The redistribution of your wealth plan.

[Corban_White]

The government owns all the non private land and the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Sounds to me like the people "own" the land.

 

[EROK81?]

No way. Palin made that up. It isn't true.

 

[waynehartwig]

The government owns all the non private land and the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Sounds to me like the people "own" the land.

...That's all I'm sayin'...

 

[waynehartwig]

Check this schit out! If Obama hasn't surprised you enough yet...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/

Obama Lays Plans to Kill Expectations After Election Victory

Confident in an Election Day win, the campaign looks to lower supporters' expectations on concerns their hopes of 'change' are unrealistic, a senior aide says

Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of "hope" and "change" are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

...And it continues on for another few paragraphs....

But no schit!? Euphoric - ya think?!? People are voting for this douche bag for that reason alone. My mother in law and wife got into a heated debate the other night when she called asking my wife whos she is voting for on the 4th. After she found out we voted several weeks ago, for McCain, she got kinda pissy - Bush II and etc. My wife kept telling her she watches the guy talk, and state he's raising taxes, but yet the MIL keeps insisting Obama isn't saying the things he does.

 

[Brett]

But here's the thing... Obama is getting richer by raising taxes and Palin cut her salary by 10%, plus cut other spending and taxes in the process.

But in turn she bill's the state for her kids airline tickets, hotel stay's and anything else she can......when they aren't invited nor performing anything remotely close to "state business." That's where she made up that 10%

 

[Brett]

The quote is:



No where does it state that if I lived there, I owned your land. That statement says that the people of Alaska own the resources that are being sold. The state doesn't, the people do.

Last I checked, unless I bought and paid for a parcel of land, I don't own it, the state or federal goverment does......unless they run thing's different up there.

 

[Brett]

Check this schit out! If Obama hasn't surprised you enough yet...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/



...And it continues on for another few paragraphs....

But no schit!? Euphoric - ya think?!? People are voting for this douche bag for that reason alone. My mother in law and wife got into a heated debate the other night when she called asking my wife whos she is voting for on the 4th. After she found out we voted several weeks ago, for McCain, she got kinda pissy - Bush II and etc. My wife kept telling her she watches the guy talk, and state he's raising taxes, but yet the MIL keeps insisting Obama isn't saying the things he does.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece

Full article, since Fox doesn't have the it all on that link.

That, and it wasn't loading right on my end for some reason

 

[waynehartwig]

But in turn she bill's the state for her kids airline tickets, hotel stay's and anything else she can......when they aren't invited nor performing anything remotely close to "state business." That's where she made up that 10%

The state of Alaska has said that is completely in line with other governors. Even though she does this, she has also spent 80% less on travel than her predecessors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Last I checked, unless I bought and paid for a parcel of land, I don't own it, the state or federal goverment does......unless they run thing's different up there.

You can own land and not the resources, and vice versa. If you own the land, you would also have to own the mineral rights to that land. My family has some of both. Some where own mineral rights but not the land, some where we own both and some where we only own the land. I could not even begin to tell you why it's that way... The places we own mineral rights are in remote areas, where in city limits we only own parcels.

So maybe in Alaska, where all of the resources are taken is owned by the state. The state then feels that the people of Alaska actually own the resources, and give them the royalties. Like someone else just said, "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 

[dieslcruisrhead]

If it helps the $250k tax rate is actually per person. So married couples, businesses, etc, that is after costs and after deductions, kids, etc. It seems reasonable enough to me. Buffett was stating that he pays a tax rate lower an 96% of his employees. Obama is actually attempting to balance the budget while McCain is not even attempting to balance it and will make cuts across the board bigger for the wealthy. Obama actually taxes 93% of the country a lower rate than McCain. Finally, at the end of the day, for the wealthy it is still a win-win because the economy historically grows much stronger under democratic-style tax policy of taxing the wealthy at a higher interval. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081021/cm_csm/ybartels As much as 9% which is far greater than any tax cut. At $250K as the low point where you start seeing increases in taxes, you still make more money they if you were taxed at a lower rate assuming you have some of that excess wealth invested in the markets (which is a logical assumption) - it would be foolish to not invest some of your income if you were earning $250k a year. So there is ideology and there is reality. I do think ideology of taxation is important but it appears on Obama's plan it is actually a win-win for everyone.

 

[GOAT]

If it helps the $250k tax rate is actually per person. So married couples, businesses, etc, that is after costs and after deductions, kids, etc. It seems reasonable enough to me. Buffett was stating that he pays a tax rate lower an 96% of his employees. Obama is actually attempting to balance the budget while McCain is not even attempting to balance it and will make cuts across the board bigger for the wealthy. Obama actually taxes 93% of the country a lower rate than McCain. Finally, at the end of the day, for the wealthy it is still a win-win because the economy historically grows much stronger under democratic-style tax policy of taxing the wealthy at a higher interval. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081021/cm_csm/ybartels As much as 9% which is far greater than any tax cut. At $250K as the low point where you start seeing increases in taxes, you still make more money they if you were taxed at a lower rate assuming you have some of that excess wealth invested in the markets (which is a logical assumption) - it would be foolish to not invest some of your income if you were earning $250k a year. So there is ideology and there is reality. I do think ideology of taxation is important but it appears on Obama's plan it is actually a win-win for everyone.

Bravo!

 

[GOAT]

Exactly how many members of the this site are earning >250k?????????????

Strange that so many are concerned about something that may effect <5% of the members of this site. Certainly won't effect me.

These thread are just as much fun as the Y2K stuff. Once all the dust settles, it was all hype, fear, and paranoia.

I don't care if we put Angela Davis in office. The old white men have had their chance in politics and religion and I'm am finished with it.

 

[StrobeNGH]

Just because it doesn't effect any of us doesn't mean it is right.

Why should we reward success with a substantially disproportionate share of the tax burden? Is that fair?

And Buffet pays less taxes than most of his employees because he has great tax attorneys.
And he means a lower percentage of his income, not a lower $$$ amount.

 

[dieslcruisrhead]

I agree with the principle aspect. But again, there is reality, government is expensive and if you can have an actual win-win then run with it. I do agree taxation of the wealthy isn't awesome but again if they can pull it off and still pay the bills, pay down the budget deficit, etc, then I say go for it...

 

[Tacoma]

Since you have Eastern Bloc in your blood, I'll forgive you for that opinion....

What would you say is UNFAIR? What do you think "they" ought to try and "pull off"???

Taxation of the wealthy at a disproportionate rate is wrong, period.

Enormous government supporting entitlement programs is wrong!!!! Red or blue, wrong wrong WRONG

 

[bobmed]

Enormous government supporting entitlement programs is wrong!!!! Red or blue, wrong wrong WRONG

And it's probably going to get even bigger now

 

[Tacoma]

It's the inevitable march of "progress", unfortunately.

However, I think Obama will do his best to accelerate the process. Let me be clear: Obama and his adherents in the Senate/H.O.R.....

 

[waynehartwig]

If it helps the $250k tax rate is actually per person. So married couples, businesses, etc, that is after costs and after deductions, kids, etc. It seems reasonable enough to me. Buffett was stating that he pays a tax rate lower an 96% of his employees. Obama is actually attempting to balance the budget while McCain is not even attempting to balance it and will make cuts across the board bigger for the wealthy. Obama actually taxes 93% of the country a lower rate than McCain. Finally, at the end of the day, for the wealthy it is still a win-win because the economy historically grows much stronger under democratic-style tax policy of taxing the wealthy at a higher interval. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081021/cm_csm/ybartels As much as 9% which is far greater than any tax cut. At $250K as the low point where you start seeing increases in taxes, you still make more money they if you were taxed at a lower rate assuming you have some of that excess wealth invested in the markets (which is a logical assumption) - it would be foolish to not invest some of your income if you were earning $250k a year. So there is ideology and there is reality. I do think ideology of taxation is important but it appears on Obama's plan it is actually a win-win for everyone.

That's an opinion (the article)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. There was also a growing federal budget deficit which increased to 66 billion dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

When Reagan entered office the United States inflation rate stood at 11.83%[85] and unemployment at 7.5%

Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
Even in spite of the dems stone walling him....

By 1992, interest and inflation rates were the lowest in years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
There is no clear economy numbers on Clinton, even with the Omnibus Bill and etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Unemployment originally rose from 4.2 percent in January 2001 to 6.3 percent in June 2003, but subsequently dropped to 4.5 percent as of July 2007

And now current economy, is because of Carter and Clinton and other dem's in the house/senate. The republican's, Bush included, came to them several times with despair of a failing housing problem and the dem's brushed them off. Why? Dem's were making money because the programs were making money - why stop if everyone is making money right?

So anyway, I just went back 20 years and proved your article wrong. Lower taxes increases jobs, lowers unemployment rates and inflation - period. That's proven. Higher taxes leads to higher spending (Obama wants to increase taxes and spending by $1.4 TRILLION dollars to pay for his welfare programs) and higher unemployment rates and inflation.

Dare I say it? The dem's get the good points (in your article), because they come in office after a republican has fixed the system, then f' it all up again.

 

[Tacoma]

Wikipedia is not a source!

Booo!!!!

 

[GOAT]

Y2k

 

[StrobeNGH]

I agree with the principle aspect. But again, there is reality, government is expensive and if you can have an actual win-win then run with it. I do agree taxation of the wealthy isn't awesome but again if they can pull it off and still pay the bills, pay down the budget deficit, etc, then I say go for it...

Shouldn't we also require financial disclosures whenever anyone purchases anything?
Sure milk only costs $2.25 a gallon, but if you're rich, why shouldn't you be paying $5.25 a gallon?

I mean, you can afford it, and it won't hurt you as much, right?