Trickle Up Poverty

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

“Trickle-Up” Poverty: The New
Economics of Barack Obama

The liberal media talking heads are already proclaiming that a Barack Obama victory will be revolutionary. Revolutionary is right. The last great revolution took place in Russia. Within a year of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the communist leader Lenin brought the Russians change they could believe in. He created an economic system in which:

All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced.
Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto “non-working classes” or people who had money. Food was rationed and centrally distributed.
Military-like control of railroads was introduced.
Private enterprise became illegal.
After Stalin took over the Soviet Union, he:

Imposed a state-run system of socialized medicine
Formed a strict, centralized cultural administration and ideological control system �?? in other words, reeducation.
There is every reason to believe that some kind of socialist revolution will occur under B.O. Bush has already imposed socialism on the banks, and Obama promises to do more of the same. The Soviets put people with money to work in factories.

Under Obama, the business owners in this country who drive the economy will be put to work by being forced to pay crushing taxes that will fund gold-plated healthcare for illegal aliens and welfare cases. Private enterprise may not actually be made illegal, but so many businesses will die under an Obama administration that the same goal will be accomplished. Instead of trickle-down economics, we�??ll have trickle-up poverty.

We already know Obama will impose socialized medicine �?? that is a given. And reeducation will come in the form of the Fairness Doctrine, which Nancy Pelosi will push through the Congress by stressing the need to foster unity and avoid destabilizing the markets with hurtful and unbalanced commentary.This is what the future holds under B.O.

2

“Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” - Straight from the horses mouth.

Let me poke a hole or two. Who are the wealthiest 2%? The people who exercise fiscal responsibility and drive the economy. What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.

Maybe it’s me, but I find it ironic when it says “to ensure fairness.” Fairness? I always thought it was a crime to extort money. That’s like asking an older brother to give his parents back a portion of his allowance he’s been saving to buy a bike so his little sister can have enough money to buy that bike she wants now. Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit. Fair. The only fair that resembles is the type of fair with a fuckin side show and a ferris wheel.

3

Equality means equal opportunity, not equal results.

4

Don’t get me started on Nancy Pelosi and her one facial expression. It’s like there’s a perpetual surprise party going on in her head and she never expects it.

5

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Don’t get me started on Nancy Pelosi and her one facial expression. It’s like there’s a perpetual surprise party going on in her head and she never expects it.[/quote]

…

FUCKING LOL

6

[quote]polo77j wrote:
“Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” - Straight from the horses mouth.

Let me poke a hole or two. Who are the wealthiest 2%? The people who exercise fiscal responsibility and drive the economy… [/quote]

Whoa, stop right there. Drive the economy? Perhaps. But that’s more due to their position amidst financial institutions than any virtue on their part. And fiscal responsibility? The fact that they’re rich does NOT mean they didn’t engage in earnings fraud, or otherwise manipulate their company’s stock price.

They are not the virtuous capitalist.

7

[quote]Otep wrote:
polo77j wrote:
“Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” - Straight from the horses mouth.

Let me poke a hole or two. Who are the wealthiest 2%? The people who exercise fiscal responsibility and drive the economy…

Whoa, stop right there. Drive the economy? Perhaps. But that’s more due to their position amidst financial institutions than any virtue on their part. And fiscal responsibility? The fact that they’re rich does NOT mean they didn’t engage in earnings fraud, or otherwise manipulate their company’s stock price.

They are not the virtuous capitalist.[/quote]

Is that a fact, or are you just saying what you have been told to say?

Some links to back up your bullshit would be nice.

8

[quote]Otep wrote:
polo77j wrote:
“Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” - Straight from the horses mouth.

Let me poke a hole or two. Who are the wealthiest 2%? The people who exercise fiscal responsibility and drive the economy…

Whoa, stop right there. Drive the economy? Perhaps. But that’s more due to their position amidst financial institutions than any virtue on their part. And fiscal responsibility? The fact that they’re rich does NOT mean they didn’t engage in earnings fraud, or otherwise manipulate their company’s stock price.

They are not the virtuous capitalist.[/quote]

Greed is a virtue in a capitalist economy.

Greed leads to the demise of socialist economies.

Greed is and always will be ever persistent to the human condition.

9

[quote]Otep wrote:
polo77j wrote:
“Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” - Straight from the horses mouth.

Let me poke a hole or two. Who are the wealthiest 2%? The people who exercise fiscal responsibility and drive the economy…

Whoa, stop right there. Drive the economy? Perhaps. But that’s more due to their position amidst financial institutions than any virtue on their part. And fiscal responsibility? The fact that they’re rich does NOT mean they didn’t engage in earnings fraud, or otherwise manipulate their company’s stock price.

They are not the virtuous capitalist.[/quote]

So are you trying to say that everyone thats rich stole it? And yes rich people do drive the economy. When was the last time you got a good paying job from a poor person? I’m sure the guys that own T-Nation/Biotest make a good living and from the best of my knowledge they EARNED it by providing a product that people want. How is that stealing?

10

Just for the record I wanna tell everyone that I did not write this. I got it from michaelsavge.com he wrote it.

11

[quote]polo77j wrote:
What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.

[/quote]

I take issue with this statement. It defies all logic, because:

Lets say as of today, you own a business that profits 10 dollars a year, and your taxed at 50%.
That means you have 5 dollars left for your pocket, or your investors pocket.

Well tomorrow you have a great, fantastic idea on how to change your business that will trim 40 dollars from your expenses. Which means your profit would be 50. Which in turn means you now have 25 for your and investors pockets. Even at the ridiculous tax rate of 50%, you still make a 4 times more money after tax.

By the above theory, you would forsake an increase of 20, because you don’t want to pay 20 more in tax? That would be the worst business decision of your life, and please don’t believe anyone with half a brain would do that.

Corporate taxes do not have the amazing, profound, end-all-be-all effect on the operation of a business that some people think and apparently spew all over every website willing to host an opinion. They have an effect, but there is quite a bit more that effects corporate decisions than 35% of profits to taxes.

Individual income tax is a whole other animal.

The real issue is the fact that government has no right to dictate to the American people how the wealth of the nation should be spread right?

Well giant corporations, regardless of how hard the government tries, are going to buy a few rules, loop holes if you will, to keep quite a bit of money in their pockets. As far as BO’s corporate tax plan goes, people are getting worked up for nothing, and politicians make too much money to shoot the hands that feed them, giant corporations. (Especially as it has been mentioned before, if the right keeps 41 seats, and I hope they do.)

12

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
polo77j wrote:
What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.

I take issue with this statement. It defies all logic, because:

Lets say as of today, you own a business that profits 10 dollars a year, and your taxed at 50%.
That means you have 5 dollars left for your pocket, or your investors pocket.

Well tomorrow you have a great, fantastic idea on how to change your business that will trim 40 dollars from your expenses. Which means your profit would be 50. Which in turn means you now have 25 for your and investors pockets. Even at the ridiculous tax rate of 50%, you still make a 4 times more money after tax.

By the above theory, you would forsake an increase of 20, because you don’t want to pay 20 more in tax? That would be the worst business decision of your life, and please don’t believe anyone with half a brain would do that.

Corporate taxes do not have the amazing, profound, end-all-be-all effect on the operation of a business that some people think and apparently spew all over every website willing to host an opinion. They have an effect, but there is quite a bit more that effects corporate decisions than 35% of profits to taxes.

Individual income tax is a whole other animal.

The real issue is the fact that government has no right to dictate to the American people how the wealth of the nation should be spread right?

Well giant corporations, regardless of how hard the government tries, are going to buy a few rules, loop holes if you will, to keep quite a bit of money in their pockets. As far as BO’s corporate tax plan goes, people are getting worked up for nothing, and politicians make too much money to shoot the hands that feed them, giant corporations. (Especially as it has been mentioned before, if the right keeps 41 seats, and I hope they do.)
[/quote]

Bottom line is that you are taking money out of the economy where it mulls around in a huge bureaucracy and is spit out haphazardly.

Have you given consideration to corporations that will be spending more on taxes and less on investments in personell and growth? How about research and development? How about marketing campaigns or investments in new products?

Have you given consideration to businesses living on the margins? If one can employ 20 people and make 300k a year instead of working for someone else for 200k, one may make this choice. If Barry takes more in personal income tax or small business tax or corporate tax, it sways these types of decisions. This person may decide the extra work and time is no longer worth it. Employees out of work. Yeah.

The most important part is that we moving in the wrong direction. Higher personal tax is not going to insent entrepenuers to come to this county and may persuade some to leave. Same goes for busniess and corp tax.

13

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
polo77j wrote:
What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.

I take issue with this statement. It defies all logic, because:

Lets say as of today, you own a business that profits 10 dollars a year, and your taxed at 50%.
That means you have 5 dollars left for your pocket, or your investors pocket.

Well tomorrow you have a great, fantastic idea on how to change your business that will trim 40 dollars from your expenses. Which means your profit would be 50. Which in turn means you now have 25 for your and investors pockets. Even at the ridiculous tax rate of 50%, you still make a 4 times more money after tax.

By the above theory, you would forsake an increase of 20, because you don’t want to pay 20 more in tax? That would be the worst business decision of your life, and please don’t believe anyone with half a brain would do that.

Corporate taxes do not have the amazing, profound, end-all-be-all effect on the operation of a business that some people think and apparently spew all over every website willing to host an opinion. They have an effect, but there is quite a bit more that effects corporate decisions than 35% of profits to taxes.

Individual income tax is a whole other animal.

The real issue is the fact that government has no right to dictate to the American people how the wealth of the nation should be spread right?

Well giant corporations, regardless of how hard the government tries, are going to buy a few rules, loop holes if you will, to keep quite a bit of money in their pockets. As far as BO’s corporate tax plan goes, people are getting worked up for nothing, and politicians make too much money to shoot the hands that feed them, giant corporations. (Especially as it has been mentioned before, if the right keeps 41 seats, and I hope they do.)
[/quote]

Bottom line is that you are taking money out of the economy where it mulls around in a huge bureaucracy and is spit out haphazardly.

Have you given consideration to corporations that will be spending more on taxes and less on investments in personell and growth? How about research and development? How about marketing campaigns or investments in new products?

Have you given consideration to businesses living on the margins? If one can employ 20 people and make 300k a year instead of working for someone else for 200k, one may make this choice. If Barry takes more in personal income tax or small business tax or corporate tax, it sways these types of decisions. This person may decide the extra work and time is no longer worth it. Employees out of work. Yeah.

The most important part is that we moving in the wrong direction. Higher personal tax is not going to insent entrepenuers to come to this county and may persuade some to leave. Same goes for busniess and corp tax.

14

First paragraph, I completely agree. The government stinks at business functions.

Second Paragraph: Marketing often is pointless unless you’re in the infantile or growth stage, and if you’re in those stages you’re going to spend the money there, lowering your taxable income. Most companies will fail if they don’t develop new products, 5%, 35% or 80% tax rate. As far as spending on personnel, it is a double edged sword, you lower wage costs and increase taxes, or keep wages and lower shareholder returns. Look at General Electric, JW slashed wages in response to market price of his shares. BUT you do have a valid point, less money generally means less jobs. As far as investments go, issuing bonds is cheaper than issuing stock, and most large corporate firms can’t take advantage of the current tax breaks you get buying capital equipment anyway.

Third Paragraph, if Barry paid 25% personal income tax on his 200,000, he would have to be taxed roughly 54% on 300,000 corporate profits to make less after taxes. Plus you get he benefit of ‘doubling’ your deductions with the Corp. (Double is a bad explanation of what I mean). But your right, some people will choose to work for someone else. But being your own boss, and the boss of others is a lot of work, often 24/7 job, so it is no place for the hesitant or weak. I have seen quite a few people lose not only their money, but some of there parents money because they were scared when times got tough.

I’m not trying to say you’re wrong as much as ease off the gas a bit. The main worry I have is too many cycles of supply side without some sort of increase of tax mixed in is just as detrimental. Short term, supply side works great, but like everything else, it needs checks and balances. I’m certainly not saying an economic plan that just continually raises taxes, or socializes the nation is good either, quite the opposite.

But your right in the fact that it is the companies living on the margins that are in the most danger, Big Business will be fine, better off in some instances.

But if you really want to support margin business stop shopping at Wal-Mart, or Homo Depot. Use mom and pop retailers & local contractors. Get what food you can at local markets rather than the big chains. If we as consumers, as patriots supported the small business person, they might not be so marginal. You know what I mean? Yes it rains lollipops and Rainbows in that world, but it is like shooting a gun: If your aim is off a quarter inch at the barrel, 300 yards away at the target, your bullet will be 30 feet off. (Does that make sense?) The gap gets bigger with time and distance.

15

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Greed is and always will be ever persistent to the human condition.

[/quote]

No truer words have ever been written.

16

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
polo77j wrote:
What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.

I take issue with this statement. It defies all logic, because:

Lets say as of today, you own a business that profits 10 dollars a year, and your taxed at 50%.
That means you have 5 dollars left for your pocket, or your investors pocket.

Well tomorrow you have a great, fantastic idea on how to change your business that will trim 40 dollars from your expenses. Which means your profit would be 50. Which in turn means you now have 25 for your and investors pockets. Even at the ridiculous tax rate of 50%, you still make a 4 times more money after tax.

By the above theory, you would forsake an increase of 20, because you don’t want to pay 20 more in tax? That would be the worst business decision of your life, and please don’t believe anyone with half a brain would do that.

Corporate taxes do not have the amazing, profound, end-all-be-all effect on the operation of a business that some people think and apparently spew all over every website willing to host an opinion. They have an effect, but there is quite a bit more that effects corporate decisions than 35% of profits to taxes.

Individual income tax is a whole other animal.

The real issue is the fact that government has no right to dictate to the American people how the wealth of the nation should be spread right?

Well giant corporations, regardless of how hard the government tries, are going to buy a few rules, loop holes if you will, to keep quite a bit of money in their pockets. As far as BO’s corporate tax plan goes, people are getting worked up for nothing, and politicians make too much money to shoot the hands that feed them, giant corporations. (Especially as it has been mentioned before, if the right keeps 41 seats, and I hope they do.)
[/quote]

You are not a business owner, are you?

17

[quote]jawara wrote:
“Trickle-Up” Poverty: The New
Economics of Barack Obama

The liberal media talking heads are already proclaiming that a Barack Obama victory will be revolutionary. Revolutionary is right. The last great revolution took place in Russia. Within a year of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the communist leader Lenin brought the Russians change they could believe in. He created an economic system in which:

All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced.
Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto “non-working classes” or people who had money. Food was rationed and centrally distributed.
Military-like control of railroads was introduced.
Private enterprise became illegal.
After Stalin took over the Soviet Union, he:

Imposed a state-run system of socialized medicine
Formed a strict, centralized cultural administration and ideological control system �?? in other words, reeducation.
There is every reason to believe that some kind of socialist revolution will occur under B.O. Bush has already imposed socialism on the banks, and Obama promises to do more of the same. The Soviets put people with money to work in factories.

Under Obama, the business owners in this country who drive the economy will be put to work by being forced to pay crushing taxes that will fund gold-plated healthcare for illegal aliens and welfare cases. Private enterprise may not actually be made illegal, but so many businesses will die under an Obama administration that the same goal will be accomplished. Instead of trickle-down economics, we�??ll have trickle-up poverty.

We already know Obama will impose socialized medicine �?? that is a given. And reeducation will come in the form of the Fairness Doctrine, which Nancy Pelosi will push through the Congress by stressing the need to foster unity and avoid destabilizing the markets with hurtful and unbalanced commentary.This is what the future holds under B.O.

[/quote]
No one votes for Republicans because they run the economy well. They don’t and haven’t. I don’t get who articles like this are meant for.

If you care about gays and abortions you vote republicans.
If you want a strong economy you vote democratic.
See modern history for evidence.

Are the centrist thinking, pro capitalists advising Obama on economics, many from the Clinton team really going to push for making private enterprise “illegal”. Of course not, but you’ll keep hearing this from factually challenged people who also think God cares about abortions and no know nothing about economics. See Mick28 for example.

18

[quote]100meters wrote:
jawara wrote:
“Trickle-Up” Poverty: The New
Economics of Barack Obama

The liberal media talking heads are already proclaiming that a Barack Obama victory will be revolutionary. Revolutionary is right. The last great revolution took place in Russia. Within a year of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the communist leader Lenin brought the Russians change they could believe in. He created an economic system in which:

All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced.
Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto “non-working classes” or people who had money. Food was rationed and centrally distributed.
Military-like control of railroads was introduced.
Private enterprise became illegal.
After Stalin took over the Soviet Union, he:

Imposed a state-run system of socialized medicine
Formed a strict, centralized cultural administration and ideological control system �?? in other words, reeducation.
There is every reason to believe that some kind of socialist revolution will occur under B.O. Bush has already imposed socialism on the banks, and Obama promises to do more of the same. The Soviets put people with money to work in factories.

Under Obama, the business owners in this country who drive the economy will be put to work by being forced to pay crushing taxes that will fund gold-plated healthcare for illegal aliens and welfare cases. Private enterprise may not actually be made illegal, but so many businesses will die under an Obama administration that the same goal will be accomplished. Instead of trickle-down economics, we�??ll have trickle-up poverty.

We already know Obama will impose socialized medicine �?? that is a given. And reeducation will come in the form of the Fairness Doctrine, which Nancy Pelosi will push through the Congress by stressing the need to foster unity and avoid destabilizing the markets with hurtful and unbalanced commentary.This is what the future holds under B.O.

No one votes for Republicans because they run the economy well. They don’t and haven’t. I don’t get who articles like this are meant for.

If you care about gays and abortions you vote republicans.
If you want a strong economy you vote democratic.
See modern history for evidence.

Are the centrist thinking, pro capitalists advising Obama on economics, many from the Clinton team really going to push for making private enterprise “illegal”. Of course not, but you’ll keep hearing this from factually challenged people who also think God cares about abortions and no know nothing about economics. See Mick28 for example.
[/quote]

You do realize this housing marked mess started under Clinton and was perpetuated by the dems, right?

19

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do realize this housing marked mess started under Clinton and was perpetuated by the dems, right?[/quote]

The “Commodity Futures Modernization Act” was technically passed while Clinton was still in power (December 2000), but was mostly the work of Republicans, working within a Republican majority Congress.

Unless you contend that Phil Gramm is a democrat, or that the Republican control of both houses and the presidency between 2000-2006 can be “blamed” on the Democrats (if they didn’t lose so often, you wouldn’t have this mess?) I fail to see how you arrive at your conclusion.

20

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do realize this housing marked mess started under Clinton and was perpetuated by the dems, right?[/quote]

It was perpetuated by EVERYONE who did nothing to try and stop it at its roots. There is enough blame to go around for everyone who unwittingly participated in the system.