Obama was captured yesterday talking to a plumber. In that conversation Obama told the guy his intent was to "share the wealth" by using taxes.

Here is my question. Given that 40% of Americans do not pay any taxes, and Obama plans to give them what he refers to as a tax cut, they will be getting a check in the mail even though they do not pay anything in.

Therefore, is this not just welfare by another name? Is it not true that Mr Obama plans to swell our welfare rolls by tens of millions? Seems that way to me.

its welfare. lets re-distribute the wealth so we can all be equal. We used to call that communism back in my day.

Many of us still do.

Get an education, work hard, scrimp, save, start your own business, work all the time so you can build your business and Mr Obama comes along and says he is going to share your wealth with those who don't have your work ethic.

And here is another thing. Let's say you are doing well and have an income of $249,000 for the year. You are safe. If, on the other hand, you made $250,000 - OBAMA IS GOING TO TAX YOU AND ADDITIONAL $40,000.

How in the wide world of sports does that make sense?

Don't trust the $250k wage mark. After this economic setback there won't be enough of them to support his programs...he'll have to lower that number to $110k and has the Congress of his dreams to make it happen.

It's all a nightmare that won't happen. He has undisclosed issues left to bring out. Obama will not win. California and New England are the most racist regions in the Nation. I'm interested in seeing the final votes for Obama in those bastions of Liberal thought. They may not like McCain but they don't trust Obama. People will vote for candidates they don't like but voting for someone you don't trust is a different issue. Bush Sr. lost because of the "No new taxes" trust issues. You'll notice the Liberals will keep throwing "Flip-flopper" out about McCain to try to paint him as untrustable. Trustability will determine the winner of this least-worst election. In order: I don trust Obama. I don't trust Biden. I don't trust McCain. I trust Palin.

He just wants you to be "neighborly".

Don't know about your neighborhood, but in mine, if you went to the neighbors and told them that you would like twenty thousand or so of their dollars so you could sit on the porch and rock....it would be a short conversation, likely punctuated by the sounds of gunfire.

John 175 "Don't trust the $250k wage mark. After this economic setback there won't be enough of them to support his programs...he'll have to lower that number to $110k and has the Congress of his dreams to make it happen."



Me and Mrs already thought the same thing!


Those commericals about if you make under 250K and you want pay ANY taxe is INSANE!

Welfare: What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine and if you got more than I do then you need to give me more of what you got.
Thats what welfare is.

How much do you have?

That is the change Obama has in mind.

...and you are voting for Obama anyway? I guess that proves just how stupid some people can be.

We get the government we deserve and TBendover's statement proves it. He knows that Obama is lying and he is going to vote for him anyway. Great thinking there!

tbend isnt known for his great thinking, im not suprised.

C-man is losing his job. Others on the OT have, or are in peril of losing their jobs. Should there be a safety net for our citizens?

Yes. There should be at least two safety nets: Prior planning and family.

Why is it the function of government to take care of all our needs?

Welfare, another American right. Food ,water and shelter to follow soon.

Economic times are hard because C-man and others were forced to support the mortgages of people who never could afford them. Had the gimme-crowd not taken-taken-taken the economy would not be tanking and C-man would have a job.

You want to support people from cradle to grave while you sit in a none contributing job with tenure. Sure you talk about safety nets because you have one of the best.

The gov't should provide incentives for those companies that feel compelled to send work off-shore, such as:
1) Levee hefty fines against employers who abandon American workers;
2) Increase taxes against these same employers, perhaps like an "export" tax; after all, they are exporting work overseas.
3) Maintain status quo for those companies who continue to employ Americans instead of outsourcing their jobs.

The American dream is dying. We, the people, must take charge of our government.

I'm not saying that McCain's tax plans are the best, by any means. However, Obama's tax plans will force employers to continue the trend of sending work to "low-cost" centers. This in turn will increase our unemployment rate. Those who are able and want to work will not be able to find worthwhile employment. They will be forced to take jobs that underpay. Welfare will increase. This will continue until the government steps in to take care of our needs.

This is the Democrat dream. No need for hard work. No reason to try and improve yourself. No reason to stand apart from all the others. You are unique, an individual, 100% different - just like everyone else.

Thank you, comrades, for your time.

We have the freedom to pursue success in America, and with that comes the risk of failure. The kind of safety net you seem to imply would smother people's ability to chase their dreams. We have lots of safety nets already - unemployment, disability, social security, medicare - how much more do you want? Maybe a lifetime guarantee of employment?

It seems as if that has already been provided.

Zeek

Part and parcel of the opportunity for success is the risk of failure. What the professor wants is cradle to grave guarantee of no chance of failure. The price of that is there will be no chance of success either. Cradle to grave mediocrity is the goal of the socialist.

I don't think that Obama's tax plan is welfare because the beneficiaries of it won't be able to subsist on what he gives them. I'm sure that everyone who gets it will be glad to get it, but it is not going to change anyone's life.

No. We already have unemployment insurance as a bridge to the next job.

Ronald Regan changed party and when he was asked he said, "I didn't abandon the party, it abandonded me". The democratic party of my father is not the same party now. Back then it was the labor party and it helped labor establish a standard of living that had not existed before. When the welfare system was stared the democratic party changed. Now it is wealthy people running it wanting to "take care of the less fortunate". These people are interested in making everyone dependent on the government to take care of them and since these rich and privledged are the government it makes them essential and powerful

If they didnt take so much tax from our incomes, I bet more people would have ample savings on which to fall back.

I wish you were right Oldfrog, but more than likely most individuals would be no better off than they are now. Unfortunately, most people will spend up to and beyond anything they take home without regard to saving.

Correct. And when their poorly thought through plans fail, Obama wants to reach into YOUR pocket to protect the stupid from the consequences of their own stupidity. He terms it "neighborliness" - I call it theft.

The lowest tax bracket tax recipient will be getting back an average of 567 dollars more than the current tax plan.
The average person in the 111 to 160 thousand dollar range will be getting back an average of 2204. So we middle income people can thumb our noses at the 250k and above people too. Also since everyone making less will get something back the aboves will have plenty to shoot at. The middle of the income brackets will get more back so they will be the bigger targets. At least if they look at who's getting their money.

In that the McCain tax plan everyone gets back more. The higher income people get the most back. The lowest the lowest(makes sense although it doesn't sound right). All at a time when the country has averaged near 500 billion dollars in spending than what its collected. Also that the disparity in the wealthy and the poor is the farthest it has been.




The Obama plan reduces taxes by .3 percent. The McCain plan reduces taxes by 2 percent. Most economists attribute both plans with increasing the national debt. Mcains about 1.5 to 2 trillion more in the next 4 years depending on which analysis you look at.
Neither is right. We should not be lowering taxes. We should be lowering spending to a level where we can reduce taxes but reducing taxes first is just wrong.


Socialist,if you talk to someone who has been in Russia during the USSR years know what the difference between socialism is. To compare that to a person in his 5000sq ft house with the guy living in his title 8 apt is ludicrous.

Yes, we should be lowering spending significantly. In the current economic climate, we should also be lowering taxes on business, especially small businesses. That is the polar opposite of what comrade Obama has in mind. He remains convinced that a government may tax its way to prosperity. In other words, he is a fool.
Additionally, other than surrendering to our enemies in the middle east, what part of government have you heard Comrade Obama say he intends to cut?

Do you, or do you not, support the concept of using the internal revenue code as an instrument for redistributing wealth. It is now patently clear that is the aim of Comrade Obama.

Please answer this question. Mr Obama speaks of fairness. Let us say that a pilot has planned his year to earn $249,000.00. His year is set. However, on his last flight of the year, a snowstorm sets in and he is forced to divert to another airfied. That extra flight might be enough to have him pass the $250 mark and cost him an additional $40,000. How is that fair?

Pray tell, what would your term be for payments from collected taxes going to those who choose to porch sit rather than work?

A progressive tax system, wherein the wealthy bear a disproportionate burden of the cost of government operation is a far cry from a system that undertakes not only to relieve the indolent from paying taxes, but goes on to reward their indolence with a check from revenue sources. That is a very different issue than a progressive system of taxation.

Tallgrass, I was being sincere in my questions. What kind of a 'safety net' do you have in mind?

halliburton, agriculture subsides, corporate loopholes,

there are many types of welfare

Lowering taxes always results in increased revenue to the Govt, because it's an expansionary fuel. Of course, they need to cut spending, but "entitlements" is the largest spending category. So they cut military spending when they do happen to cut.

Here's what you do:
Eliminate the earned income credit. I know of people who are married, yet the wife files head of household on her return and gets a $5000 check back when she didnt even pay anything in, due to an "exempt" W-4. They said they have been doing it for years.
This is welfare. pure and simple...and it's being abused.

Make social security optional....IF you agree to put 1/2 that amount into your own IRA each year. (the 6.2%)

Abolish medicare. It's being abused by the health care industry.

Cut out any program that doesnt provide for the nation's defense, or builds and maintains roads, bridges, prisons or port traffic. Then cut the rest by 10% across the board, except the military. BUT....have independent auditors audit the military's espenses...and streamline/revamp the procurement procedure.

Cut the salaries and budgets of each congressman, the President and Supreme court justices by 10% too. No more Limos for anyone except the Pres and vice pres. No more trips abroad by congressmen unless they want to pay for it themselves.

Tell Iraq that it's time to ante up some free oil/petrol for our strategic reserve and military. Just pump it and ship it, ...we'll tell them when to stop.

If they get the budget balanced and in the black, there will be jobs everywhere. That's our safety net.

Oldfrog ... at least 91% correct!

actually cutting taxes only helps revenue to a certain point. Lower taxes dont always make the government more money. There is a boundary of how low u can go. If i remember right it was around a 20% corporate tax that was the sweet spot. I could be off a little on that number. Right now it is 15%

We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world. Second.

Why can the left, which whines incessantly about jobs moving offshore, understand that an anti-business tax policy encourages doing just that?

Obiden thinks it it patriotic to pay taxes. Businesses ain't patriots, they are survivors. If moving offshore to escape our business obstacles to survive is what is required, that is what they will do.

Representation without taxation is every bit as perverse as taxation without representation.

Elections should be for shareholders. If not...why have an arbitrary age restriction of 18 or older?

What Obama has in mind is very clever. If you can reach the point where a majority of taxpayers are not taxpayers, their interest lies in increasing the dole. They will never vote for anyone who is about cutting/reducing the size and scope of government. They are not in any way affected by the cost of government for they are not stakeholders in it. An increase in taxes would have no impact on them at all.

Thus, Comrade Obama ensures the long term power of the socialist party.

TG if a person loses their job the idea is to go get another. Some people have done this for years and some sit on their a$$ and whine. The most I was ever out of work was 10 days IN 44 YEARS. and that was because the landloard locked the place I was working at up. My tools were inside when I got my tools I went to work next day. I do not believe in welfare of an kind. VOTE DEMOCRAT IT IS EASIER THAN WORKING.

Is it just me, or is not the concept of "safety net" one in which upon falling, the acrobat climbs back up and get back on the high wire?

What our leftists friends have in mind is that once you fall, you lie in the net for the remainder of your life. In fact, in their world, many never even get up on the trapeze....they aspire to reach no higher than the net.

Should the safety net be a lifestyle? I think not, but then I could never be a democrat.

This does touch upon a fundamental difference. What is owed to someone who continues to make poor life choices, and fails to prepare him/herself to compete in the race we call life? Is an individual never responsible for doing the right thing?

That is pure socialism redistributing the wealth and that is exactly what Obama is-socialist, communist, pinko liberal what ever you want to call it.