BF2S Forums The bottomline on Obama "spread the wealth around"

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Lowing, is Obama actually talking about taking people's money and redistributing it? Is he really? Because it doesn't sound like that from what he has outlined in the election race. Are you making your own inferences or is there a clear and detailed Obama proposal that you've seen that is advocating the seizure of other people's earnings for the purpose of redistribution to others?

Lowing's version of things: "Taking money from the person who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't."

Obama's version of things: "Taking less money in tax from middle income earners and taking more money in tax from high income earners."

You can look up his own quotes.

He has stated he wants to "spread the wealth around" pretty tough to spread the wealth of the poor around can we agree on this? He also said when pinned down on the issue that is "neighborliness" and "nice" thing to do. It is not the govts. job t odecide how nice or neighborly I am to be.

With all due respect FEOS that's still too vague. One can't just presume the finer details of his economic policies from the phrase "spread the wealth around". I think the wider public have inferred from that that he merely wishes to stop giving the big companies an easy ride while they get stinking rich on tax breaks while regular working stiffs struggle by, paying proportionately higher rates of tax.

It's all immaterial at this stage anyways as it looks like Obama has won.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So I see you've bought the DNC talking points, as well.

How did we become the most powerful country in the world? Because as flawed as we are, we're still better than the rest of you.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
j/k

I'm having difficulty believing anything I hear about American politicians or their policies these days.

I would have thought that someone in the media would have picked up on the fact that one of the candidates was proposing an economic policy that a down syndrome child wouldn't dare put forward in the most idiotic of socialist, European nations. If a candidate here in Ireland said he was going to write blank cheques for freeloaders he'd be strung up by the short and curlies by the media... why isn't that happening in the States? Either it isn't actually the truth or the media are all fucking dunces? The liberal biased media conspiracy doesn't fly because I've been watching Fox international and I haven't heard diddly.

Are there any reliable sources online? From the horse's mouth so to speak?

It is getting a free pass by most news outlets, it is the same thing with Obamas questionable relationships, it is downplayed and denied. The big concern and controversy however, is Sarah Palin wardrobe.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

You can look up his own quotes.

He has stated he wants to "spread the wealth around" pretty tough to spread the wealth of the poor around can we agree on this? He also said when pinned down on the issue that is "neighborliness" and "nice" thing to do. It is not the govts. job t odecide how nice or neighborly I am to be.

With all due respect FEOS that's still too vague. One can't just presume the finer details of his economic policies from the phrase "spread the wealth around". I think the wider public have inferred from that that he merely wishes to stop giving the big companies an easy ride while they get stinking rich on tax breaks while regular working stiffs struggle by, paying proportionately higher rates of tax.

It's all immaterial at this stage anyways as it looks like Obama has won.

In fact, one can presume EXACTLY his intentions by "Spread the wealth around" since the poor have none, he is spreading someone elses to the poor.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

With all due respect FEOS that's still too vague. One can't just presume the finer details of his economic policies from the phrase "spread the wealth around". I think the wider public have inferred from that that he merely wishes to stop giving the big companies an easy ride while they get stinking rich on tax breaks while regular working stiffs struggle by, paying proportionately higher rates of tax.

It's all immaterial at this stage anyways as it looks like Obama has won.

In fact, one can presume EXACTLY his intentions by "Spread the wealth around" since the poor have none, he is spreading someone elses to the poor.

Except when you're talking about wealth in terms of tax revenue and the rich are getting all the tasty cuts and the best tax breaks.

Why should the mega rich be the only ones to benefit from tax policies? Is that "the American way"?

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-04 17:48:23)

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is getting a free pass by most news outlets, it is the same thing with Obamas questionable relationships, it is downplayed and denied. The big concern and controversy however, is Sarah Palin wardrobe.

Well then your country has one of the worst news services in the world... perhaps you should get Obama to look into the idea of a standards and regulations committee to maintain a higher standard of news media?

Are you telling me that you have not heard about the wardrobe controversy, or are you actually telling me that you agree with me?

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Well then your country has one of the worst news services in the world... perhaps you should get Obama to look into the idea of a standards and regulations committee to maintain a higher standard of news media?

Are you telling me that you have not heard about the wardrobe controversy, or are you actually telling me that you agree with me?

Well I can tell you lowing that Palin's wardrobe only got a mention on the BBC website while Obama's terrorist buddies got 6 o'clock news coverage on BBC1.

Please let go of the whole media conspiracy angle... it's tired and boring at this stage. As a European I've just had 8 years of right-wing trash fed down my throat by FOX and it's sister station Sky News. People just see the media through their own political spectrum and they infer their own levels of bias.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

In fact, one can presume EXACTLY his intentions by "Spread the wealth around" since the poor have none, he is spreading someone elses to the poor.

Except when you're talking about wealth in terms of tax revenue and the rich are getting all the tasty cuts and the best tax breaks.

Why should the mega rich be the only ones to benefit from tax policies? Is that "the American way"?

What better tax break than to not pay any? Just what kind of a tax break do you sugeest for people who do not pay any taxes? I guess the only thing left to do is just give them money.

Nope, the American Way is a country that affords the opportunity and freedom to succeed or fail as you will without govt. interference. You are free t omake as much or as little as your personal decisions allow.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Except when you're talking about wealth in terms of tax revenue and the rich are getting all the tasty cuts and the best tax breaks.

Why should the mega rich be the only ones to benefit from tax policies? Is that "the American way"?

What better tax break than to not pay any? Just what kind of a tax break do you sugeest for people who do not pay any taxes? I guess the only thing left to do is just give them money.

Nope, the American Way is a country that affords the opportunity and freedom to succeed or fail as you will without govt. interference. You are free t omake as much or as little as your personal decisions allow.

Well here in the real world if you don't earn money and pay any taxes you don't get any tax breaks... ever heard the expression you can't get blood out of a stone?

Now these people who refuse to work that you speak of can only claim social welfare payment here for an absolute maximum of 315 days (unless they're disabled or very ill). They must also provide continual proof of efforts to find work and if work is found for them by the job seekers department and they refuse to take it without any good reason then they cease to receive payment.

When times are tight big rich companies should not be getting generous tax breaks while hard working tax payers continue to pay top dollar, that's just not fair.

And Obama has won the election so maybe... just maybe... he will do something about it, and hopefully that won't involve retarded ideas involving blank cheques that couldn't possibly add up in any accountant's calculations.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Well then your country has one of the worst news services in the world... perhaps you should get Obama to look into the idea of a standards and regulations committee to maintain a higher standard of news media?

Are you telling me that you have not heard about the wardrobe controversy, or are you actually telling me that you agree with me?

Well I can tell you lowing that Palin's wardrobe only got a mention on the BBC website while Obama's terrorist buddies got 6 o'clock news coverage on BBC1.

Please let go of the whole media conspiracy angle... it's tired and boring at this stage. As a European I've just had 8 years of right-wing trash fed down my throat by FOX and it's sister station Sky News. People just see the media through their own political spectrum and they infer their own levels of bias.

lowing wrote:

1. Cam, I am not going to be on the defensive about my job with you. I have spent over 20 years in all aspects of aviation.  Say whatever you will, your cyber perch sitting is nothing more than mere amusement.

3. "I think the government has a duty to provide opportunity to the populace."<---------Now you are changing your tune, last post it was entitlement, now you are telling it is opportunity, ok then we agree. The govt. does provide opportunity to succeed it is called the Constitution

People are not ENTITLED to a job. Tht is not the govts. function. Jobs are not owned by society, jobs are owned by the people who built the companies. There is no ENTITLEMENT to a job. This is where you and I difffer greatly apparently. I believe you have to work and earn a quality of life. YOU are not "ENTITLED" to it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder who pays for all of this ENTITLEMENT in your world.

4. Ya mean feel free to keep my arm outstretched to the govt.......................................LIKE YOU?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-05 00:09:22)

Mint Sauce wrote:

lowing have you hung yourself yet?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-05 01:05:39)

Mint Sauce wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Mint Sauce wrote:

lowing have you hung yourself yet?

lowing was too naive to realise that his simplistic ethos fails when it goes awry in the likes of an economic downturn. When the system gets fucked and society as a whole feels the pinch they will wholesale jump ship and democratically turn to the opposite political camp (en mass in this case). Ah well, maybe this will teach him a lesson. Perhaps he will realise that running a tighter more egalitarian and more economically sustainable ship he might not have to deal with a House, Senate, President triple whammy of Democrats (which tbh is scary from a pluralism and corruption point of view).

Affirmative.

lowing wrote:

Mint Sauce wrote:

lowing have you hung yourself yet?

nope