Tax the rich!!

Why is it you guys think only poor people should pay taxes?

Also, why do you want a war with Russia if you want taxes cut?

Well the rich start the wars for their own profit, so why not?

I'm sure captured Russian oil and gas fields will pay for such a war. :rolleyes:

I don't think that ONLY the poor should pay taxes, I think all taxes should be even amongst everyone.

well, that's not true. I think there should be no taxes :not:

Why is it you guys think only poor people should pay taxes?Where did I say that? Where did anybody say that? How about a dose of reality...okay? We already have a progressive tax system and I'm totally okay with it. I just don't want to see it become more progressive because rich people have options. If you want to halt the economy completely, keep making it harder for rich people and corporations to do business...and they'll just look for more favorable countries in which to invest their money. Can't you see that?

Also, why do you want a war with Russia if you want taxes cut?I don't want a war with Russia...but in another thread someone asked how we're going to pay for one if it does occur. So, I thought why not tax the rich to pay for it. Surely liberals can't oppose that idea!! Right?

well, that's not true. I think there should be no taxes :not:In an ideal world, I'd agree with you.

Actually, I'd prefer a tax system which is more fair. By that, for example, I mean that the cost to build and maintain roads should be paid for by people who own cars (licensing fees, etc), tolls, and gasoline taxes. Corporations that use the roads would also pay these fees and taxes as they already do. That's what I call a fair tax. A tax on gasoline to pay for something completely unrelated isn't right.

Define rich.

keep making it harder for rich people and corporations to do business...and they'll just look for more favorable countries in which to invest their money. Can't you see that?

hello! china is calling and wants more of our companies to move there so they can make more lead based products at dirt cheap prices so we buy them and their economy grows like its on roids. you might as well give their economy a name, like barry bonds.

They will use corporate armies and charge it to the American tax payer.

hello! china is calling and wants more of our companies to move there so they can make more lead based products at dirt cheap prices so we buy them and their economy grows like its on roids. And giving more incentive for the people who make the decisions (rich) to move their companies there isn't going to help anyone.

I think it is somewhat ironic that a commie country has more conditions business finds preferrable.

If you want to halt the economy completely, keep making it harder for rich people and corporations to do business...and they'll just look for more favorable countries in which to invest their money. Can't you see that?


Then crank up tariffs and let them do it.

Define rich.

Excellent, excellent question.

"Rich" is a relative term that cannot be defined in any concrete way. If someone has a million bucks, but they owe out 978,000 bucks, are they rich?? Of course not. Income does not indicate real wealth. It never has.

How many Americans are house poor these days?? They may appear to "have it all", but in reality, they're broke because everything they own is mortgaged to the hilt and their debts may never be paid off. That can especially apply to credit card debt.

If we start defining rich and writing the tax code around whatever we decide is rich, then we'll have an even further overtaxed, and lopsidedly taxed society.

The true "poor" don't pay any federal taxes (they don't have the money required to run a country). Since Reagan was in office, millions of Americans no longer have to pay anything, and the government even pays them to work through the earned income tax credit.

Define rich.


You honestly don't know what rich means?:eek7:

You honestly don't know what rich means?:eek7:

You define what income level makes one rich. Obama is even having trouble with that question.

You honestly don't know what rich means?:eek7:

Oh I have my own definition of rich. But I doubt it syncs with everyone else's definition. By most standards I am rich, 4 br house, 2 cars each less than 2 yrs old, new boat, camper, kid in college, pension, 401(k). However, I don't feel rich knowing what kind of financial straights I'd be in if my husband or I were unemployed for any length of time.

In my mind one is rich when they live a very comfortable lifestyle without having to work.

Then crank up tariffs and let them do it.I'd be totally in favor of that.

Oh I have my own definition of rich. But I doubt it syncs with everyone else's definition.Exactly. The call to "tax the rich" is nothing but a ploy that plays on the jealosy directed toward someone who isn't you. That's why it works so well, because very few people in this country think of themselves as rich.

a lot of them are though..

and seriously, the whole defencive behaviour, about how its all against the US again, is silly.

russia are basterds, georgia too (they actually started fighting here) and the US too. all looking out for tehir own interest, looking for domination and intimidation, for security reasons. its very childish i think. the US and nato have approached russia about that rocket shield, and russia has stated it doesnt want any part of it, and it is against it, becuase it can threathen their own security. nato has shown no respect for that at all.
like i said, when cuba installed rockets for teh soviets, the US was ready to go to nucleair war. why should russia accept this then?

when cuba installed rockets for teh soviets, the US was ready to go to nucleair war. why should russia accept this then?It isn't at all the same thing. The weapons we're deploying are "defensive". The Cuban missles were not. That's a huge difference in my mind. No nation should ever be questioned about weapons intended for defense only.

You define what income level makes one rich. Obama is even having trouble with that question.

I know that not even knowing how many homes you own would qualify as Rich

Days after he cracked that being rich in the U.S. meant earning at least $5 million a year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain acknowledged that he wasn't sure how many houses he and his wealthy wife actually own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain responded to a question posed by Politico, according to a story Thursday on the publication's Web site. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

Later, the McCain campaign told Politico that McCain and his wife, Cindy, have at least four in three states, Arizona, California and Virginia. Newsweek recently estimated the two owned at least seven properties.

The "elitist" Obama owns exactly one

I know that not even knowing how many homes you own would qualify as Rich



The "elitist" Obama owns exactly one

McCain's a rich elitist too. There, now we don't have to worry about that one any more.

McCain's a rich elitist too. There, now we don't have to worry about that one any more.

You've already stated that you are "pushing" McCain against your will (because the left is attacking him)... but are you sure you don't actually LIKE him? ( in spit of his lack of conservative credencials)

I know that not even knowing how many homes you own would qualify as RichNo question. I'm not sure why this surprises anyone. We all know McCain is rich.

The "elitist" Obama owns exactly oneYeah, but he didn't buy it honestly the way McCain presumably did on all seven of his. Obama was able to swing some kind of sweetheart deal with a fund raiser (now a convicted felon) that no one else could have gotten. I'd call that just as "elite" as owning seven homes you had to actually pay for.

No question. I'm not sure why this surprises anyone. We all know McCain is rich.

Yeah, but he didn't buy it honestly the way McCain presumably did on all seven of his. Obama was able to swing some kind of sweetheart deal with a fund raiser (now a convicted felon) that no one else could have gotten. I'd call that just as "elite" as owning seven homes you had to actually pay for.

thats a big assumption .. you DID know that Cindy McCain is the daughter of, and sole heir to, wealthy arizona felon/mobster, Jim Hensley ?

probably not .. given McSames free pass in the press

The widely publicized land deal, Obamas bought a 10 foot wide strip of property from the fund raiser , next door , hardly makes them elite land moguls

You define what income level makes one rich. Obama is even having trouble with that question.


Main Entry:rich http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?rich0001.wav=rich'))Pronunciation: \ˈrich\ Function:adjective Etymology:Middle English riche, from Old English rīce; akin to Old High German rīhhi rich, Old English rīce kingdom, Old High German rīhhi, noun; all from prehistoric Germanic words borrowed from Celtic words akin to Old Irish rí (genitive ríg) king — more at royal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/royal)Date:before 12th century 1: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth2 a: having high value or quality b: well supplied or endowed <a city rich in traditions>


synonyms rich (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rich), wealthy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealthy), affluent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affluent), opulent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opulent) mean having goods, property, and money in abundance. rich (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rich) implies having more than enough to gratify normal needs or desires <became rich through shrewd investing>. wealthy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealthy) stresses the possession of property and intrinsically valuable things <wealthy landowners>. affluent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affluent) suggests prosperity and an increasing wealth <an affluent society>. opulent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opulent) suggests lavish expenditure and display of great wealth, more often applying to things than people <an opulent mansion>.


It's pretty obvious to most people, I don't know why conservatives try to pretend they don't know what rich means, most people making over 400k a year certainly can live a "rich" lifestyle.

Crazy old McCain thinks you have to make at least 5 million a year to be rich!!!!

Oh I have my own definition of rich. But I doubt it syncs with everyone else's definition. By most standards I am rich, 4 br house, 2 cars each less than 2 yrs old, new boat, camper, kid in college, pension, 401(k). However, I don't feel rich knowing what kind of financial straights I'd be in if my husband or I were unemployed for any length of time.

In my mind one is rich when they live a very comfortable lifestyle without having to work.

That is not rich, rich is a 10 bedroom house, several exotic cars, multiple homes, not having to worry about being un-employed, etc. When people want the rich to be taxed, they aren't talking about middle or upper middle class.

Exactly. The call to "tax the rich" is nothing but a ploy that plays on the jealosy directed toward someone who isn't you. That's why it works so well, because very few people in this country think of themselves as rich.

Absolute nonsense, enjoy your fantasyworld...:rolleyes:

It isn't at all the same thing. The weapons we're deploying are "defensive". The Cuban missles were not. That's a huge difference in my mind. No nation should ever be questioned about weapons intended for defense only.


Defensive my ass, the Russians know they are offensive and so does everyone not indoctrinated by the US war machine..

I suppose then you wouldn't have any problem with Russia putting "defensive" missiles on the borders of Canada and Mexico?

You've already stated that you are "pushing" McCain against your will (because the left is attacking him)... but are you sure you don't actually LIKE him? ( in spit of his lack of conservative credencials)

How do you get that out of my calling him a rich elitist?

That is not rich, rich is a 10 bedroom house, several exotic cars, multiple homes, not having to worry about being un-employed, etc. When people want the rich to be taxed, they aren't talking about middle or upper middle class.


I wonder how many people fall into that description and how much money can be raised by taxing them...

How do you get that out of my calling him a rich elitist?

I'm just asking a question.

Do you or don't you support/like McCain?

I'm just asking a question.

Do you or don't you support/like McCain?

I like the part of him that gives liberals fits (as should everyone), but he's far from my ideal candidate, and he hasn't locked in my vote. Do you like Obama, or are you just supporting him because he's the democrat?

I like the part of him that gives liberals fits (as should everyone), but he's far from my ideal candidate, and he hasn't locked in my vote. Do you like Obama, or are you just supporting him because he's the democrat?

You have to admit, Obama's candidacy has stirred the pot.... I like that.

Also, I LOVE that someone in government has finally noticed the impact of the right's policies on this country's financial engine... the middle class, and by extension, the poor ( many of whom, were once middle class prior to Bush and his policies).

Like all politicians, his word is "iffy", but it sure as hell beats "trickle down" economics and the hope that if you give the wealthy enough money they MAY leave a few scraps for people beneath their financial strata.

My vote for him is one of hope.

I hope he manages to do something positive for the nation, where everyone else has promised the moon and the stars and ended up working for the betterment of themselves only.

That is not rich, rich is a 10 bedroom house, several exotic cars, multiple homes, not having to worry about being un-employed, etc. When people want the rich to be taxed, they aren't talking about middle or upper middle class.

People can "have" all sorts of things, yet not own anything at all.

I've been in million dollar homes that have no furniture because the people can't afford to furnish them. The mortgages are so high that they just don't have any money. Add a few high end car payments on top of a 6000 dollar mortgage and it becomes very clear that many Americans are merely putting on a show, and what they though they wanted has become the very thing that holds them hostage. There are millions of people who live this way in America.

Rich is a very relative term and cannot be used as a blanket description based on possessions, because possessions don't tell the real story; not by a long shot.

The guy who drives the high end car just has bigger payments than the guy driving the low end car. It doesn't make him rich. It may even make him stupid.

Take a look at the number of Americans with good credit and decent income who are mailing in the keys to their homes and walking away these days. They may have nice house, but continuing to pay for it is stupid because they're buying an extreme net loss, and seven years of bad credit is easier to swallow than a long term bad investment.

Also, Americans have been taught that a home is an investment vehicle, when in reality, more often than not, it's a liability, so people buy homes they cannot afford and end up broke in spite of their earnings.

And consider this. Why does a millionaire go to work every day?? It's easy; because he (or she) needs the money to survive. It's not about greed; it's about managing and maintaining a lifestyle, and many Americans have ruined themselves trying to do this.

The more a person earns, the more a person spends. That's human nature, and income does not necessarily make one rich; not in the real sense. I have met poor people (one in particular; an old woman who started buying stocks after the crash in 29', and left her son roughly 2.3 million in stocks, bonds and real estate) who have invested wisely and earned several million dollars over 50 some odd years.

I have also met people who appear to be very well off but can barely meet their monthly obligations. I'm talking about two income families with big houses and big cars who are essentially broke. There is no disposable income because they have borrowed themselves into a very bad situation. They should be wealthy, but they're not.

All things are relative and labeling one group as rich doesn't make it so. Ed McMahon recently faced foreclosure on his multi million dollar house. Anyone in America would have assumed he was rich after a long and successful career in Hollywood, but he's not.

http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/6/ed_mcmahon_loses_home

There are also (millions of) cases where a rich man or woman gets married, then it goes bad and one or the other has to pay huge alimony payments for the next 15 or twenty years.

In many of these cases, the payee is better off financially then the payer, and the payer is living on almost nothing. If they have a few kids, then child support is another expenditure. This is happening every day, and many once well off individuals are barely getting by. Bad marriages have financially ruined millions of people and this will continue.


Even if they report a million dollar income, they may be 2 million in debt with more obligations than they can afford, so in effect, they're actually broke. Is it right to tax someone who's broke the same way we tax some who is 'rich"?? That's not what liberals believe; or at least, it's not what they've been saying for years. Liberals support a progressive tax system, but they don't take the situations many people find themselves in into account.

I'd call that just as "elite" as owning seven homes you had to actually pay for.

It doesn't matter how you got the homes; once you own them, they're yours. No?



Originally Posted by BooRadley View Post
Then crank up tariffs and let them do it.

I'd be totally in favor of that.


It's funny how much we agree on and yet still draw opposite conclusions from it.

McCain's a rich elitist too. There, now we don't have to worry about that one any more.

So's George Bush, yet you voted for him. So was his dad. So will be the next Republican nominee, and you'll vote for him.

Hearing rich elitists in the rightwing media complain about rich elitists kinda makes my stomach churn.

It doesn't matter how you got the homes; once you own them, they're yours. No?As long as you got them legally, yes. If a fundraiser helped you out with it...that might be a "kickback" in some people's minds. That might be illegal and almost certainly is unethical.

Defensive my ass, the Russians know they are offensive and so does everyone not indoctrinated by the US war machine..I know, I know...you think every bad thing that's ever happened in the world is America's fault. Right? America = bad. Russia = good.

I wonder why no one is talking about the NATO action Clinton led against Serbia all those years ago. Oh, I can recall guys like Pat Buchanan saying that it was a mistake to have an offensive NATO military operation (when we all thought NATO was supposed to be defense-only) so close to Russia's borders. At the time, I remember Buchanan saying that it would aggitate the Russians. So, you see...the incursion into Georgia is just a natural reaction to America's (Clinton's) "evil" encroachment in Russia's back yard. Right? And, if they invade Poland next, it will be America's (Bush's) fault again. Right?

I suppose then you wouldn't have any problem with Russia putting "defensive" missiles on the borders of Canada and Mexico?As far as I know, Canada belongs to the Canadians and Mexico belongs to the Mexicans. If they wanted to enter into an agreement to put Russian missles on their territory, I don't see that there would be much of anything we could do about it.

The widely publicized land deal, Obamas bought a 10 foot wide strip of property from the fund raiser , next door , hardly makes them elite land mogulsI live in Chicago. This has been widely reported even before Obama was a serious contender for the White House. Bottom line...Obama's buddy Rezko bought the property next to the Obama property from the same owner on the same day.

Obama and his wife only wanted the house and not the adjoining property that Rezko bought...but the sellers insisted that both properties be sold at the same time. The Obamas couldn't afford both, so their buddy worked it out for them by buying the adjoining property.

Wasn't that nice?

I have never understood this particular elitism rhetoric, as I don't think it refers to finance, instead being some kind of anti-intelligence line. But what is elitist about not being stupid?

It isn't at all the same thing. The weapons we're deploying are "defensive". The Cuban missles were not. That's a huge difference in my mind. No nation should ever be questioned about weapons intended for defense only. nukes in the cold war were a defensive or counterstrike weapon as well. no country gets them to nuke an enemy as an attack, only to make sure noone does that to them.
and it IS possible to use patriots and such as an offencive weapon.
for the rest, even when defencive, it can be used to stop an attack, which weakens russias ability in a fight.

I live in Chicago. This has been widely reported even before Obama was a serious contender for the White House. Bottom line...Obama's buddy Rezko bought the property next to the Obama property from the same owner on the same day.

Obama and his wife only wanted the house and not the adjoining property that Rezko bought...but the sellers insisted that both properties be sold at the same time. The Obamas couldn't afford both, so their buddy worked it out for them by buying the adjoining property.

Wasn't that nice?

That's not uncommon. A buddy of mine just bought a property that had been subdivided into 3 lots. His buddy wanted the lots, but not the house, so he had to find a buyer for the house. John happened to be in the market for a house, so he bought it.

Is that illegal?

Now that we have established that Rezko bought the property to help out Obama, we await the rest of the story.
-You imply this was a quid pro quo. What did Obama allegedly do for Rezko as a result of this crooked land deal?
-Rezko perhaps took it on the chin (suffered) because he bought this property, which would lend weight to the quid pro quo argument. How did Rezko suffer in this real estate deal?

A non-reply or answer that is unrelated to the 2 questions above constitutes an admission that your argument has no merit.

-Otherwise, one can interpret the deal as between friends. Then you are left with accusing a politician who worked his way to the top, starting with a career in South Side Chicago. This politician's sin: having a friend or two in organized crime or other unsavory career.

Good luck making that one stick.

That's not uncommon. A buddy of mine just bought a property that had been subdivided into 3 lots. His buddy wanted the lots, but not the house, so he had to find a buyer for the house. John happened to be in the market for a house, so he bought it.

Is that illegal?Is your buddy an elected official? Was his buddy a lobbyist/fundraiser? If the answer is "no" in both cases, then it is not at all the same...nor do I care about it.

Can't you see the appearance of something fishy going on?

Now that we have established that Rezko bought the property to help out Obama, we await the rest of the story.
-You imply this was a quid pro quo. What did Obama allegedly do for Rezko as a result of this crooked land deal?
-Rezko perhaps took it on the chin (suffered) because he bought this property, which would lend weight to the quid pro quo argument. How did Rezko suffer in this real estate deal?I don't know that Rezko "suffered" and I'm not sure that matters. But, he did pay the full asking price for the property he bought while Obama got his portion at a substantially reduced price. This makes me think that there was some sort of agreement that benefited the Obamas.

I don't know for a fact that Obama did something in return for Rezko specifically. However, there is an appearance of impropriety.

A non-reply or answer that is unrelated to the 2 questions above constitutes an admission that your argument has no merit.I think you're confusing me with LiberTbell.

I don't know that Rezko "suffered" and I'm not sure that matters. But, he did pay the full asking price for the property he bought while Obama got his portion at a substantially reduced price. This makes me think that there was some sort of agreement that benefited the Obamas.

I don't know for a fact that Obama did something in return for Rezko specifically. However, there is an appearance of impropriety.

I think you're confusing me with LiberTbell.

-Nah, I'm open-minded on the tactic. Both liberals and conservatives have used the "oops, the roast is burning, gotta go!" response when challenged on weak arguments.

If there was an "appearance" of impropriety, it would show in Obama's voting record or other "favors" that a public official can do for their buddies. The McCain group has expert researchers that should be able to find the payback in Obama's record. Keep us posted, SG. I'm sure you won't pull the "burning roast" trick here, since Obama's record will surely reveal something.

If nothing comes up, we can file this one with Michelle's "whitey video", OK? :rolleyes:

Is your buddy an elected official? Was his buddy a lobbyist/fundraiser? If the answer is "no" in both cases, then it is not at all the same...nor do I care about it.


One is a private contractor, the other a land developer. OMG CONSPIRACY! It's the exact same thing. They know each other from work. They found a deal that they both benefited from. John (my buddy) got the better end of the deal because he had the leverage (the other guy needed someone to buy the house or he couldn't get the two lots to develop, so John was able to offer a low price, but not so low that the other guy wasn't still getting what he wanted).


Can't you see the appearance of something fishy going on?

I can see the potential for something fishy, but not the appearance of something fishy. It's worth looking in to if there's a possibility that fund-raising laws were broken, but just seeing that a Democrat bought a house isn't enough to convict. Even liberals are allowed to bargain for a good price. That's capitalism.

If, however, it's discovered that it was a way to wash money, then he deserves to get DeLayed. So far, though, it was just a land deal, like thousands of other land deals.

There must be a way to make more capital from hydroelectrics. If we can harness the power of the sea, we'll be no match for those pesky reds.

f there was an "appearance" of impropriety, it would show in Obama's voting record or other "favors" that a public official can do for their buddies.How would you know which votes were changed to accomodate Rezko? How would you know he wasn't going to vote that way anyway? I can't answer either question, can you?

It's like I hear people complain that the NRA gives money to this candidate or that candidate and that's why they oppose the assault weapons ban. How do you know the guy wasn't going to vote that way anyway? How do you know that the NRA contribution wasn't made as a reward for a previous vote the elected official had taken?

When you're a public official, you should be careful not to do anything that might even look suspicious.

QUOTE=9ball8;1687345]The McCain group has expert researchers that should be able to find the payback in Obama's record. Keep us posted, SG. I'm sure you won't pull the "burning roast" trick here, since Obama's record will surely reveal something.

If nothing comes up, we can file this one with Michelle's "whitey video", OK? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]Whatever.

One is a private contractor, the other a land developer. OMG CONSPIRACY!As long as neither one of them is a public servant, I don't care.

It's worth looking in to if there's a possibility that fund-raising laws were broken, but just seeing that a Democrat bought a house isn't enough to convict.I agree on both counts. The point is, someone said McCain was an elitist because he doesn't know how many homes he has. I simply pointed out that at least there is no question that he paid for the houses without and shenanigans. That's all. Nothing else.

Even liberals are allowed to bargain for a good price. That's capitalism.It just doesn't seem right, does it?

How would you know which votes were changed to accomodate Rezko? How would you know he wasn't going to vote that way anyway? I can't answer either question, can you?

It's like I hear people complain that the NRA gives money to this candidate or that candidate and that's why they oppose the assault weapons ban. How do you know the guy wasn't going to vote that way anyway? How do you know that the NRA contribution wasn't made as a reward for a previous vote the elected official had taken?

When you're a public official, you should be careful not to do anything that might even look suspicious.
...

Allowing lobbyists access to politicians, who benefit in any way as a result of their contacts -in their lifetime- looks suspicious. It is a common relationship practiced by nearly every elected official at the federal level.

I don't want a ban on lobbying. I want politicians to subject their lobbyists' influence to complete clarity: record all communications and make them public. First to their political enemies, then to the general public.

Back to the burning roast, er, I mean the subject of undue influence: Pick Obama's poison for him. If he voted for a bill that benefitted Rezko or slumlords in general, before or after the deal, name it.

-We're waiting...