Amen... preach it Brother! :thumb:

 

Basically, we should just say this...let's run the wealthy people out of our country and re-distribute what's left so we can all be equally miserable and broke.

 

Being from Eastern KY, I understand all too well how economies suffer when they can't attract business and industry. The same applies on a national scale...the US economy suffers when corporations leave. When you tax them to the point that it's insane for them to stay from a business perspective, they're going to leave.

UNBELIEVEABLE! If (the fat lady hasn't sung just yet) Obama gets elected this country is in for a big down turn. Socialistic ideas DO NOT work. You will be sorry if he is in charge and with a Democratically controlled congress........ the Americans who are working will literally be taxed to death, the businesses will have to lay off people due to the tax burden. America as we have known it will be gone . . . count on it.

 

We are not on a downturn now?

Basically, we should just say this...let's run the wealthy people out of our country and re-distribute what's left so we can all be equally miserable and broke.

 

Being from Eastern KY, I understand all too well how economies suffer when they can't attract business and industry. The same applies on a national scale...the US economy suffers when corporations leave. When you tax them to the point that it's insane for them to stay from a business perspective, they're going to leave.

 

Trickle down has worked well for Eastern Ky as well as the rest of the country hasn't it?

Trickle down has worked well for Eastern Ky as well as the rest of the country hasn't it?

I'm not picking on you Red but this issue amazes me... where would we be if there were no top end for wealth to trickle down from?

 

Let's say we confiscate all the wealth of the top 5% (who pay 60% of all federal income taxes) and redistribute it to the lower 95%. Whoopie... party time. Everyone buys a flat panel HD LCD TV.

 

Who's going to continue to generate the percentage no longer possible to collect from the top 5%? How are we going to make up for that 60% loss of federal income taxes? What's going to trickle down? Nothing.

 

Trickle down doesn't just work, it is vital to the health of our economy. Hammering those paying the biggest share of the tab and punishing success is no way to grow our economy or eliminate our debts or grow jobs.

 

If it weren't for coal and timber, leading to a need for railroads and roads, Eastern Kentucky would still be remote and impoverished. Its struggles have more to do with geography than a failure of "trickle down" economics.

This is ridiculous.

 

When a "rich" guy buys a new car, dozens of "not so rich guys" are paid well to design, build, maintain and fuel that car. When a rich guy buys a jet airplane, dozens of not-so-rich guys are paid well to design, build, maintain, operate, fuel, control, etc., etc. that plane. Hundreds and even thousands are employed to design, build, operate and maintain the airports those rich guys use to get around while creating more work for more people. When a rich guy builds a new house, stays in a fancy hotel, eats in a restaurant, yada, yada, yada, many people benefit from his spending.

 

Reducing the number of rich people is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do. Our country and economy will benefit the most not by pulling down the rich to attempt to elevate the poor, but by attempting to lift more middle class folks into wealthy folks, poor folks into middle class folks.

 

Class strife, envy, jealousy and warfare is debilitating and insane.

 

Who has raised taxes on the middle-class by the way?

 

You are correct sir. And if you raise taxes on rich people, it's not going to hurt them to the point that they still can't buy airplanes, cars, etc. Oh no, Joe Millionaire has to wait an extra week before he can buy that 23 billion dollar plane. Why not put a little extra in the pockets of those people making the planes and give them a little tax break so they can buy a car and see a little incentive in their work. Cmon people, it's not like the incredibly wealthy are going to be hurting that much if taxes are raised a little, but a lot of lower class citizens can barely afford gas to get to work.

This whole “Joe the Plumber” debate is silly, and only reveals just how blindly some people are allowing themselves to be led by a VERY biased media.

 

What the majority on the left and in the media seems to be overlooking with the whole “Joe the Plumber” episode is the fact that Obama was in Joe’s neighborhood, not the other way around. In fact, I think Obama may have even knocked on Joe’s door. It’s not like Joe came looking for Obama at some open public meeting away from his neighborhood.

 

Even more so, it’s not who Joe is or is not, or what Joe said, or whether Joe’s in the union, or has a license, or has paid all his taxes on time, or any other red herring published by our stellar media… IT’S WHAT OBAMA SAID in his own words that has caused the uproar.

 

As good as Karl Rove and his associates may be, and even if they could somehow manipulate circumstances to get O and Joe together, THERE’S NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE PUT THOSE WORDS IN OBAMA’S MOUTH.

 

Obama said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

 

IMO, Obama revealed his true heart and objectives. This is not something any republican operative could have arranged. (if in fact, there is any Republican capable of orchestrating this event to achieve this result, that republican is a genius of incomparable status. He or she should be the next POTUS and arrange world events in a similar manner.)

 

The fact that the mainstream media pounced on Joe the Plumber, and in two days revealed more information about Joe than we know (by current media reporting) about Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright or any of Obama’s associates is very revealing.

 

There is a full court press to destroy Joe the Plumber, or at least to destroy his credibility, when the elephant in the room has nothing to do with Joe, it’s what Obama said.

 

My understanding of Socialists (which admittedly may not fulfill the strict textbook definition required by some BGP posters) is they believe that capitalism wrongly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who controls capital. This in their opinion creates an unequal society. Socialists advocate the creation of a classless society, where wealth and power are distributed as evenly as possible. Call me a fool. Attempt to destroy my credibility, but this is exactly what I hear Mr. Obama advocating.

 

Am I stating that Barack Obama is a socialist? No. I am saying that his vision for America’s future contains a strongly socialistic agenda. I simply do not feel this is where America needs to go.

 

Do think America is headed in the right direction now?

I found the attached graphic on the Wall Street Journal site. It documents the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy. It also verifies that Bush's tax cuts for every taxpayer resulted in increased revenues, an increase in folks attaining "rich" status AND an increased percentage of total share of taxes paid by the rich. These numbers are from the U.S. Treasury... the folks at the IRS who collect the taxes.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

 

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?

 

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."

 

Please try to refute the facts and justify Obama's scheme to redistribute wealth. :thumb:

 

Anyone?

 

Well basically, that's because there is no such thing as a middle class anymore.

I'm not picking on you Red but this issue amazes me... where would we be if there were no top end for wealth to trickle down from?

 

Let's say we confiscate all the wealth of the top 5% (who pay 60% of all federal income taxes) and redistribute it to the lower 95%. Whoopie... party time. Everyone buys a flat panel HD LCD TV.

 

Who's going to continue to generate the percentage no longer possible to collect from the top 5%? How are we going to make up for that 60% loss of federal income taxes? What's going to trickle down? Nothing.

 

Trickle down doesn't just work, it is vital to the health of our economy. Hammering those paying the biggest share of the tab and punishing success is no way to grow our economy or eliminate our debts or grow jobs.

 

If it weren't for coal and timber, leading to a need for railroads and roads, Eastern Kentucky would still be remote and impoverished. Its struggles have more to do with geography than a failure of "trickle down" economics.

 

Are you referring to the same trickle down economics that Reagan implemented that took us from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation, which Reagan himself said was the greatest dissapointment during his presidency?

Do think America is headed in the right direction now?

I do not, but it has more to do with my concern with our drift away from Biblical values and moral principles toward the godless secularization of our culture.

 

This, more than any single trend explains fathers turning their backs on the children they helped bring into the world, abandoning the mothers of their children, encouraging the women they impregnate to abort their babies, seeking immediate gratification over the diligent and industrious application of their time and talents to build a career and income capable of sustaining their family.

 

Too many men have forgotten how to be real men... leaders, rocks of stability and protection for their families in a world of strife. As a result, too many women and children have no clue what a real man is, and too many families have no idea of what it is to be a family.

 

How's that grab ya'?

I found the attached graphic on the Wall Street Journal site. It documents the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy. It also verifies that Bush's tax cuts for every taxpayer resulted in increased revenues, an increase in folks attaining "rich" status AND an increased percentage of total share of taxes paid by the rich. These numbers are from the U.S. Treasury... the folks at the IRS who collect the taxes.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

 

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?

 

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."

 

Please try to refute the facts and justify Obama's scheme to redistribute wealth. :thumb:

 

Anyone?

 

Found these numbers on the following website: http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/busting-the-myt.html

 

 

 

 

I'm ready to hear any justification/reason you have for these numbers...

News organizations eager to learn more about Wurzelbacher did besiege his house Thursday and discovered and reported that he lacks a plumbing license and owes back taxes.

 

Despite his criticism of the Democratic ticket, McCain himself has kept Wurzelbacher in the spotlight, mentioning him repeatedly in his appearances Thursday.

 

"Joe's the man!" McCain told a rally in Philadelphia's suburbs.

 

 

 

This is classic.

I think you need to get a historical perspective and realize it's not just George Bush, any President is the fact of his party, like it or not. That's the historical perspective.

 

As to the subject of which I addressed you haven't shown much in the way of debunking my initial statment. Bush increased the size of Government through "No Child Left Behind" among others. The Republican Controlled Congress went along with it. Many current GOP leaders went for the bailout plan. IF the majority of GOP believed as you said, why have they nominated Bush (2 times) and McCain this time. Neither of these speak of the ideals that have forged the GOP's recent past. I stand by my statement with the facts. :thumb:

 

 

Nor am I going to because it's dumb to do so. You took this completely out of context. I said MOST REPUBLICANS want limited government, that's true it hasn't changed. Some of the programs introduced by Bush increased some of the government, yes. That doesn't change the ideals of MOST REPUBLICANS. Your comparison is ignorant, I didn't say, well obviously most republicans want limited government just like George W Bush does. So why the heck am I going to pay any attention to what you're saying about G. W. that's just dumb and it's irrelevant.

News organizations eager to learn more about Wurzelbacher did besiege his house Thursday and discovered and reported that he lacks a plumbing license and owes back taxes.

 

Despite his criticism of the Democratic ticket, McCain himself has kept Wurzelbacher in the spotlight, mentioning him repeatedly in his appearances Thursday.

 

"Joe's the man!" McCain told a rally in Philadelphia's suburbs.

 

 

 

This is classic.

Nothing like the "unbiased media" and the Dems doing their best to smear anyone that dare stand in "The One's" way.

He can work as a plummer without a license you know.

The change we need is MORE HARD WORK in this country and less welfare. We need to encourage people to go get a job rather then wait for a check. You can't create jobs by cutting off the arm of the employeers. The rich supply the jobs last time I check I've never worked for a poor person. If you tax corp they are going to pass it on to the consumer with higher prices.

 

If 3 parts of gov are controlled by Demi's/Libs the USA is in big big trouble, IMO of course.

The change we need is MORE HARD WORK in this country and less welfare. We need to encourage people to go get a job rather then wait for a check. You can't create jobs by cutting off the arm of the employeers. The rich supply the jobs last time I check I've never worked for a poor person. If you tax corp they are going to pass it on to the consumer with higher prices.

 

If 3 parts of gov are controlled by Demi's/Libs the USA is in big big trouble, IMO of course.

 

:thumb: