[Reimann]

OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - New York Post

WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.

Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

"It's clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth," said Andy Roth with the anti-tax group Club for Growth. "He's perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it."

Obama has been meticulous, Roth said, to conceal the "socialistic" nature of his tax plans. "But every once in a while, he lets it slip," he said.

Republican candidate John McCain yesterday charged that Obama's comment was telling.

"This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income-tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now," he said in Pennsylvania.

"My plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can 'spread the wealth around.' My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans."

Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS poll last night showed Obama moving into a commanding 53-39 percent lead.

Good news for the lazy, ignorant, and unproductive. Bad news for anyone who actually works to better themselves.

[GT40XStang9]

I refuse to be scared until after Nov. 4th.

Can anyone provide links, articles, history reports that prove this spreading is what makes nations grow?

Oh and just to add to the plumber story, he's been interviewed since questioning The One:

http://www.youtube.com/v/BpZLMPoQ8VI&hl=en&fs=1

[timeless2]

Wow.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by Reimann

Good news for the lazy, ignorant, and unproductive. Bad news for anyone who actually works to better themselves.

This really is wrong and it seems to be a bad message I believe folks like this man should not be taxed to the point of strangulation, I mean he might not be able to hire someone, or provide a decent health insurance plan. No this needs to be reconsidered, people like this should be exempt from the larger tax increase IMO.

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

This really is wrong and it seems to be a bad message I believe folks like this man should not be taxed to the point of strangulation, I mean he might not be able to hire someone, or provide a decent health insurance plan. No this needs to be reconsidered, people like this should be exempt from the larger tax increase IMO.

POBOYS SAID SOMETHING THAT I AGREE WITH! *faints*


McCain needs to go all out on Obama about this during the debate tonight.

[BlackArtemis]

I wonder what president biden feels errr vice president.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

This really is wrong and it seems to be a bad message I believe folks like this man should not be taxed to the point of strangulation, I mean he might not be able to hire someone, or provide a decent health insurance plan. No this needs to be reconsidered, people like this should be exempt from the larger tax increase IMO.

[sarcasm on]oh but the great messiah will allow this guy a $3000 tax credit per full time job he creates[sarcasm off]

[RookieOne]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

This really is wrong and it seems to be a bad message I believe folks like this man should not be taxed to the point of strangulation, I mean he might not be able to hire someone, or provide a decent health insurance plan. No this needs to be reconsidered, people like this should be exempt from the larger tax increase IMO.

Exactly. Now, out of curiosity, where would YOU draw that line, the line between people that should and shouldn't receive the larger tax increase?

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by RookieOne

Exactly. Now, out of curiosity, where would YOU draw that line, the line between people that should and shouldn't receive the larger tax increase?

This guys just starting out and to hit him with a large tax increase might hurt him, I would say draw the line at 1/2 a million But still provide tax breaks to all the companies who invest in new hires, and the new hires have to be on the job at least 6 months, that way if they just hire someone just to receive the tax break, and they lay them off they could collect UE benefits. I feel that the Gov. should provide an incentive to create jobs here, so we can all benefit .

[RookieOne]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

This guys just starting out and to hit him with a large tax increase might hurt him, I would say draw the line at 1/2 a million But still provide tax breaks to all the companies who invest in new hires, and the new hires have to be on the job at least 6 months, that way if they just hire someone just to receive the tax break, and they lay them off they could collect UE benefits. I feel that the Gov. should provide an incentive to create jobs here, so we can all benefit .

Damnit, Damnit, Damnit.......


I can't believe I have to admit that I agree with you AGAIN!!

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by RookieOne

Damnit, Damnit, Damnit.......


I can't believe I have to admit that I agree with you AGAIN!!

Holy crap, There must be a snowstorm in hell, and Satans car is stuck in a drift

[Yobi1Kanobi]

Wish more people realized this....

People instead are blinded by promises of bliss and green pastures...This happened in Cuba 48 years ago

[rbohm]

the only problem is that if we raise taxes on the largest corporations only, we still lose jobs because those corporations have the money to move their operations off shore to tax havens like the caymen islands. if we raise taxes on the oil companies gas prices, as well as all other prices are going to go up. that is the one thing that liberals forget to think about. they want to help the middle class with a tax cut, but cutting taxes on the middle class does no good if they dont have jobs, and food prices go back through the roof, as well as energy prices.

[Ike83]

I love it when everybody FINALLY agrees that raising taxes is a bad idea.

I'm going to call my mom and tell her I love her.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by rbohm

the only problem is that if we raise taxes on the largest corporations only, we still lose jobs because those corporations have the money to move their operations off shore to tax havens like the caymen islands. if we raise taxes on the oil companies gas prices, as well as all other prices are going to go up. that is the one thing that liberals forget to think about. they want to help the middle class with a tax cut, but cutting taxes on the middle class does no good if they dont have jobs, and food prices go back through the roof, as well as energy prices.

I think a compromise has got to come about, so that doesn't happen, because when you tax a company they in turn pass that tax increase on to us the consumer. I just would like to know where the jobs the tax breaks were supposed to create are? Where was that money spent or invested?

[bigconig]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

I think a compromise has got to come about, so that doesn't happen, because when you tax a company they in turn pass that tax increase on to us the consumer. I just would like to know where the jobs the tax breaks were supposed to create are? Where was that money spent or invested?

Thia is the real teller here. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy were supposed to grow the economy and create jobs. They did neither. Add to that the drunken spending of the GOP for the last 8 years and you have the crap economy we got now. The reality is with all the debt the country has stacked up revenues have to be increased, if that means that a plumber making a 1/4 million a year has to pay a few more bucks than so be it.

According to the tax policy center, Obama's plan doesn't have any real increases until you get over the $600k mark (ironically about the same place McCain's plan starts the real cuts)

[GT40XStang9]

Do you think raising taxes on the rich will increase revenue? History disagrees.

[DarkFireGT]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

I think a compromise has got to come about, so that doesn't happen, because when you tax a company they in turn pass that tax increase on to us the consumer. I just would like to know where the jobs the tax breaks were supposed to create are? Where was that money spent or invested?

But, when you cut taxes, they don't pass that along. Corporations now days are too greedy. They'll enjoy having the extra money for the big shots for a bit, then they'll want to find a way to get more money. There's too much greed in the world now days for trickle down economics to work effectively.

[BlackArtemis]

the problem is too many college kids not making any money and people who have no Idea how things work with taxes are blinded by Obama's tax plan. Jesus I am going to be hurting bad for the next 4 years. Lets see if it wrecks our family business or not...

[5.0_GT_kid]

Originally Posted by bigconig

Thia is the real teller here. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy were supposed to grow the economy and create jobs. They did neither. Add to that the drunken spending of the GOP for the last 8 years and you have the crap economy we got now. The reality is with all the debt the country has stacked up revenues have to be increased, if that means that a plumber making a 1/4 million a year has to pay a few more bucks than so be it.

According to the tax policy center, Obama's plan doesn't have any real increases until you get over the $600k mark (ironically about the same place McCain's plan starts the real cuts)

Exactly.

It's insane for anyone to think that after Bush's administration is done that will we not have to raise taxes, much less cut them. After all the tax cuts the rich got under Bush, I'm perfectly happy to let them take the brunt of the tax increases.

[timeless2]

Originally Posted by GT40XStang9

Do you think raising taxes on the rich will increase revenue? History disagrees.

Examples please.

[Dusstbuster]

Originally Posted by bigconig

Thia is the real teller here. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy were supposed to grow the economy and create jobs. They did neither. Add to that the drunken spending of the GOP for the last 8 years and you have the crap economy we got now.

The dems aided in getting our economy to where it is by allowing banks to give loans to those who couldn't afford it.

Also take a look at gas price histories...you'll notice about a month after the dems took control of office prices spiked...but somehow that was bush's fault!

[5.0_GT_kid]

Originally Posted by Dusstbuster

The dems aided in getting our economy to where it is by allowing banks to give loans to those who couldn't afford it.

Also take a look at gas price histories...you'll notice about a month after the dems took control of office prices spiked...but somehow that was bush's fault!

Prices had been high for just about all of Bush's term, so do you have any evidence to support that the dems were responsible for the spike in prices?

[EMW150]

Originally Posted by bigconig

Thia is the real teller here. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy were supposed to grow the economy and create jobs. They did neither. Add to that the drunken spending of the GOP for the last 8 years and you have the crap economy we got now. The reality is with all the debt the country has stacked up revenues have to be increased, if that means that a plumber making a 1/4 million a year has to pay a few more bucks than so be it.

The question is, how much worse off would we be without the tax cuts? Did we divert a recession? Possibly, we'll never know. Throughout history, cutting taxes equals more revenue to the government. Why is this so hard for libs to grasp? Reagan proved this. You can't learn from history?



"Consumer spending typically equals two-thirds of GNP. As you would expect, lowering taxes raises disposable income, allowing the consumer to spend additional sums, thereby, increasing GNP. (To learn more, read Economic Indicators To Know.)

Reducing taxes, therefore, pushes out the aggregate demand curve as consumers demand more goods and services with their higher disposable incomes. Supply side tax cuts are aimed to stimulate capital formation. If successful, the cuts will shift both aggregate demand and aggregate supply because the price level for a supply of goods will be reduced, which often leads to an increase in demand for those goods. (To learn more, read Economics Basics.)

Tax Cuts and the Economy
Tax cuts, when used properly, have stimulated the economy. Many credit President George W. Bush's tax cuts for moving the economy out of recession. Similarly, in 1964, Congress enacted an 18% cut in personal taxes to spur growth. The legislation was designed to encourage consumer spending - many believe that it succeeded admirably as consumers delivered a textbook reaction.

According to a December 2004 article in Celtia.info, a magazine distributed in Celtic countries, tax cuts have also shown positive results in other countries as well. Ireland's recent tax cuts are believed to have improved living standards significantly. For years, the Irish were faced with high unemployment, budget deficits and high taxes. In 1986, Ireland faced a fiscal crisis. After reducing government spending, the government lowered taxes on both individuals and corporations. Over the next 13 years, Ireland's per capita income went from only 63% of the United Kingdom's average to besting it in 2000. Ireland now enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Europe."

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by EMW150

The question is, how much worse off would we be without the tax cuts? Did we divert a recession? Possibly, we'll never know. Throughout history, cutting taxes equals more revenue to the government. Why is this so hard for libs to grasp? Reagan proved this. You can't learn from history?

Really?

You really believe that Reagan's tax policies were good for the nation? Did we wind up with a massive federal budget deficit in the 80s due to his tax policies and unprecedented government defense spending?