Socialist Obama Redistribution of Wealth
Find a Conversation
Socialist Obama Redistribution of Wealth
| Tue, 10-28-2008 - 12:18am |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
At least Obama is telling us exactly what his philosophy of government actually.

Pages
It seems that privatization of government projects is a huge conflict of interest.
<
Then please explain how McCain plans on cutting down on government waste while using private contractors in Iraq
Clinton cut spending. Bush has spent more than anyone in history. That's part of the problem. Tax revenues under Bush are also greater than ever before..as of last year. He cut taxes and revenues grew--it happened under Regan as well. Raise taxes and revenues fall. Really the history is there to see.
>>The wealthy don't hurt if taxes return to the same level of the Clinton Administration if they are truly earning $250,000 every single year.
Most small businesses don't even dream about making $250,000 every single year.<<
They may not personally hurt but growth will be affected and thus it will hurt others. Those who don't have jobs, those who don't qualify for any aid because the government isn't collecting the revenue anymore because the growth went away (remember, rates were cut, revenue increased--the more revenue to more the government has to give away..er, waste). So when you attempt to penalize them what you in effect do is hurt everyone else.
If what you claim is true that a business may not earn over $250,000 a year is it right or practical to penalize them when they do? Can't you see the need for them to retain their capital to keep their business running smoothly when times aren't going so good?
What makes you think the government is going to be a better steward of their earnings than they would be? They as in those who provide real JOBS. Nah, let's give it to the government instead so they can take a job away from someone in order to expand unemployment benefits to someone else...or lots of someone elses because that's what we're going to be seeing.
I really like that McCain quote - almost sums it up for me.
>>How do we justify making the $250,000 earner pay at the 35% marginal rate when he/she would already be paying five times as much as the $50,000 wage earner at a 25% marginal rate?<<
I justify it at least two ways:
1) Disposable income. At 50,000 most of the earnings are going toward basic, unavoidable necessities: housing, transportation, food, clothing. Beyond that income level more and more money is a available for comfort and luxury items. I don't have a problem making it more expensive to attain luxuries (cigarettes and alcohol, included).
2) I am certain that at a particular point an individuals profits hit a tipping point that makes it "easier" to escalate wealth. I'm thinking Oprah, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. At the extreme end of earnings it doesn't appear to me to be about hard work or decision making or any other characteristic. To me its seems the economy allows this kind of wealth to emerge, then there is no reason not to mandate putting that wealth into the basic needs of the people who are at the opposite end of the spectrum, without whom the wealth couldn't be created in the first place. 0.02
Conflicts of interest were already discussed and that conflict is no different with DCAA.
Is DCAA cutting corners? http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3714531
So is your point that it's just another large governmental organization who doesn't do their job very well?
Can you point me to one which does?
<>
No, that is not the point.
Pages