Obama's income inequality scam

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Apr 25, 2014.

  1. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,106
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +972
    The bill as it is currently formed already passed the Senate and has enough votes in the House (which obviously includes a decent number of Republicans). So who exactly are they "compromising" with to get this bill passed? A leadership group that is obstructing a vote on a bill that already has the votes it needs to pass?

    If you don't want to be labeled obstructionists, don't...obstruct. A bill already exists with enough votes to pass...if it is given a vote. So if they don't want to be labeled as obstructionists, they should stop obstructing that bill from getting a vote, which it would pass.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2014
  2. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,616
    Likes Received:
    5,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,458
    Why should I work my ass off to build a great future and not be able to share it with my family at the time of my passing without Uncle Sam taking a huge chunk of it
  3. RealGatorFan
    Offline

    RealGatorFan Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,892
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +968
    It's immoral in the sense that much of the money in the estate was taxed to begin with. It's just a way for the government to go after you when there is nothing you can do about it. But people like Obama have so much money they have special places to put their money to avoid most of the death tax. If I were you, I'd open a irrevocable trust tied to an LLC so your name can never be tied to it. It does require trust in the one person who does have control of it.
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,870
    Likes Received:
    2,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,902
    And the taxes have ALL gone up under Obama...
  5. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    Maybe if Obama would *gulp* compromise with the Republicans and cut government spending or make government more efficient and thereby reduce federal spending, then the republicans might agree to increase taxes on the rich. The republicans are not so much protecting the rich (after all, the democrats are the party of the rich), they are merely holding back the flood of socialism and government control in American's lives. Higher taxes on the rich would merely give Obama less reason to go to Congress for a hike in the debt ceiling. As it has every time democrats have received a tax hike (on anyone), spending has gone up. More programs get added. Very rarely are federal programs disbanded, even after they are no longer needed. There were people in charge of selling war bonds almost 40 years after the U.S. stopped selling war bonds for WWII. That's embarrassing.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    That's just class warfare propaganda. The rich do not have a stranglehold on economic and political power. They have more power than the rest of us, but they are not really running the show. The government is equally to blame, if not more so. No one is more powerful than the gov't. The gov't makes the rules, decides when to enforce them, when to overlook them, and when to change them. And the gov't is corrupt. You spend way too much hot air blaming people who try to buy influence with gov't, and virtually no time criticizing those selling influence. Every transaction takes a minimum of two people. If Congressmen weren't for sale, the rich would not have any power. And taking away more money from the rich does not change that fact.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. ncbullgator
    Offline

    ncbullgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +446
    Then why is it that 153 million Americans receive a government check and the most powerful special interest group are government unions where the rank and file retire early and rich?
  8. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,478
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,836
    Honestly, given the extensive threads like this....I don't think some posters know the difference between correlation and causation.

    Nor do they care..
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2014
  9. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,616
    Likes Received:
    5,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,458
    from the man who wants the socialism prezBHO is offering- when the nonworking take more than the working 108 we have tipped the scales dangerously to the negative and all of that is on your beloved prez- it is totally beyond me why the left cannot see the damage this ........ has wrought on our Nation- "Nor do they care".....
  10. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,478
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,836
    It's beyond me why you can't have a thoughtful discussion about anything that doesn't include silly finger pointing, platitudes, exaggerations, etc

    Seems you relish in simply throwing barbs from the peanut gallery
  11. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,478
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,836
    The irony of this thread is that, if you really believed Obama hasn't attempted to do anything to help the bottom up, you wouldn't have so many threads about him being a Socialist.,,,

    Then some moron writes an article completely devoid of critically thinking, and the drones eat it up...

    Here are the facts: Obama has directly done and attempted to do more than any president since FDR to try to stave off a deeply entrenched rising tide of income inequality, yet clearly it isn't enough, a drop in the bucket if you will, nor do you want it so...

    So unless you want him to do more, stop with it..
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2014
  12. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,616
    Likes Received:
    5,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,458
    108- helping those less fortunate is an admirable goal but if he does it at the expense of those who are actually out there dong the work and making it possible then yes it makes him a socialist and it makes those who favor what he is doing one also-I am not throwing any kinds of barbs, I am stating what I truly believe based on prezBHO's actions and your posts on those actions

    if the shoe fits then wear it- I have no problem admitting I am well to the right and that I do not favor very much if anything this guy has done

    I certainly do not favor or believe he has the constitutional authority to rewrite laws-and if our Congress keeps sitting on their fatty acids he will most definitely annoint himself king
  13. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,478
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,836
    Part of progressively taxing the wealthy a bit more, is so the bottom up can buy products from said wealthy.

    This decades long push for short term gains will actually hurt the wealthy in the long run.
  14. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,224
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +734
    I actually pretty much agree with this in he sense that Obama has joined FDR and LBJ in creating another redistributive entitlement program on a damaging scale. The three presidents who have done the most damage with the platform Wilson provided them...

    Instead of building a government clinic and hiring a MD and staffing it with NP's and techs to help those in need and building a fund to help treat people with high cost procedures that were falling through the cracks...he jumps in with a trillion dollar program.

    So while he may be "trying" to help. He instead is going to dump a huge burden on the future generations and help a few that he could have helped much more efficiently...

    Hence the problem with his attempt.
  15. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,224
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +734
    Really?

    When a family is forced to sell their $20 million business....

    Are you saying the "bottom" is buying it?

    The "bottom" will just continue to buy the products. Only from an even more wealthy person who purchased the business.

    From an income tax standpoint..

    Why not just let people keep more of their money. If the "bottom" and others cannot afford the product or do not see value in it at a certain price...then the price will come down. And the "wealthy" will make a little less.
  16. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,600
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,124
    The Dems once again get to pontificate that the republicans are obstructionists, and Obama will say he has every reason to go around congress. Watch. It's been going on for years.[/quote]

    There are serious questions to the merit of the immigration bill passed in the senate. Conservative house republicans have a constituency too with differing ideas. The compromise required is within the party. You see, the Republican Party is not so lock step as the democrats. There are a couple of independent thinkers or two. Having said that, there will be a bill passed and it will pass after the 2014 elections, not before. And don't say why. You know perfectly well why, and both sides are doing it. Anything that even remotely would upset the Applecart prior to the 2014 election will be tabled. But it will pass.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2014
  17. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,934
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,627
    Serious questions is one way to say it; "that bill is legislative afterbirth" is still another. We don't need "comprehensive" immigration reform, we need directed and specific reforms. We don't have a broken immigration system, we have an entirely legitimate interest in our national sovereignty (as all nations do) that is being continually flouted, and to the detriment not the benefit of our society.

    There are two entirely distinct issues here that need to be dealt with independently -- how to manage immigration going forward, including security; and how to deal with the people who broke and continue by definition to violate existing immigration law by being here and hiring illegal aliens, etc. Any politician who tells you that you can handle all that in one bill, is telling you that they don't want to handle at least one and probably either responsibly and want to obfuscate that fact with sheer tonnage of legislation.
  18. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,106
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +972
    So now bills need not just enough votes to pass but they must be acceptable to a minority of one of the chambers of Congress? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you agree with that minority could it? Either way, it is still obstructionist, so don't complain when it is accurately labeled that way.


    BTW, Democrats would pass it tomorrow if it was put up for a vote.
  19. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,106
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +972
    Yes, we know you are a fan of major government interventions in the economy whenever you like it (while claiming to be for free markets). We are all aware that you have a pretty big exception in your free market philosophy when those markets involve labor, at which point you become dramatically in favor of government control.
  20. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,934
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,627
    One of the most asinine non sequiturs I can recall ever having been answered with, and that is no small statement.

    Actually wanting to control the flow of and insist upon legal immigration is anti-capitalist? Since when? On what planet? Good grief.

    The reasons the Dms could pass it tomorrow is *because* it is a terrible POS that does nothing but ratchet up no-scrutiny immigration for the sole purpose of expanding the government dependency class and, eventually, their own voter base.

Share This Page