You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Real Obama on Wealth Redistribution
- Thread starter MKTrader
- Start date
I agree, but if you listen to the Obama interview in the link (from Chicago Public Radio in 1991), he's more blatant and radical than any President I've ever heard.
Obviously, the degree to which it's progressive is important.
Obviously, the degree to which it's progressive is important.
Quote from Landis82:
Like the progressive tax system that we currently have isn't already a redistribution of wealth?
Think I don't get taxed more living in California than in Iowa or Kansas?
Think people.
Think!
zorro,
I agree most decisions are made based on what is best for the individual.
However most decisions are no more important (individually) than what to have for dinner on up to, maybe, where to build a house.
When choosing the leader of the free world, or even when deciding wether or not to hire a new employee because your customers are not being properly served, it is best to take the high road. To make your decision based on what's best for everyone.
I was saying that anyone who would make such an important decision based on their individual needs is not much of a man(hence the ball comment)
Now I am in no way saying I know what is the best decision for all of mankind on any issue what so ever.
I agree most decisions are made based on what is best for the individual.
However most decisions are no more important (individually) than what to have for dinner on up to, maybe, where to build a house.
When choosing the leader of the free world, or even when deciding wether or not to hire a new employee because your customers are not being properly served, it is best to take the high road. To make your decision based on what's best for everyone.
I was saying that anyone who would make such an important decision based on their individual needs is not much of a man(hence the ball comment)
Now I am in no way saying I know what is the best decision for all of mankind on any issue what so ever.
Quote from 151:
zorro,
I agree most decisions are made based on what is best for the individual.
However most decisions are no more important (individually) than what to have for dinner on up to, maybe, where to build a house.
When choosing the leader of the free world, or even when deciding wether or not to hire a new employee because your customers are not being properly served, it is best to take the high road. To make your decision based on what's best for everyone.
I was saying that anyone who would make such an important decision based on their individual needs is not much of a man(hence the ball comment)
Now I am in no way saying I know what is the best decision for all of mankind on any issue what so ever.
The fact is we have hordes of incompetent politicians. I believe its not the dems or repubs that got us into this mess, its the ignorance and apathy of the masses that facilitate the electing of incompetent leaders who then fuck everything up, in a bipartisan way.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Nothing is out of context, if you wish I can supply the text to the original letters.
As for your statement that he wasn't referring to income taxes because they weren't introduced yet, he specifically wrote about uniformity of application of taxes and specifically mentioned income tax when he wrote about liquor taxes in his letter to Samuel Smith.
You, of course, throwing your featherweight opinion around like it's a sumo wrestler, know to what I'm referring, of course.
Perhaps you could explain why a constitutional amendment was required to impose a federal income tax. Hint: the original Constitution prohibited progressive income taxation.
Of course, we both know you knew that and were just trying to mislead people.
If you don't mind my saying so, you seem to be getting a little testy. You and Biden both. I would think it would be high five time at Obama headquarters.
Quote from tradezorro:
Aw what the heck, I'll bite.
What's wrong with me wanting to "redistribute the wealth" in a way the benefits me? I'm not rich (yet) and if Obama's plan puts more money in my pocket then why shouldn't I vote for him right up until the time when I have enough money that he's taking money out of my pocket? All other things being equal (which they're not, of course) it would seem in my best interest to vote for the person who wants to give me the most money.
I don't care what it's called ... I want to maximize my profit and minimize my losses. Why shouldn't I pick a president who helps me accomplish this?
I've heard a lot of people ask essentially this same question. "I think Obama's socialism is wrong but if it puts some extra money in my pocket, why not?"
Three responses.
1. You need to ask yourself if your long run interests would be better served by a socialist economy or a free market one. I would think for most real traders, the answer is obvious. For bigdave and the other Obama interns, maybe not so clear. They see themselves running the socialist machinery and deciding things like if your mother can have that life-saving operation or how many cars do you need.
2. Are you really the kind of person who puts a few extra dollars over the interests of the country? Why not just let them buy your vote directly? Then at least you could maximize your return.
3. Do you really think Obama is going to give "95%" of people a tax cut? If so, I have some excellent deals on bridges in major cities for you. Just like with Clinton's promised "middle class tax cut", once he is safely in office, Obama will develop a severe case of amnesia. Once Obama gets through expanding the welfare system, supporting africa and socializing health care, there won't be any spare change for the middle class.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I've heard a lot of people ask essentially this same question. "I think Obama's socialism is wrong but if it puts some extra money in my pocket, why not?"
Three responses.
1. You need to ask yourself if your long run interests would be better served by a socialist economy or a free market one. I would think for most real traders, the answer is obvious. For bigdave and the other Obama interns, maybe not so clear. They see themselves running the socialist machinery and deciding things like if your mother can have that life-saving operation or how many cars do you need.
2. Are you really the kind of person who puts a few extra dollars over the interests of the country? Why not just let them buy your vote directly? Then at least you could maximize your return.
3. Do you really think Obama is going to give "95%" of people a tax cut? If so, I have some excellent deals on bridges in major cities for you. Just like with Clinton's promised "middle class tax cut", once he is safely in office, Obama will develop a severe case of amnesia. Once Obama gets through expanding the welfare system, supporting africa and socializing health care, there won't be any spare change for the middle class.
Correctamundo!
There never really is a free lunch, regardless of how good it feels at first.