View Poll Results: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Voters
120. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    96 80.00%
  • No

    24 20.00%
Page 37 of 46 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 451

Thread: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

  1. #361
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Try not to respond within my quotations, Muddy Creek.



    And if they price their own consumers out of the insurance pool, that's called an insurance death spiral, and the companies fold. That's a GOOD thing ultimately, because we don't want failed business models lingering on and on as people get poorer and poorer. The mandate chains us to the rails of the sinking ship.

    Price their own consumers out of the insurance pool....hhhmmmm...how would that work, anyway? Examples of this happening.


    Non sequitur. There is nothing necessarily relating these two things. We can expand/extend food stamps or we can end/cut back on them independently of what's going on in the labor markets. But that's not even the point. The point is that Obama appoints Big Ag / biotechnology insiders to key posts within his administration and regulatory agencies. The foxes guard the henhouses in Obama's administration. THAT is the point. Don't move the goalposts. Biotech executives do not help the middle classes, and food stamps don't either. The middle class pays for all that ****.

    The ONLY reason for the increase in food stamps is people qualifying. Do you know what this program does?

    HHHmmmm..Bush appointed Monsanto to head the FDA, Paulsen, the ex-CEO of Goldman/Sanchs to be his "Treasury Secretary" A cola mine owner to see after the safety regulations of mines...this has been going on for decades.


    We're not talking about them. Stop moving the goalposts.

    We are talking about them. YOu accuse Obama of doing what Bush did. You best believe I get to show where you are showing partisan hack points.

    Who the **** was talking about eliminating basic safety provisions in this thread? Who in this thread has advocated for zero regulations by government whatsoever?

    In talking about your changing your stance on what you want from Obama. You are going in circles on the right and not making any sense to a great deal of your constituents.


    It doesn't, except by subtracting money from somewhere else to give people something to do.

    No, how about filling in those social programs the republicans are eliminating given the republicans are refusing to help create jobs? How about lowering the unemployment levels? Bush used them. He created the BIG Homeland Security to cover all the private sector jobs he was losing in this nation.

    United States Department of Homeland Security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department of the United States federal government, created in response to the September 11 attacks, and with the primary responsibilities of protecting the United States of America and U.S. Territories (including Protectorates)[vague] from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. Despite the Department of the Interior's name, DHS is the equivalent to the Interior ministries of other countries, not the Department of the Interior. In fiscal year 2011, DHS was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

    . . .

    With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.[4] Homeland security policy is coordinated at the White House by the Homeland Security Council. Other agencies with significant homeland security responsibilities include the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy.


    No, that is not why I criticize Obama. He doesn't need to do anything for the middle class. He needs to STOP doing so many favors for the rich and the poor and forcing the middle classes to pay for them.

    How has he raised the taxes on the middle class? That's what the republicans platform reads. Middle class is assuming the costs of the tax cuts for the rich, which is whom the republicans support and held the budget hostage until Obama agreed to do it. It's not an Obama thing to remove monies from the budget to give to the rich. And why not care for the poor? They are the victims of the rich greedy corporations going out of this nation. And some are even incapable of taking care of themselves. YOu have a problem helping poor people but not rich?


    You are impossible to debate with, NOT because you make any good points, but because you jump all over the place, bringing up past administrations and partisan irrelevancies about Republicans. My comments are about Obama and how his stated policies differ from the effects of his actual policies. You keep trying to move the target off of Obama, distract from what I'm saying, because you don't want to own up to the crony bull**** Obama is doing that so closely resembles the crony bull**** the Bush Admin. pulled on us.
    You make up false accusations about Obama and try to pretend HE is doing something new, I WILL bring up the republicans and Bush. This government has three branches and Obama's branch does not control the money.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  2. #362
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is incorrect - as is demonstrated by the increase in the portion of the federal tax burden that is paid by the top 1%





    Marginal rates actually have very little direct impact on revenue.


    So what's your take on the money lost from the debt by cutting taxes for those in the upper 1%? Not worth getting back to the 2000 rates?
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  3. #363
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fruityfact View Post
    The only way revenue stays steady is if...wait for it..taxes are gained from somewhere else-hence more burden on everyone but those in the top bracket.

    Tax the rich less and the middle class and poor more?
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  4. #364
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Its true because that is the factual reality

    Its dishonest because its contrary to the clear intent of the constitution
    No it isn't unless the law is overturned by the supreme court. Ask any good lawyer. They will tell you..

  5. #365
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    So what's your take on the money lost from the debt by cutting taxes for those in the upper 1%?
    I think it is largely a chimera. When you reduce tax rates, you reduce the incentive to engage in tax-minimizing behavior, which counters the lower rates. Perfectly? that depends on the relative rates. But the share of taxes paid by the top 1% continued to climb throughout the Bush administration.

    Within the tax code, our problem is less the rates and more the complexity and compliance costs. If we can reduce that while lowering nominal rates in order to keep effective rates largely the same... that's where we will see revenue increases.

    But you can't really increase revenue by hiking up marginal income tax rates. We've had wild swings in marginal rates without corresponding swings in revenue. You can increase revenue by boosting GDP and reducing the relative size of government.



    As you can, see, there's a slightly delayed inverse effect. Which is to be expected, as taxes are often paid retroactively. Government doesn't tax itself quite like it taxes the private sector, so the larger the portion of the economy that government takes up, the less is proportionally available for full taxation.


    Tax Code Simplification with lowered nominal rates and decreased federal spending. So easy, even the Presidents' own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission could figure it out .

  6. #366
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I think it is largely a chimera. When you reduce tax rates, you reduce the incentive to engage in tax-minimizing behavior, which counters the lower rates. Perfectly? that depends on the relative rates. But the share of taxes paid by the top 1% continued to climb throughout the Bush administration.

    Within the tax code, our problem is less the rates and more the complexity and compliance costs. If we can reduce that while lowering nominal rates in order to keep effective rates largely the same... that's where we will see revenue increases.

    But you can't really increase revenue by hiking up marginal income tax rates. We've had wild swings in marginal rates without corresponding swings in revenue. You can increase revenue by boosting GDP and reducing the relative size of government.



    As you can, see, there's a slightly delayed inverse effect. Which is to be expected, as taxes are often paid retroactively. Government doesn't tax itself quite like it taxes the private sector, so the larger the portion of the economy that government takes up, the less is proportionally available for full taxation.


    Tax Code Simplification with lowered nominal rates and decreased federal spending. So easy, even the Presidents' own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission could figure it out .
    I am not impressed with the art work of the drawing of mountains in two different colors.

  7. #367
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I think it is largely a chimera. When you reduce tax rates, you reduce the incentive to engage in tax-minimizing behavior, which counters the lower rates. Perfectly? that depends on the relative rates. But the share of taxes paid by the top 1% continued to climb throughout the Bush administration.

    Within the tax code, our problem is less the rates and more the complexity and compliance costs. If we can reduce that while lowering nominal rates in order to keep effective rates largely the same... that's where we will see revenue increases.

    But you can't really increase revenue by hiking up marginal income tax rates. We've had wild swings in marginal rates without corresponding swings in revenue. You can increase revenue by boosting GDP and reducing the relative size of government.



    As you can, see, there's a slightly delayed inverse effect. Which is to be expected, as taxes are often paid retroactively. Government doesn't tax itself quite like it taxes the private sector, so the larger the portion of the economy that government takes up, the less is proportionally available for full taxation.


    Tax Code Simplification with lowered nominal rates and decreased federal spending. So easy, even the Presidents' own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission could figure it out .
    You mean the gap between the rich and poor grew bigger? Sure. That would generate more money from the rich, because their income went up.

    Income inequality driven by Bush tax cuts, capital gains - Jan. 4, 2012

    he rich have gotten richer, thanks to the stock market and the Bush tax cuts, a recent report has found.

    Growth in income from capital gains and dividends has widened the divide between the wealthy and the poor in recent years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. It supplanted wage inequality as the primary driver of the growing income gap, which helped spur the Occupy Wall Street movement last fall.

    After-tax income for the top 1% of taxpayers soared 74%, on average, between 1996 and 2006. The top 0.1% benefited even more, nearly doubling their income over that decade.

    By comparison, the bottom 20% of taxpayers saw their income fall by 6%, while the middle quintile experienced a meager 10% gain.

    But "income" means something very different for the rich than for the poor.
    6 adult decisions delayed by the economy

    High-income people benefited in particular from the stock market boom in the late 1990s and from companies enjoying strong profit growth and paying out healthy dividends more recently, said Harry Holzer, professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

    In 1996, the top 1% of taxpayers relied on wages for 34.4% of their income. A decade later, that number had fallen to just over a quarter, the report found. Meanwhile, income from capital gains and dividends grew by nearly 7.5 percentage points to 38.2% of earnings.

    The Bush tax cuts, which lowered rates on both income and capital gains, also helped fuel the growth in income inequality, according to the report. The difference in tax rates paid by the poor and the rich narrowed, with the Top 0.1% of American taxpayers seeing their average tax rate fall by about a quarter.

    "It made the tax system less progressive, one more thing favoring the wealthy," Holzer said.
    Under Eisenhower, when the top 1% were taxed at 90%, we had more jobs because business could only get richer from selling goods and services.

    Giving more to the rich won't work. It's voodoo Reaganomics failing this nation again and again. Only by busting monopolies and opening up the market to competition, regulating banks and separating them from investment houses again, and taxing the rich at a rate near 50% will be grow a strong economy again.

    Only an insane person keeps pushing the same ideas that have failed the economy for 35 years and expecting a different result.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  8. #368
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Muddy Creek, look, the way you slice up someone's post and respond to its various parts is by placing [ quote ] (but with no spaces) at the start and [ /quote ] (again without spaces) at the end. The reason to do it this way is so that when I hit "Reply with Quote," all of the things you've said show up for me to respond to. Or highlight what I've said and then click the Quote icon. Since you haven't done this, I have to manually copy/paste all your comments to be able to respond. Forums 101. Learn the tricks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek
    Price their own consumers out of the insurance pool....hhhmmmm...how would that work, anyway? Examples of this happening.
    Google "insurance death spiral" and read.

    The ONLY reason for the increase in food stamps is people qualifying. Do you know what this program does?
    If anyone wanted to stop the corporate and social welfare food system, they'd make sure we pull back on food stamps. Federal Government should not be feeding us.

    HHHmmmm..Bush appointed Monsanto to head the FDA, Paulsen, the ex-CEO of Goldman/Sanchs to be his "Treasury Secretary" A cola mine owner to see after the safety regulations of mines...this has been going on for decades.
    You ****ing can't help yourself can you, but to create red herring after red herring. If you'd read my posts you'd see that I ****ing hated Bush, but this thread is not about the Bush Administration. Focus.

    We are talking about them. YOu accuse Obama of doing what Bush did. You best believe I get to show where you are showing partisan hack points.
    He has done what Bush did.

    In talking about your changing your stance on what you want from Obama. You are going in circles on the right and not making any sense to a great deal of your constituents.
    I am a member of a political forum. I don't have constituents. Except for the kind folks who "Like" my posts, I guess.

    No, how about filling in those social programs the republicans are eliminating given the republicans are refusing to help create jobs?
    Republicans NEVER eliminate social programs. If anything, they expand them. In other words, they SAY we need to cut back on them, but they never do. They outright lie. Exactly the same way Obama says he's supporting the Middle Classes when in fact he's doing the exact opposite. They say whatever their voters want to hear. I refuse to believe them because they never accomplish what they say they want to. You continue to believe what you're told despite all the outcomes we've seen over the past few decades.

    How has he raised the taxes on the middle class?
    By deficit spending and re-appointing the liberal monetary policymaker that Bush appointed in the first place. Both of these act as taxes over the long run and neither the rich nor the poor are going to feel the pain of these taxes. Those who will feel the most pain are the middle classes. This has been explained ad nauseam and you're still playing dumb to it.

    It's not an Obama thing to remove monies from the budget to give to the rich.
    Yes it is. I've pointed out several areas in which he promotes this. Monetary policy and banking, health care, agriculture, etc.

    And why not care for the poor? They are the victims of the rich greedy corporations going out of this nation.
    No, the middle classes are the victims of this. There have always been poor people, there will always be poor people, and they are victims of their own imprudence, stupidity, addictions, instant gratification-seeking, etc. Some people can't help themselves. Poverty is intergenerational, not political.

    YOu have a problem helping poor people but not rich?
    I have a problem with both, and Big Government helps both. Who they don't help is the middle class, because the middle class ends up paying for all their corrupt, deceitful policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    You make up false accusations about Obama and try to pretend HE is doing something new, I WILL bring up the republicans and Bush. This government has three branches and Obama's branch does not control the money.
    I hate the Republicans and Bush. I also hate Obama for the same reasons. So you keep on trying to distract from Obama by bringing up his ideological twins in the GOP, but you'll continue to look desperate to defend Obama via distraction.

  9. #369
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Its arguably redistribution. The progressive tax system we have is designed NOT to tax gross income; but to tax discretionary income. It is also designed to do so in a way that applies equal pain across the various income groups.

    Unfortunately, the progressive system is only on paper. Our efforts to roll-back the highest marginal tax rates over the past 30 years has created a de facto flat tax; which is pretty regressive. It has also created a re-distribution of wealth the favors the most wealthy (Capital is taxed at up to 50% of the tax imposed on labor; business owners, with low tax rates are incented to pay themselves rather than re-invest in their businesses)
    where is the proof of your claims. and why should taxes be used for anything other than efficient collection of revenue. Its all this idiotic social engineering and the extra constitutional power grab engineered by congress that causes the tax code to be larger than the Manhattan phone book and it creates billions in wasted revenue from the avoidance and compliance costs

    pain should not be an issue. everyone benefits from government and if you cannot pay your fair share legitimately than obviously others have to pay more. But right not its about vote buying that drives the rates which is why the indolent middle class is way under taxed based on the goodies it wants from government

    Flat tax-complete BS when the top one percent pay a higher share of the FIT than at any time in the last 60+ years

  10. #370
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Muddy Creek, look, the way you slice up someone's post and respond to its various parts is by placing [ quote ] (but with no spaces) at the start and [ /quote ] (again without spaces) at the end. The reason to do it this way is so that when I hit "Reply with Quote," all of the things you've said show up for me to respond to. Or highlight what I've said and then click the Quote icon. Since you haven't done this, I have to manually copy/paste all your comments to be able to respond. Forums 101. Learn the tricks.



    Google "insurance death spiral" and read.

    I don't provide your information. YOU Provide the information to defend your argument or admit it's indefensible.

    If anyone wanted to stop the corporate and social welfare food system, they'd make sure we pull back on food stamps. Federal Government should not be feeding us.

    Who should feed the poor? Because last this nation knew, the born again evangelical republican cults that take faith based tax dollars just want to "rehabilitate" pedophihles and gays and stop women from having the choice of abortions with their "Pregnancy Centers"

    You ****ing can't help yourself can you, but to create red herring after red herring. If you'd read my posts you'd see that I ****ing hated Bush, but this thread is not about the Bush Administration. Focus.

    I am focused. Stop making dead end claims about Obama as though it's the first time a decision was made by a president.

    He has done what Bush did.



    I am a member of a political forum. I don't have constituents. Except for the kind folks who "Like" my posts, I guess.

    YOu don't talk to co-workers nor family? Just the internet? Sorry.

    Republicans NEVER eliminate social programs. If anything, they expand them. In other words, they SAY we need to cut back on them, but they never do. They outright lie. Exactly the same way Obama says he's supporting the Middle Classes when in fact he's doing the exact opposite. They say whatever their voters want to hear. I refuse to believe them because they never accomplish what they say they want to. You continue to believe what you're told despite all the outcomes we've seen over the past few decades.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us...ding.html?_r=0

    The Republican-led House this week will lay bare the choice between social programs and Pentagon spending in an age of austerity when it takes up legislation to slice $261 billion from food stamps, Medicaid, social services and other programs for struggling Americans over the next decade to stave off more than $50 billion in military spending cuts scheduled to take effect next year.
    Related

    Times Topic: Federal Budget

    National Twitter Logo.
    Connect With Us on Twitter

    Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

    Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

    The House Budget Committee on Monday took up budget bills passed out of six different committees last month, packaged them and sent them to the full House as one bill on a party-line vote. A separate bill, also approved by the committee, would formally lift the threat of automatic Pentagon cuts next year.

    Neither of the measures will pass the Senate, but the final House vote this Thursday amounts to a Republican bet that voters will reward the party for its tough-love priorities, despite Democratic attacks that will only build in intensity this week.

    “We are here to meet our legal and our moral obligations to lead,” said Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee.

    Representative Kathy Castor, Democrat of Florida, accused Republicans of “socking it to children, older Americans and disabled Americans,” and going “for the jugular.”

    The showdown in the House was set up by last summer’s protracted crisis over the debt ceiling, when Republicans agreed to raise the nation’s statutory borrowing limit in exchange for guaranteed deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which was supposed to come out of a special select committee on the deficit. When that committee failed to reach agreement in November, the debt ceiling deal’s backup kicked in — more than $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to military and domestic programs. Those cuts were to exempt programs for people deemed the most vulnerable.



    I think it's safe to say the republicans want to eliminate all FDR social programs to make room for all these huge tax cuts they want to bring in.

    By deficit spending and re-appointing the liberal monetary policymaker that Bush appointed in the first place. Both of these act as taxes over the long run and neither the rich nor the poor are going to feel the pain of these taxes. Those who will feel the most pain are the middle classes. This has been explained ad nauseam and you're still playing dumb to it.

    Republicans will raise taxes on the middle class and poor.

    Ryan wants to give the wealthy even bigger tax cuts than Romney does


    Under Ryan’s plan, the six tiers of tax rates would be simplified to two rates: 25 percent for higher earners and 10 percent for lower-earners. But the overall impact of the Ryan budget would still disproportionately benefit the wealthy. The top 20 percent would get a $13,907 tax cut in 2015, and the top 1 percent would get a whopping $155,808 tax break, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans would pay $159 more in taxes in 2015.

    That’s because the Ryan budget would get rid of tax breaks that benefit low-income Americans, including expansions of “the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit that were enacted in 2009,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As a result, effective tax rates on those with incomes than $30,000 would actually go up, while going down for the wealthy, the CBPP concludes:

    (Source: CBPP)

    Ryan says that he would also eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy, among others, to order to help pay for these rate cuts, which total almost $10 trillion, according to the CBPP. But he’s declined to specify which tax breaks for the rich he’d actually get rid of. Instead, “Ryan has said the House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee will sort that out later,” as Businessweek pointed out earlier this year. What’s more, Ryan actually wants to expand one of the biggest tax breaks that benefit the wealthy: He wants to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest. So it remains unclear how Ryan would ensure that $10 trillion in rate cuts wouldn’t explode the deficit.

    In fact, Romney’s tax plan suffers from exactly the same policy gap: He has also refused to specify which tax breaks he’d get rid of to pay for big rate cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. When the Tax Policy Center tried to fill in the gaps, they found that Romney’s plan still gave big tax breaks to the wealthy while raising taxes on lower- and middle-income families. Both Romney and Ryan would also cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, also offset by getting rid of corporate tax breaks that neither will specify.


    Austerity, cutting for the middle class and poor to give to the rich has proven to be a failed economic policy in Europe. Some nations are now ratcheting up the money for the middle class and poor and taxing the rich...and coming out of the recession far better than we are.

    Yes it is. I've pointed out several areas in which he promotes this. Monetary policy and banking, health care, agriculture, etc.

    How about a little less "pointing" and a lot more facts?

    No, the middle classes are the victims of this. There have always been poor people, there will always be poor people, and they are victims of their own imprudence, stupidity, addictions, instant gratification-seeking, etc. Some people can't help themselves. Poverty is intergenerational, not political.


    Again, how about a little less drama and bigotry and alot more facts to "prove"this?


    I have a problem with both, and Big Government helps both. Who they don't help is the middle class, because the middle class ends up paying for all their corrupt, deceitful policies.

    Social SEcurity is corrupt? When the median income in this nation is $50,000 for a family of four, a lot of social programs help the middle class. What does NOT help the middle class is to raise the taxes on them like the republicans want. What does NOT Help the middle class is abolishing unions which fight for safe working conditions, liveable wages and affordable health care.

    I hate the Republicans and Bush. I also hate Obama for the same reasons. So you keep on trying to distract from Obama by bringing up his ideological twins in the GOP, but you'll continue to look desperate to defend Obama via distraction.

    No distraction, just rebutting your accusations that Obama did this first, chant. There are many things about Obama I don't agree with. But if you think he's not doing his best to help the middle class, then you're far too republican for me, despite your protests.

    You have a lot of opinions, but without facts, not many that have been based on reality, IMHO.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

Page 37 of 46 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •