?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Redistributing the wealth...

« previous entry | next entry »
Apr. 21st, 2009 | 07:25 pm

I am so tired of the people on the right complaining about Obama "redistributing the wealth" and the recent tea parties.

1) Most of the people protesting are BENEFITING from the change, so they are either ignorant of this simple detail or dead-ass stupid. I think they have their heads so far up their rhetoric that they can't see the road. They'd rather hate Obama than go to all the trouble of THINKING.

2) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151824/almost_all_political_leaders_like_obama.html?cat=9

3) The top tax rate is just falling back to Clinton-era rates, BETTER than some of Reagan's tax levels (and only 5% are in this range. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html

4) So, since Obama (and his Congress) is lowering the tax on the lower incomes and raising it on upper incomes = redistributing the wealth to the lower incomes, does Bush (and his Congress) lowering taxes on upper incomes & corporations and running up record deficits (after Clinton started paying down the debt) = redistributing the wealth to the upper incomes & corporations? ...and this is better for working-class people...

5) Calling this "taxation without representation" takes us back to ignorant/stupid. Just because the person you voted for lost does NOT mean you are not represented. If it does, I have gone largely unrepresented in Missouri, in Congress, and in the White House since I started voting. Only twice has the person I voted for become President.

6) Comparing Obama's budget proposal that INCLUDES Iraq/Afghanistan and estimates for disaster relief with Bush proposals that ignored all this is apples/oranges. "Obama proposed XX more spending that Bush!" could be rephrased as "Obama was XX more honest than Bush." George W. Bush is a habitual liar. Play his statements about unwarranted wiretapping back in chronological order if you want ONE example.

Note that I did NOT vote for Clinton or either Bush. I'm not a big fan of Clinton, but he and his Republican congress managed to start paying down the debt. I respect George H. W. Bush and Reagan for their accomplishments, but wonder at the people who think well of George W. Bush. What were they thinking? He (and his machine, including Rove and Cheney) used good people up and lied to the country.

Hating Obama now doesn't help you make George W. Bush a good person.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {7}

Curwinus Trevirensis

(no subject)

from: curwinus
date: Apr. 23rd, 2009 12:32 am (UTC)
Link

Most of the people protesting are BENEFITING from the change

Hey, I resemble that remark. ;-)

Yes, I benefit from the massive handouts to the banking sector. That does not mean that I think putting my daughter into more debt for 30+ years is a good thing, no matter how much it benefits me now.

Reply | Thread

aravine

(no subject)

from: aravine
date: Apr. 23rd, 2009 12:22 pm (UTC)
Link

So where were the tea parties in 2000-2008 when we went from paying down the debt to deficits, to deeper deficits, to doubling-tripling-quadrupling the debt?

So, if they're against a deficit, why are they unwilling to pay more taxes to make up the difference? ..or to push tax levels back to where they _were when we were paying down the debt_?

I'm just tired of people calling this Rampant Socialism. They don't know socialism. Most of them haven't traveled outside the US. They're so into the buzz words, they don't have a clue what they are saying.

Reply | Parent | Thread

aravine

(no subject)

from: aravine
date: Apr. 23rd, 2009 12:23 pm (UTC)
Link

Hold on a sec. Banking sector? That was voted in under Bush!

I was talking about Taxes. Don't change the subject.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Curwinus Trevirensis

(no subject)

from: curwinus
date: Apr. 24th, 2009 11:33 pm (UTC)
Link

I'm not changing the subject; the Tea Parties were formed to protest the bailouts. The first was held well before the current round of bailouts to protest the TARP funds.

Reply | Parent | Thread

aravine

(no subject)

from: aravine
date: Apr. 25th, 2009 12:44 pm (UTC)
Link

I only made one mention of tea parties, early on, because of the form of the protest. The rest of the article is about taxes and the stimulus plan.

So where were all these people when Bush was quadrupling the debt? All the tea parties are conservatives and libertarians with convenient amnesia. TARP was a Bush initiative, but they find it convenient to blame Obama for it. Now that Pakistan is falling under Taliban control, they will blame Obama, even though Bush is the one the didn't focus on the TERRORISTS who attacked us that lived and trained in Afghanistan and went on a private Jihad in Iraq. ...running up all these debts you're so worried about to create a Middle East democracy (Middle East Democracies having worked so much to our advantage in Egypt, less so in Lebanon, but not so well in Palestine and Iran).

At a Missouri tea party in Jeff City, a Democratic speaker was boo'ed off the stage. There's 'fair and balanced'.

...and if they are SO against the debt, why not return taxes to the pre-Bush levels on the top 5% of earners. 39.6% instead of 35%? Is that SO bad, when Reagan had 50% levels at one point?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Curwinus Trevirensis

(no subject)

from: curwinus
date: Apr. 26th, 2009 02:47 pm (UTC)
Link

I only made one mention of tea parties, early on, because of the form of the protest.

It was in the lead in, with the rest being a numbered list of subsections, so I assumed it applied to the entire post; regardless, I only responded to one section, which I quoted.

So where were all these people when Bush was quadrupling the debt?

There were many libertarians in this recent protest; they protested Bush's policies as well. And even if they didn't, the CBO has predicted that the policy changes under Obama will triple the debt that Bush left, so Obama's policies seem to be even worse than Bush's.

and if they are SO against the debt, why not return taxes to the pre-Bush levels on the top 5% of earners.

Well, I now have to ask (since you've mentioned this a couple of times) - were you against the tax cut that you got under Bush? If so, did you voluntarily send in more money at the end of the year to match what you would have paid in taxes had the cut not passed? Did you know that if you voluntarily send in more money (which a number of people do every year, BTW) you can have it flagged to be used ONLY for reducing the debt?

Reply | Parent | Thread

aravine

(no subject)

from: aravine
date: Apr. 27th, 2009 12:06 pm (UTC)
Link

"Well, I now have to ask (since you've mentioned this a couple of times) - were you against the tax cut that you got under Bush? If so, did you voluntarily send in more money at the end of the year to match what you would have paid in taxes had the cut not passed? Did you know that if you voluntarily send in more money (which a number of people do every year, BTW) you can have it flagged to be used ONLY for reducing the debt?"

No, but I didn't see anyone protesting back then, just when the democrats do it.

Reply | Parent | Thread