|
Obama's Global Tax (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| guerra-monstru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
I like paying taxes. I like funding infrastructure. I like reducing the [bold]deficit.[/bold] 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 less about them.
.
You're on the wrong ing side. |
:stongue: heh you guys are not really paying off the deficit. The interest has only been growing. And if either presidential candidate gets his way. You will be paying much more in just interest payments.
And about being on the wrong side. Just because his views are opposite of yours does not make it wrong. It is his opinion and he has the right to believe in what he wants. That does not put him in the wrong side. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| It would pay even higher dividends if we all adopted a poor malnourished child from some 3rd world country and took them to Disney World twice a year. So maybe we should go that route? I guarantee the majority of the people in this country, who are good hard working kind people would oppose such a measure if they were given the choice... , we have plenty of problems here that need fixing first. I'm surprised you're in favor of the govt. jacking more money from us for something that wouldn't work just so we project a more caring image to other countries. |
|
|
| Krypton |
As I made clear, the Act is NON-BINDING, and DOES NOT SET A MINIMUM AID AMOUNT. I have to say, I had a good impression of IBD before I saw this thread. Now I now they are run by extremist capitalists who want to use another NON-EVENT to slam the opposition candidate.
Additionally, building schools, infrastructure, economies does so much more to help third world nations than dropping bombs on them. For the cost of ONE cruise missile, you can build, what, 50 schools in Africa or Afghanistan? GIVE ME A BREAK!
What this Act does is say, "Let's develop a plan so we can help reduce the amount of people around the world living on less than a dollar a day." What's wrong with that? Dropping bombs does not end terrorism. It encourages it. Building a school, a water well, etc. does 100x more than dropping bombs, and is 100X CHEAPER! |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| Bottom line: Obama is more worried about the world problems and not the problems here at home. I wonder if he is running for president of planet earth or of the USA. |
|
|
| occrider |
Bottom line, this line of criticism is retarded. As Capitalizt stated, you're concerning yourself over an increase of $65 billion in aid over a 13 year period when you couldn't care less about writing Bush a blank check for any of his other ups.
Forgetting the propensity for you "conservatives" to waste money like it was a crack habit through mismanagement and corruption, I feel obliged to bring to light one of the few legitimate accomplishments of this administration. That accomplishment is PEPFAR which was Bush's plan for AIDS relief that started in 2003. That plan, which is hailed as a success, consisted of $15 billion over a 5 year period. I'm sorry, I guess I missed the thread where you drones castigated the Bush administration for being more concerned with problems abroad than at home. Care to link it?
PEPFAR ends this year and the Bush administration has proposed an additional $30 billion over a 5 year period for PEPFAR 2 alone. Now I don't feel like calculating the discounted cash flows, but I'm guessing it's not too far off from $65 billion over a 13 year period. Now once again I didn't see any "outrage" from you sudden converts to the fiscal "conservatives" brigade so perhaps you can point out that thread unless you guys conveniently just joined the club yesterday or something. In case you didn't know, its membership consists almost entirely of what you term as "liberals" because naturally no true "conservative" would ever doubt the Bush administration's policies.
That being said, I'm a firm advocate of PEPFAR and PEPFAR 2. It's one of the few things we're actually getting our money's worth. Oh yea, and I'm in that top 10% that pays 70% of taxes. I'm all in favor increasing taxes for initiatives like PEPFAR. I'm getting my moneys worth and at the end of the day I can still afford a beer. I'm not for wasteless spending like Iraq. Tell you what, you and your kind pay for that storm of waste and lack of accountability in Iraq that you've become so accustomed to defending and myself and my kind will pay for global poverty/health initiatives. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| 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 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) |
HAHAHAHAAHA!!! Riiiiight....
Ever heard of, "Philanthropy"?
It's painfully obvious you don't have a million dollars because real people with that kind of money don't ever think this way - especially if they're earned it...
As much as poor/middle-cless people despise rich people, it's the rich people with their investments that create jobs - helllloooooo?
If, "The One" gets elected and pulls that tax reform off, the rich will simple divert their holdings off shore and you'll all be f%cked. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
Bottom line: Obama is more worried about the world problems and not the problems here at home. I wonder if he is running for president of planet earth or of the USA. |
A simular question I had regarding why the hell he decided to do a speech in BERLIN??
Too bad out of the 200,000 people that were there, 185,000 were there because of a concert by The Decemerists lol.
Sure it made Obama look good but he knew giving that kind of speech in America wouldn't have looked as impressive. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
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 $136 billion in 2003." What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! "No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 when it was 3.5% in 2003."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...=googlenews_wsj |
I was talking in terms of Americans making average incomes vs. the ultra rich. People making up to 338,000$ are still far, far away from folks in the upper percentile raking in millions. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
HAHAHAHAAHA!!! Riiiiight....
Ever heard of, "Philanthropy"?
|
No, never, what is this Philanthropy you speak of.
Jesus...
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Bottom line, this line of criticism is retarded. As Capitalizt stated, you're concerning yourself over an increase of $65 billion in aid over a 13 year period when you couldn't care less about writing Bush a blank check for any of his other ups.
Forgetting the propensity for you "conservatives" to waste money like it was a crack habit through mismanagement and corruption, I feel obliged to bring to light one of the few legitimate accomplishments of this administration. That accomplishment is PEPFAR which was Bush's plan for AIDS relief that started in 2003. That plan, which is hailed as a success, consisted of $15 billion over a 5 year period. I'm sorry, I guess I missed the thread where you drones castigated the Bush administration for being more concerned with problems abroad than at home. Care to link it?
PEPFAR ends this year and the Bush administration has proposed an additional $30 billion over a 5 year period for PEPFAR 2 alone. Now I don't feel like calculating the discounted cash flows, but I'm guessing it's not too far off from $65 billion over a 13 year period. Now once again I didn't see any "outrage" from you sudden converts to the fiscal "conservatives" brigade so perhaps you can point out that thread unless you guys conveniently just joined the club yesterday or something. In case you didn't know, its membership consists almost entirely of what you term as "liberals" because naturally no true "conservative" would ever doubt the Bush administration's policies.
That being said, I'm a firm advocate of PEPFAR and PEPFAR 2. It's one of the few things we're actually getting our money's worth. Oh yea, and I'm in that top 10% that pays 70% of taxes. I'm all in favor increasing taxes for initiatives like PEPFAR. I'm getting my moneys worth and at the end of the day I can still afford a beer. I'm not for wasteless spending like Iraq. Tell you what, you and your kind pay for that storm of waste and lack of accountability in Iraq that you've become so accustomed to defending and myself and my kind will pay for global poverty/health initiatives. |
/thread |
|
|
| aNYthing |
I want to America to return to its own ing problems, I want it to focus on fixing what's ed HERE IN THIS COUNTRY, not somewhere else. I could give two s about some s half-way accross the world who don't even appreciate the US does for them.
I don't want US to be the SUPER-COP of the world or the PROTECTOR OF IRAQI freedoms. Saddam did a much better job than we ever ing will. He kept the ing loonies in the loonie bin, confined to their own hole. Several years from now, when a Iraqi terrorist causes some here, we'll know who to thank for the freedoms we brought over to that hole.
I don't want my taxes going to any other purpose than improving OUR life, here in US.
US gave massive hand-outs to Russia in early 90's. What did we get in return? A country working VERY ING HARD to supply our enemies with state of the art weapons and nuclear technology. A country that completely overlooks the fact that AMERICA rescued them form a near-cerain collapse by infusing BILLIONS into Russian economy, just to come back AND ASK FOR RUSSIAN HAND-OUTS? Oh, and to be spat in the face and told "to live within our means"?
To paraphrase Tony Montana - THESE ING COCKAROACHES.
These elections are ED. There's no one to vote for. Either candidate will US HARD. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
A simular question I had regarding why the hell he decided to do a speech in BERLIN??
Too bad out of the 200,000 people that were there, 185,000 were there because of a concert by The Decemerists lol.
Sure it made Obama look good but he knew giving that kind of speech in America wouldn't have looked as impressive. |
Jesus, I never got the memo about how popular the Decemberists are wit zee germans. |
|
|
|
|
