will Obama be a good President?
- Thread starter Dancing Fire
- Start date
- Status
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
Christopher Hitchens endorses Obama officially.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
My problems with the illusion are in the link! Specifically:
-Giving tax credits in the form of government handouts instead of lettng you keep your own money.
-The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year (Is this not income redistribution?).
-The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
-The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare.
On top of that, apparently a hundred of economists signed a letter opposing Obama's tax plan (including 5 nobel prize winners). I am taking this with a grain of salt because I know that Obama has had many economists endorse his tax plan as well. Hard to tell if politics is getting in the way of what they are predicting.
-Giving tax credits in the form of government handouts instead of lettng you keep your own money.
-The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year (Is this not income redistribution?).
-The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
-The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare.
On top of that, apparently a hundred of economists signed a letter opposing Obama's tax plan (including 5 nobel prize winners). I am taking this with a grain of salt because I know that Obama has had many economists endorse his tax plan as well. Hard to tell if politics is getting in the way of what they are predicting.
mrssalvo
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 19,132
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
E B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 9,491
SarahLovesJS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,206
Offtopic: Are the DNC and RNC threads gone?
E B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 9,491
Date: 10/13/2008 6:34:12 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS
Offtopic: Are the DNC and RNC threads gone?
Yeah. They got too heated and were deleted.
(That rhymes!)
Updated Political Discussion Thread
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Yep. They''re toast, apparently. We''re going to have to play nice out here in the real world. And to that end, I will post this article from Slate...
The Big Sort
There''s something there for everyone to contemplate.
The Big Sort
There''s something there for everyone to contemplate.
SarahLovesJS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,206
Sigh, oh well. But thanks for answering y''all!
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
swimmer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,516
Date: 10/13/2008 4:24:28 PM
Author: MoonWater
I thought the one issue would keep him away indefinitely. It''s about time Hitch!
Ick! Yes he is insanely smart, however you feel about "the world''s most famous atheist." But it was such a scathing "endorsement," not positive for anyone. I mean I''m not a fan of Palin, but I won''t even paste what he wrote about her. It was uncomfortable, like watching a teacher really ream a student. Nothing good from that.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
Ebree, I did see that and I did see the (potential) bias of 45% dems/10% reps/rest no answer.
Some other things to consider besides just that (if there is indeed a bias there) is that the study was taken before the bailout bill passed (it was posted on the site the day before it passed, but I''m sure the survey was taken even earlier than that) and both candidate''s economic plans have changed to reflect that. I''d be interested in seeing an updated chart with their "new" plans! Not saying McCain''s would be better, but that it would be interesting if it changed anyone''s opinion for Obama or for McCain.
Some other things to consider besides just that (if there is indeed a bias there) is that the study was taken before the bailout bill passed (it was posted on the site the day before it passed, but I''m sure the survey was taken even earlier than that) and both candidate''s economic plans have changed to reflect that. I''d be interested in seeing an updated chart with their "new" plans! Not saying McCain''s would be better, but that it would be interesting if it changed anyone''s opinion for Obama or for McCain.
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
You thought that was harsh? Have you seen him in person? LOLDate: 10/13/2008 6:58:06 PM
Author: swimmer
Date: 10/13/2008 4:24:28 PM
Author: MoonWater
I thought the one issue would keep him away indefinitely. It''s about time Hitch!
Ick! Yes he is insanely smart, however you feel about ''the world''s most famous atheist.'' But it was such a scathing ''endorsement,'' not positive for anyone. I mean I''m not a fan of Palin, but I won''t even paste what he wrote about her. It was uncomfortable, like watching a teacher really ream a student. Nothing good from that.
But seriously, he completely gave her a pass on religion. Had he not, I''m sure it would have been more brutal.
swimmer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,516
Date: 10/13/2008 5:37:23 PM
Author: mrssalvo
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
Only if he (and partner) makes more than $250.000.00 a year. I hear you about the small business ownership, I tell my mom to take it out month by month so it won''t hurt so much at the end of the year (my job so sweetly takes it out every month) but it seems like so much more when all one lump sum, right? Every year she says she will, and nope, never does.
iluvcarats
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,860
Date: 10/13/2008 5:37:23 PM
Author: mrssalvo
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
I hear you Mrs.S. Some weeks my husband puts in 40 hours in two days. He works really hard, and we already pay a ton of taxes. And we are going to miss that money (as will the economy) Take it from The Waltons and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. People who won''t miss a billion or too. But why this magic number of $250k? I don''t get it. If I thought that the money they were taking actually went to help people, well then it would be put to good use. But our government just wastes it and wastes it.
(enough about the bridge to nowhere. what about this war to no where?)
I''ve said before that I mostly agree with Obama, I just don''t want to pay more taxes. But he still has to pass his plan. So I guess they will be using our tax dollars to fight about it in congress. Our taxpayer dollars hard at work...
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
Obama: Four more years of Bush?
Just thought that was an interesting look at how Obama and Bush compare, though some of them I''d need to read into further.
Just thought that was an interesting look at how Obama and Bush compare, though some of them I''d need to read into further.
brazen_irish_hussy
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 2,044
I thought that was a rather stupid article to be honest. Most of her points were things no candidate for president could endorse differently like capital punishment and many others were things where McCain would still be closer to Bush. The was nothing in there about the economy, the war in Iraq, the Supreme Court, etc. That fact than ANY candidate from either side would be the same on a lot of those issues just for electability sake does not make them Bushlike
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
Well it did refer to the bailout package, which could be considered the economy...and capital punishment, which discussed the Supreme court decision about rapists getting the death penalty.
So are you saying McCain isn't Bushlike?
You know...I've always wondered what the opinion would be if candidates left their personal opinions out of things and just gave us generic answers.
How do you feel about the death penalty?
It doesn't matter, it's up to the states.
How do you feel about roe v. wade?
Don't ask me, I'm not a woman.
What is your religion?
That's irrelevant.
Etc.
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
A clear indication of Obama''s Socialist leanings. The remark he made about spreading the wealth around is downright frightening.
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Date: 10/13/2008 11:08:45 PM
Author: beebrisk
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
A clear indication of Obama''s Socialist leanings. The remark he made about spreading the wealth around is downright frightening.
What do you think about the Bush administration''s bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Wall Street, etc., beebrisk? Seems awfully...I don''t know...socialist to me!
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
Socialism ... or "Socialism"?
excerpt that *kinda* gives McCain more of a benefit of the doubt that *I* would:
McCain, a child of privilege who spent the late 1960s in a Vietnamese prison camp, may simply be unaware of the feelings and historical context he has evoked through his campaign’s rhetoric. When Sarah Palin accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists" and suggests that Obama hates his own country enough to wish it violence, the McCain campaign fuels age-old paranoia built around the conflation of black rights and the radical left. As for McCain himself, his attempts to tamp down the vitriol of his crowds suggest that he is somewhat confused by their response. He wants voters to dislike Obama, but he seems unaware of just what he has unleashed. However, by implicitly invoking the idea that Obama represents a socialist takeover of the United States, McCain is inviting what can only be a rational response from those who would die for their country: violence. What else is a patriot to do when freedom is threatened? Especially when their fears have been validated by no less authoritative a source than the Republican nominee for president of the United States?
John McCain is no George Wallace, and a direct comparison may not be what Lewis intended. Rather, Lewis was expressing concern that the McCain campaign’s rhetoric could lead some of their supporters to conclude that violence is the only rational response to an Obama victory. (This is essentially the position staked out by the Obama campaign, which both rejected the Wallace comparison and remained critical of the "hateful rhetoric" at McCain rallies.) A veteran of the 1968 civil-rights march with Dr. King across the Edmund Pettis Bridge, John Lewis has the kind of credibility on mob violence that John McCain has on torture.
We should listen to him very carefully.
excerpt that *kinda* gives McCain more of a benefit of the doubt that *I* would:
McCain, a child of privilege who spent the late 1960s in a Vietnamese prison camp, may simply be unaware of the feelings and historical context he has evoked through his campaign’s rhetoric. When Sarah Palin accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists" and suggests that Obama hates his own country enough to wish it violence, the McCain campaign fuels age-old paranoia built around the conflation of black rights and the radical left. As for McCain himself, his attempts to tamp down the vitriol of his crowds suggest that he is somewhat confused by their response. He wants voters to dislike Obama, but he seems unaware of just what he has unleashed. However, by implicitly invoking the idea that Obama represents a socialist takeover of the United States, McCain is inviting what can only be a rational response from those who would die for their country: violence. What else is a patriot to do when freedom is threatened? Especially when their fears have been validated by no less authoritative a source than the Republican nominee for president of the United States?
John McCain is no George Wallace, and a direct comparison may not be what Lewis intended. Rather, Lewis was expressing concern that the McCain campaign’s rhetoric could lead some of their supporters to conclude that violence is the only rational response to an Obama victory. (This is essentially the position staked out by the Obama campaign, which both rejected the Wallace comparison and remained critical of the "hateful rhetoric" at McCain rallies.) A veteran of the 1968 civil-rights march with Dr. King across the Edmund Pettis Bridge, John Lewis has the kind of credibility on mob violence that John McCain has on torture.
We should listen to him very carefully.
HollyS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,105
The Bush Administration bailout? Just ''cause the utter nonsense that was ''loans to the unloanable'' and the real estate speculation, and the Wall Street corruption came to a head before the upcoming election? This problem began in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, and was compounded by the Clinton administration. It just took 30 years for it to fester into the ugly situation it has become. It would be so nice if some of you who apparenty were not around (or paying attention) during other administrations would at least read some history. History, not op/ed pieces. Not internet soapboxes. History. Please.Date: 10/13/2008 11:36:13 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 10/13/2008 11:08:45 PM
Author: beebrisk
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
A clear indication of Obama''s Socialist leanings. The remark he made about spreading the wealth around is downright frightening.
What do you think about the Bush administration''s bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Wall Street, etc., beebrisk? Seems awfully...I don''t know...socialist to me!
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
I'm somewhat confused. Perhaps some of you can help be unconfused. That probably isn't a proper word, but :::shrugs:::::
I hear that some people are very worried because Obama's tax plan that would allow average middle income wage earners, who pay into the tax system through mandatory payroll deductions, to receive a rebate of some of that money. This is good or bad? Some of you think that is a good thing. I think it is a good thing. Us middle income wage earners are paying far more than the upper weathly tax bracket. That is inherently unfair to me and I don't care how you slice or dice it. "Oh, those wealthy people are the only ones creating jobs and so they deserve to keep a larger share of their earnings than the other 90% of working Americans" I don't agree. If I have to pay 35%, so should the people making 3 or 150 times more than me.
Also, when Palin was able to increase the state revenue by taxing the oil companies, she was lauded for her ability to distribute those profits back into the hands of every citizen in her state. That is also a "redistribution of wealth".
What am I missing here?
I hear that some people are very worried because Obama's tax plan that would allow average middle income wage earners, who pay into the tax system through mandatory payroll deductions, to receive a rebate of some of that money. This is good or bad? Some of you think that is a good thing. I think it is a good thing. Us middle income wage earners are paying far more than the upper weathly tax bracket. That is inherently unfair to me and I don't care how you slice or dice it. "Oh, those wealthy people are the only ones creating jobs and so they deserve to keep a larger share of their earnings than the other 90% of working Americans" I don't agree. If I have to pay 35%, so should the people making 3 or 150 times more than me.
Also, when Palin was able to increase the state revenue by taxing the oil companies, she was lauded for her ability to distribute those profits back into the hands of every citizen in her state. That is also a "redistribution of wealth".
What am I missing here?
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Date: 10/14/2008 12:44:40 AM
Author: HollyS
Date: 10/13/2008 11:36:13 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 10/13/2008 11:08:45 PM
Author: beebrisk
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see's nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I'm all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov't decides to take even more of my husband's (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov't already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
A clear indication of Obama's Socialist leanings. The remark he made about spreading the wealth around is downright frightening.
What do you think about the Bush administration's bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Wall Street, etc., beebrisk? Seems awfully...I don't know...socialist to me!
The Bush Administration bailout? Just 'cause the utter nonsense that was 'loans to the unloanable' and the real estate speculation, and the Wall Street corruption came to a head before the upcoming election? This problem began in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, and was compounded by the Clinton administration. It just took 30 years for it to fester into the ugly situation it has become. It would be so nice if some of you who apparenty were not around (or paying attention) during other administrations would at least read some history. History, not op/ed pieces. Not internet soapboxes. History. Please.
Funny, Holly, the only information regarding your history lesson for me comes from extremely conservative blogs who essentially blame the current economic crisis on minority homeowners. The Community Reinvestment Act applied to depository banks only, and many of the worst offenders in the subprime mortgage business were not banks and were not regulated by the Federal Reserve, so they were not forced to comply with the CRA. But thanks anyways for the lesson given from your very own internet soapbox!
Anna0499
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,638
So, miraclesrule, are you in favor of a flat tax? Or do you think the high-income bracket should pay more percentage-wise and in actuality? (Not trying to argue AT ALL, just getting an idea of what you think is ideal.) I read an earlier post of yours about a consumption tax (I think it was yours?) and I don't think enough people pay attention to the idea of it - Huckabee had a big consumption tax advocate/author on his show a couple of weeks ago, I was very interested in learning more about it and have been slowly doing my research. If that wasn't your post, just kindly disregard my questions!
TO ME, the difference between Palin and Obama's "redistributions" are that Palin was taking profits that the oil companies earned from selling oil to consumers, as in, they were getting some of their OWN money back (it is arguable whether these profits should've been distributed to ALL citizens, though). Obama's redistribution to people who do not pay taxes is simply taking money from a more financially successful group of people and giving it to a less financially successful group that had nothing to do with the former group's income/success, and many of whom don't contribute taxes to society to begin with. I don't have a problem with responsible government assistance for low-income individuals or even tax creditsfor those that pay them, but I wish Obama would stop calling it a "tax credit" for those who don't pay taxes and just call it what it is.
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
I see your point Sarah, but it seems to be semantics. We have historically had the earned income credit that is essentially the same thing. When your earnings don''t meet a certain threshold, one gets to benefit by qualifying for a "credit" that provides them the full refund of payroll taxes that they have paid into the system plus an additional credit, especially for those with families. Of course, one has to be working poor to qualify, but it is essentially a fair redistribution.
I do believe in a consumption tax. It is less burdensome and captures even those that would implement and benefit laws with loopholes so that the savvy weathly citizens can exploit the loopholes to their advantage so that they essentially get away with paying little to no tax at all. I don''t think that is fair. A consumption tax would never allow this to occur, which is why I believe it is so contested among the group of people who benefit from the highly complicated and unfair taxation that we see today. I don''t think there is a person among us to would like to keep more of their hard earned income to be used or saved for their own benefit. However, the system is anyting but fair. A consumption tax would essentially make it less likely to manipulate the tax code and shelter income as the tax would come for the accumulation of purchased goods. It stand to reason that those who earn more, usualy spend more. Even those who make their money illegally, such as drug money or laundered money wouldn''t have the ability to avoid paying taxes on the number of homes, cars, bling, and excessive consumption of goods, whereas those who have little discretionary income would naturally pay less in taxes as they usually don''t have the ability to purchase endless large ticket items.
I thnk it is a win win, but because it is so simple, it is unlikely to gain momentum, because the system is working for the ones with the largest income and capital gains at the expense of those who have very little.
I have long been a proponent of a consumption tax and am glad that folks like Huckabee would further explore the idea with other proponents of the system.
I do believe in a consumption tax. It is less burdensome and captures even those that would implement and benefit laws with loopholes so that the savvy weathly citizens can exploit the loopholes to their advantage so that they essentially get away with paying little to no tax at all. I don''t think that is fair. A consumption tax would never allow this to occur, which is why I believe it is so contested among the group of people who benefit from the highly complicated and unfair taxation that we see today. I don''t think there is a person among us to would like to keep more of their hard earned income to be used or saved for their own benefit. However, the system is anyting but fair. A consumption tax would essentially make it less likely to manipulate the tax code and shelter income as the tax would come for the accumulation of purchased goods. It stand to reason that those who earn more, usualy spend more. Even those who make their money illegally, such as drug money or laundered money wouldn''t have the ability to avoid paying taxes on the number of homes, cars, bling, and excessive consumption of goods, whereas those who have little discretionary income would naturally pay less in taxes as they usually don''t have the ability to purchase endless large ticket items.
I thnk it is a win win, but because it is so simple, it is unlikely to gain momentum, because the system is working for the ones with the largest income and capital gains at the expense of those who have very little.
I have long been a proponent of a consumption tax and am glad that folks like Huckabee would further explore the idea with other proponents of the system.
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
Date: 10/14/2008 12:44:40 AM
Author: HollyS
Date: 10/13/2008 11:36:13 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 10/13/2008 11:08:45 PM
Author: beebrisk
I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more
A clear indication of Obama''s Socialist leanings. The remark he made about spreading the wealth around is downright frightening.
What do you think about the Bush administration''s bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Wall Street, etc., beebrisk? Seems awfully...I don''t know...socialist to me!
The Bush Administration bailout? Just ''cause the utter nonsense that was ''loans to the unloanable'' and the real estate speculation, and the Wall Street corruption came to a head before the upcoming election? This problem began in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, and was compounded by the Clinton administration. It just took 30 years for it to fester into the ugly situation it has become. It would be so nice if some of you who apparenty were not around (or paying attention) during other administrations would at least read some history. History, not op/ed pieces. Not internet soapboxes. History. Please.
Once again Holly S...A voice of reason.
To Thing2: Read about the Glass-Stiegel Act. Read about Clinton''s involvement. Read about Barney Franks and Chis Dodd and the liberal''s push to make loans available to those who previously couldn''t afford them. Nice liberal idea to promote home ownership to those who were always ineligible. Nice, but wholly irresponsible. Another blundered attempt by the libs to patronize and pander to their least responsible constituents.
That''s the real history. Just as Obama spoke yesterday of redistributing the wealth. Any responsible, freedom-loving American should have shaken in their boots over that statement.
- Status
300x240.png)