Obama gets Mad That His Own Words are Coming Back to Haunt Him.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neidamyer

New member
Sep 7, 2008
22
0
0
Delaware
So, it has just been proven by Obama's own words that he is for Socialistic Redistrubition of Wealth.

He told "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to redistrubite the wealth, but we really misunderstood his intentions... He was asked by a reporter if he thought it was a mistake to have said it, and he said "No, of course not".

Now his own words come back to haunt him from a 2000 interview with National Public Radio, where he says several times that enough wasn't done to change the constitution so Redistrubition of Wealth was a reality. That the Civil Rights struggle of the 60's did it wrong. WTF? He's a Socialist, plain and simple.

Let me give you an analogy that may make the new Tax Plan Obama wants to implament works:


BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Think about it,

Neidamyer
 


my.php



Lobster anyone?
 
You might as well post both sides of the story: Taxes & Bar Stool Economics - Vox

No need to "think about it" as you propose. It's a story. Fiction, not reality. It's about a group of friends and a bartender lowering their collective bill. How is this applicable to reality? Those buddies beating up their rich friend - nice try to create a metaphor, but nothing more.

Plus, this little story has been around for years. I believe I first read it in 2000 A.D.
 
But when the rich guy blows all his cash on some bad financial bets the poor guy gets his poor guy pals to chip in and give him all his money back...

Its already socialist, just in reverse.
 
You might as well post both sides of the story: Taxes & Bar Stool Economics - Vox

No need to "think about it" as you propose. It's a story. Fiction, not reality. It's about a group of friends and a bartender lowering their collective bill. How is this applicable to reality? Those buddies beating up their rich friend - nice try to create a metaphor, but nothing more.

Plus, this little story has been around for years. I believe I first read it in 2000 A.D.

OMG! That article was the biggest pile of horse shit I've seen in a long time. Taxes for creating wealth? The Clinton years did see prosperity, not because of Clinton, but because the Republican Congress dragged him into that prosperity kicking & screaming. He repeatedly said it wouldn't work and the Rep Congress was going to ruin the economy. But when it did worked, he took full credit for it.

The changed story at the end...give me a break. Those same people would still (just like you) cry it wasn't fair, the rich guy could afford to pay for all their beers. And saving the difference, you know thats a joke. The truth of the matter is, there wouldn't be that surplus cash, because Obama wants to take it for Redistrubition to whom he thinks is worthy.

You know I've posted repeatedly on this forum, asking for you to explain how Obama is going to fund all his trillion dollar "Changes" without taxing the middle class, and not ONE of you Kool-aid drinking Obamaites has even tried to answer the question. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T! You go back to your party talking points and try to divert the subject and ask me some off-topic bullshit question or "Yea, well McCain did this, how to you defend that?" And I've answered your questions. Why won't you answer mine? How do you defend this Marxist Pig who wants to lead our country into the worst financial collapse in since Cuba (the last place/time this bullshit was pulled in our hemisphere.)

Castro came in promising "Change" and he'd make everyone equal. Yea, he did it, too. When he was done, everyone was equally poor. Then he took control of the media and controlled what people were allowed to hear. (I'll bet you if he's elected, Obama will come after conservitive talk radio and networks like Fox News.)

Mainstream media outlets won't ask Obama any "tough" questions.

It is almost amusing to see the reaction of Obama and his campaign anytime he or Biden have to answer any tough questions at all. (Which, by the way, is VERY RARELY!) When he thought people were being unfair to his wife early on in the campaign, he stepped up and boldly said, “My wife is off limits.” When Biden was asked a tough question by a local reporter in Florida, they stepped up and said that the station was banned from any further interviews with their campaign. When the true character of his pastor of twenty years was revealed, he side-stepped the issue and said, “I never heard any of that before.” Now this 2001 interview surfaces, and he wants to blame Fox News for presenting it unfairly.

This bastard wants to take everyone's money and treat it as he see's fit. You know, Michelle Obama makes of $300,000 per year and Barack made over $2,000,000 last year, with the profits from his two books. But he plays it off like he's just some average joe. America has been real good to Barack & Michelle, even though Michelle has never been proud of her country, until recently. And another thing, I'll bet they hold onto their money if barack's new tax laws go into effect.

Do you really believe Obama can pay for his trillion dollar new spending plan, cut taxes on 95% and carry that on the 5%? Do you REALLY believe that? He will either raise all of our taxes, which makes him a liar, or he will cause our economy to go back to that of the 1930’s!

When the tape of a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview with Barack Obama surfaced the other day... In the interview, Obama lamented that the Supreme Court did not intervene to redistribute wealth during the civil rights movement.

The Obama campaign reacted to the release of the radio interview by issuing this statement:

“This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of FOX News, The Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months.”

This is a case of changing the subject, or trying to. Obama said it –not FOX News, not The Drudge Report and not Sen. John McCain. In light of Obama’s much more recent comment to Joe the Plumber he clearly believes in taking money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who didn’t.

His defense is no defense at all, but a sleight of hand. The Bitch talks out of both sides of his mouth! Obama is being dishonest about his true intentions. That goes to character and tells us that his is flawed.


The people voting for Obama will be the same ones whining a year from now when the country goes down the toilet after Obama “spreads the wealth

Come on you Obama supporters, TELL ME HOW THE MESSIAH IS GOING TO PAY FOR HIS CHANGE POLICY WITHOUT RAISING THE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA?

You can't do it! Can he? If so, Show me, you Cowards.
 
But when the rich guy blows all his cash on some bad financial bets the poor guy gets his poor guy pals to chip in and give him all his money back...

Its already socialist, just in reverse.


What the Fuck are you talking about? The bail out you alude to was caused by the democrats. McCain went before congress almost 4 years ago and said, if immediate changes aren't made with Fannie & Fredie, it was all going to come crashing down.

Barney Frank came out (among other democrats) and defended Fannie Mae, never mentioning he was literally sucking the dick and being fucked in the ass by one of the guys in charge of it all. He called the guy his wife!

Barack was one of the main people in congress to get sweet heart deals and funding from Fannie/Fredie. Only 1 other member of congress got more money than Obama. And the top 3 reciepients were Dems. The democrats pushed this on us.

I'm against the bail out. Let the shit fall of it's own dead weight.

But you show your ignorance by making such stupid statements like that. Did you think that would slip by, unchallenged?

I'm going to bed. It's late and I'm getting grouchy. Didn't mean to go for a personal attach, but get your facts straight.
 
Whats so dumb about it. They want to take my money and give it away. I'm suggesting they do what they preach.
Besides you're in Australia so Shut the Fuck up and go play some rugby.

Australian troops are in Iraq dumbass.
If McCain wins more Australians die.
 
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million — 40% — paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama’s cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What’s more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes — less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama’s plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the “very rich” — the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill — will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts — those educated professionals who applaud the “fairness” of their candidate’s tax plans — will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society’s top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners — at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party’s dogma and loosened labor’s grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow’s children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of “fairness” — whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.
 
Australian troops are in Iraq dumbass.
If McCain wins more Australians die.

More people were murdered in Chicago (Obama's home town) this year than Americans were killed in Iraq.

Thanks for the help Aussies but don't worry, your safe in Iraq. Just don't visit Chicago on vacation.

Maybe Obama should conduct a surge on Chicago?
 
More people were murdered in Chicago (Obama's home town) this year than Americans were killed in Iraq.

Thanks for the help Aussies but don't worry, your safe in Iraq. Just don't visit Chicago on vacation.

Maybe Obama should conduct a surge on Chicago?

That says a lot about the murder rates in Chicago (and the US as a whole).

Are you counting the deaths of people from Chicago, or just the foreigners that the locals don't want there? :updown:
 
I'm impressed by Michelle Obama's handwriting... amazing how anyone could print and sign their name in identical text down to the smallest detail, almost looks like one field was copied over the other... hope her husband has the same consistency.

Did ya notice where the caviar came from... oh no!! They must be Arab terrorists after all!
 
Let me quote the New Yorker here:
The principle that Obama evinced, which most economists would regard as unexceptionable, can be traced to Adam Smith. In “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), his seminal treatise on capitalism, Smith wrote:


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.