erynthered Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 And how is Obama getting in the way of that? The incentive just isn't there with your boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 In other words Cory the Driller is fine with income redistribution- as long as the income is distributed upward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 That's been one of the two major criticisms of the plan by McCain and Palin and conservatives everywhere, that and the "spread the wealth" nonsense. It's brought up every single day. Ok I'm just picking on your choice of words. You used the word kill. It won't kill just impede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 He started in the RR years then the Bush 1 years then Clinton, then W. Hard work is what made him succesful, not Clinton. He's making more now then he did in "Your" Clinton years. So dont let the fact that rolling back to Clinton year taxes will cost him more since he's making more now. Plus He just took another loan out and is going to hire 2 more people. Sounds like he's been doing pretty well for the last eight years. He has been. Good for him. And it sounds very much like he benefited from the Clinton years taxes which allowed his hard work to continually grow, and the Bush administration that allowed his hard work to continually grow. In fact, he seemed to be riding the right wave at the right time. More money when he was struggling, and then more money when he was expanding. And it sounds like he would have been just as successful under any administration. Good for him. Now spread your legs and some of that wealth. It's back to the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 In other words Cory the Driller is fine with income redistribution- as long as the income is distributed upward. Why is it ok to distrubute down but not up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 So wouldn't it be even better for the economy if he kept taxes lower for everyone then? True!! To bad this is not a utopia though! Taxes have to happen. We need police and public services and and such. So taxing those with more to tax and taxing as smaller portion of the population is fine. I say, I really don't feel bad taxing a guy who owns a 20 million dollar home. Democrats do not love taxes. You seem to think they love to tax people or something. They have simply accepted that taxes must happen because this is real life, and real things need to be paid for. Taxes did not exist when this country was founded. Real life set in and a debt built up and so congress had to be given the power to tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 The incentive just isn't there Lol wut? Do tell. with your boy ... also, are you being racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 True!! To bad this is not a utopia though! Taxes have to happen. We need police and public services and and such. So taxing those with more to tax and taxing as smaller portion of the population is fine. I say, I really don't feel bad taxing a guy who owns a 20 million dollar home. Democrats do not love taxes. You seem to think they love to tax people or something. They have simply accepted that taxes must happen because this is real life, and real things need to be paid for. Taxes did not exist when this country was founded. Real life set in and a debt built up and so congress had to be given the power to tax. See here's where you're wrong. Just because people have greater income does not mean they have a great percentage of disposble income. A person brings home $250k and they spend and save $250k. You raise their taxes something gets cut spending or saving. Either is not good for the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Why is it ok to distrubute down but not up? What's better for the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 .. not to mention, when Cory was "Cory the poor Driller", Obama's plans surely would have helped this dude get on his feet a lot better. Because welfare and handouts have really encouraged people to "get back on their feet". Incentivising failure and lazyness with bigger handouts will certainly solve problems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Ok I'm just picking on your choice of words. You used the word kill. It won't kill just impede. They both say it every single speech. Here's Palin... “His tax plans really would kill jobs and hurt small businesses and make even today’s bad economy look like the good old days.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...-taxes-in-ohio/ And McCain... and again, this is every speech, I have seen them both say it every day... During his stops in Ohio and later in Pottsville, Pa., McCain pounded on Obama's proposal to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the top income brackets. Flanked by the advisors, he told a small group of supporters in Cleveland that Obama's plan would "destroy business growth, kill jobs, and lead to continued declines in the stock market and make a recession even deeper and more painful." http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,2077697.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I'm reserving judgment till I hear from Bob the Builder. Here you Go - 7:20 Into It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 See here's where you're wrong. Just because people have greater income does not mean they have a great percentage of disposble income. A person brings home $250k and they spend and save $250k. You raise their taxes something gets cut spending or saving. Either is not good for the economy. I think under Obama people at 250k keep the same tax rate they have now. Either way, 250k is a comfortable wage in this country, you can afford a small tax raise certainly. I do think the brunt of the tax hikes falls on people making much more. Those people are going to have to cut down on their botox injections and such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Did cory the driller write his letter in really big handwriting, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Because welfare and handouts have really encouraged people to "get back on their feet". Incentivising failure and lazyness with bigger handouts will certainly solve problems! How does welfare change under Obama? Does welfare get taxed anyways? I haven't seen him or McCain say anything on anything that would change regarding welfare. People who get taxed have jobs. Obama wants to lower taxes on people who have jobs. Are you saying that lowering taxes on people with jobs qualifies as "Incentivising failure and lazyness"??? :sigh: This is one of those threads that is really take up a lot of my time, and away from me being productive at work today. See what Cory and his misinformed letter has done, he is taking away from the economy because people are forced to respond to his ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 True!! To bad this is not a utopia though! Taxes have to happen. We need police and public services and and such. So taxing those with more to tax and taxing as smaller portion of the population is fine. I say, I really don't feel bad taxing a guy who owns a 20 million dollar home. Democrats do not love taxes. You seem to think they love to tax people or something. They have simply accepted that taxes must happen because this is real life, and real things need to be paid for. Taxes did not exist when this country was founded. Real life set in and a debt built up and so congress had to be given the power to tax. Please tell me you meant to state that federal income taxes didn't exist when the country was founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I'm reserving judgment till I hear from Bob the Builder. I also want to hear the opinion of Dora the Explorer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 Lol wut? Do tell. ... also, are you being racist? 1. I already did, so did Cory, idiot. 2. Yeah, retard I have such a history on here as being one. GOD, you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 What's better for the economy? What about neither distribution up or down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 Did cory the driller write his letter in really big handwriting, too? Good point. I should have made it bigger for some of the folks on here to read it. Because its obvious some of them commented on it without reading it. Capitalism bad. Socialism good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts