• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"Spread the Wealth" explained by Obama

TexasBred

Well-known member
Obama Explains 'Spread the Wealth' Comment
By Mark Impomeni
Oct 22nd 2008 11:00PM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Economy, 2008 President, Taxes


At a press conference in Virginia today, Sen. Barack Obama tried to explain what he really meant when he told Joe Wurzelbacher, the now famous "Joe the Plumber," that Obama's tax plan was designed to, "spread the wealth around." Obama now says that he was not implying that he wanted to spread the wealth around when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Obama says that he meant to say "spread the opportunity."

"The simple point I was making was that even assuming he's at a point that he wants to buy a business that he hopes will generate more than $250,000, the point I was making was that ten years ago or five years ago or even a year ago when he was making a lot less than that, he was having a tough time. ... We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and their talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that the playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise their family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect. And in that sense, that does involve us spreading around opportunity."
But the explanation is far more confusing than the original statement. When Obama encountered Wurzelbacher, he did mention opportunity for those "behind you" economically. But Wurzelbacher's question was about Obama's plan to raise taxes on families and small businesses that make more than $250,000 per year. It was not a question about opportunity. It was about money. And clearly, Sen. Obama told Wurzelbacher that he was going to take more money from his business, so that others could have more opportunity.


"I just want you to be clear – it's not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they've got a chance at success too.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Left unanswered is how raising taxes on small business makes the economy any better. Tax increases kill jobs. And, increasing taxes causes businesses and individuals to make decisions that expose them to less tax liability, leading to decreasing revenues to the Treasury. Since nobody wins when the government imposes heavy tax burdens, it remains a mystery as to just where all the "opportunity" Sen. Obama wants to spread around is going to come from.
 

TSR

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Obama Explains 'Spread the Wealth' Comment
By Mark Impomeni
Oct 22nd 2008 11:00PM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Economy, 2008 President, Taxes


At a press conference in Virginia today, Sen. Barack Obama tried to explain what he really meant when he told Joe Wurzelbacher, the now famous "Joe the Plumber," that Obama's tax plan was designed to, "spread the wealth around." Obama now says that he was not implying that he wanted to spread the wealth around when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Obama says that he meant to say "spread the opportunity."

"The simple point I was making was that even assuming he's at a point that he wants to buy a business that he hopes will generate more than $250,000, the point I was making was that ten years ago or five years ago or even a year ago when he was making a lot less than that, he was having a tough time. ... We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and their talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that the playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise their family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect. And in that sense, that does involve us spreading around opportunity."
But the explanation is far more confusing than the original statement. When Obama encountered Wurzelbacher, he did mention opportunity for those "behind you" economically. But Wurzelbacher's question was about Obama's plan to raise taxes on families and small businesses that make more than $250,000 per year. It was not a question about opportunity. It was about money. And clearly, Sen. Obama told Wurzelbacher that he was going to take more money from his business, so that others could have more opportunity.


"I just want you to be clear – it's not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they've got a chance at success too.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Left unanswered is how raising taxes on small business makes the economy any better. Tax increases kill jobs. And, increasing taxes causes businesses and individuals to make decisions that expose them to less tax liability, leading to decreasing revenues to the Treasury. Since nobody wins when the government imposes heavy tax burdens, it remains a mystery as to just where all the "opportunity" Sen. Obama wants to spread around is going to come from.

This author wants to imply that Obama is only raising taxes on those making 250K. He conveniently forgets to mention those that are making much more than that-businesses as well as individuals. I mean I hope he does raise the taxes on Exxon/Mobil and their recently retired ceo who took 400million with him when he retired and no telling what else. And I sure would hate for him to raise taxes on the Lehman ceo with those 5 or 6 mansions and whose failed company the taxpayers are bailing out. That would be a shame souldn't it? Also another detail we don't know is just how much he is raising taxes do we? Could it be .5% or even less for a 250K business up to 10% for a multimillion dollar business. I haven't seen the figures, has anyone else?
 

fff

Well-known member
The hypocriticy of the Bush/McCain supporters is sooooo funny:

From The Daily Show

Stewart: "Now you can argue that this country has dabbled in socialism ever since the income tax was introduced, and that calling Obama's plan 'socialist' is a cynical ploy that even McCain realizes is a bankrupt tactic. Or, should I say, realized."

Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."

McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."

Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"

McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."


Stewart: "That, of course, is the late socialist leader John Mccain. I believe he passed away during the Republican primaries. He will be missed."


Can't wait for this one to show up on UTube. :D

So I guess McCain's a Socialist, too. :lol: :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Holy mackerel! This is getting serious.


In a possible new sign that the electoral map is swinging further to Barack Obama, a new Montana State University poll gives him a narrow lead in Montana, a state that has voted Dem only twice in the last 50 years.

The numbers: Obama 44%, McCain 40%, with a ±5% margin of error. The undecided number here is awfully high, and McCain could very well win this, but it does seem like the state is up for grabs. For example, McCain took a strong lead here in September, but a Research 2000 poll from this past weekend gave him a close lead of 49%-45%.

Poll link:
http://www.msubillings.edu/CAS/NAMS/Poll2008%20Day-1.pdf

Some pundits say Obama is set to win regions that a Dem hasn't carried in 40 years.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/54686.html
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
Obama Explains 'Spread the Wealth' Comment
By Mark Impomeni
Oct 22nd 2008 11:00PM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Economy, 2008 President, Taxes


At a press conference in Virginia today, Sen. Barack Obama tried to explain what he really meant when he told Joe Wurzelbacher, the now famous "Joe the Plumber," that Obama's tax plan was designed to, "spread the wealth around." Obama now says that he was not implying that he wanted to spread the wealth around when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Obama says that he meant to say "spread the opportunity."

"The simple point I was making was that even assuming he's at a point that he wants to buy a business that he hopes will generate more than $250,000, the point I was making was that ten years ago or five years ago or even a year ago when he was making a lot less than that, he was having a tough time. ... We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and their talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that the playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise their family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect. And in that sense, that does involve us spreading around opportunity."
But the explanation is far more confusing than the original statement. When Obama encountered Wurzelbacher, he did mention opportunity for those "behind you" economically. But Wurzelbacher's question was about Obama's plan to raise taxes on families and small businesses that make more than $250,000 per year. It was not a question about opportunity. It was about money. And clearly, Sen. Obama told Wurzelbacher that he was going to take more money from his business, so that others could have more opportunity.


"I just want you to be clear – it's not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they've got a chance at success too.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Left unanswered is how raising taxes on small business makes the economy any better. Tax increases kill jobs. And, increasing taxes causes businesses and individuals to make decisions that expose them to less tax liability, leading to decreasing revenues to the Treasury. Since nobody wins when the government imposes heavy tax burdens, it remains a mystery as to just where all the "opportunity" Sen. Obama wants to spread around is going to come from.

This author wants to imply that Obama is only raising taxes on those making 250K. He conveniently forgets to mention those that are making much more than that-businesses as well as individuals. I mean I hope he does raise the taxes on Exxon/Mobil and their recently retired ceo who took 400million with him when he retired and no telling what else. And I sure would hate for him to raise taxes on the Lehman ceo with those 5 or 6 mansions and whose failed company the taxpayers are bailing out. That would be a shame souldn't it? Also another detail we don't know is just how much he is raising taxes do we? Could it be .5% or even less for a 250K business up to 10% for a multimillion dollar business. I haven't seen the figures, has anyone else?

TSR I have seen some comparative figures on the plans of the two candidates but don't have them now. I see nothing wrong with the CEO of a highly successful company getting paid for performance. People like the former CEOs of Lehman, Merrill Lynch et al should be arrested and prosecuted. CEO's of borderline profitable companies should be the first to take a pay cut and those with net operating losses on a regular basis should be paid according to the performance of the company AND/OR dismissed without pay.

We simply cannot tax people because they have been fortunate enough to become rich because of hard work or good fortune. Everyone will either lower production once they reach the point of diminishing return or move their company overseas or both. When you destroy iniative do destroy the soul.
 

fff

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
TSR I have seen some comparative figures on the plans of the two candidates but don't have them now. I see nothing wrong with the CEO of a highly successful company getting paid for performance. People like the former CEOs of Lehman, Merrill Lynch et al should be arrested and prosecuted. CEO's of borderline profitable companies should be the first to take a pay cut and those with net operating losses on a regular basis should be paid according to the performance of the company AND/OR dismissed without pay.

We simply cannot tax people because they have been fortunate enough to become rich because of hard work or good fortune. Everyone will either lower production once they reach the point of diminishing return or move their company overseas or both. When you destroy iniative do destroy the soul.

How about taxing people who inherited their wealth Or land with oil rights and are wealthy through no hard work of their own. Should Theresa Heinz Kerry's kids enjoy a lower tax rate than my kids who won't inherit billions of dollars?
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
TexasBred said:
TSR I have seen some comparative figures on the plans of the two candidates but don't have them now. I see nothing wrong with the CEO of a highly successful company getting paid for performance. People like the former CEOs of Lehman, Merrill Lynch et al should be arrested and prosecuted. CEO's of borderline profitable companies should be the first to take a pay cut and those with net operating losses on a regular basis should be paid according to the performance of the company AND/OR dismissed without pay.

We simply cannot tax people because they have been fortunate enough to become rich because of hard work or good fortune. Everyone will either lower production once they reach the point of diminishing return or move their company overseas or both. When you destroy iniative do destroy the soul.

How about taxing people who inherited their wealth Or land with oil rights and are wealthy through no hard work of their own. Should Theresa Heinz Kerry's kids enjoy a lower tax rate than my kids who won't inherit billions of dollars?

What???????????????? People who inherit wealth are already taxed. It's called the "Death" tax.

THK's kids being taxed at a lower rate? Tax is paid on income, except in the cases of Ad Valorem & Real Property taxes. Those are paid each year.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
fff said:
TexasBred said:
TSR I have seen some comparative figures on the plans of the two candidates but don't have them now. I see nothing wrong with the CEO of a highly successful company getting paid for performance. People like the former CEOs of Lehman, Merrill Lynch et al should be arrested and prosecuted. CEO's of borderline profitable companies should be the first to take a pay cut and those with net operating losses on a regular basis should be paid according to the performance of the company AND/OR dismissed without pay.

We simply cannot tax people because they have been fortunate enough to become rich because of hard work or good fortune. Everyone will either lower production once they reach the point of diminishing return or move their company overseas or both. When you destroy iniative do destroy the soul.

How about taxing people who inherited their wealth Or land with oil rights and are wealthy through no hard work of their own. Should Theresa Heinz Kerry's kids enjoy a lower tax rate than my kids who won't inherit billions of dollars?

What???????????????? People who inherit wealth are already taxed. It's called the "Death" tax.

THK's kids being taxed at a lower rate? Tax is paid on income, except in the cases of Ad Valorem & Real Property taxes. Those are paid each year.

Here we go AGAIN AND AGAIN. VERY FEW ever have to pay the Death Tax. Heck Mike why do you think McCain and wife have all those houses in trusts, etc. :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
fff said:
How about taxing people who inherited their wealth Or land with oil rights and are wealthy through no hard work of their own. Should Theresa Heinz Kerry's kids enjoy a lower tax rate than my kids who won't inherit billions of dollars?

What???????????????? People who inherit wealth are already taxed. It's called the "Death" tax.

THK's kids being taxed at a lower rate? Tax is paid on income, except in the cases of Ad Valorem & Real Property taxes. Those are paid each year.

Here we go AGAIN AND AGAIN. VERY FEW ever have to pay the Death Tax. Heck Mike why do you think McCain and wife have all those houses in trusts, etc. :???:

A Trust is not perpetual. At some point in the future the bill comes due.

I think Florida has the longest allowable trust existence at 360 years?

Who kows what the tax rates will be by that time?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
fff said:
TexasBred said:
TSR I have seen some comparative figures on the plans of the two candidates but don't have them now. I see nothing wrong with the CEO of a highly successful company getting paid for performance. People like the former CEOs of Lehman, Merrill Lynch et al should be arrested and prosecuted. CEO's of borderline profitable companies should be the first to take a pay cut and those with net operating losses on a regular basis should be paid according to the performance of the company AND/OR dismissed without pay.

We simply cannot tax people because they have been fortunate enough to become rich because of hard work or good fortune. Everyone will either lower production once they reach the point of diminishing return or move their company overseas or both. When you destroy iniative do destroy the soul.

How about taxing people who inherited their wealth Or land with oil rights and are wealthy through no hard work of their own. Should Theresa Heinz Kerry's kids enjoy a lower tax rate than my kids who won't inherit billions of dollars?

Well you brought it up. I own mineral rights and producing royalties. I did not inherit them but really all I did was buy the land. The minerals cost me zero. But I'm taxed both locally and federally on every nickel I receive every year. I didnt' work hard for them, I just purchased different properties I felt were undervalued and the minerals came along. They cost me nothing yet they were worthless until developed.

My children and grandchildren will inherit them. Should they be penalized and or taxed again on something that I have already paid taxes on once? There has been no change in value!!!! Only a change in ownership.

Mrs. Heinz and everyone else should pay whatever taxes are due AFTER utilizing every benefit and deductible allowed under the Internal Revenue Service Code. No exceptions. Her % may be no greater than yours or mine but her $$$$ will be much more. Only fair !!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Some of you are going to be VERY shocked when you find out after the Death Tax goes back to the rules prior to the Bush Admin changes that the ranch or other business you THINK you are going to either inherit or pass along to your heirs has the values adjusted to reflect prices in 2011 and after that year!

And we have had experience paying death taxes on business assets we helped to build up and then inherited part of. As did my inlaws. It has seriously crippled our family financially. We do not live like "wealthy" people because our businesses are asset "rich" and cash POOR. We cannot stay in business if we sell and get "rich".......and we have difficulty keeping the business afloat and making a reasonable living without selling.

It will get much worse for families with farms and ranches capable of producing a modest living after the Death Tax reverts to former status in 2011, and more people will be affected because of recent increases in land values.

One of the dirtiest little secrets about Death Taxes is the fact that the overhead on the department eats of 65% of the income from that tax!

It often is claimed that "no one can find a family who lost their ranch due only to death tax". The fact is, the family may not be forced to sell, but CHOOSES to sell when faced with the fact they cannot produce a living and will gradually lose the business if they do not CHOOSE to sell while there still are SOME assets that can be converted to cash for a new start in a different life. So, those who promote the Death Tax can say, "see they CHOSE to sell, they were not FORCED to". What a crock!

Interesting the extreme wealthy are cited as a reason we need the Death Tax to stay in place.......when have the Kennedy's or other extremely wealthy families paid that tax? They have the fleets of attorneys available to research the loopholes and set things up to keep their wealth while those who have relatively small amounts of "wealth" do not have the means to achieve such goals.

Most galling is that the super rich use class and wealth envy to fool people of modest means into voting to keep our taxation systems and to elect the people that will protect it, making it very difficult for other people to build wealth of the same levels needed to gain the benefits of those tax loopholes.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Obama Explains 'Spread the Wealth' Comment
By Mark Impomeni
Oct 22nd 2008 11:00PM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Economy, 2008 President, Taxes


At a press conference in Virginia today, Sen. Barack Obama tried to explain what he really meant when he told Joe Wurzelbacher, the now famous "Joe the Plumber," that Obama's tax plan was designed to, "spread the wealth around." Obama now says that he was not implying that he wanted to spread the wealth around when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Obama says that he meant to say "spread the opportunity."

"The simple point I was making was that even assuming he's at a point that he wants to buy a business that he hopes will generate more than $250,000, the point I was making was that ten years ago or five years ago or even a year ago when he was making a lot less than that, he was having a tough time. ... We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and their talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that the playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise their family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect. And in that sense, that does involve us spreading around opportunity."
But the explanation is far more confusing than the original statement. When Obama encountered Wurzelbacher, he did mention opportunity for those "behind you" economically. But Wurzelbacher's question was about Obama's plan to raise taxes on families and small businesses that make more than $250,000 per year. It was not a question about opportunity. It was about money. And clearly, Sen. Obama told Wurzelbacher that he was going to take more money from his business, so that others could have more opportunity.


"I just want you to be clear – it's not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they've got a chance at success too.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Left unanswered is how raising taxes on small business makes the economy any better. Tax increases kill jobs. And, increasing taxes causes businesses and individuals to make decisions that expose them to less tax liability, leading to decreasing revenues to the Treasury. Since nobody wins when the government imposes heavy tax burdens, it remains a mystery as to just where all the "opportunity" Sen. Obama wants to spread around is going to come from.

What kind of gullible fool will believe this? Man, this guy is full of crap.
 
Top