"Spreading the wealth", is socialism. Obama is so arrogant that he thinks its his job to rob the rich so that big-daddy government can take care of everybody else. Its not his money, he didn't work for it and he needs to leave it alone!

 

If "spreading the wealth" is socialism then the United States has been socialist for a century or more.

If "spreading the wealth" is socialism then the United States has been socialist for a century or more.

 

You got that right and it hasn't worked here either. But we ain't seen nothing yet.

I actually investigated everything on the webpage. It is entirely ambiguous providing little more than the author's personal interpretation of data. He does not explain his methodology, or links to his data sources. I could take the same data and create graphs of my own, based on my own interpretation of the data that might read very differently.

 

His work could be accurate, but there's no way of knowing without more information. But hey, it's great if you're predisposed to his viewpoint. :thumb:

 

If you choose to believe that way, then this argument has no need to progress.

If you choose to believe that way, then this argument has no need to progress.

Dude, you will not find one competent analyst dealing with these issues and data that could "honestly" state that the article and graphs presented by the author you linked represent an airtight case.

 

He says what you want to hear, therefore the burden of proof for you has been met. For those of us not predisposed to jump to his conclusions, the proof as presented is feeble.

 

I never said he was right or wrong, only that he does not adequately reinforce his conclusions with supporting data and an explanation of his methodology.

Dude, you will not find one competent analyst dealing with these issues and data that could "honestly" state that the article and graphs presented by the author you linked represent an airtight case.

 

He says what you want to hear, therefore the burden of proof for you has been met. For those of us not predisposed to jump to his conclusions, the proof as presented is feeble.

 

I never said he was right or wrong, only that he does not adequately reinforce his conclusions with supporting data and an explanation of his methodology.

You mean we aren't suppose to take the author's word for it?

Maybe Bob the Builder will be appearing at a rally near you...

 

:lol:

Sorry to appear so impatient and self-interested, but I spent quite some time researching and thinking about post #132, and would appreciate if someone who acknowledge it. And I want more than just a :thumb: or a ; plenty of people on this board lament at the lack of serious discussion, but ignore the good posts so they can address the fluff.

Thanks. Here is what I am beginning to conclude. I think you two are looking at it the wrong way.

 

You are looking at the number of small businesses that will be affected. After reading a few articles, I think a better way to look at it is the bulk of income generated by small businesses.

 

And in that case, yes, 2/3 of the income generated by small businesses (sole proprietorships, S corporations, and partnerships) will be affected by Obama's new tax plan, which will raise their income to be taxed at about 50% (between SS/Medicare raises and Household income tax raises).

 

So as economist Ryan Ellis says:

 

 

 

So, essentially, Obama will be taxing 2/3 of the income (and, I assume, jobs) of small business. I am sorry, but I refuse to concede that he is the defender of the middle class

:thumb:

 

How's that? :lol:

 

You make some good points. I think the bigger point is, Mr. Obama's math cannot withstand even casual scrutiny.

 

Somebody's gonna get the short end of the stick with him in the White House, and it ain't gonna just be the winners of life's lottery. :eek:

Dude, you will not find one competent analyst dealing with these issues and data that could "honestly" state that the article and graphs presented by the author you linked represent an airtight case.

 

He says what you want to hear, therefore the burden of proof for you has been met. For those of us not predisposed to jump to his conclusions, the proof as presented is feeble.

 

I never said he was right or wrong, only that he does not adequately reinforce his conclusions with supporting data and an explanation of his methodology.

 

Look at any source and see what it says about the median household income when democrats are in office opposed to republicans, or maybe everyone has been lying this entire time.

I'd like to point out the fact that a simple non-union plumber struggling to pay his taxes uncovered more about Barack Obama's true agenda for this country than 18 months of adoring media coverage has managed to unveil.

 

 

The media gave Joe the Plumber more intensive scrutiny in two or three days than they've directed at Barack Obama in 18 months combined.

 

 

Something's wrong with this picture.

 

 

Of course, we all know that any mention of media bias is patently absurd.

Look at any source and see what it says about the median household income when democrats are in office opposed to republicans, or maybe everyone has been lying this entire time.

I feel like I'm trying to peel the same apple for the third time.

 

It's not that I can't comprehend the author's claims... I question how he came to make his claims.

• How did he determine each administration's term?
  
• Did he allow for any carry over from one administration to the next as each new administration ramped up and initiated its specific policies that would affect the numbers?
  
• Did he account for which party was in control of the House and Senate (the true controllers of the country's purse strings) under each president?
  
• Did he allow for other impacts (like terror attacks, soaring fuel costs, inflation, wars) occuring within each administration's term?
  

 

 

I could use the same information he presented, with no more proof or explanation than he provides, to prove that the Vietnam War was the greatest generator of personal income in our nation's past half century.

 

I don't believe that... but it's just as plausible as the opinion he presents with the facts provided.

I'd like to point out the fact that a simple non-union plumber struggling to pay his taxes uncovered more about Barack Obama's true agenda for this country than 18 months of adoring media coverage has managed to unveil.

 

 

The media gave Joe the Plumber more intensive scrutiny in two or three days than they've directed at Barack Obama in 18 months combined.

 

 

Something's wrong with this picture.

 

 

Of course, we all know that any mention of media bias is patently absurd.

And guess who the media attacked?

Of course, we all know that any mention of media bias is patently absurd.

 

I assume this is directed toward me. No, it isn't absurd - claiming that those who question the monolithic media bias are biased themselves is.

 

I'd like to point out the fact that a simple non-union plumber struggling to pay his taxes uncovered more about Barack Obama's true agenda for this country than 18 months of adoring media coverage has managed to unveil.

 

The media gave Joe the Plumber more intensive scrutiny than they've directed at Barack Obama in 18 months combined.

 

Something's wrong with this picture.

 

Which is what, he's going to tax top income earners more? When did this become a revelation to anyone?

I assume this is directed toward me. No, it isn't absurd - claiming that those who question the monolithic media bias are biased themselves is.

I have no idea what I did to personally tick you off so badly. I have yet to attack you personally, and I assure you that if I ever do I will not wuss around and do it through veiled references and ambiguous insults. You will know... straight up. I'm the same way in person. I may not have a lot of friends, but the friends I do have are real and lasting.

 

For the record, I have nothing whatsoever against you, your avatar or online persona or otherwise. I do not dislike you. You are passionate and expressive. I vastly prefer that to docile and phlegmatic. At least I know where you stand... whether I agree with you or not. :thumb:

 

I was directing it at everyone who blindly defends the media as being fair and unbiased, and who puts down those of us who ever dare point out their inconsistencies.

 

Which is what, he's going to tax top income earners more? When did this become a revelation to anyone?

No Sir. It's the fact that we learned more about the real Joe the Plumber than we truly know about the real Barack Obama and his plan to redistribute wealth in the preceeding 18 months. It's the fact that the media and Obama supporters are once again attempting the sleight of hand of discrediting Joe the Plumber instead to addressing what it is that Obama said to Joe the Plumber. Anyone who thinks Obama can fulfill his promised vision by reducing the tax liability for 95% of Americans (when 95% of Americans do not actually pay FICA taxes) while jacking the rates on only the top 5% is either ignorant of the facts or mesmerized by Obama's personality or something I truly cannot grasp, and NO ONE ON THIS BOARD HAS EVEN COME CLOSE TO EXPLAINING.

I feel like I'm trying to peel the same apple for the third time.

 

It's not that I can't comprehend the author's claims... I question how he came to make his claims.

• How did he determine each administration's term?
  
• Did he allow for any carry over from one administration to the next as each new administration ramped up and initiated its specific policies that would affect the numbers?
  
• Did he account for which party was in control of the House and Senate (the true controllers of the country's purse strings) under each president?
  
• Did he allow for other impacts (like terror attacks, soaring fuel costs, inflation, wars) occuring within each administration's term?
  

 

 

I could use the same information he presented, with no more proof or explanation than he provides, to prove that the Vietnam War was the greatest generator of personal income in our nation's past half century.

 

I don't believe that... but it's just as plausible as the opinion he presents with the facts provided.

 

Well however you want to peel it, the dems have been better for the middle class, whether it be because of the republicans that came before them or whatever, it happened under their watch. Personally, I don't think Reagan or Bush Sr. had anything to do with the economic boom during Clinton's era (odd how he taxed the rich and the boom soon followed), and the 500 billion dollar budget surplus.