Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Tornado]

Don Rasmussen posted this on the CFL feed the other day. I thought it was funny and appropriate. From his mother ...

How does Obama intend to pay for these things?

 

[Keef]

How does Obama intend to pay for these things?

By stea...ahem...taxing everyone from the owner of Hamburger Wagon to Bill Gates out the ass.

Anyways, I've spotted a problem with that article. I have a hard time believing that only 50% of Americans want their ice cream...

 

[Tornado]

By stea...ahem...taxing everyone from the owner of Hamburger Wagon to Bill Gates out the ass.

But if raising taxes on the rich just leads them to tax shelters more often, won't he just be deficit spending?

 

[Keef]

I believe every bit of spending our government now does is deficit spending, eh? I think they may have decided to just forget paying their loans back, lol.

 

[YSSMAN]

It blows my mind that you--a guy getting a college education--could not see how obviously broken his system is. Those people who he's going to charge an extra $700,000 on are going to be simply devastated by this.

An education can take you in two different ways, and coming from my own upbringing (a lower middle class family, conservative), it may alter my views of economics versus that of another. My problem is that I do not buy into the top-heavy cuts that have been pushed since Reagan, and while no one wants to see pre-Reagan tax rates back again, nevertheless, I'm in preference to larger cuts going to who need it... In this case, the middle class.

I'm all for "fair" taxation, but as we know, "fair" is subjective. As I've stated before, I prefer what they otherwise call the "fair tax," a consumption tax... But that does not seem realistic right now.

***Just a point on my education***

Going to a small private college gives you a great opportunity to see things from all sides of the political spectrum. As a Political Science major and a History minor, I tend to get to dive into a pretty deep pool of politics in the United States and Europe. Both of the Political Science heads are "balanced," one a hardcore fiscal conservative (admits to being a Libertarian on most accounts) matched with a militant Liberal (a former professor at UC Irvine). Same with the History department, one is a pretty militant Upstate New York liberal (is working on the Obama campaign), the other a hardcore conservative (has worked for President Bush). I do not think being in college, getting an education requires me to think either very conservative or very liberal, as a matter of fact, my mish-mosh of political views is otherwise "moderate" on my campus. For that matter, it makes me very different from the rest of the Republicans on campus. I'm not a Reagan fan, I'm not a huge Clinton fan, and in the end I walk away preferring people like Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Dick Nixon, and Gerald Ford.

...free money!... never having to get a job... lazy, terrible, greedy people... I don't deserve any more than what I earn. You don't deserve any more than what you earn. But apparently you think over 60% of Americans deserve more than what they earn...

Without a doubt there are people who abuse the system, but lets ask ourselves a question... Is this money going to help these people, the honest people, those who have not had the same opportunities as you and I? Unequivocally yes, it will. Whether or not they receive aid from the government should not be a damming thing; I know I've told the story of the years my family (single Mom, two kids) was on welfare and medicade. Perhaps that is why I continually defend the programs (they do deserve reform, especially on the question of the poverty line), perhaps thats why my economic positions are a bit more "lefty" than other fiscal moderate/conservative peoples that I associate with. But that shouldn't disallow them from receiving a larger tax cut. From the figures pushed out by McCain, a 20-50% cut is not enough in my opinion.

As I recall, however, Obama has stated that these cuts are only for those who are employed, that there would be different figures (or no changes at all?) for those who are on some kind of welfare from the government. I have been unable to find specifics from him, however... I'll have to talk to my friends who are working on the campaign.

Nevertheless, getting what you "deserve" is a proper way of putting it. The problem is, what is "deserved" is subjective once again, especially to those who are employed in certain fields.

His plan would absolutely devastate business and the economy and we'd be in a depression in a matter of months once it went into effect.

Who says that a bolstered middle class wouldn't spend more money at the grocery store? At the local Target or Best Buy? That they wouldn't travel more often, increasing tourism? That they in may fact would invest a small portion of their money every year? You forget that we live in a consumer economy, and to that end, a rising tide should (in theory) raise all boats. The problem is, we have been raising the waters in the wrong part of the canal.

Of course, it has to be enacted first.

Thats the key right there. Since the GOP have blown the congressional races, it could get passed figure-for-figure, or it could be radically marginalized. My assumption is that if McCain were to get in, he wouldn't get what he wanted. If Obama is elected, he may get it pretty close, but turned down (on the top) just a bit.

======

EDIT:

I believe every bit of spending our government now does is deficit spending, eh? I think they may have decided to just forget paying their loans back, lol.

Have you heard of the "Fiscal Crisis of the State" theory? At least in my opinion, that is where we are at right now. No one wins on a platform of raising taxes (even though we probably should -- across the board, to fund the war, reduce the debt), but we're going to have to cut accumulation or legitimization. Obama is advocating, I believe, for a greater cut for accumulation policies, McCain arguing for a cut for both, albeit more for legitimization.

 

[ledhed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv_dV_PTX8w&NR=1

Not for nothing ...

try to remember ---MR mistake .....


OK ..all those

FAMILY
FRIENDS

they also ---have to suffer--

but is it a MISTAKE ...to FOLLOW your leaders ---the guys and girls WE ELECT !!

and Sacrifice LIFE ...and LIMBS ...

For nothing else ---but for a purpose HIGHER than ourselves...


OK

OB AMA dude is slick

he talks nice ...

he says all the right things ...


wow COOL dude .

WHO IS HE ????


Vote

But for YOUR LIFE'S sake and OUR future ...please look around ...and DON'T BUY the HYPE .

THINK ,

I am ALWAYS suspect of anyone who must SELL ME HIS CRAP .

If its so damned GOOD why you spending so much trying to SHOVE IT DOWN MY THROAT ??

You think its IN YOUR BEST INTEREST ??

LOL

OK

I got A BRIDGE FOR SALE ...

Common guys and girls...

Look around ---pay attention .

FREE MARKET ?

FREE TRADE ?

FREEDOM ???

Take from the Rich and give to the poor----yea OK .

I will just move to Ireland ..lol

GET REAL

UK guys

What happened with all the bands that made CASH ???

They RAN to the USA ....

WHY ...

HMMMM

INCOME REDISTRIBUTION ---take from the rich give to the poor ...

lol

sure --GLOBAL ECONOMY

USA 2cnd HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the WORLD ...

HMMMMMMM...wonder why we OUTSOURCE ???

Pls all I ask is you educate yourself ..

Then VOTE

VOTE
VOTE

Vote for whats best .

 

[Touring Mars]

Timing is never ideal here in the UK for watching the election results as they come in - live coverage of the results will be on from 11pm Tuesday to 6am Wednesday morning, and of course the final result may be far from concluded by then...

There's obviously a handful of key states which could provide the best insight into the result, so I might try to stay awake until some of these are called - but I can't remember what sort of time (GMT) we can expect to hear the first results coming in...?

 

[Pupik]

There's obviously a handful of key states which could provide the best insight into the result, so I might try to stay awake until some of these are called - but I can't remember what sort of time (GMT) we can expect to hear the first results coming in...?

When you wake up, or about 6:00-8:00 am across the pond; it's rare that everything is finalized until midnight on the East Coast of the USA.

1984 was an exception...Reagan had it wrapped up by 8:30pm, I recall.

 

[Bones Brigade]

The lowest bracket of people he's giving a tax cut to are going to get a free "stimulus package"--a welfare check--in the mail every year. And quite a few of that lowest bracket don't even pay taxes! Those people are going to get free money! They already get free money! Some of them already get so much free money that they live off of it, never having to get a job. Now you know, people who aren't able to work need to be helped, but fully functioning people who can't work are lazy, terrible, greedy people and don't deserve any more than what they earn. Just like me. I don't deserve any more than what I earn. You don't deserve any more than what you earn. But apparently you think over 60% of Americans deserve more than what they earn.

This makes no sense. Your tax return is "free money?" Did you not deserve it? Send it back then and quit moaning. Is the government giving me FREE MONEY when I get to keep $36,000 instead of $35,000 out of the $45k I've grossed? OH OKAY. And If you don't have a job, you don't get an income tax break.

Explain to me how getting paid LESS THAN WHAT I'VE EARNED is FREE MONEY, even if it's more than what I get now. When the IRS sends me a check for 10k, then we can talk about getting more than what I've earned.

 

[Danoff]

Explain to me how getting paid LESS THAN WHAT I'VE EARNED is FREE MONEY, even if it's more than what I get now. When the IRS sends me a check for 10k, then we can talk about getting more than what I've earned.

The bottom tax brackets in this country pay a negative tax rate. That is, they get more money back than they put in.

 

[YSSMAN]

There's obviously a handful of key states which could provide the best insight into the result, so I might try to stay awake until some of these are called - but I can't remember what sort of time (GMT) we can expect to hear the first results coming in...?

States to look for that will ultimately decide the election:

• Pennsylvania
• Ohio
• Virginia
• Florida

You should have those early results ready-ish by 10 PM EST, so I believe thats somewhere around 2-3AM GMT (clocks fall back an hour on Sunday). The whole deal likely won't be given out until 2AM here assuming we don't have a Florida 2000 repeat, so by the time you guys are getting up for breakfast, it should be done.

 

[McLaren]

Oh come on, you mean they won't be able to sustain paying tax on their net income (not revenue) so they'll have to cut jobs? Boo-hoo, they're directly injecting back into the economy so that there will be enough growth for their businesses to actually survive.

Boo hoo? So you support unemployment? Great.

And what are they injecting back into the economy by letting people go?

They also seem to be surviving okay these days. Also if you're earning over 250k a year as a small business I'd say you're doing pretty ****ing well, most people I know who run a small business earn about half that max, probably less in the current state of the economy.

You've obviously misunderstood the tax plan. It's not if your business makes over $250K, it's if you do. Many small business owners do not make over $250K from their business, but the family as a whole might. If the family is being taxed, whoever owns the business in the family may have to sell if off for the family.

Again, it has been shown over & over by many economists that Obama's tax plans are the exact thing to kill a small business. There is no real argument to say otherwise. The rich are the ones who typically own the businesses. You tax them to a degree to support the rest of us and they're going to have start killing off that little shop just so they can get by while supporting us.

Obama's tax plans should be an outrage to the rich. I don't make $250K a year or anywhere close, but I sure as hell don't want to be supporting some bum & her 6 children who just stays at home & recieves welfare checks every month.

 

[Vasco]

In violation of the Constitution.


In violation of the Constitution.


When you have staggered tax rates you are already not equal. Read the Constitution, that is not allowed.


Funny, I am the guy making $30,000 ($35,00 to be technical), yet I am still arguing this point. Maybe it means something.


Any system run by the government is flawed.


It also explicitly calls for even taxes across the board which can only be used for debts and the general welfare, which means it goes to everyone, not specific groups.


Not according to the Constitution.


If the Constitution was properly followed you almost wouldn't need an income tax.


As it is described in the Constitution.


I'll save myself a few more responses as I have to go:
Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution

Ok fine, stick to your outdated document, see how closely the country is currently being run to the constitution. Also public education and healthcare would equal general welfare wouldn't they, since they're offered to everyone (but the richer may choose/be encouraged to use private forms of it).

What do you mean the family as a whole might? So you mean they're distributing income across their kids to evade taxes? I don't get it...also I fail to see how such an increase will force them to close their business, when over $250k for a small business obviously means they're making a damn good profit!!!!

 

[Keef]

My belief is that you, Vasco, and many other Australian and European members of this forum have grown up with so many socialist government policies that you simply don't care anymore about your personal freedoms. Americans as a whole refuse to be the government's bitch, and even the dumbest of us will remember where the country came from and what it once stood for. I know I certainly won't sit back and say "well, there's nothing we can do about it now."

 

[Omnis]

My belief is that you, Vasco, and many other Australian and European members of this forum have grown up with so many socialist government policies that you simply don't care anymore about your personal freedoms. Americans as a whole refuse to be the government's bitch, and even the dumbest of us will remember where the country came from and what it once stood for. I know I certainly won't sit back and say "well, there's nothing we can do about it now."

That's not really a fair generalization. Although Vasco and others might be indoctrinated in Keynesian/Fabian thought, there are plenty of beacons of freedom and individualism who have come from socialist countries.

 

[Sphinx]

My belief is that you, Vasco, and many other Australian and European members of this forum have grown up with so many socialist government policies that you simply don't care anymore about your personal freedoms. Americans as a whole refuse to be the government's bitch, and even the dumbest of us will remember where the country came from and what it once stood for. I know I certainly won't sit back and say "well, there's nothing we can do about it now."

I have no idea where you get this notion from, perhaps you could enlighten us with a few examples?

You mention about not sitting back, but when it comes to election time when your vote does all the talking and the time when you finally have your say about how your Country is run, it seems Americans falter with a low average election turnout in the low 50% region, whereas European election turnouts are much higher, United Kingdom for example is in the high 70% region.

If we did indeed think "well, there's nothing we can do about it now." then I'm sure our election turnouts would be as low as the US.

 

[McLaren]

What do you mean the family as a whole might? So you mean they're distributing income across their kids to evade taxes? I don't get it

Obviously.

...also I fail to see how such an increase will force them to close their business, when over $250k for a small business obviously means they're making a damn good profit!!!!

Wow. Re-read my post. The plan says people making $250K a year get the tax, not their damn business. It has ZERO to do with the profit of the business either. Can you comprehend that? If a person is being taxed under Obama's plans, he has to choose keeping what's left of his money between putting it towards its business or himself/family.

Obama's tax plans can & will kill small businesses. There is no discussion. Even Paris Hilton could figure out how these tax plans will do so.

 

[Solid Fro]

McCain on QVC... I mean SNL:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/41829/saturday-night-live-mccain-qvc-open#s-p1-sr-i1

The skit on MSNBC's major douche Keith Olbermann was spot on. Oh, David Cook ain't too bad either.

 

[Vasco]

Obviously.


Wow. Re-read my post. The plan says people making $250K a year get the tax, not their damn business. It has ZERO to do with the profit of the business either. Can you comprehend that? If a person is being taxed under Obama's plans, he has to choose keeping what's left of his money between putting it towards its business or himself/family.

Obama's tax plans can & will kill small businesses. There is no discussion. Even Paris Hilton could figure out how these tax plans will do so.

Yeah no ****, it's called income tax. It has a lot to do with the profit of the business because wouldn't they apportion their income from the business, otherwise where do you think their income comes from???

THEY'RE ALREADY BEING TAXED, the percent increase is not so huge that a person will be turning around and saying "oh **** that's it my business is no longer sustainable, despite my still earning over 250k a year from it".

Personal freedoms? I would say we have a lot of personal freedoms here and I appreciate them, yet I also understand that it's important to have a sense of social responsibility and that the maintenance of our living standard is important. Maybe that's why Australia has the 3rd highest HDI in the world?

 

[McLaren]

Yeah no ****, it's called income tax. It has a lot to do with the profit of the business because wouldn't they apportion their income from the business, otherwise where do you think their income comes from???

You were putting it earlier as the tax plan is based on business profits, not the person. It has nothing to do with making $250K in profits.

THEY'RE ALREADY BEING TAXED, the percent increase is not so huge that a person will be turning around and saying "oh **** that's it my business is no longer sustainable, despite my still earning over 250k a year from it".

And they're going to be taxed more just to support the poor.

And just because you make $250K a year from a business (read, not talking about profit), doesn't mean you're doing well. You could be spending $300K on the business, and thus, be out $250K.

Even The New York Times now is saying that Barack Obama's unswerving call for tax increases -— to impose more "fairness" — is the wrong prescription for the current crisis in the U.S. economy.

"The big issue for each candidate is not spending, per se, but how the crisis will affect their promises on taxes," the Times recently editorialized.

With the U.S. in the midst of a financial meltdown, even the left-leaning New York Times recognized that Obama's proposed tax hikes would only push the U.S. economy into a deeper hole: "Mr. Obama has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy, starting next year, to help restore fairness to the tax code and to pay for his spending plans. With the economy tanking, however, it's hard to imagine how he could prudently do that. He should acknowledge the likelihood of having to postpone a tax increase and explain how that change will affect his plans. Then, he can promise to raise those taxes as soon as the economy allows."

It's unlikely that Obama, still unwilling to say that he was wrong about the surge in Iraq, will be insightful and flexible enough to acknowledge that his program of increasing taxes on "the wealthy," corporations and small businesses is simply a formula for increasing unemployment in an economy that's already delivering rising levels of joblessness.


For the corporate sector, with U.S. firms already facing the industrialized world's second-highest corporate tax rate, Obama is calling for additional taxes and mandates, such as the "windfall profits" tax on oil companies.

In the small business sector, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center reports that "several hundred thousand small business owners" have incomes high enough to be hit by Obama's proposed tax hikes on income, capital gains and dividends.

Most of the entrepreneurial income in these more successful small businesses would be taxed away under Obama's plan, with the top federal grab of income rising to over 50 percent, totaling his proposed increase in the marginal income tax rate, Medicare and Social Security taxes, and the phase out of exemptions.

In addition to higher business taxes, Obama says, "I'll require employers to provide all their workers with seven paid sick days a year." That sounds nice, if they're actually sick.

In "A Disability Epidemic Among a Railroad's Retirees," The New York Times recently reported on how a well-intentioned program at Long Island Railroad was turned into a crooked gravy train: "Virtually every career employee — as many as 97 percent in one recent year — applies for and gets disability soon after retirement, a computer analysis of federal records by The New York Times has found." Lion trainers have lower levels of "disability."

Those who cashed in with allegedly debilitating conditions included not only conductors and track workers but also the railroad's former lawyers and a full range of retired white-collar managers.

"A married couple, one from management and one from labor, are retired and drawing about $280,000 annually in combined disability and pension payments," reported The Times. "Since 2000, about a quarter of a billion dollars in federal disability has gone to former Long Island Railroad employees."

Similarly, the biggest result of Obama's paid leave mandate will most likely be rising levels of duplicity and falling levels of employment and job growth, with millions of government-mandated vacation days producing higher business costs, lower profits, higher consumer inflation and increased layoffs.

Obama's economic plan also includes a "pay or play" mandate that requires companies to either pay for health insurance for 100 percent of their full-time employees or pay 6 percent of their total payroll into a federally designed fund.

Small employers currently face an average cost of $7,600 per year for health insurance coverage for an employee with a family, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey. For a small business with thin margins that can afford to cover only 10 of its 50 employees, Obama's full-coverage mandate under the "play" option, at $7,600 per employee, comes with a job-killing price tag of $304,000 per year for the coverage of the other 40 employees.

All told, Obama's flawed economic plan may be a vote-getter, but it is a direct threat to employers and employees, especially in small business, the sector of the U.S. economy that currently creates nearly three-quarters of all net new jobs, produces 28 percent of the nation's exported goods and employs 51 percent of the private sector work force.

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/articles/2008/10/30/opinion/srv0000003922421.txt

Yeah, the folks who earn $250K will not be affected greatly. They'll just be paying all that back cover their employees.
For the 3rd and final time, Obama's plans are anti-small business. End of discussion.

 

[Solid Fro]

I wonder if it's still $250,000...

 

[Bones Brigade]

My belief is that you, Vasco, and many other Australian and European members of this forum have grown up with so many socialist government policies that you simply don't care anymore about your personal freedoms. Americans as a whole refuse to be the government's bitch, and even the dumbest of us will remember where the country came from and what it once stood for. I know I certainly won't sit back and say "well, there's nothing we can do about it now."

this may say a lot about you, but unfortunately I don't think you're right about other people. Look at how people tremble with fear at the mention of terrorism. They bend over and say "OK Government, protect us," and they don't care that it results in the loss of human rights. And there is a whole group of people who would rather we outlaw gay rights and in turn sacrifice their privacy and freedom to speak. Things like this go unchallenged, and some people seem to think that in a two party system, one will somehow be better than the other. Americans have no control over anything and they sit by idly, save one time every four years when they think they matter. Americans do sit back and say "there's nothing we can do," because there is no movement that I know of trying to overthrow the current government. No one is standing up to a system that has not worked, ever.

 

[Solid Fro]

I haven't lost any Human rights, have you? I lawl at the ACLU.

 

[Keef]

What shall we do about that Bones Brigade?

 

[Solid Fro]

We should force his face into a pile of poo.

 

[YSSMAN]

If we did indeed think "well, there's nothing we can do about it now." then I'm sure our election turnouts would be as low as the US.

Its terrible, isn't it? I can't remember what the turnout levels were for 2004 (I don't have my book handy). but it certainly was lower than it should have been. Thankfully the increased interest across the board this year should bump it up a bit, although I cannot recall what the predicted figures will be for participation. I'd be hoping for something close to 70%, but that may be overly optimistic.

===

I was checking out the RCP averages this afternoon, and a question popped into my head:

Why the hell is Nader polling higher than Bob Barr?

 

[Tornado]

Because Nader is a name people remember.

 

[Solid Fro]

Dogs for Change!

Or, maybe just Commie Dogs for the Motherland...

Nothing to see here, move along. Just Liberals in disguise.

 

[Zrow]

Ugh.

I can't wait till this is all done and over with. Christ.

 

[Solid Fro]

I want it to keep going! We are just scratching the surface on Obama's long list of gaffes. I love waking up each day and posting the newest one from Obama. :deep breath: Ah.