Obama pro/con (7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 11, 2008
1,793
275
41
-
✟9,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
ok.. about 30% of the population does'nt even pay taxes so he can't lower taxes on those that don't pay taxes. Using tax payer $ is exactly what socialism is in this instance. . Please show me how that is NOT socialism. .

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society where labor is the main source of wealth.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟79,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ok.. about 30% of the population does'nt even pay taxes so he can't lower taxes on those that don't pay taxes. Using tax payer $ is exactly what socialism is in this instance. . Please show me how that is NOT socialism.
You're misunderstanding his tax plan. He's not going to lower taxes forthose folks, he's going to give them a tax break. That break comes in the form of "refundable tax credits". Let's say your tax liability is $3000, but you are entitled to a "refundable tax credit" of $2000. You pay only $1000. Now let's say your tax liability is $0 and you are entitled to a "refundable tax credit" of $2000. Then you get a check for $2000. Instead of you paying taxes to the government, the government is paying taxes to you. Of course, that money came from a person somewhere who worked hard to earn it. It is indeed Socialism

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟79,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Socialist: increasing taxes on the top 5%, decreasing taxes on the bottom 95%
Since Obama has a history of lying about money, there is no reason for us to believe there will be any such thing as lower taxes or tax breaks for the bottom 95%
 
Upvote 0

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
45
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟26,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You're misunderstanding his tax plan. He's not going to lower taxes forthose folks, he's going to give them a tax break. That break comes in the form of "refundable tax credits". Let's say your tax liability is $3000, but you are entitled to a "refundable tax credit" of $2000. You pay only $1000. Now let's say your tax liability is $0 and you are entitled to a "refundable tax credit" of $2000. Then you get a check for $2000. Instead of you paying taxes to the government, the government is paying taxes to you. Of course, that money came from a person somewhere who worked hard to earn it.
That would be socialism... but only if those benefits exceed the amount that one can pay in as entitlements.
 
Upvote 0

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
45
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟26,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You guys throw around the term "socialism" and it's misuse display you have not clue what it means.

Just as one should not learn what evolution is from church, likewise one should not learn what socialism is from any neconic talk radio host and their ilk.
I thought I was fair. I don't see why someone would take money from someone who earns it and pay it as welfare to someone who didn't even pay that money in! They should, rather enact reasonable regulations to ensure that the pay come out in the first place, without running it through government hands. However, this might seem necessary because certain aspects of our US economy are under attack by various powerful forces (such as communist China businesses). On the other hand, we could defend them with various regulations and tax breaks, but, while that might be more reasonable, it is kind of against Democrat policy, so they move the money around by hand in a sort of silly way to avoid outright breaking of a policy... though they break it anyway...
 
Upvote 0

`jayne

Hero of Canton
Sep 22, 2008
114
7
✟15,275.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
You guys throw around the term "socialism" and it's misuse display you have not clue what it means.

Just as one should not learn what evolution is from church, likewise one should not learn what socialism is from any neconic talk radio host and their ilk.
Where's you learn your grammer? Sounds like mines.
 
Upvote 0

JoyJuice

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
10,838
483
✟20,965.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Others
I thought I was fair. I don't see why someone would take money from someone who earns it and pay it as welfare to someone who didn't even pay that money in! They should, rather enact reasonable regulations to ensure that the pay come out in the first place, without running it through government hands. However, this might seem necessary because certain aspects of our US economy are under attack by various powerful forces (such as communist China businesses). On the other hand, we could defend them with various regulations and tax breaks, but, while that might be more reasonable, it is kind of against Democrat policy, so they move the money around by hand in a sort of silly way to avoid outright breaking of a policy... though they break it anyway...
If this is your argument then you are not even close to describing socialism. So it is indeed not fair at all. Your argument seems to be against the idea of welfare on it's face, which is whole other animal, and not Obama's middle income targeted tax relief policy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
45
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟26,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You know not what you speak of.
No, I'd say that that is accurate. If one calculates in EIC most people making low wages or just slightly more with children, don't even end up in the whole from entitlement payments. I've been there. I know someone who's there right now. You can survive pretty well there too, insurance and the whole thing.

So, what were you saying?

Oh, the tax cut really is for the middle class... Mostly the upper middle class at that. The regular middle class, if they have kids, doesn't pay taxes. It is possible that he intends to pay them back some entitlement money.

I'd like to know for a fact if he intends to give people a net positive from the government coffer. It isn't clear. If so I'd like to see it temporary and replaced with a minimum wage increase.

I'm afraid what were going to see is rich people crawling the rest of the way under the rock until the financial storm passes (they can afford to), and wait for the pressure to go away. High taxes will cause them to take less risks... and remember its not business failure driving this, its mortgage failure, so that seems like a bad deal.

It comes down to the fact that we don't tax money that doesn't move.

Otherwise, putting money into the hands of poor people almost always pays off, because they are highly likely to spend it and lift the economy, and themselves. I'm in favor of that, but with minimum wages it slows growth.

The candidates would like us to think its a simple bunch of things going on, but its complex. Which is why I prefer a competitive tax rate for businesses, and no new taxes on rich people when they're already freaked out.
 
Upvote 0

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
45
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟26,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So have I, I've seen all sorts of withholdings, ie TAXES, that I've paid and will not magically get back.
From the federal government? When was that?

I know that last years filing a less well paid person is paid back more than taxes, so perhaps your basing your conclusions on old information.

I hope we can come to an agreement here.

I'd hate to know you were lying to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
45
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟26,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And, by the way, I'm happy that the government keeps that welfare available, because the government shouldn't appropriate things from poor people... But it shouldn't unnecessarily pad the rolls of poor people either. In a way it makes sense to appropriate money from one business sector and move it to another, because society needs all of its parts to function properly.

As far as the federalists go, we have basic disagreements about scale, and its effect on human dignity and community involvement. They need stuff that is "theirs."
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Link to Obama 2002 Tax return

On page 6 there's an entry for speaking fees.

(5 ILCS 420/2‑110)
Sec. 2‑110. Honoraria.
(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.
(b) As used in this Section:
"Honorarium" means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech, excluding any actual and necessary travel expenses incurred by the member of the General Assembly (and one relative) to the extent that those expenses are paid by any other person. "Honorarium" does not include (i) cash payments made on behalf of a member of the General Assembly to an organization described under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (ii) an agent's fee or commission, or (iii) funds reported under Article 9 of the Election Code.
"Travel expense" means the reasonable cost of transportation and the reasonable cost of lodging and meals incurred while a person is away from his or her residence or principal place of employment.
(c) Any honorarium or honoraria accepted in violation of this Section shall be surrendered to the State Treasurer and deposited into the General Revenue Fund.
(Source: P.A. 89‑405, eff. 11‑8‑95.)

During that time Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois General Assembly


hmm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DieHappy
Upvote 0

DoubtingThomas29

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2007
1,358
79
✟9,402.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I believe that Obama is the messiah, the second coming of Christ, who is here today, to lead his people to a better America. As Obama woud say if he were here "Let my people go.....vote."

Vote for change guys and gals, it is like a protest vote agianst what in sam's hell the republican party has done to this country over the last eight years. Maybe in 2010 I'll vote for republican if things get better, but I do believe we need to let the democrats in there and see what good can they do for the country! I got a feeling the democrats are really going to show us something special. The budget deficit for this year looks like it will be a cool trillion dollars over budget, I think the democrats were trying to make the republicans look bad, while it is so easy to do, once those democrats get in there, they'll stay within their budget you bet, just to show up the republican party.

Gobama!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.