Obama- Tax the heck out of people and...

Obama- Tax the heck out of people and redistribute it

Posted in the Jacksonville Forum

Westside conservative

Saint Augustine, FL

#1 Aug 23, 2008
During my recent conversation with Obama, he mentioned Sam’s Club Republicanism in a different context, and I asked him if he had read “Grand New Party.” He hadn’t, he said, so I read him the line about dependence and condescension and asked for his reaction.

He said it made him think of Warren Buffett, an Obama supporter, who, if anything, might argue that he wasn’t going far enough to change the tax code.“If you talk to Warren, he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said.“That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett’s argument. But, he said:“I do think that what the argument may miss is the sense of control that we want individuals to have in determining their own career paths, making their own life choices and so forth. And I also think you want to instill that sense of self-reliance and that what you do will help determine outcomes.”

Part of a quote from Obama in a long NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24...

I like the last little phrase he threw in there about wanting people to continue to believe they had control in picking careers and life choices. Notice he said it missed the sense of self control that we want individuals to have. How about not a sense of self control but actual self control. This guy is reading straight from Carl Marx.

Since: Aug 08

Jacksonville, FL

#2 Aug 23, 2008
I really want him to sit down in a debate and explain his economic plan. I want him to explain how high he is going to raise taxes, what those tax profits will be used for, and if he thinks raising taxes on a public that's billions of dollars in private debt will REALLY help this country.
All of these programs he's proposing are going to "help" people that won't help themselves. He wants the public to turn to the government for all of our problems. I don't know about you all, but I don't really trust the government. They've left me with too many questions unanswered as it is!
Ex-Vol in FL

Jacksonville, FL

#3 Aug 24, 2008
Westside conservative wrote:
During my recent conversation with Obama, he mentioned Sam’s Club Republicanism in a different context, and I asked him if he had read “Grand New Party.” He hadn’t, he said, so I read him the line about dependence and condescension and asked for his reaction.
He said it made him think of Warren Buffett, an Obama supporter, who, if anything, might argue that he wasn’t going far enough to change the tax code.“If you talk to Warren, he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said.“That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett’s argument. But, he said:“I do think that what the argument may miss is the sense of control that we want individuals to have in determining their own career paths, making their own life choices and so forth. And I also think you want to instill that sense of self-reliance and that what you do will help determine outcomes.”
Part of a quote from Obama in a long NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24...
I like the last little phrase he threw in there about wanting people to continue to believe they had control in picking careers and life choices. Notice he said it missed the sense of self control that we want individuals to have. How about not a sense of self control but actual self control. This guy is reading straight from Carl Marx.
Did you read the ENTIRE article? You left out the part where the author said:
"The second criticism is that Obama’s tax increases would send an already-weak economy into a tailspin. The problem with this argument is that it’s been made before, fairly recently, and it proved to be spectacularly wrong. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families in 1993, his supply-side critics insisted that he would ruin the economy. As we now know, Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation and the disappearance of the federal-budget deficit. His successor, Bush, then did exactly what the supply-siders wanted, cutting upper-income tax rates, and the results were much worse. Economic growth wasn’t quite as strong or nearly as widespread, and the deficit returned. At the very least, Clinton’s increases did no discernible economic damage. Rubin, citing academic work on tax rates, made the case to me that rates under an Obama administration would not be nearly high enough to stifle innovation."

I won't reprint the whole article here, but basically the author is saying that some Republicans have caught onto the fact that Clinton's (and Obama's) economic policies work, and that Reagan's have pretty much run their course.

PLEASE read (or listen to) Obama's economic policies before you say something like "Obama will tax the heck out of people and redistribute it."
Yes, under Obama, taxes for those who couples who make OVER $250,000 per year will go up slightly, but everyone's under that will go down.

It is amazing to me how many people who will end up paying more in taxes support Obama while people who will get tax breaks oppose him. I don't mind if my taxes go up slightly as long as my sons' taxes go down.
Westside conservative

Saint Augustine, FL

#4 Aug 24, 2008
Ex-Vol in FL wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the ENTIRE article? You left out the part where the author said:
"The second criticism is that Obama’s tax increases would send an already-weak economy into a tailspin. The problem with this argument is that it’s been made before, fairly recently, and it proved to be spectacularly wrong. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families in 1993, his supply-side critics insisted that he would ruin the economy. As we now know, Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation and the disappearance of the federal-budget deficit. His successor, Bush, then did exactly what the supply-siders wanted, cutting upper-income tax rates, and the results were much worse. Economic growth wasn’t quite as strong or nearly as widespread, and the deficit returned. At the very least, Clinton’s increases did no discernible economic damage. Rubin, citing academic work on tax rates, made the case to me that rates under an Obama administration would not be nearly high enough to stifle innovation."
I won't reprint the whole article here, but basically the author is saying that some Republicans have caught onto the fact that Clinton's (and Obama's) economic policies work, and that Reagan's have pretty much run their course.
PLEASE read (or listen to) Obama's economic policies before you say something like "Obama will tax the heck out of people and redistribute it."
Yes, under Obama, taxes for those who couples who make OVER $250,000 per year will go up slightly, but everyone's under that will go down.
It is amazing to me how many people who will end up paying more in taxes support Obama while people who will get tax breaks oppose him. I don't mind if my taxes go up slightly as long as my sons' taxes go down.
Are we talking about the same man whose half brother lives in poverty on $1 a month?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/us...

Class warfare is all this is pure and simple. But hey 40 years of liberal social policies have done nothing but create a poverty trap that the poor can't escape and made them so dependent on the government they can't take care of their own needs on there own. So by all means continue the policies of liberalism.

“its a plane, its a plane”

Since: Dec 07

jax for now

#5 Aug 24, 2008
sort of the same thread, has any one got a decent reply for the comments made in one of his campagin adverts where he states he will help the middle class..........uhmm just who exactly is he aiming that at, if you listen to a vast majority of black people that it seems he is aiming his pitches at, they would be the LAST people to place them selves in the "middle class" sector. I honestly do not feel this man is able to be the president, and this hand on heart has nothing to do with his colour, he has just done nothing of merit to justify him being let loose on running this country. I know I am not able to vote in this coming election so I know that honestly my opinion matters not.....it's just for me, a learning curve for the next one that I will be able to vote in.
Ex-Vol in FL

Jacksonville, FL

#6 Aug 24, 2008
Westside conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
Are we talking about the same man whose half brother lives in poverty on $1 a month?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/us...
Class warfare is all this is pure and simple. But hey 40 years of liberal social policies have done nothing but create a poverty trap that the poor can't escape and made them so dependent on the government they can't take care of their own needs on there own. So by all means continue the policies of liberalism.
Perhaps there is more to his brother's story than is written in the article. Are you saying that he should support his brother, rather than expecting him to find a job or make a better life for himself?

I will grant you that there are some social programs which have failed miserably, as they have created an unending cycle of dependency on the government, but some have been pretty successful so far. Do you not expect to collect Social Security someday? Have you never had a family member on Medicare? My father worked all his life and did not believe in going into debt, even for his houses and farm. His company was sold, and his retirement plan was plundered by the new owners, who got away with it. If it hadn't been for Social Security and Medicare (and a couple of adult children), I don't know what he would have done during his and my mother's illnesses.

I consider corporate welfare much more insidious than any of the so-called "liberal" programs. Why do people not get upset about that? Can you honestly say that this current administration has not almost completely destroyed our country and our economy? Sure, I live a pretty good life and have everything I want and need, but I watch the Stock Market very carefully, because it could all be gone in a flash. During the Clinton years, our 403b's and 401k's were quite fun to watch. During the past few years, not so much.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jacksonville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll which hospital in Jax has the worst reputation? (Feb '08) 4 hr RozLinn 27
Jacksonville dating scene? (Jul '09) Sat Pj persinger 21
Who is a good divorce attorney in Duval/St. Joh... Fri Divorcing 1
The worst TV news people in Jax are? (Feb '08) Jul 22 Be positive 358
News On Your Side - Ken Amaro Answers Your Mail (Mar '08) Jul 21 concern tax payer... 95
What was going on at the Walmart (Monument Rd-R... Jul 20 Leon 1
News Top Stories - FBI Raids Outlaws Motorcycle Club... (Aug '07) Jul 20 Stroker 220

Jacksonville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jacksonville Mortgages