Socialist Obama Redistribution of Wealth

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
Socialist Obama Redistribution of Wealth
333
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 10-31-2008 - 2:19pm

It seems that privatization of government projects is a huge conflict of interest.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 10-31-2008 - 2:49pm

<

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 10-31-2008 - 3:39pm

Then please explain how McCain plans on cutting down on government waste while using private contractors in Iraq

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Fri, 10-31-2008 - 7:49pm

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Fri, 10-31-2008 - 7:52pm
Not familiar with the DCAA eh? Boy I wish I wasn't!
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sat, 11-01-2008 - 8:36am

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

uCruiser.com Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 11-01-2008 - 8:38am

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



September 09, 2008

When the Defense Department makes a major purchase, it’s an auditor’s job to make sure the government gets a good price — and that often requires looking at the contractor’s accounting books. But when one 20-year veteran of the Defense Contract Audit Agency asked to look at the books of a major contractor, he got in trouble.

The contractor complained to the auditor’s managers. And because the auditor’s supervisor already had told him not to seek the documents, the auditor was suspended without pay for two days.

Such willingness to defer to contractors’ wishes shows DCAA is making auditing judgments without the necessary reviews or documentation, said the auditor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals from his managers. It’s also violating generally accepted government auditing standards, he said.

His experience is not unique: Five other auditors who spoke to Federal Times on the condition of anonymity told stories that bolstered Government Accountability Office findings, released in July, of problems at DCAA.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Sat, 11-01-2008 - 10:29am
Don't you know though that you are selfish for thinking you already pay enough. That's what Obama said yesterday. You're selfish for not wanting to pay more. He's determined to use class warfare to attempt to win. I agree, asking someone to work for free six months out of the year is insane. Imagine if you asked the people who are voting for Obama only because they want your money to work for free six months out of the year.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Sat, 11-01-2008 - 2:41pm

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?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 11-01-2008 - 3:14pm

<>


No, that is not the point.

 

Pages