americans can relate to that, Hell, I'll die one day. Maybe my family will be taxed on my death... It is a death tax you know...
Now if you want to talk to me about the legitimacy of the estate tax, go for it. But to have terms like "Death tax", "Fairness doctrine", "Ties with terrorists", "Redistribution of wealth", etc are nothing more than talking points. Terms used for "shock" value and to incite an emotional response.

So what do you call the reports about Palins wardrobe?

Her now ties to Stevens....Allllll of a sudden, guys been in senate for 7 terms, now all of a sudden he and Palin are big ole pals? (They must have missed the interview where she called for him to step down even though he was going to give up his chair to a dem:eek).

How about Obama telling everyone that going back to DC to help with the bail out was his idea that McCain stole from him.

Oh and the 4billion dollars that McCain handed to the Oil industry:24:



Relevant?


Nope

 

[siasl]

:homo:

redistribution of wealth it seems to me is one of the cores of socialism. why is it it disgusting to call him out on it? :dunno

well, my understanding of socialism is that it's notion of "redistribution" comes as a result of strict government control of the means of production.

redistribution through taxation is certainly a liberal point of view, but it's also within the realm of the constitution....

disagree with it on the 4th....but it ain't socialism, imo.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

well, my understanding of socialism is that it's notion of "redistribution" comes as a result of strict government control of the means of production.

redistribution through taxation is certainly a liberal point of view, but it's also within the realm of the constitution

disagree with it on the 4th....but it ain't socialism, imo.

To me it's simple....

The government shouldn't be the one controlling where any of my money goes, when I pay taxes, sure, but telling me I make too much and that has to be stop gapped and given to someone else....Not fair I don't care if you're a republican or democrat.

Here's the difference between a Far Left Liberal and a Republican:

Liberals are essentially defeatists, they believe they cannot get it, so they must have it handed to them.

I believe, it's out there, ripe for the picking, you just have to work your ass off to get it, and I don't want it if I haven't earned it.

We are promised life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Your personal definition of happiness is supposed to determine how hard youhave to pursue it, not my checking account.

I am not going to finance your lack of vision...that's yours to buy

 

[Tim]

So what do you call the reports about Palins wardrobe?

Her now ties to Stevens....Allllll of a sudden, guys been in senate for 7 terms, now all of a sudden he and Palin are big ole pals? (They must have missed the interview where she called for him to step down even though he was going to give up his chair to a dem:eek).

How about Obama telling everyone that going back to DC to help with the bail out was his idea that McCain stole from him.

Oh and the 4billion dollars that McCain handed to the Oil industry:24:



Relevant?


Nope

Those are talking points as well. But I wasn't addressing the republican party or the democratic party, I was addressing Scott and HIS use of the talking points. He is much smarter than that and he doesn't need to use the tried and true republican talking points.
I would also call you on it if you resorted to talking point rebuttals instead of thought out arguments that I know you are capable of... It's all a matter perspective and who is part of the discussion.

To me it's simple....

The government shouldn't be the one controlling where any of my money goes, when I pay taxes, sure, but telling me I make too much and that has to be stop gapped and given to someone else....Not fair I don't care if you're a republican or democrat.

Here's the difference between a Far Left Liberal and a Republican:

Liberals are essentially defeatists, they believe they cannot get it, so they must have it handed to them.

I believe, it's out there, ripe for the picking, you just have to work your ass off to get it, and I don't want it if I haven't earned it.

We are promised life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Your personal definition of happiness is supposed to determine how hard youhave to pursue it, not my checking account.

I am not going to finance your lack of vision...that's yours to buy

Really? I would be considered a liberal and in no way have a defeatist mentality. I want nothing handed to me. I'm not looking for any of your money. I do very well taking care of family by myself. Nothing has been given to me, I have earned EVERYTHING I own.... Hell, even in this mess of an economy I have been able to buy a new home, new SUV (Not hybrid) new furniture (complete new master bedroom suite last night) and everything else I need. All while contributing to my savings.
Where am I getting a break from anything?
But the way I see it, I am the middle class. The country will do much better if people like me continue to work, save and spend. My working dollars do more good for the country if they are buying goods and services than going to taxes. So I will gladly take the tax cuts offered by the Obama campaign. I'll worry about how much the wealthy pay when and if I get there... and that's a big if in this day and age.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Those are talking points as well. But I wasn't addressing the republican party or the democratic party, I was addressing Scott and HIS use of the talking points. He is much smarter than that and he doesn't need to use the tried and true republican talking points.
I would also call you on it if you resorted to talking point rebuttals instead of thought out arguments that I know you are capable of... It's all a matter perspective and who is part of the discussion.



Really? I would be considered a liberal and in no way have a defeatist mentality. I want nothing handed to me. I'm not looking for any of your money. I do very well taking care of family by myself. Nothing has been given to me, I have earned EVERYTHING I own.... Hell, even in this mess of an economy I have been able to buy a new home, new SUV (Not hybrid) new furniture (complete new master bedroom suite last night) and everything else I need. All while contributing to my savings.
Where am I getting a break from anything?
But the way I see it, I am the middle class. The country will do much better if people like me continue to work, save and spend. My working dollars do more good for the country if they are buying goods and services than going to taxes. So I will gladly take the tax cuts offered by the Obama campaign. I'll worry about how much the wealthy pay when and if I get there... and that's a big if in this day and age.

I agree with the talking points debate...So that is closed

The way I see it Tim, the working class carries the largest burden of both credit AND leverage, the middle class is buying vehicles with credit, homes with credit, and various and asundry good and services, that's what makes our economy work.

However, the only fundamental difference between you and someone who makes let's say 500,000 a year is that typically the largest credit burden is on the middle class.

You I agree Tim are not the "typical" Democrat/Independent

And you know a little from our talks that I am not your "typical" republican/independent

That's my point, to base an entire tax plan on one grou is totally unfair, to say I don't deserve this, or you don't deserve that is crazy.

I say flat tax and everyone stop the bitching, let the chips fall where they may.

My fucking hands are tired from this Tim...You're killing me, I wish I had just Fed Exed you a fucking Pepsi

 

[siasl]

The media has been sickening with its approach to Palin, you must be in a hole wher you can't get mainstream media, they have attacked everything from her shoes, wardrobe all the way to what she named her children.

i agree the media coverage -on both sides- has been over the top...both the attacks and the support....at least what i've seen...
but i'm not much of media dog....

No.....Bill Ayers.....And Jeremiah Wright although not an enemy of the state, studies and preaches an ideology called Black Liberation Theology, which is deeply rooted in Marxism, anti-semetic and anti-establishment philosophies.

but again, bad boy....so what?
obama himself seems pretty entrenched in mainstream america....there's no reason not to disagree with him politically, but, unless you believe he's some sort of manchurian candidate....so what?

What it says is something about character, to be able to sit in a church for 20 years listening to a man who blamed the whites, and the US government fo revery problem of the black community, and vowing to ruin any establishment and any white organbization that stand in the way of freedom....I'm sorry but that's radical for any race.

indeed...it does say something about character.....it says he's an intellectual (much like carter, i suppose) and that he's not afraid of ideas. it points out to me that he is probably an idealist, and that the ideals in the concept of an egalitarian society matter to him...

his campaign has indicated to me that he believes the idea of america as a superpower is on the wane, but that REALITY of america as the leader of the free world need not follow it into history....that makes him some sort of globalist, i suppose

whether any of this can be translated into effective policy depends on his ability to do what has earned him the label of "messiah'" or whatever it is -to bridge the divide in this country...

i don't give a rat's ass about the messiah crap....but i, for one, find nothing despicable in his character, which is different from saying i thiink all of his past associations have a clue about how best to "fix" things.

Why does that have to be mentioned? Is it not visually obvious? I don't run around saying Hey....I'm white BTW

it didn't HAVE to be mentioned....i chose to mention it, expressing a concern i have.....the concern was both bigger, and less important in the long run, than your personal views....

It's obvious you have the covers over your eyes.

reallly?.....because i don't subscribe to any party line?

Oh how we so miss the Carter days:thumbdown

heh....carter is a fine man, imo.....but was a lousy president

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

i agree the media coverage -on both sides- has been over the top...both the attacks and the support....at least what i've seen...
but i'm not much of media dog....

but again, bad boy....so what?
obama himself seems pretty entrenched in mainstream america....there's no reason not to disagree with him politically, but, unless you believe he's some sort of manchurian candidate....so what?




indeed...it does say something about character.....it says he's an intellectual (much like carter, i suppose) and that he's not afraid of ideas. it points out to me that he is probably an idealist, and that the ideals in the concept of an egalitarian society matter to him...

his campaign has indicated to me that he believes the idea of america as a superpower is on the wane, but that REALITY of america as the leader of the free world need not follow it into history....that makes him some sort of globalist, i suppose

whether any of this can be translated into effective policy depends on his ability to do what has earned him the label of "messiah'" or whatever it is -to bridge the divide in this country...

i don't give a rat's ass about the messiah crap....but i, for one, find nothing despicable in his character, which is different from saying i thiink all of his past associations have a clue about how best to "fix" things.




it didn't HAVE to be mentioned....i chose to mention it, expressing a concern i have.....the concern was both bigger, and less important in the long run, than your personal views....


reallly?.....because i don't subscribe to any party line?


heh....carter is a fine man, imo.....but was a lousy president

My point exactly

I don't want a man that is too idealistic....I want some vision...and a big bag of knuckles


Great debate, you and Tim both......

 

[siasl]

To me it's simple....Here's the difference between a Far Left Liberal and a Republican:

Liberals are essentially defeatists, they believe they cannot get it, so they must have it handed to them.

sorry....you made some good points in your post....most of them i agree with -even, in some ways, the taxation thing....but when i hear this garbage (and believe it or not, i'm not a liberal :ninja) i just shut down

the reason is simple....the welfare system is a liberal invention....one of those social policies with good intentions thats been so institutionalized that its abuses are entrenched in our thinking

and those abuses are greed and entitlement....the two economic extremes of america.

for whatever reason, i associate the latter with the conservative notion of liberal's being "defeatists", and see that "talking point" as being that all liberals want to live on welfare....

yeah....so it's not what you're saying
it's still what i hear....

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

sorry....you made some good points in your post....most of them i agree with -even, in some ways, the taxation thing....but when i hear this garbage (and believe it or not, i'm not a liberal :ninja) i just shut down

the reason is simple....the welfare system is a liberal invention....one of those social policies with good intentions thats been so institutionalized that its abuses our entrenched in our thinking

and those abuses are greed and entitlement....the two economic extremes of america.

for whatever reason, i associate the latter with the conservative notion of liberal's being "defeatists", and see that "talking point" as being that all liberals want to live on welfare....

yeah....so it's not what you're saying
it's still what i hear....

Notice the chat Tim and I had, I don't paint all dems anything.

As I don't appreciate being painted like all Republicans....I am actually registered as an Indie

So we actually agree more than we think

 

[Alien Allen]

Notice the chat Tim and I had, I don't paint all dems anything.

As I don't appreciate being painted like all Republicans....I am actually registered as an Indie

So we actually agree more than we think

Ignore him

He is a closet commie

You know............ A Hippie

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Ignore him

He is a closet commie

You know............ A Hippie

THAT'S A FUCKING TALKING POINT YOU BIGOT

 

[Alien Allen]

THAT'S A FUCKING TALKING POINT YOU BIGOT

don't worry Bob and I are friends.

He is a tortured and misguided soul though I tells ya.

 

[Fox Mulder]

It's funny how it was fine to spread the wealth around under Republican rule... you know, trickle down economics 101. Where the wealthy benefit from tax breaks so they can trickle their wealth down to us lowly working class... I'm sorry, but trickle down doesn't work, not then, not now.

Socialism? When was the last time Democrats pumped a quarter of a trillion dollars into the economy (Nationalizing banks)?

It's funny that when you see people screaming socialism, redistribution of wealth and the like, they are the people that will actually benefit from the tax cuts proposed. We have a nation full of wealthy republican wannabes who scream about higher taxes for the rich when they have no hope of ever getting into that dreaded tax bracket.

I've already had this talk with my companies owner. If he makes enough profit that it pushes him into the higher tax bracket and he will have to pay a higher tax rate, he will take some of that capital and reinvest it back into the company in equipment and employees so he won't have to pay the higher tax rate (It's what all companies do now). But if he had no such threat of higher taxes, he would just pocket the money. Now I have nothing against him making more money, but it's nice to see his willingness to reinvest more of his revenue back into the company which is good for all of us.

Scott, you really need to get some new material. The American people have seen these accusations thrown around from the McCain camp for weeks now and the American people are pushing back hard. Just look at the polling numbers.
You know damn well that he is not the Manchurian candidate that the republican party would have us believe.

Its clear your boss/owner of the company doesn't understand much about accounting or tax law(assuming you are providing us an accurate account and by that I don't imply you are not being honest, but just a miscommunication or misunderstanding).

Re-investing capital in equipment will provide only marginal offsets against revenue. The company is taxed on operating income and purchase of equipment must be expensed over its useful life providing an offset of expense against revenue in the following years. That is, you buy a piece of equipment with a useful life of 7 years, you expense it over seven years, not immediately. But that equipment also generates revenue, does it not? So how is it saving taxes? Explain how it does that. And explain how that benefits your boss's bottom line when he has to put out large amounts of money for capital that he must expense years in the future? :confused

And why in the world would any company hire more employees solely to save on taxes? :confused That makes no sense. If I am taxed on a dollar of income at even 50%, I still keep 50% of it--why would I hire an employee for $35,000 to offset $35,000 in revenue? I still lose $17,500 in after-tax income.

If you REALLY beleive that higher taxes will result in more wealth creation for the middle and lower class, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn because you won't find ONE credible economist (and I say credible because you'll find some left wing hacks) that would make the silly claim that raising taxes on businesses is going to increase jobs and increase the wealth of the middle class--its ridiculous--its social propoganda with no economic support whatsover in theory.

Let me ask you why do governments (even Democrats) cut taxes when we are in a recession (JFK did it, Carter did it)? Doesn't that tell you something? :confused I mean if a cut in taxes spurs an economy, why the fuck do we then raise taxes again? :confused I will tell you why because the idiot socialists with their class envy convince people like you that we should be punishing the "rich" and that by raising the "rich guy's" taxes, you somehow end up better off economically. Well let me clue you in--its bullshit. Every tax increase is ultimately paid for by the consumer--EVERY FUCKING ONE. Business pass taxes on to the consumer. This is Economics FUCKING 101 and I really can't grasp why it is so hard for people to figure out. Gas prices go up if you tax oil companies more. Food goes up if you tax supermarkets more. Home prices go up if you tax developers more. Again--this is Economics FUCKING 101.

All of us when we hear "TAX INCREASE" should realize that means more money for politicians to waste and sqaunder and less money in all of our pockets--its that FUCKING simple. Again, Economics FUCKING 101. It doesn't matter who you tax or what income level you target, the tax is ultimately paid for by all of us--until people understand that, we will continue to have bad economic policy supported through the use of rich envy because there is one class of people that benefit from tax increases--politicians and they are the ones making the laws.

 

[Alien Allen]

Let me ask you why do governments (even Democrats) cut taxes when we are in a recession (JFK did it, Carter did it)? Doesn't that tell you something? :confused I mean if a cut in taxes spurs an economy, why they fuck do we then raise taxes again? :confused I will tell you why because the idiot socialists with their class envy convince people like you that we should be punishing the "rich" and that by raising "their" taxes, you somehow end up better off economically. Well let me clue you in--its bullshit. Every tax increase is paid for by the consumer--EVERY FUCKING ONE. Business pass taxes on to the consumer. This is Economics FUCKING 101 and I really can't grasp why it is so hard for people to figure out. Gas prices go up if you tax oil companies more. Food goes up if you tax supermarkets more. Home prices go up if you tax developers more. Again--this is Economics FUCKING 101.

All of us when we hear "TAX INCREASE" should realize that means more money for politicians to waste and sqaunder and less money in all of our pockets--its that FUCKING simple. Again, Economics FUCKING 101.

we were discussing this over at the other playground. PAQ tried to argue that tax increases do not result in consumers paying more. I gave the following example which he blew off.

Our state raised sales and use taxes from 4% to 6% a few years ago. he tried to say there was no loss of profit on the sale of an item if I sold the item at the same price after paying the extra 2%. We pay use tax due to the work we do. So I am paying the tax when I buy material. So if what used to cost $104 including taxes now costs $106 including taxes I gotta charge another $2 to the customer or I am losing profit compared to before.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

we were discussing this over at the other playground. PAQ tried to argue that tax increases do not result in consumers paying more. I gave the following example which he blew off.

Our state raised sales and use taxes from 4% to 6% a few years ago. he tried to say there was no loss of profit on the sale of an item if I sold the item at the same price after paying the extra 2%. We pay use tax due to the work we do. So I am paying the tax when I buy material. So if what used to cost $104 including taxes now costs $106 including taxes I gotta charge another $2 to the customer or I am losing profit compared to before.

That's so simple it can't be true


Straight forward mathematics suck:thumbdown