Does anyone else see how fucked we are going to be with Obama's policies enacted? As we get closer to Nov, more shit is becoming clear. Read this article from Investors Business Daily from today... I don't know about you, but I'm not cool with our taxes being raised to "end poverty and suffering" around the world. That would never in a million fucking years work anyway... that's done with free trade and free markes, not handouts. How big is this guy's ego to think he is the savior of the world? Here's the text:

quote:

Obama's Global Tax By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world. Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history." What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats — from fascism to Nazism to communism — defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share. Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya." Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president. A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water." These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan. Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal. His legislation refers to the "millennium development goal," a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton. It calls for the "eradication of poverty" in part through the "redistribution (of) wealth of land" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." In other words: American resources. It's a mantra of liberals that the U.S. is only a small portion of the world's population yet consumes an unseemly portion of the planet's supposedly finite resources. Never mentioned is the fact that America's population, just 5% of the world's total, also produces a stunning 27% of the world's GDP — to the enormous benefit of other countries. Nonetheless, their solution is to siphon off the product of our free democracy and distribute it. We already transfer too much national wealth to the United Nations and its busybody agencies. Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S is expected to meet its part of the U.N. Millennium goals, we would be spending an additional $65 billion annually for a total of $845 billion. During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500. If you're worried abut gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they'll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama's Global Poverty Act is the "international community's" foot in the door. The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production — oil, natural gas, coal . . . fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels." Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world's oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy. Obama's agenda sounds like defeated 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. foreign policy decisions where "you have to do it in a way that passes the test — that passes the global test — where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama has said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." Oh, really? Who's to say we can't load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall? China? India? Bangladesh? The U.N.? In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.

Does this worry any of you who are fervent supporters of Obama? Does it even make a dent???

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArt...302222641317480

What a fantastic propaganda piece. Chomsky would have a field day with that one, tearing every single point to shreds with the reality of what this means.

quote:

During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

Completely, utterly wrong. There will be no 2,500$ flat fee to combat global poverty I could go on, but it would be a waste of time..


I mean fuck. It's in Investors Business Daily, whose interests do you think are represented here? Middle class American tax payers? You and me?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis What a fantastic propaganda piece. Chomsky would have a field day with that one, tearing every single point to shreds with the reality of what this means. Completely, utterly wrong. There will be no 2,500$ flat fee to combat global poverty I could go on, but it would be a waste of time.. I mean fuck. It's in Investors Business Daily, whose interests do you think are represented here? Middle class American tax payers? You and me?

No! There is a difference between hard working American people that want to see more of their money and those that want the govt to tax them more and more so they can live off the govt like yourself

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

That article is full of lies and fear mongering. The fact that they even use the word "Marxist" just attests the fact they are using extreme left ideology to scare people onto their side, when in fact, the bill is FAR FROM MARXIST!

Lie #1: Obama's Global Tax

HR 1302 is NOT, I repeat, NOT a tax on the American people.

Lie #2: It follows Marxist theology.

Marxist ideology is one in which all economic classes are merged into one. That is far, FAR, from the objective of the bill.

Lie #3: Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends.

The bill sets NO, I repeat, NO minimum foreign aid spending requirements.

THE TRUTH: HR 1302, Global Poverty Act of 2007, seeks to develop a plan through the UN to help reduce the amount of people around the world living on less than $1 a day. It is not a tax. It is NON-BINDING. It sets NO minimum aid amounts.

These extremist capitalists are lying about the Global Poverty Act of 2007 and they are lying about Obama. If these guys are so concerned about government expenditures, then they need to be writing articles on how the Bush Administration has thrown $1 trillion out the window fighting a war on false premises.

The best thing everyone can do, is read the bill itself, and stop believing the lies from the right...

CLICK

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Jul-30-2008 at 23:33

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover No! There is a difference between hard working American people that want to see more of their money and those that want the govt to tax them more and more so they can live off the govt like yourself

I live in California you fucking moron, I probably pay more taxes than you do.

If we didn't give such massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest 1% of Americans, most of those folks who actually DO need to see a lot more of their income probably would.


But you can continue to believe the propaganda machine, which directly represents the interests of those extremely wealthy individuals who want as much money as possible to buy their 5th Maybach and a new Gulfstream V, those CEO's and stockholders who want bigger bottom lines, who have (apparently) successfully convinced so many like yourself that these policies are hurting John Q from Kansas City who works at Wal-Mart.

I like paying taxes. I like funding infrastructure. I like reducing the deficit. I like paying for other people's healthcare since they're not lucky enough to have an employer that provides it like me. I like the idea of sending a tiny fraction of my income to help someone who is payed 75 cents a day at the Nike factory in Bangladesh to get some kind of assistance since the enormous American corporation operating in their country could give a fuck less about them.

The same type of corporate propaganda machine that is responsible for the above article, responsible for selling us all on free trade, NAFTA, etc, under the guise of helping the poor, has managed to get ordinary people like you to push their agenda, an agenda that does NOT benefit you, this country or anyone else besides the private tyrannies whose only goal is to suck as much money out of their trade as possible, at whatever the cost, stepping on anyone in the way until a lawsuit is brought.

You're on the wrong fucking side.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I live in California you fucking moron, I probably pay more taxes than you do. If we didn't give such massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest 1% of Americans, most of those folks who actually DO need to see a lot more of their income probably would. But you can continue to believe the propaganda machine, which directly represents the interests of those extremely wealthy individuals who want as much money as possible to buy their 5th Maybach and a new Gulfstream V, those CEO's and stockholders who want bigger bottom lines, who have (apparently) successfully convinced so many like yourself that these policies are hurting John Q from Kansas City who works at Wal-Mart. I like paying taxes. I like funding infrastructure. I like reducing the deficit. I like paying for other people's healthcare since they're not lucky enough to have an employer that provides it like me. I like the idea of sending a tiny fraction of my income to help someone who is payed 75 cents a day at the Nike factory in Bangladesh to get some kind of assistance since the enormous American corporation operating in their country could give a fuck less about them. The same type of corporate propaganda machine that is responsible for the above article, responsible for selling us all on free trade, NAFTA, etc, under the guise of helping the poor, has managed to get ordinary people like you to push their agenda, an agenda that does NOT benefit you, this country or anyone else besides the private tyrannies whose only goal is to suck as much money out of their trade as possible, at whatever the cost, stepping on anyone in the way until a lawsuit is brought. You're on the wrong fucking side.

Dont lie to yourself!

Wealthy americans are the ones that invest in this country. They are the job creators. Those frustrated americans like yourself just hate the fact they have amassed so much wealth. I mean these individuals work hard for their money, money that dosent fall to them in the sky. And you want the govt to tax the shit out of them simply because they have wealth. I dont get that ideology.

I mean Clovis would you like it if the govt taxed the shit out of you simply because you have wealth that you have WORKED for? For what reason? For wealth distribution?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

I dont want to put the notion that I'm all for the wealthy. Im all for the hard working american that wants to see more of their money in the bank and not give it to the govt that misspents it. I truly believe that Americans are the best managers of their own money.

Clovis, I am sure you are a nice guy and that you have helped financially many people through out your life time. But having the notion to screw the wealthy for the benefit of others, I dont get that ideology.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Dont lie to yourself! Wealthy americans are the ones that invest in this country. They are the job creators. Those frustrated americans like yourself just hate the fact they have amassed so much wealth. I mean these individuals work hard for their money, money that dosent fall to them in the sky. And you want the govt to tax the shit out of them simply because they have wealth. I dont get that ideology. I mean Clovis would you like it if the govt taxed the shit out of you simply because you have wealth that you have WORKED for? For what reason? For wealth distribution?

There comes a point when the accumulation of such large amounts of wealth has little to do with actual WORK. That much is painfully obvious.

I would love it if the government taxed the shit out of me if I was making over a million dollars. I don't need that much money and other people NEED HELP. Desperately. Our infrastructure needs repairing. All American citizens deserve healthcare and I would be happy to part with large sums of my income to help fellow countrymen who are less fortunate. I like giving. I do it all the time even with the meager yearly salary I currently make. People who make inordinate amounts of money have the CAPACITY to give greater amounts and they SHOULD. It isn't about screwing them. It's about evening some of the incredible disparities of wealth that modern capitalism has created. If you help poor people pay their bills, get cheaper or free healthcare, they have more purchasing power to buy homes, cars etc. Everyone benefits from taxes when they are used to the benefit of the country as a whole. (i.e. not on a trillion dollar war)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis There comes a point when the accumulation of such large amounts of wealth has little to do with actual WORK. That much is painfully obvious. I would love it if the government taxed the shit out of me if I was making over a million dollars. I don't need that much money and other people NEED HELP. Desperately. Our infrastructure needs repairing. All American citizens deserve healthcare and I would be happy to part with large sums of my income to help fellow countrymen who are less fortunate. I like giving. I do it all the time even with the meager yearly salary I currently make. People who make inordinate amounts of money have the CAPACITY to give greater amounts and they SHOULD.

I agree with you! I belive that accumulating great amount of wealth also entitles and individual for greater responsibilites. Like giving back to his community that has embraced him to conduct business and that has giving him the opportunity to create wealth.

But what I denounce is to forcefully take money from these individuals. Remember Clovis everytime the govt wants more and more. It might start taking a little portion but soon enough they want a bigger peice of the pie.

I also share with you that many Americans want healthcare. I believe that NOT FREE but to make it affordable. One of the greatest attributes is that the American people work hard for what they have and expect nothing free from the govt like in many Euro countries. I mean we have a product (healthcare) that is a good product but expensive. We want to make sure that is affordable without compromising its quality. What good it would be if we had free health care but a shitty product?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I agree with you! I belive that accumulating great amount of wealth also entitles and individual for greater responsibilites. Like giving back to his community that has embraced him to conduct business and that has giving him the opportunity to create wealth.

But few wealthy individuals are concerned with this, they might give slices to charity now and then, but thats it. Of course there are big time philanthropists, but in the context of the sums they make this is often meager at best. Sheldon Adelson gives tons to certain charities and he still has ample amounts to afford a private 767 jet...a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I think when people lose all capacity for benevolence the government should have a right to step in. Afterall these people are making money off of vast numbers of average Americans who pay the bulk of the country's taxes and yet have far, far less disposable income. We should tax the ultra rich more if it allows us to ease taxes for those making less.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Afterall these people are making money off of vast numbers of average Americans who pay the bulk of the country's taxes

Wrong. This is not opinion, it is stone cold fact. Way to get suckered by leftist propoganda:

The top 1% of taxpayers (making over $388,000) pay 40% of the taxes.

The top 10% pay 70%

The top 50% pay 97.1%

NEW IRS TAX DATA AS OF LAST WEEK:
"The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income." In other words, the tax code's already steeply progressive. Yes, even at 35, 36%. And what this proves is the old adage that when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue. Listen to these numbers.
"In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation's income. They paid 25% of all taxes. In 2000, they paid 37%. In 2005, they paid 39%; and 2006, 40%." So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes. The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%. In 2000, they paid 56%; in 2005, paid 60%. The top 10% now pay 71%. But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes.
"It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates, and the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition. But, nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich and it's a figment of their imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003." What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! "No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 when it was 3.5% in 2003."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...=googlenews_wsj

Bottom line: The author is worried about spending $65 billion a year to fight poverty around the world.

The total cost of the Iraq war is already 10X that amount.

Which is the bigger waste of taxpayer dollars? Invading and occupying a foreign land..creating hatred and resentment towards America? Or being charitable and helping to feed, clothe and educate the poorest people in the world? This is Investors Business Daily yet they can't even see which policy will pay better dividends to us in in the long run..