View Full Version : Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’
stephanie
10-31-2008, 03:21 PM
vote for the little Marxist and don't be so damn selfish..I can not stand this person..
October 31, 2008 10:58 AM
On the stump this week, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has pushed back against Sen. John McCain's description of his tax policies.
"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the America dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.
"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.
"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
read it all and comments..
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html
hjmick
10-31-2008, 03:27 PM
I was just prepping a thread on this topic.
Jake Tapper has done a marvelous job of keeping both campaigns honest.
Amazing that anyone who has an interest in keeping as much of their hard earned money as possible is selfish. Stunning really.
manu1959
10-31-2008, 03:32 PM
"I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich......That’s the America dream,
.....make a virtue out of selfishness."
you can be rich but you can't keep it.....
the american dream as defined by barry .....
stephanie
10-31-2008, 03:36 PM
there is a video of this, I heard it on Hannity..I hope to find it...it'll make you want to puke hearing all the people cheering ...
manu1959
10-31-2008, 03:37 PM
there is a video of this, I heard it on Hannity..I hope to find it...it'll make you want to puke hearing all the people cheering ...
yea ....he want's to help me get rich then he is going to take all my money .....yea.....
stephanie
10-31-2008, 04:35 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1V3FNh3mAuY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1V3FNh3mAuY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V3FNh3mAuY
i'm selfish because i don't want the government taking my money? :eek:
theHawk
10-31-2008, 05:10 PM
Yea, its selfish to want to give your money to your kids, to charity, or to invest it, or to spend it, or to use it to pay your bills.
What an arrogant prick.
namvet
10-31-2008, 07:25 PM
I still can't believe he's the best the dems could do.
THE SILENCE OF THE LIBS
:coffee:
manu1959
10-31-2008, 10:36 PM
THE SILENCE OF THE LIBS
:coffee:
......it rubs the lotion on its skin.....
......it rubs the lotion on its skin.....
i thought cats had fur
btw, did i just create a new phrase or has someone else already said it...looks cool when someone else replies to it
its a play on silence of the lambs...i googled it and could not find my reference
other than the typical....silence of the libs for this and that
maybe my libs is too common, perhaps, but i thought it was funny
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 05:56 AM
"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
Greed is a defining attribute of conservatism. Without greed conservatism cannot exist.
Kathianne
11-01-2008, 06:38 AM
Greed is a defining attribute of conservatism. Without greed conservatism cannot exist.
So?
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 06:45 AM
So?
So don't be surprised and upset when someone says so.
You may think greed is good but most Americans don't. When someone notes the greed driving a still signifcant segment of the electorate, they're commenting on something he finds disturbing.
Kathianne
11-01-2008, 07:01 AM
So don't be surprised and upset when someone says so.
You may think greed is good but most Americans don't. When someone notes the greed driving a still signifcant segment of the electorate, they're commenting on something he finds disturbing.
Don't you be surprised when you find out that the majority of Americans do not share your motivations. There are going to be majorly upset middle class workers in pretty short order. When the implications of what Obama start really settling in, things will get interesting indeed.
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 07:12 AM
Don't you be surprised when you find out that the majority of Americans do not share your motivations. There are going to be majorly upset middle class workers in pretty short order. When the implications of what Obama start really settling in, things will get interesting indeed.
What are you predicting?
Are you saying the middle class will discover tax cuts are bad and they really believe they should pay more to benefit the rich?
Are you saying the middle class will demand fiscal policies which subsidize the rich at their own expense?
Kathianne
11-01-2008, 07:18 AM
What are you predicting?
Are you saying the middle class will discover tax cuts are bad and they really believe they should pay more to benefit the rich?
Are you saying the middle class will demand fiscal policies which subsidize the rich at their own expense?
They will recognize that they are 'rich' and are going to be taxed into 'fairness'. Not going to be a good end. Time will tell.
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 07:23 AM
They will recognize that they are 'rich' and are going to be taxed into 'fairness'. Not going to be a good end. Time will tell.
Obama's plan will not raise taxes on any taxpayer with a taxable income of $200,000 (single, $250,000, married.) The vast majority of Americans are nowhere near that level. They will receive a tax cut. Why would they be upset by a tax cut?
Kathianne
11-01-2008, 07:30 AM
Obama's plan will not raise taxes on any taxpayer with a taxable income of $200,000 (single, $250,000, married.) The vast majority of Americans are nowhere near that level. They will receive a tax cut. Why would they be upset by a tax cut?
That's bs and it's becoming apparent. Between Obama, Biden, and Richardson in the past week that $250k number has gone as low as $125k. In spite of the headlines saying Obama has already won, it's not over until Tuesday. That $125 will go to $42k, just as Obama has voted for in the past.
Immanuel
11-01-2008, 08:11 AM
Greed is a defining attribute of conservatism. Without greed conservatism cannot exist.
One might say, hate is a defining attribute of liberalism. Without hate liberalism cannot exist.
One might also say, intolerance is a defining attribute of liberalism. Without intolerance liberalism cannot exist.
So your point was?
Immie
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 11:43 AM
One might say, hate is a defining attribute of liberalism. Without hate liberalism cannot exist.
One might also say, intolerance is a defining attribute of liberalism. Without intolerance liberalism cannot exist.
One might say the sun rises in the west at noon but one would be as wrong as you.
One of Liberalism's primary goals is the welfare of the community. That's why Liberals seek a fiscal policy which promotes economic justice not individual greed.
stephanie
11-01-2008, 11:45 AM
One might say the sun rises in the west at noon but one would be as wrong as you.
One of Liberalism's primary goals is the welfare of the community. That's why Liberals seek a fiscal policy which promotes economic justice not individual greed.
:laugh2:
what's funny,(well actually it is not funny at all), is for you to promote this "economic justice", you have to force others to do it FOR YOU...
and most of the people here in the United States do not feel your way, or the Democrats wouldn't have to try and steal the election every time..
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 11:57 AM
:laugh2:
what's funny,(well actually it is not funny at all), is for you to promote this "economic justice", you have to force others to do it FOR YOU...
and most of the people here in the United States do not feel your way, or the Democrats wouldn't have to try and steal the election every time..
You're wrong.
John McCain and Joe the Plumber are campaigning for Barack Obama, and they don't even know it. The more McCain has ramped up his attacks on Obama as a "spreader of wealth," the more the country has lined up behind the Democrat's plan to spread the wealth. If McCain's economic agenda was a gun and his attacks on Obama's agenda the bullets, the old soldier would have shot both his feet clean off a long time ago.
McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth (http://www.alternet.org/democracy/105652/mccain%27s_big_backfire%3A_majority_of_americans_l ike_the_idea_of_spreading_the_wealth/)
hjmick
11-01-2008, 11:57 AM
Anyone who says the sun rises at all is wrong.
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 12:01 PM
Anyone who says the sun rises at all is wrong.
That's truly desperate.
One might say the sun apparently rises in the west at noon but one would be as wrong as you.
hjmick
11-01-2008, 12:03 PM
Not desperate, just an observation.
Why is it wrong to want to keep as much of my hard earned money as possible? How is it wrong to want to decide for myself to whom I donate my money? Why is it wrong, after 30 years of making my own opportunities, of never taking a handout, even in the most desperate of times, to expect others to do the same?
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 12:06 PM
Not desperate, just an observation.
And in voicing your observation, you're casting-aside hundreds of years of common usage in an attempt to win a debating point. That's despertate.
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 12:08 PM
Not desperate, just an observation.
Why is it wrong to want to keep as much of my hard earned money as possible? How is it wrong to want to decide for myself to whom I donate my money? Why is it wrong, after 30 years of making my own opportunities, of never taking a handout, even in the most desperate of times, to expect others to do the same?
It's not wrong. It's just inconsistent with the community's plan to promote the general welfare.
hjmick
11-01-2008, 12:09 PM
And in voicing your observation, you're casting-aside hundreds of years of common usage in an attempt to win a debating point. That's despertate.
Joe, I'm not trying to win anything. I have no expectation of changing you or your ideas. You have no hope of changing me or mine. And you know what? That's okay. I respect that you have your beliefs, I even respect those beliefs. I don't agree with them, you don't agree with mine. There is no winning to be done here.
stephanie
11-01-2008, 12:10 PM
It's not wrong. It's just inconsistent with the community's plan to promote the general welfare.
you want to live with communism, move to a country where it is practiced..they are so inviting and look so warm and comforting
you would fit right in..
avatar4321
11-01-2008, 12:10 PM
Greed is a defining attribute of conservatism. Without greed conservatism cannot exist.
You confuse greed with self interest.
avatar4321
11-01-2008, 12:12 PM
It's not wrong. It's just inconsistent with the community's plan to promote the general welfare.
How does taking money from hard working people promote their welfare?
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 12:14 PM
How does taking money from hard working people promote their welfare?
Marginal propensity to consume.
Poor people spend more of each additional dollar than rich people. When you take a dollar from a rich person and give it to a poor person, more of it will be spent and spending drives the economy.
stephanie
11-01-2008, 12:17 PM
Marginal propensity to consume.
Poor people spend more of each additional dollar than rich people. When you take a dollar from a rich person and give it to a poor person, more of it will be spent and spending drives the economy.
that's the lie you all spread..and a few dumb humans buy into it, but not enough (thankfully) for you commies to take over..
Immanuel
11-01-2008, 12:24 PM
One might say the sun rises in the west at noon but one would be as wrong as you.
One of Liberalism's primary goals is the welfare of the community. That's why Liberals seek a fiscal policy which promotes economic justice not individual greed.
How many people in your lifetime have told you that you were full of shit.
You should learn to listen.
Immie
avatar4321
11-01-2008, 12:56 PM
Marginal propensity to consume.
Poor people spend more of each additional dollar than rich people. When you take a dollar from a rich person and give it to a poor person, more of it will be spent and spending drives the economy.
Creating an economy dependent on consumtion is foolish and short sighted
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 01:47 PM
Creating an economy dependent on consumtion is foolish and short sighted
All economies are dependent on consumtion and 70% of American GDP is consumer spending.
what is truly sad is that joe stealsalot tried to support his view that general welfare really means modern welfare with a paper from a couple hundred years ago and in reality that paper said that joe stealsalot's view would RUIN this country
and he still believes that paper supports his view
maybe it is more than sad, it is downright scary
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 01:56 PM
what is truly sad is that joe stealsalot tried to support his view that general welfare really means modern welfare with a paper from a couple hundred years ago and in reality that paper said that joe stealsalot's view would RUIN this country
and he still believes that paper supports his view
maybe it is more than sad, it is downright scary
I never said the "welfare" of the Constitution was the transfer payments we understand as welfare today. It can be but it doesn't have to be.
I never said the "welfare" of the Constitution was the transfer payments we understand as welfare today. It can be but it doesn't have to be.
you said it can mean ANYTHING and you used brutus #5 to prove you are right...when that paper warned that such a view would RUIN this country
it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country.
I shall resume this subject in my next, and by an induction of particulars shew, that this power, in its exercise, will subvert all state authority, and will work to the oppression of the people, and that there are no restrictions in the constitution that will soften its rigour, but rather the contrary.
Joe Steel
11-01-2008, 02:02 PM
you said it can mean ANYTHING and you used brutus #5 to prove you are right...when that paper warned that such a view would RUIN this country
Yes. It can mean transfer paymens if they promote the general welfare. But it also could mean NO transfer payments if Congress decides transfer payments don't promote the general welfare.
if you read that paper and subsequent papers it is a dire warning that such an expansive view of the term - promote the general welfare - is very bad for this country, not only with destroying state's rights but it will work to oppress the citizens of this country
but it is no surprise that liberals like you want to implement either socialism in full or socailism lite as you will then have your power over the people and you are so drunk with this desire for power you fail to see how immoral such a view is
Joe Steel
11-02-2008, 06:05 AM
You confuse greed with self interest.
I don't think so. Liberals pursue their self-interest when they argue if favor of strong communities. Conservatives define their self-interest with their greed.
Joe Steel
11-02-2008, 06:07 AM
if you read that paper and subsequent papers it is a dire warning that such an expansive view of the term - promote the general welfare - is very bad for this country, not only with destroying state's rights but it will work to oppress the citizens of this country
but it is no surprise that liberals like you want to implement either socialism in full or socailism lite as you will then have your power over the people and you are so drunk with this desire for power you fail to see how immoral such a view is
Socialism is democracy's next step. With the horrors of unregulated capitalism being exposed almost daily, many are ready to take it.
Kathianne
11-02-2008, 08:04 AM
Socialism is democracy's next step. With the horrors of unregulated capitalism being exposed almost daily, many are ready to take it.
and after that? The worker's paradise?
namvet
11-02-2008, 09:29 AM
I don't think so. Liberals pursue their self-interest when they argue if favor of strong communities. Conservatives define their self-interest with their greed.
liberals today are universally defined as weak willed and weak minded. welcome to the club:coffee:
avatar4321
11-02-2008, 10:15 AM
Socialism is democracy's next step. With the horrors of unregulated capitalism being exposed almost daily, many are ready to take it.
I havent seen any horrors yet.
avatar4321
11-02-2008, 10:16 AM
I don't think so. Liberals pursue their self-interest when they argue if favor of strong communities. Conservatives define their self-interest with their greed.
yeah strong communities. that's why whenever socialists regulate the economy the communities are destroyed and all their little buddies get rich. Got ya.
Socialism is democracy's next step. With the horrors of unregulated capitalism being exposed almost daily, many are ready to take it.
so you use a comment to support your view and that comment warns that your view is dangerous for our country and you still support that view
what does one call that?
Joe Steel
11-03-2008, 08:03 AM
I havent seen any horrors yet.
War and poverty are products of capitalism. America is plagued by both because we allowed it free rein.
Nukeman
11-03-2008, 08:25 AM
War and poverty are products of capitalism. America is plagued by both because we allowed it free rein.
I have to ask Joe, do you feel socialism is working in for Chavez? If so please explain to me how he has HELPED his country!!!
Joe Steel
11-03-2008, 08:33 AM
I have to ask Joe, do you feel socialism is working in for Chavez? If so please explain to me how he has HELPED his country!!!
Chavez is using Venezuela's resources for the benefit of the poor.
Since his first election, Chavez has benefited from extraordinary oil revenue and in turn poured billions of dollars into social welfare programs known as "missions," designed to better provide health services, education and food to the poor, which until recently accounted for about half of the Venezuelan population.
According to Venezuela's National Institute of Statistics, poverty has decreased during Chavez's presidency from 42 percent in 1999 to roughly 35-38 percent in 2005. Upon election, Chavez promptly eliminated fees for public schools and created volunteer-based schools in rural communities to widen education access. In an infamous "oil-for-services" program, he sold oil to Cuba at a favorable rate in exchange for Cuban doctors to provide health care to Venezuelans who would otherwise have none.
Hugo Chavez (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/latin_america/venezuela/keyplayers/chavez.html)
These publically-provided resources are the capital which forms the foundation of Venezuela's future. Eventually, all will benefit.
Nukeman
11-03-2008, 08:41 AM
Chavez is using Venezuela's resources for the benefit of the poor.
These publically-provided resources are the capital which forms the foundation of Venezuela's future. Eventually, all will benefit.i have to say Joe you are sorely misinformed. Venezuela is on the edge of losing everything. Ohh it may not happen in the next 5 years but mark my words in less than 10 years they will be bankrupt. The oil industry that Chavez relies upon so much for all his funds is already down ~30% in production due to the CORRUPTION at all levels of government. Hey you go right ahead and think of that great Utopian dream of socialism!!!!!
Unfortuantley socialism is run by MEN and that in and of itself makes it flawed!:poke:
namvet
11-03-2008, 09:57 AM
add to it fat ass down there swung a nuke deal with Putin. is he goiung out with a bang !!?? :eek:
avatar4321
11-03-2008, 12:52 PM
War and poverty are products of capitalism. America is plagued by both because we allowed it free rein.
really? cause what wars has capitalism caused?
Capitalism creates wealth not poverty. Communism creates poverty.
Joe Steel
11-03-2008, 01:22 PM
really? cause what wars has capitalism caused?
Capitalism creates wealth not poverty. Communism creates poverty.
Korea and Vietnam were fought to contain Communism. Iraq was fought to gain control of oil.
Capitalism exploits the poor and then tosses them aside when they're used-up.
stephanie
11-03-2008, 01:27 PM
Korea and Vietnam were fought to contain Communism. Iraq was fought to gain control of oil.
Capitalism exploits the poor and then tosses them aside when they're used-up.
if that's how you feel, then why are you living in this evil country??
avatar4321
11-03-2008, 01:34 PM
Korea and Vietnam were fought to contain Communism. Iraq was fought to gain control of oil.
Capitalism exploits the poor and then tosses them aside when they're used-up.
Yeah Korea and Vietnam were fought to contain communism. Communists started the war by invade their neighbors.
Iraq was not fought for oil. However, even assuming it was that says absolutely nothing about Capitalism.
Name one communist nation that made the poor rich.
Joe Steel
11-03-2008, 01:36 PM
if that's how you feel, then why are you living in this evil country??
This country belongs to progressives as much as to regressives and we don't have to surrender to them. We can battle them until we win.
Time is on our side
stephanie
11-03-2008, 01:37 PM
This country belongs to progressives as much as to regressives and we don't have to surrender to them. We can battle them until we win.
Time is on our side
you mean communist, don't you?
come on you can say it, you don't have to sugar coat it..
Joe Steel
11-03-2008, 01:39 PM
you mean communist, don't you?
Progressive.
Communism is the natural goal of human development and civilization. We progress toward that goal through feudalism, capitalism and socialism. To be a Progressive is to move forward toward humanity's highest plane of existence.
so you use a comment to support your view and that comment warns that your view is dangerous for our country and you still support that view
what does one call that?
:dance:
Progressive.
Communism is the natural goal of human development and civilization. We progress toward that goal through feudalism, capitalism and socialism. To be a Progressive is to move forward toward humanity's highest plane of existence.
how exactly? are you going to quote brutus v again :laugh2:
Joe Steel
11-03-2008, 01:54 PM
how exactly? are you going to quote brutus v again :laugh2:
No. I'm going to point to thousands of years of human civilization. As humanity becomes more and more civilized, we realize our interests are best served collectively.
No. I'm going to point to thousands of years of human civilization. As humanity becomes more and more civilized, we realize our interests are best served collectively.
that is why the soviet union thrived so well...right
so you use a comment to support your view and that comment warns that your view is dangerous for our country and you still support that view
what does one call that?
:lol:
avatar4321
11-03-2008, 02:26 PM
Progressive.
Communism is the natural goal of human development and civilization. We progress toward that goal through feudalism, capitalism and socialism. To be a Progressive is to move forward toward humanity's highest plane of existence.
If its natural, why do you have to overthrow society to get it?
avatar4321
11-03-2008, 02:27 PM
No. I'm going to point to thousands of years of human civilization. As humanity becomes more and more civilized, we realize our interests are best served collectively.
When did you become civilized?
Immanuel
11-03-2008, 02:35 PM
If its natural, why do you have to overthrow society to get it?
Because society is just too stupid to know where their natural instincts are taking them. Those educated communists have to push and shove everyone into doing what they are supposed to do naturally... that is to become slaves of their betters.
Immie
hjmick
11-03-2008, 07:07 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/LocutusOfBorg.jpg
Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us.
Joe Steel
11-04-2008, 08:12 AM
that is why the soviet union thrived so well...right
The USSR was beset on all sides by enemies sworn to its destruction. Despite that, and the related investment in defense, it raised the living standard of its citizens. They were better-off during the Soviet era than during the reign of the tsars.
Joe Steel
11-04-2008, 08:13 AM
If its natural, why do you have to overthrow society to get it?
When did I say anything about ovethrowing society?
namvet
11-04-2008, 09:05 AM
The USSR was beset on all sides by enemies sworn to its destruction. Despite that, and the related investment in defense, it raised the living standard of its citizens. They were better-off during the Soviet era than during the reign of the tsars.
and now their back in poverty. while Putin spends all the money on the military. sound familar ???? and that's what happens here if this communist is elected party leader. you just to stupid to see. but you will live it. get used to the term "Gulag" comrade.
Gaffer
11-04-2008, 09:59 AM
The USSR was beset on all sides by enemies sworn to its destruction. Despite that, and the related investment in defense, it raised the living standard of its citizens. They were better-off during the Soviet era than during the reign of the tsars.
You really need to study history and stop reading those communist brochures. You don't even know what the Cold War was all about.
Joe Steel
11-04-2008, 10:12 AM
You really need to study history and stop reading those communist brochures. You don't even know what the Cold War was all about.
Explain it to me.
Joe Steel
11-04-2008, 10:14 AM
and now their back in poverty. while Putin spends all the money on the military. sound familar ???? and that's what happens here if this communist is elected party leader. you just to stupid to see. but you will live it. get used to the term "Gulag" comrade.
Russia is a capitalist/fascist country.
so you use a comment to support your view and that comment warns that your view is dangerous for our country and you still support that view
what does one call that?
4th time :coffee:
Gaffer
11-04-2008, 11:09 AM
Explain it to me.
In a nut shell it was all about containing the empire of the USSR. Stopping them from world dominion. The USSR wasn't beset by enemies, it was the enemy doing the besetting. They were the ones with imperial designs. putin is trying to resurrect those ideas.
Want to see communism in all its glory? Look at north korea. Also look at cuba. You will actually be able to watch venezuela slide into desolation over the next five years. china is the only communist country that is reasonably successful and that is because they have embraced capitalism and their old hardcore leaders are dying off. Ask any east european about what it was like under the russian yoke.
Your boy stalin murdered more people than hitler did. And mao doubled him. There's nothing about communism that is good. It can only work if you enslave others to work and produce for you without allowing them to share in the society. Which defeats everything communism is about.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.