Anyone watching the Obama show right now?

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Xavier434One thing I really liked about the infomercial is that there wasn't a single mention of McCain/Palin or their policies. No slandering. No propaganda. No "fundamental differences". It was all what he believes in and what he wants to do.

I also really liked how there was zero examples used regarding those who are desperately poor and relying on social services. He concentrated on exactly who he means to help the most and that is the working middle class who are struggling to get by. His examples included those with large families, small families, the young, and the old. You know what? The man is right.

I find it astonishing that people actually believe this tripe. He's a politician, just like every other politician. He doesn't care about you or the middle class or anyone else, he's just simply saying everything you want to hear to get elected. Once he gets elected, all bets are off. Just like the enzyte commercial -- they just say what they think you want to hear so you'll buy the product. When you discover that it doesn't work it doesn't matter anyway since they already have what they want.

Oh, and what's this "no propaganda" stuff... that's exactly what it was, 1/2 hour of propaganda.

First let me clarify the "no propaganda" statement because the way I typed it was misleading. I should have said "no negative propaganda aimed at slandering McCain".

As far as the rest goes, I have not dismissed the fact that he is still a politician or the fact that all of the goals stated in a campaign by any politician are never a guarantee because that is simply just not how the real world works.

However, what I am not going to do is stand by and forever believe that there will never be a leader in this country who will stand up and try to make a difference as president ever again. I believe in government which is not to say that I believe in every politician currently involved in government. I believe that the system can do things right and I believe that with the right people in office it will work well. I believe that Obama is one of those right people.

You on the other hand have completely lost all of your confidence in government and from what it sounds like (correct me if I am mistaken) you also believe that it will never recover unless we start again at square one or something which is never going to happen. Given recent history, I can't say I blame you for feeling that way. Hell, looking back even deeper in our history at specific windows of time involving certain failures I can't say I blame you for feeling the way you do. However, why bother remaining here if you believe that it will never change? Why bother even voting for president if believe that none of them are anything but lying scoundrels who purpose involves nothing but their own personal self gain? I don't dismiss the idea that those kinds of politicians most certainly exist but they are not all like that.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bearxor
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I also love how people claim the tax system isn't fair because someone who makes more money than you might get a lower tax rate. Even with a lower tax rate, they're still paying in more money than you are.

If you want a TRUE FAIR tax, there's only two ways to go. A flat tax with no exemptions so that everyone pays a percentage OR a national retail sales tax. How is it "fair", exactly, to tax people who make more a higher percentage?

Progressive Tax is the only Tax that approaches "Fair". Flat Tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

I would like to hear your explanation and reasoning for that. A flat tax that charges the exact same percentage for someone making $60,000/yr as it does for someone making $400,000/yr is truly fair, where asking someone who makes 60k to pay 10% and asking someone who make 400k to pay 30% is simply NOT FAIR.

With a flat tax of 15% in my example, the 60k would pay $9,000/yr where the 400k would pay 60,000/yr. It's still progressive in the amount paid depending on the earners income and is fair because everyone is charged the same percentage.

A progressive tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TallBill
Fuck that, Obama is a socialist, and that's not what I want in office.

You really know the Republicans are in trouble when they start busting out the three-syllable words to attack their opponents.

Maybe you can define it for us next.

Whos a republican?

McCain and Palin.

Ok, and what does that have to do with your previous post? Why are you always in attack mode?

You know what they say when you assume, you look like a wise and beautiful woman, or something like that.

Yep, he can't believe that a liberal democrat could be anti-Obama. But holy shit, I'm here.

So as a 'liberal democrat' you find McCain/Palin better? Um, yeah...

No, not at all. I would never vote Republican. But I don't have to be a Kool-Aid drinker and go with everything what my party decides.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor
If McCain wins and the fundies take over I'd consider Canada. They have hockey as their national sport and their anthem rocks!

Man, every election you hear that from some of the stupid actors -- I wish they'd follow through for once and leave the country!

In case you didn't notice, the guy I quoted is a non-citizen in the US and I'm pretty sure he is serious. Beat your chest and wave your flag all you want though.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bearxor
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I also love how people claim the tax system isn't fair because someone who makes more money than you might get a lower tax rate. Even with a lower tax rate, they're still paying in more money than you are.

If you want a TRUE FAIR tax, there's only two ways to go. A flat tax with no exemptions so that everyone pays a percentage OR a national retail sales tax. How is it "fair", exactly, to tax people who make more a higher percentage?

Progressive Tax is the only Tax that approaches "Fair". Flat Tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

I would like to hear your explanation and reasoning for that. A flat tax that charges the exact same percentage for someone making $60,000/yr as it does for someone making $400,000/yr is truly fair, where asking someone who makes 60k to pay 10% and asking someone who make 400k to pay 30% is simply NOT FAIR.

With a flat tax of 15% in my example, the 60k would pay $9,000/yr where the 400k would pay 60,000/yr. It's still progressive in the amount paid depending on the earners income and is fair because everyone is charged the same percentage.

A progressive tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

Let me ask you something. Have you ever been in a position in your life where you had to worry about money? I mean REALLY worry about money as in you looked at all of your options at one point at you had no fucking clue how you were going to be able to pay your rent the next month or put food on the table? Have you ever been in a situation where this fear was constant for months or even years and it was very real while also being able to look back at your own history and recognizing that something has changed in your life that was completely beyond your control and is now resulting in this situation?


What is fair about a progressive tax as opposed to a flat tax is that with a progressive tax everyone's actual impact when it comes to their lives is closer to being equal. $9000/yr makes a much bigger difference to the lives of Americans that make 60k than 60,000/yr does to the lives of Americans making 400k. The reason is due to what they are spending it on. Those making 60k right now are very often struggling just to make ends meet. The vast majority of their income goes towards necessities. Those making 400k who disapprove of progressive taxation are worried about nothing beyond how much faster they can get richer. It's called "priorities". The values of many of those priorities cannot be defined using raw tax dollar numbers alone.

Besides, even under the most aggressive progressive taxation that America has ever endured, the rich have proven that they still grow and get richer. That will not change under an Obama tax policy either because his tax policy is nothing new. We have seen it before.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bearxor
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I also love how people claim the tax system isn't fair because someone who makes more money than you might get a lower tax rate. Even with a lower tax rate, they're still paying in more money than you are.

If you want a TRUE FAIR tax, there's only two ways to go. A flat tax with no exemptions so that everyone pays a percentage OR a national retail sales tax. How is it "fair", exactly, to tax people who make more a higher percentage?

Progressive Tax is the only Tax that approaches "Fair". Flat Tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

I would like to hear your explanation and reasoning for that. A flat tax that charges the exact same percentage for someone making $60,000/yr as it does for someone making $400,000/yr is truly fair, where asking someone who makes 60k to pay 10% and asking someone who make 400k to pay 30% is simply NOT FAIR.

With a flat tax of 15% in my example, the 60k would pay $9,000/yr where the 400k would pay 60,000/yr. It's still progressive in the amount paid depending on the earners income and is fair because everyone is charged the same percentage.

A progressive tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

Uh, huh. And your said 'fair tax' would further divide the gap between the uber wealthy working class living paycheck to paycheck. By the way, you don't see those wealthy people reducing their income to take advantage of welfare and lower income tax breaks do ya?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TallBill
Fuck that, Obama is a socialist, and that's not what I want in office.

You really know the Republicans are in trouble when they start busting out the three-syllable words to attack their opponents.

Maybe you can define it for us next.

Whos a republican?

McCain and Palin.

Ok, and what does that have to do with your previous post? Why are you always in attack mode?

You know what they say when you assume, you look like a wise and beautiful woman, or something like that.

Yep, he can't believe that a liberal democrat could be anti-Obama. But holy shit, I'm here.

So as a 'liberal democrat' you find McCain/Palin better? Um, yeah...

No, not at all. I would never vote Republican. But I don't have to be a Kool-Aid drinker and go with everything what my party decides.

I don't think anyone goes along with everything their party decides. I know I don't. Anyway, if you're anti-Obama, who are you for?

 

[Thump553]

Wasn't bad- the music was over the top for my tastes but the video did an effective low key method of presenting his stands. I also especially liked the way it stayed away from bashing, or even mentioning the McCain ticket.

I think Obama got his money's worth out of the show. It won't affect the Bill Ayers type voters, but will jazz up the faithful to go vote (how GWB won 2004) and probably do a decent job of closing the deal with some independents.

Not up to the standards of the 1992 Ross Perot show, which was a brillant method of conveying his one issue.

Some of the talking heads mentioned that in England they allocate a one-half hour segment to each major candidate to do with what they want. I think that's a great idea.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You on the other hand have completely lost all of your confidence in government and from what it sounds like (correct me if I am mistaken) you also believe that it will never recover unless we start again at square one or something which is never going to happen.
Given recent history, I can't say I blame you for feeling that way. Hell, looking back even deeper in our history at specific windows of time involving certain failures I can't say I blame you for feeling the way you do. However, why bother remaining here if you believe that it will never change? Why bother even voting for president if believe that none of them are anything but lying scoundrels who purpose involves nothing but their own personal self gain? I don't dismiss the idea that those kinds of politicians most certainly exist but they are not all like that.

It's not that I believe all politicians are inherently lying scoundrels (though most of them certainly are!), the system is simply set up such that anyone that wins a significant office has to be beholden to all sorts of special interests. Even the "good guys" end up having to sacrifice their ideals.

I'm not sure why you say "why bother to stay here" or "why bother to vote". This is a great country, despite the political process and politicians. I try to do my small part to keep the politicians from ruining things. That's why to me the correct vote is whatever will put the most restraint on Washington. This cycle, that's McCain. Next cycle, I might vote democratic if the congress is republican controlled.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bearxor
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I also love how people claim the tax system isn't fair because someone who makes more money than you might get a lower tax rate. Even with a lower tax rate, they're still paying in more money than you are.

If you want a TRUE FAIR tax, there's only two ways to go. A flat tax with no exemptions so that everyone pays a percentage OR a national retail sales tax. How is it "fair", exactly, to tax people who make more a higher percentage?

Progressive Tax is the only Tax that approaches "Fair". Flat Tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

I would like to hear your explanation and reasoning for that. A flat tax that charges the exact same percentage for someone making $60,000/yr as it does for someone making $400,000/yr is truly fair, where asking someone who makes 60k to pay 10% and asking someone who make 400k to pay 30% is simply NOT FAIR.

With a flat tax of 15% in my example, the 60k would pay $9,000/yr where the 400k would pay 60,000/yr. It's still progressive in the amount paid depending on the earners income and is fair because everyone is charged the same percentage.

A progressive tax goes the opposite direction of "Fair".

Let me ask you something. Have you ever been in a position in your life where you had to worry about money? I mean REALLY worry about money as in you looked at all of your options at one point at you had no fucking clue how you were going to be able to pay your rent the next month or put food on the table? Have you ever been in a situation where this fear was constant for months or even years and it was very real while also being able to look back at your own history and recognizing that something has changed in your life that was completely beyond your control and is now resulting in this situation?


What is fair about a progressive tax as opposed to a flat tax is that with a progressive tax everyone's actual impact when it comes to their lives is closer to being equal. $9000/yr makes a much bigger difference to the lives of Americans that make 60k than 60,000/yr does to the lives of Americans making 400k. The reason is due to what they are spending it on. Those making 60k right now are very often struggling just to make ends meet. The vast majority of their income goes towards necessities. Those making 400k who disapprove of progressive taxation are worried about nothing beyond how much faster they can get richer. It's called "priorities". The values of many of those priorities cannot be defined using raw tax dollar numbers alone.

Besides, even under the most aggressive progressive taxation that America has ever endured, the rich have proven that they still grow and get richer. That will not change under an Obama tax policy either because his tax policy is nothing new. We have seen it before.

Did it every occur to you that the two scenerios that you put up are "quite possibly" the fault of both of those individuals decisions that they made in there life that has influenced the outcome.

If you are an individual with the earning capacity of a 60k year job and have a bunch of kids, buy a house you can't afford, drive a new car etc then yes you are going to struggle with the bills/rent.

On the other hand if you went to college, got a good job, invested your money etc then you aren't going to have to worry about those sort of things. Although I know of two people that don't make quite 400K but guess what. They can't pay there bills either. Investments went south, saving for college, taking care of adult parents who need full time care. You get the point............

The progressive tax begins to erode at any advantages that can be gained through hard work, continued education, sacrifice and advancement because the perceived benefits begin to become negative the higher the "progressive tax" gets.

I believe in helping others if you have extra. What I don't believe is that it is governments job to take from the haves and give to have nots solely on the basis of you make more than them.

And yes I have been on both side of the "how the hell I am going to pay the rent/late payements" to the "i make enought to end up on the wrong side of Obama's tax plan" but it was a decision i made long ago that i wanted a better life and then I followed through with school, education, and sacrifice(alot).

just my 2 cents

-fish

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: fisheerman
Did it every occur to you that the two scenerios that you put up are "quite possibly" the fault of both of those individuals decisions that they made in there life that has influenced the outcome.

If you are an individual with the earning capacity of a 60k year job and have a bunch of kids, buy a house you can't afford, drive a new car etc then yes you are going to struggle with the bills/rent.

On the other hand if you went to college, got a good job, invested your money etc then you aren't going to have to worry about those sort of things. Although I know of two people that don't make quite 400K but guess what. They can't pay there bills either. Investments went south, saving for college, taking care of adult parents who need full time care. You get the point............

The progressive tax begins to erode at any advantages that can be gained through hard work, continued education, sacrifice and advancement because the perceived benefits begin to become negative the higher the "progressive tax" gets.

I believe in helping others if you have extra. What I don't believe is that it is governments job to take from the haves and give to have nots solely on the basis of you make more than them.

And yes I have been on both side of the "how the hell I am going to pay the rent/late payements" to the "i make enought to end up on the wrong side of Obama's tax plan" but it was a decision i made long ago that i wanted a better life and then I followed through with school, education, and sacrifice(alot).

just my 2 cents

-fish

The types of people that you describe certainly exist, but you can't let those bad apples ruin it for the entire barrel.

Also, what you are saying about progressive taxes basically eroding the opportunities for the rich to become richer is simply not true. As I stated earlier, and this is a matter of public record:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Besides, even under the most aggressive progressive taxation that America has ever endured, the rich have proven that they still grow and get richer. That will not change under an Obama tax policy either because his tax policy is nothing new. We have seen it before.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Let me ask you something. Have you ever been in a position in your life where you had to worry about money? I mean REALLY worry about money as in you looked at all of your options at one point at you had no fucking clue how you were going to be able to pay your rent the next month or put food on the table? Have you ever been in a situation where this fear was constant for months or even years and it was very real while also being able to look back at your own history and recognizing that something has changed in your life that was completely beyond your control and is now resulting in this situation?

Yes and no. Yes to the first part. I still worry about money. I've been evicted from my apartment before because I couldn't pay the rent. Up until recently, I've had my cell phone/cable/internet/electricity cut off at various times because I couldn't make the payment on time. And yes, it has been a constant fear for the past 8 years.

No to that it was completely beyond my control. I chose to move in to a $800 apartment I couldn't afford on $30k/yr. I chose to eat out at restaurants 4 nights a week spending $50 each time. I chose to buy the PT Cruiser for $18,000 and then let my wife trade it in a year later for another $18,000 car, and did I mention we were $5,000 upside down on it resulting in a $500/mo car payment? I chose to get credit cards to fund my addictions. Video games, electronics and computer parts, jewelry and food. I chose to subscribe to cable and pay $120/mo for TV. I chose.

Now I choose something different. Starting today actually. I'm choosing to be in a position where I don't have to worry about money. I'm choosing to forgo all of the extras and frills in my life now so that I can enjoy them later. I'm choosing to not eat out, save money and pay off all my credit card debt. I'm choosing to make sure I work 40 hours a week. I'm choosing to not buy video games or new consoles or upgrade my aging HTPC. I'm choosing to turn off the cable and rely on my antenna for entertainment.

Every person is in charge of their life. Every person has the ability to look up and say 'Damnit, that's enough!' and change their lives for the better. The government can't make someone change their life. They have to do it. Give someone more money and without them making a fundamental change to who they are, they will find themselves right back in the same situation.

Yes, I still believe that a flat tax is significantly more "fair" than a progressive tax. Even with my measly 55k/yr income.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Let me ask you something. Have you ever been in a position in your life where you had to worry about money? I mean REALLY worry about money as in you looked at all of your options at one point at you had no fucking clue how you were going to be able to pay your rent the next month or put food on the table? Have you ever been in a situation where this fear was constant for months or even years and it was very real while also being able to look back at your own history and recognizing that something has changed in your life that was completely beyond your control and is now resulting in this situation?

Yes and no. Yes to the first part. I still worry about money. I've been evicted from my apartment before because I couldn't pay the rent. Up until recently, I've had my cell phone/cable/internet/electricity cut off at various times because I couldn't make the payment on time. And yes, it has been a constant fear for the past 8 years.

No to that it was completely beyond my control. I chose to move in to a $800 apartment I couldn't afford on $30k/yr. I chose to eat out at restaurants 4 nights a week spending $50 each time. I chose to buy the PT Cruiser for $18,000 and then let my wife trade it in a year later for another $18,000 car, and did I mention we were $5,000 upside down on it resulting in a $500/mo car payment? I chose to get credit cards to fund my addictions. Video games, electronics and computer parts, jewelry and food. I chose to subscribe to cable and pay $120/mo for TV. I chose.

Now I choose something different. Starting today actually. I'm choosing to be in a position where I don't have to worry about money. I'm choosing to forgo all of the extras and frills in my life now so that I can enjoy them later. I'm choosing to not eat out, save money and pay off all my credit card debt. I'm choosing to make sure I work 40 hours a week. I'm choosing to not buy video games or new consoles or upgrade my aging HTPC. I'm choosing to turn off the cable and rely on my antenna for entertainment.

Every person is in charge of their life. Every person has the ability to look up and say 'Damnit, that's enough!' and change their lives for the better. The government can't make someone change their life. They have to do it. Give someone more money and without them making a fundamental change to who they are, they will find themselves right back in the same situation.

Yes, I still believe that a flat tax is significantly more "fair" than a progressive tax. Even with my measly 55k/yr income.

Fair is a very funny word though when applying it to tax policies. Why is the opinion of "fair" when applied to regressive flat taxes "better" for this country?

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Let me ask you something. Have you ever been in a position in your life where you had to worry about money? I mean REALLY worry about money as in you looked at all of your options at one point at you had no fucking clue how you were going to be able to pay your rent the next month or put food on the table? Have you ever been in a situation where this fear was constant for months or even years and it was very real while also being able to look back at your own history and recognizing that something has changed in your life that was completely beyond your control and is now resulting in this situation?

Yes and no. Yes to the first part. I still worry about money. I've been evicted from my apartment before because I couldn't pay the rent. Up until recently, I've had my cell phone/cable/internet/electricity cut off at various times because I couldn't make the payment on time. And yes, it has been a constant fear for the past 8 years.

No to that it was completely beyond my control. I chose to move in to a $800 apartment I couldn't afford on $30k/yr. I chose to eat out at restaurants 4 nights a week spending $50 each time. I chose to buy the PT Cruiser for $18,000 and then let my wife trade it in a year later for another $18,000 car, and did I mention we were $5,000 upside down on it resulting in a $500/mo car payment? I chose to get credit cards to fund my addictions. Video games, electronics and computer parts, jewelry and food. I chose to subscribe to cable and pay $120/mo for TV. I chose.

Now I choose something different. Starting today actually. I'm choosing to be in a position where I don't have to worry about money. I'm choosing to forgo all of the extras and frills in my life now so that I can enjoy them later. I'm choosing to not eat out, save money and pay off all my credit card debt. I'm choosing to make sure I work 40 hours a week. I'm choosing to not buy video games or new consoles or upgrade my aging HTPC. I'm choosing to turn off the cable and rely on my antenna for entertainment.

Every person is in charge of their life. Every person has the ability to look up and say 'Damnit, that's enough!' and change their lives for the better. The government can't make someone change their life. They have to do it. Give someone more money and without them making a fundamental change to who they are, they will find themselves right back in the same situation.

Yes, I still believe that a flat tax is significantly more "fair" than a progressive tax. Even with my measly 55k/yr income.

Good for you. 55k /yr if you have no kids, for 2 people is a good amount of money. It also depends where you live. If you live in GA for example 55k does a lot for you.

My first job out of college was with Capgemini consulting making 53k/year right out of college. At that time I drove a 10 year old car that was paid off because I bought it for 5.5k using my co-op money from college. It AMAZED me how many new people to Cap starting at between 50k-60k/year bought Infiniti G35 cars because we had a special discount/financing option through nissan. Crazy if you ask me. So all these folks are making 50-60k paying 600-700 a month for a damn CAR not to mention insurance costs for such a thing etc.

I think the fair tax is a good idea, but I oppose it for a few reasons.

1) I don't see a plan that makes sure that all businesses etc collect the taxes and report them correctly to the IRS. IRS no longer 'collects' the money directly through tax returns, but through revenues of 3rd parties somehow. I see A LOT of room for cheating in that regard.

2) Look at Europe and the VAT tax. Every time there is a budget shortfall in one of the EU countries.... they raise the VAT by .1, .2% and it just keeps going up. I am affraid that the gov't will just 'raise' this so called fair tax to get more revenue.

3) Lastly, we are a consume 1st nation. Seeing a 30%+ rise in goods overnight might not settle well for some. The fair tax is a little tricky in its math. It says its 23% tax. But the way we traditionally compute tax is a good costs 100 bucks, 10% tax and you get a cost of 110. Which by Fair Tax standards its 9%. Since 10/110 is roughly 9%. Now going back to the 23% example. Cost of a good is 77 and the tax is 23. So really you are paying 29.8% tax.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: fisheerman
Did it every occur to you that the two scenerios that you put up are "quite possibly" the fault of both of those individuals decisions that they made in there life that has influenced the outcome.

If you are an individual with the earning capacity of a 60k year job and have a bunch of kids, buy a house you can't afford, drive a new car etc then yes you are going to struggle with the bills/rent.

On the other hand if you went to college, got a good job, invested your money etc then you aren't going to have to worry about those sort of things. Although I know of two people that don't make quite 400K but guess what. They can't pay there bills either. Investments went south, saving for college, taking care of adult parents who need full time care. You get the point............

The progressive tax begins to erode at any advantages that can be gained through hard work, continued education, sacrifice and advancement because the perceived benefits begin to become negative the higher the "progressive tax" gets.

I believe in helping others if you have extra. What I don't believe is that it is governments job to take from the haves and give to have nots solely on the basis of you make more than them.

And yes I have been on both side of the "how the hell I am going to pay the rent/late payements" to the "i make enought to end up on the wrong side of Obama's tax plan" but it was a decision i made long ago that i wanted a better life and then I followed through with school, education, and sacrifice(alot).

just my 2 cents

-fish

The types of people that you describe certainly exist, but you can't let those bad apples ruin it for the entire barrel.

Also, what you are saying about progressive taxes basically eroding the opportunities for the rich to become richer is simply not true. As I stated earlier, and this is a matter of public record:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Besides, even under the most aggressive progressive taxation that America has ever endured, the rich have proven that they still grow and get richer. That will not change under an Obama tax policy either because his tax policy is nothing new. We have seen it before.

this is the exact problem with the "lets tax the rich" strategy. what is the definition of rich? In obama's plan 250k (know 200k) is rich. Well to me 200k or 250k or even 400k isn't rich. Rich is I don't have to work if I don't want to. The numbers being spouted about rich by the Dems is squarely upper middle class.

In these definitions any family with two professional careers working in a major city are going to be hit by this "redistribution of wealth" policy. Taking from the upper middle class and giving to the poor.

The extremely rich aren't going to pay taxes because they have the ability to move money overseas, navigate the tax code with high priced accountants or hold the wealth in investments and trush (or better yet the tax exempt "Foundations"). So all of the tax burden will fall on the working upper middle class.

So what you are doing is creating a glass ceiling between the working class by redistributing the wealth among the working group and the elite mega millionaire class.