| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - October 13 2008 : 4:52:09 PM
This approach will turn 40% of the country into welfare recipients.
.
Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'
.
Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around," eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.
.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.
.
Obama made the remark after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.
.
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked.
.
"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 for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
.
Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.
.
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Woods |
Posted - October 20 2008 : 12:47:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Monadnock Guide
While I might agree about some being paid far too much, - it's NOT my or your call. It's the call of the stock holders of that company to go along with or "straighten out". It's NOT the place of the government to determine what someone in private industry gets paid. The REAL problem is here, it would be "popular" - and bingo, the government has it's HUGE foot in another door of our lives. From there, and will lead to additional regulations on individuals pay, at lower lewvels. Except of course on Hollywood actors/actresses etc. - THEY could be overpaid, most being lefties after all. ;)
I do think that stockholders should be more involved and vigilant as to the pay and benefits of executives. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - October 19 2008 : 7:03:37 PM
I agree Fitz, - the government shouldn't get in the buyout business. Having said that, no "exec bonuses" should be involved - and I read something about that's going to be taken care of. Also, while bad decisions where made by many - a LOT of those were mandated by the government. Mortgages granted to folks who had absolutely NO chance of paying back any mortgage, - no discrimination taken to new levels. Gotta a pulse?? - Here's your money. 120% mortgages, no money down, no job required, - gold fish would qualify. We're reaping what WE sewed, some by private enterprise - and some by government mandates. ... The REAL problem here is our solution - passing out cash like we actually had some to pass out - the whole thing is "smoke 'n mirrors". Down the road, we're gonna reap what we just sewed (both parties) - inflation in spades. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - October 19 2008 : 6:24:10 PM
I think the problem with "overpaid execs" is when YOUR money is being used to bail out a company that was screwed up by the same guy who just got the multi-million dollar bonus and/or a golden parachute paid for by YOUR money. I got a problem with that!!! Actor? No. If people are stupid enough to buy the tickets, then he can make whatever he can get. Same with pro sports. But when YOUR dollars are used to bail out a failing sports team, or a movie production company, then I will have a problem with that also. |
| Obediah |
Posted - October 19 2008 : 4:21:42 PM
...and the team owners, as well! |
| Seamus |
Posted - October 19 2008 : 11:02:14 AM
Don't forget the Pro "athletes" in the Overpaid column, MoGuide.......NBA,NFL,NHL,MLB, etc, etc., and so on. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - October 18 2008 : 3:20:07 PM
If the gov gets into "deciding" who's overpaid, - it will be corporation execs, and not Hollywood folks, - though both could be (or are) overpaid. The actors in general are lefties, not so many execs. Washington will only come down on the execs - IF that sort of thing gains any traction. It will only be "morally" wrong to over-pay execs. |
| Obediah |
Posted - October 18 2008 : 11:38:12 AM
MG, what does being on the Left (or the Right) have to do with being overpaid? |
| Theresa |
Posted - October 18 2008 : 08:47:17 AM
Oprah and the Hollywood Left are some of the richest people I can think of...can't wait to get some of their money! (Tongue in cheek here). |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - October 18 2008 : 04:47:02 AM
While I might agree about some being paid far too much, - it's NOT my or your call. It's the call of the stock holders of that company to go along with or "straighten out". It's NOT the place of the government to determine what someone in private industry gets paid. The REAL problem is here, it would be "popular" - and bingo, the government has it's HUGE foot in another door of our lives. From there, and will lead to additional regulations on individuals pay, at lower lewvels. Except of course on Hollywood actors/actresses etc. - THEY could be overpaid, most being lefties after all. ;) |
| Obediah |
Posted - October 17 2008 : 11:42:52 PM
OTOH, taxing all those finance/insurance/banking CEOs who are so vastly overpaid sounds like a winner...and then send the same so-and-so's to prison (after a fair trial of course)--not to one of those "country club" places, but somewhere a little more serious, like Pelican Bay, for instance.  |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 17 2008 : 7:28:16 PM
What is frightening is that enough people think that it is okay to impose punitive taxes on anyone who makes over 250K. Let's think about this, shall we; the 'people' who make over 250K a year ('people' being small business owners who do not pocket the whole 250K, but make payroll for their employees and cover overhead with most of it) are the same folks who created 100% of the private sector jobs in the last several years (The big corporations were downsizing during this period, in order to streamline operations and remain competetive).
What this amounts to is 'biting the hand that feeds you'; and if I was a small business owner living in Obama's socialist paradise, and forced to pay more taxes, my answer would be not to hire anyone new, or lay-off existing employees. I cringe everytime some liberal cries about how 'spreading the wealth' (code for stealing my money and giving to someone else who hasn't created or earned it) and command economics are the solution to our 'problems'. Look, I have been working since I was 10 (a paper route, back when such things existed), and I have never had a poor person sign my paycheck.
Now this doesn't mean that I do not believe in helping the lesser among us, but let's face facts, America is the only country where the poor can drive themselves to protest rallies, and then watch the results of their 'labor' (augmented by marxist rent-a-mobs, mostly recruited at the local centers of 'higher learning') on the 6 o'clock news with their color televisions, at the end of the day.
YMH&OS,
The Sarge |
| Dark Woods |
Posted - October 17 2008 : 4:40:39 PM
Thank you for providing me more background on Joe the Plumber.
It appears from the quotes that Sen. Obama assumes Joe is making more than $250,000 per year, and therefore Joe needs to have more of his money taken.
This is an opportunity for Sen. McCain.
I listened to the final debate on radio. On radio, I think Sen. McCain helped his cause, though those who watched on TV tend to think that Sen. Obama "won".
I think Sen. Obama will win the election. As for me, I am voting Libertarian, Bob Barr |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
