Barack Hussein Obama "A closer look"

Redistribution of Wealth, NOT IF IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG BUT HOW TO GO ABOUT DOING IT.



We have enough redistribution of wealth now but it's not enough for BO.

Redistribution-Good One!

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless
guys in that area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

Inside the restaurant, my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to
thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The
homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution
experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.

The redistribution of wealth you talk about is not what will actually happens in America. This isn't Russia in 1917 when the Bolsheviks took land from the wealthy and either took it under state control or gave it to the peasants. The American, Canadian, European and most of the rest of the indutrialized countries version of this, which we have had almost since income tax was levied, is the graduated income tax. This is completely different than actually seizing property and income and giving to others. Doesn't make it the right thing to do, just that it is not as you describe taking the waiter's tip and giving it to someone who needs it more.

Joe Scarborough ask about BO accomplishments?
Video:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46U6Unz6U

And BO's wife agrees:



Now who knows a man better than his wife?

obama and rush limbaugh are both way out there just at the ends of the spectrum use common sense not wild ideas. i'm not a fan of McCain but he will hurt us less than obama will. McCain in all his years has never added 1 porkbelly spending unlike obama who spent almost 1 billion in pork belly spending. McCain atleast does what he says and not lie about what he has done. both obama and bush could take truth lessons from McCain

frog wrote:i'm not a fan of McCain but he will hurt us less than obama will.

McCain has supported Bush on everything he's done (95% of the time...more than most Republican Senators) & has most of the same advisers & even speech writers & will have many of the same cabinet members.. If you want 4 more years of Bush, vote for McCain.

Wait a minute, I thought Acorn, this publicly funded, that's right paid for by us tax-payers, was a non-partisan organization:

how can the people in coal producing states vote for obama. he will at the least make a reduction in the use of coal. this will kill the economy in those areas. just saw toda in PA obama is up by 12 points in the poles. how could a heavy coal state want obama? for more job loss? coal minning is finnaly paying again. do we want to take that away now? i don't the more wwe can use or own resoeces the better. that means coal wood solar wind nat. gas so on.

Frog,

He has alwasy said he wants to make use of clean coal technology. Does he have to say dirty coal technology is better to convince you? We have no choice but to use coal in our country, like it or not. There is no way at present we could make the shift to alternative fuels of ANY kind and still have our ligts on. Anmy politician that thinks he is going to get us off coal is sorely mistaken, so don't worry about your jobs. By the way, shouldn't we be worrying more about the country as a whole than a small section of it? It seems to me that is what has us in our current situation; politicians wanting to protect their little corner of the world at the expense of the country. I may be a Mainer, but I am an American first.

This redistribution of wealth is just more Republican BS. How about the 700 billion that WE will be giving to the banks because their rich CEO's made a bad business decision. That's one hell of a redistribution of money but it's going from the working stiffs to the 'investor class' so that's OK. If a working stiff or a small business person makes bad decisions they suffer the consequences. If you're wealthy enough you can just ask the government to cover the bill. Privatizing profits and socializing losses is just one more way of redistributing the wealth to companies that shouldn't be in business.

Read up on how Wells Fargo was just coerced by Paulson into joining the bailout even though Wells Fargo is solvent and said they didn't need the money. So the feds can take an ownership position in all the major banks and that's capitalism? Government owned corporations sounds more like communism to me.

The republicans were the ones that forced the medicare prescription drug plan through. More redistribution of wealth.

McCain was against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in 2002, 2004 and up until he decided to run for president again was all for allowing them to lapse in 2010. He called them totally irresponsible. Now all of a sudden he's for them? Just more political pandering during the silly season (election cycle)

billw wrote:McCain was against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in 2002, 2004 and up until he decided to run for president again was all for allowing them to lapse in 2010. He called them totally irresponsible. Now all of a sudden he's for them? Just more political pandering during the silly season (election cycle)

Right on Bill!!...McCain sold his sole to me when he started pandering to the base of his party, & I have the receipt to prove it!

One more thing that keeps getting thrown around in this election. Many people keep saying getting the government involved in our healthcare will drive up costs. How come you can get cheaper RX in Canada, how come a crown costs 1/3 in Canada than in the US? How come regular healthcare costs less in Canada if it is so inefficient? Us folks in Maine have no problems getting an appointment with a Canadian Dr. So how did we find the 100 people in Canada who do have trouble getting appointments. Probably to support a point? People in Maine go to Canadian Doctors all the time when they have no health care. I have a dental plan and it is still cheaper to get anything major done in Canada because of all the limitations and exclusions in our group plan.

I do not want a Canadian system, but I do want to see the system reformed because it is not working and I am one of those small business owners who is getting choked by healthcare costs with lousy coverage for my efforts.

kootch88 wrote:One more thing that keeps getting thrown around in this election. Many people keep saying getting the government involved in our healthcare will drive up costs.

Seems to be good enough for our Reps & Senators though, doesn't it?

The $250,000 - $200,000 - $150,000 - $120,000 video:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46U2GuzIr

It's dropping this fast and the election isn't even over.

I suggest that the only meaningful words you hear should come out of the mouths of the candidates themselves. (Joe Biden is e great guy but his mouth is not always connected to his brain
If you really want to see what your taxes would be, go here to his web site http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Otherwise, if you just want to continue to distract, cloud the issue & attempt to deceive....keep writing these posts....It's not working anyway!