Oct 21, 2008 10:38PM GMT
Question
•
Politics - United States
Do you agree with Obama's position that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody?"?
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the political-savvy would-be small business owner now infamously known as "Joe the Plumber", recently confronted Barack Obama and asked whether his taxes would be raised under an Obama Administration. Obama replied, revealing his socialist worldview, "when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." More at www.polyticks.thewebcomic.com-
raves +13 posted Oct 22, 2008 02:30AM GMT
Answered No
No, we do not need to have the government spread anybodys wealth around. If people make their money they can spend it or spread it around to whoever and however they want! They do not need the government to come take money away from the wealthy and give it to a bunch of lazy people who do not want to work for anything and think somehow they are owed by society. Kick the illegal immigrants out so unemployed citizens can get a job or two! -
raves +15 posted Oct 21, 2008 11:22PM GMT
Answered No
Good for those sucking on the governmental tit of America.
It will expand the welfare class, which makes them even more under the control of the government.
It is funny how all the good liberals say they want freedoms and more rights, but little do they realize that as you take more and more government handouts, the government controls you more and more.
Don't flirt with socialism, it is a quickly spreading cancer. -
raves +1 posted Oct 21, 2008 11:06PM GMT
Answered Yes
There need to be basic ranges. I heard that Ben and Jerry's had a policy that no one could make more than 8 times what the lowest paiid person got paid employee. There needs to be some checks and balances on wages. However, i think that certain items should be a flat tax. -
raves +9 Oct 22, 2008 07:27PM GMTWhy don't I ever hear anyone complaining about regulating Brad Pitts' salary on his next movie. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE SALARIES!!! Companies who are responsible, pay workers well, and keep their management in check will be successful. Bad business does eventually fail (if the goverment will stop bailing them out) as it should. The government cannot legislate fairness, if so, then by whose standards?... the goverment's?? No way!
-
raves +1 Oct 24, 2008 06:40PM GMTNo, I think the one who should actually stop and think is you! You see socialism is the Bailout and the Iraq war. We the taxpayers pay for it at the end! Republicans do not care about the working class only when they want our money to make more money for themselves. Why do you think they were so opposed to regulations? Let me provide you with some information and a look back to history of what their economics is. The Ronald Reagan years and the Bush years are the same type of economics John McCain purposes. Look up the Ronald Reagan presidency in Modern History you'll be surprised to find they are the same type of policies we have had through out history when ever a Republican is in office. Here is some information that might be helpful and if you don't want to use this source just look it up in any history book.
Reagan was an advocate of free markets and, upon taking office, believed that the American economy was hampered by excessive economic controls and misguided welfare programs enacted during the 1960s and 1970s. Taking office during a period of stagflation, Reagan said in his first inauguration speech, which he himself authored,[1] "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." His first act as president was to issu...No, I think the one who should actually stop and think is you! You see socialism is the Bailout and the Iraq war. We the taxpayers pay for it at the end! Republicans do not care about the working class only when they want our money to make more money for themselves. Why do you think they were so opposed to regulations? Let me provide you with some information and a look back to history of what their economics is. The Ronald Reagan years and the Bush years are the same type of economics John McCain purposes. Look up the Ronald Reagan presidency in Modern History you'll be surprised to find they are the same type of policies we have had through out history when ever a Republican is in office. Here is some information that might be helpful and if you don't want to use this source just look it up in any history book.
Reagan was an advocate of free markets and, upon taking office, believed that the American economy was hampered by excessive economic controls and misguided welfare programs enacted during the 1960s and 1970s. Taking office during a period of stagflation, Reagan said in his first inauguration speech, which he himself authored,[1] "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." His first act as president was to issue an executive order ending certain price controls. His economic policies, similar to supply-side economics and dubbed "Reaganomics," achieved a 25% cut in the federal personal income tax, moderate deregulation and tax reform, which he believed would remove barriers to efficient economic activity. After a sharp recession, a long period of high economic growth without significant inflation ensued.
Despite Reagan's stated desire to cut spending, federal spending grew during his administration. However, economist Milton Friedman points out that non-defense spending as a percentage of national income stabilized throughout Reagan's term, breaking a long upward trend; the number of new regulations added each year dramatically decreased as well.[2]
One of Reagan's most controversial early moves was to fire most of the nation's air traffic controllers who took part in an illegal strike. Reagan strengthened Social Security to make it solvent longer by cutting disability benefits, and survivor benefits, and by increasing the FICA payroll withholding tax. He also took tough positions against crime, declared a renewed war on drugs, but was criticized for being slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Do you seriously think McCain really cares about the taxpayer? He supported the Bailout and so did Bush the mastermind. It is something the Republican party is suppose to oppose a socialist act!! They didn't oppose it because it is not their money they are using it is our money the taxpayer money! They only oppose socialism when they will not benefit from it financially! Think.. read... and go look up some history facts before you just make a stupid comment like this...it is just repeating other people thoughts not facts!! Education is the key!(less) -
raves +1 -1 Oct 24, 2008 06:27PM GMTGood point! The Bailout is a socialist act! You see Republicans only support socialsist acts when it is not their money they are using. They only support capitalist acts like (Wallstreet CEO's bonuses, Iraq war because Republican military contractor and general as well as the Bush Administration make millions and millions of dollars from the war) Do you people seriously believe they care about all the young military people being killed in Iraq? Why do you think McCain wants to stay in Iraq longer? Could it be because he cares about the young military people being killed and injuired in Iraq? What did we benefit as taxpayers from the war in Iraq? 00000...nothing...zero...we get stuck with the bill again! You see that is a socialist act just like the bailout, and just like social security. For many of you young people putting money into the social security system you aren't getting that money back!! Old people don't care right now because they are getting their social security for money they put into the system!
-
raves +1
Answered No
If Obama wants to "spread the wealth," let him spread his own around. I'll spread mine around where I choose, thank you very much.