Usually, since they're the ones who get rich off the backs of the poor. They're usually all for having working people sacrifice when economic times are hard, but are not interested in sharing in the sacrifice. See: CEO compensation.

 

 

Wrong and wrong again. Also, I urge you to look into the average CEO compensation of the fortune 500 companies and their job descriptions.

Koun Dog, I'd suggest you do a little digging and get past Hannity for your information.

 

ACORN gets zero out of the recent bill.

 

In 2011, families earning over $250k will have their charitable contribution deduction reduced from the CURRENT rate of 33% to 28%. If you're under $250k, nothing changes. So, 5% of the families in America will have their rate reduced. That's it.

 

Regarding mortgage interest, once again your post is misleading. As far as I can tell 95% of Americans that get to claim that deduction today will get to claim it tomorrow without change. The families paying 33% or 35% today in federal tax will have their deduction capped at 28%.

 

Now if you're in the $250k+ level then you will have to pay a bit more. Otherwide, President Obama's plan doesn't effect you and can hardly be classified as "class warfare."

If you or RTS have real examples, lets get them out and debate them. Heck, you might be right. So far though...

 

It absolutly is class warfare by it's very nature.

 

BTW, those 5% of the families are already carrying the rest of us on their backs.

Here's some examples before he was even elected. He was stiring the pot then to get himself elected.

 

1. January 20, 2008, "The Great Need of the Hour" speech on MLK Day

 

 

"We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."

 

2. Radio ad in the Texas primary race

 

 

"Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."

 

3. April 11, 2008, REUTERS article quoting Obama in Indianapolis

 

 

"Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."

 

No class envy is those comments.

 

 

Last month when he spoke before a joint session of Congress, income tax was sold as a levy that would tax only the rich, promising that under his plan 95 percent of working households in America will receive a tax cut, a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1. Hey, isn’t that April Fools day? :sssh:

His trillions of dollars of promised goodies will be paid for only with heavier taxes on those earning $250,000 a year or more, and on corporations. No class envy being peddled here though. He never mentions that these entities he is targeting provide your jobs and pass on their taxes invisibly to you through higher prices so that YOU will pay their higher taxes, why some can’t see this fact is beyond me. Well not really, class envy has this effect on many.

Americans who pay no income taxes foolishly believe that government is just their big daddy giving them goodies for free, so long as they keep voting for Democrats like President Obama.

Let's not forget Obama's proposal to increase taxes on America's upper-income households for the purposes of income leveling and redistributive justice. "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people" I beleive is what he said.

Edited March 7, 200917 yr by Run To State

The truth is class envy?

How are they creating jobs if they're shipping them overseas? :confused:

Who created those jobs to start with and who will create more jobs in the future? You, Camel? You going to put everything you own on the line to start a business? Or just sit on the side lines and criticize the ones that take that risk for being greedy.

The truth is class envy?

Please point out the "truths".

Who created those jobs to start with and who will create more jobs in the future? You, Camel? You going to put everything you own on the line to start a business? Or just sit on the side lines and criticize the ones that take that risk for being greedy.

 

 

So...they giveth....and they taketh away...and they benefit when they send the jobs oversees. Doesn't that say that they're more concerned about their own well-being than the domestic employees they origninally hired?

 

How are they carrying "us" on their backs, if they aren't creating jobs for people in America?

Please point out the "truths".

 

I was referring to the pay differential between CEOs and the average American worker - cop, assemblyline person, truck driver, etc.

So...they giveth....and they taketh away...and they benefit when they send the jobs oversees. Doesn't that say that they're more concerned about their own well-being than the domestic employees they origninally hired?

 

How are they carrying "us" on their backs, if they aren't creating jobs for people in America?

If the only way to survive is to move jobs over seas then what would you have them do? Leave the jobs here until the business fails and they close up shop completely?

I was referring to the pay differential between CEOs and the average American worker - cop, assemblyline person, truck driver, etc.

"CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."

The average annual salary for a U.S. worker in 2005 according to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics was $39,795.33. Based on a 40 hour week, a CEO making more than $33,333 in ten minutes ($3,333.33 per minute) would have a weekly (2,400 minutes) salary of about $8 million and an annual salary of about $416 million. How many CEOs met that qualification? 0.

If the only way to survive is to move jobs over seas then what would you have them do? Leave the jobs here until the business fails and they close up shop completely?

 

 

And again, who in America is gaining any benefit from a company that doesn't employee Americans?

 

I assume that if your employee base is largely in India, for instance, you don't pay payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, or domestic health insurance. Depending on the structure of the company, they may not be paying some corporate taxes either, correct?

 

I'm asking because I don't know. From my perspective, there are a relative few who benefit from moving jobs overseas. And those few aren't the now-jobless workers.

And again, who in America is gaining any benefit from a company that doesn't employee Americans?

 

I assume that if your employee base is largely in India, for instance, you don't pay payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, or domestic health insurance. Depending on the structure of the company, they may not be paying some corporate taxes either, correct?

 

I'm asking because I don't know. From my perspective, there are a relative few who benefit from moving jobs overseas. And those few aren't the now-jobless workers.

But in many instances if the jobs remain in the states they can't compete and eveyone loses. All jobs with in the company are lost not just the manufacturing jobs.

But in many instances if the jobs remain in the states they can't compete and eveyone loses. All jobs with in the company are lost not just the manufacturing jobs.

 

 

So, in the instance you're using, how many other jobs would potentially be "saved" vs. the number "lost". Hypothetically, because I know it varies by company.

 

And, does that mean that of the jobs saved, those people's livlihoods, or jobs, are deemed more "important" to the company than those lost?

And again, who in America is gaining any benefit from a company that doesn't employee Americans?

 

I assume that if your employee base is largely in India, for instance, you don't pay payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, or domestic health insurance. Depending on the structure of the company, they may not be paying some corporate taxes either, correct?

 

I'm asking because I don't know. From my perspective, there are a relative few who benefit from moving jobs overseas. And those few aren't the now-jobless workers.

I guess I really didn't address this part of your post. To be honest if a company does not employee any Americans then I guess no Americans benefit from that company. Let me ask you this, when you purchase a product do you take that into account when deciding which brand you buy? Wal-Marts sales were up 5% in Feb and they don't sell very many products that are made in Amercian. So that tells me that a majority of Americans don't care where a product is made as long as the price tag is the lowest. I am not saying that applies to you but many what to vilify corporations for turning a buck but those same people aren't willing to make the sacrifices to ensure the jobs stay here.

I guess I really didn't address this part of your post. To be honest if a company does not employee any Americans then I guess no Americans benefit from that company. Let me ask you this, when you purchase a product do you take that into account when deciding which brand you buy? Wal-Marts sales were up 5% in Feb and they don't sell very many products that are made in Amercian. So that tells me that a majority of Americans don't care where a product is made as long as the price tag is the lowest. I am not saying that applies to you but many what to vilify corporations for turning a buck but those same people aren't willing to make the sacrifices to ensure the jobs stay here.

 

 

I'm not trying to vilify anyone. And yes, I'm very cost-conscious. I don't hate Wal-Mart, and I don't hate companies who do what they need to do to reduce costs to stay competitive.

 

I've often posted that part of the problem that people don't take into account when railing against the companies that do this, is that labor unions, while serving a purpose, have pretty much tied the hands of owners because of their historic lack of compromise. Wages have been historically very good for union workers in manufacturing, benefits as well. But, by being so rigid, they priced their workers out of their jobs, IMO. There's plenty of blame to share, including the "average" American.