Bill O'Reilly calls Barack Obama on the carpet for his Marxist wealth-redistribution philosophy on taxes.
Obama wants to punish enterprise and success and give to those who haven't earned it.
If you take something that belongs to someone else against their will, that isn't fairness--that's theft.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The Obama Chronicles, Part 7
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Bill O'Reilly calls Barack Obama on the carpet for his Marxist wealth-redistribution philosophy on taxes."
So returning tax levels to where they were in the 90's is Marxism?
"Obama wants to punish enterprise and success and give to those who haven't earned it."
Your right, people making under $200,000 a year aren't working hard enough and don't deserve a tax cut. If you're already working 2 jobs, there's no reason you can't work 3.
I dare you to tell someone who's house has just been forclosed that tax increases on the rich and tax cuts for them is Marxism.
"If you take something that belongs to someone else against their will, that isn't fairness--that's theft."
I know, the government constantly steals from my paycheck and gives to stupid projects like schools, roads, and social security.
Braden,
So, if you work, $200,001, You should take home as much as someone who makes $110,000. Is that what you mean by fair? Why not just make $199,999? You aren't thinking. You're looking at what you don't have and saying 'I should have that; they aren't working any harder than I do.' Hate and lies are easy they don't take any thought or integrity.
I'm sure you're not successful, it would be too taxing for you!
Guy Smylie
Braden, progressive taxation is Marxism; go look it up. I know the public education system has probably failed you, but you have to take responsibility for your own education.
Have you ever considered there might be a reason why many people are making less than $200,000? Perhaps it might have something to do with lack of education (something, again, that the individual must accept responsibility for), poor work ethic, counterproductive life choices, etc?
Or maybe they have simply chosen not to 60, 80 or more hour work-weeks that many successful people work. Or perhaps they chose not to take some risks by launching their own business and chose the easier way of simply working for someone else. There's nothing dishonorable about such choices...but it IS dishonorable to blame others for having more if you chose a course of action which will net less benefit.
You dare me to "to tell someone who's house has just been foreclosed that tax increases on the rich and tax cuts for them is Marxism"? Point me to them, and I'll tell them. When will you liberals EVER learn that right and wrong do not change based on your feelings? What's more, why was there a foreclosure? Was it probably because the borrower, um, failed to pay their loan back as they agreed to? I doubt anyone put a gun to their head and forced them to take out the loan.
As for your final naive statement, why don't you check the Constitution and see if the government is supposed to be taking our money for some of these things. Again, I know the public education system probably failed you, but you should do a little work on your own and read the Constitution--it is, after all, the highest law of our country and what establishes the parameters of our government. If you perform this investigation, you will find that government can legally do ONLY what the Constitution specifically authorizes, and no more. The Constitution enumerates what our government can do, and it can legally do nothing else.
Your investigation will startle you if you decide to follow the Socratic Principle and follow the truth where ever it leads. You will find that more than 50% of our current government expenditures are ILLEGAL.
Why is a return to Constitutional government so abhorrent to liberals?
Post a Comment