We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
McCain vs. Obama; Round 3! Fight!
Topic Started: Oct 15 2008, 08:05 PM (4,201 Views)
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
Hardly. You've been doing it for days, (weeks?) re Obama. :)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Das
Member Avatar
Smells of rich mahogany
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Stop with the personal attacks before I attack your warn notes, personally.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
==Kyuubi==
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lone Stranger
Oct 29 2008, 11:34 PM
==Kyuubi==, that's EXACTLY what I have been trying to say this ENTIRE time! The rich don't want to be taxed anymore. Why would they? They give us jobs. Without them and their money, we have no jobs and therefore no economy. So why are we taxing them even more?
There are certain aspects which I agree with the liberal thinking but in the nut shell I don't want to be indoctrinated into thinking I should be given little more than an existence based on reliance and dependence. If anyone has grudges against CEO's and their big "failure rewards" then by all means I think when they try to reward themselves for failure I think they should be penalized, as per penalizing an entire tax bracket however... that's where my agreements diverge to more conservative philosophies.

I'd be cautious about the socialist labeling though, McCain did support the bailout which has some affinity to the government intervention ideals that get associated with socialism. I wouldn't call the candidates par say socialist either, but I certainly would call some of their policies that, and for me personally I'd much rather keep the mixed economy leaning farther away from pure socialism than leaning closer to it. Venezuela is a good example of letting the whole socialist thing get out of control, and it's ruining their economy, for one particularly in their oil industry, not to mention the leader himself isn't the kind of person I'd want to entrust with my financials and healthcare.

European countries are mixed economies which lean closer to socialist economics but they themselves aren't purely socialist and that in itself is not what concerns me for the record... The socialist ideals that evolved European economics have incorporated capitalism into their market systems. There are better ways to explain the European economic systems, but I'm not the person to look at for that one
Edited by ==Kyuubi==, Oct 30 2008, 04:39 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
John McCain in 2000 was, by Lone's standards posted, a socialist. Like in many other areas, that John McCain is now gone. Or, will he be back? Who knows? Proof:


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
==Kyuubi==
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Gwennie
Oct 30 2008, 10:03 PM
John McCain in 2000 was, by Lone's standards posted, a socialist. Like in many other areas, that John McCain is now gone. Or, will he be back? Who knows? Proof:


He recently argued that his policies were a product of economic conditions at the time, back then er were not in the recession we have now. Who's to say if he regresses back to that policy... I'll vote third party 4 years from now if that happens :)

Meanwhile Obama can't decide what threshold qualifies as wealthy. He went from 250,000 salary to 200,000, and Biden gave a figure of 150,000.... :blink:

I get the impression people with the same conservative viewpoint as me are screwed trying to choose between an imperfect candidate that they lean for and a candidate that they definitely oppose :P

Suffice it to say what concerns me even more than which candidate wins the election is having a democratic congress with the magic number 60... meaning they can essentially pass whatever they want and the policies will be immune to filibusters... give me a democratic president any day but please keep the checks and balances...
Edited by ==Kyuubi==, Oct 30 2008, 11:39 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Das
Member Avatar
Smells of rich mahogany
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
==Kyuubi==
Oct 30 2008, 11:32 PM
Suffice it to say what concerns me even more than which candidate wins the election is having a democratic congress with the magic number 60... meaning they can essentially pass whatever they want and the policies will be immune to filibusters... give me a democratic president any day but please keep the checks and balances...
Just because you're democrat doesn't mean you're always going to vote with the majority of democrats. It's also not as though they're going to put up a bill to that you have to sacrifice your first born or something ridiculous like that.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
Obama has not jumped around on tax cuts. He has consistently said that no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. During his infomercial, he said that there would be tax cuts for every family making less than $200,000 a year. I don't see that as a contradiction at all. I take it to mean that those making between $200,000 and $250,000 will see their taxes stay essentially the same. I think Joe Biden inserted foot-in-mouth. i.e., was wrong. He's been know to gaffe on his speaking points before. LOL

I want to know, why, though, it's okay for McCain to switch his thoughts on how to tax the super wealthy DURING a recession to GIVE them more tax breaks? How will that help us get out of a recession? And it's funny; it's ok for McCain to flip flop on issues, but not his opponent.

And as far as control of the Congress: the Republican party had a nice, long run on THAT between 1994 and 2006. Time for "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" for a while. :)

Oh, and for the record, I HAVE been both a registered Democrat, and a registered Republican. I've voted for both. I've NEVER been a "vote the party line" person. EVER. I don't agree with all sides of the Democratic party, and I didn't agree with all sides of the Republican party when I was registered with them. I've voted more 3rd party "protest" presidential candidates than anything else. In fact, Gore was the first time EVER I voted main party for president. Damned hanging chads! LOL
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Das
Member Avatar
Smells of rich mahogany
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Voting for a third party is like throwing your vote away. There's no way they'll ever win and it's not like the candidates will say to themselves, "Wow, John Nobody voted for Ron Paul in protest of me. I'm going to change my ways now."
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
I know. But I simply refused to vote for either idiot all those other elections. Sometimes one just has to draw a moral line in the sand, even if it's futile. Had it been Hillary vs. McCain, I likely would've done it again this time.
Edited by Gwennie, Oct 31 2008, 02:23 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
==Kyuubi==
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Gwennie
Oct 31 2008, 01:46 AM
Obama has not jumped around on tax cuts. He has consistently said that no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. During his infomercial, he said that there would be tax cuts for every family making less than $200,000 a year. I don't see that as a contradiction at all. I take it to mean that those making between $200,000 and $250,000 will see their taxes stay essentially the same. I think Joe Biden inserted foot-in-mouth. i.e., was wrong. He's been know to gaffe on his speaking points before. LOL

I have to admit that Biden's statement was probably a gaffe, which... coming from him wouldn't be anything new :P
As for Obama changing the figures, given the misleading figures coming between Obama and McCain about the tax plans who all know which figures we can trust... The statements in themselves probably aren't contradictory in technicality since by definition people who make less than 200,000, or 150,000 are all below 250,000. They would theoretically still benefit from Obama's plan, although not everyone in the lower tax brackets would benefit, as I've highlighted already.

Quote:
 
I want to know, why, though, it's okay for McCain to switch his thoughts on how to tax the super wealthy DURING a recession to GIVE them more tax breaks?


The claims regarding tax breaks for "big oil," and the super wealthy spewing out from the Obama campaign is misleading at best. McCain's tax plan involves lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% and would involve all companies, regardless of whether they produce "cookies or oil", to paraphrase the tax foundation's article. To begin with people pay all taxes even if a company legally remits the check to the government.

Quote:
 
And it's funny; it's ok for McCain to flip flop on issues, but not his opponent.

No... he's my last choice for a republican candidate for that very reason, and even at that some of his policies still amount to redistribution along the base line (see the linked article above). Conversely he's about the only other candidate running right now that is not forwarding Obama's tax plan that has a serious chance at winning this term. I'm more opposed to the methods with which Obama's chosen to go about his income redistribution than I am with the idea itself, but you didn't read the article I posted on the previous page about some of the effects his plan could have did you?

"In Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 152, "The Effect of the Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans on Flow-Through Businesses," Tax Foundation Vice President for Economic Policy Robert Carroll, Ph.D., explains that because most small businesses are not required to pay the corporate income tax, small business income instead "flows through" to the owners who report it on their individual income tax returns. Carroll explains that with 35 percent of business taxes paid in this manner by the owners of "flow-through" businesses—sole proprietorships, farm proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations—it is important to analyze how tax increases affect the entrepreneurial sector.

Quote:
 
And as far as control of the Congress: the Republican party had a nice, long run on THAT between 1994 and 2006. Time for "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" for a while. :)

Gaining a majority gap where the majority party out numbers the minority by 60 votes in the house is a luxury no president has enjoyed since the days of the Carter administration 30 years ago however. In this presidential election, having the democratic party attaining that magic number 60 would be as valuable as having a democrat in the White House even if McCain won the election.

Quote:
 
Oh, and for the record, I HAVE been both a registered Democrat, and a registered Republican. I've voted for both. I've NEVER been a "vote the party line" person. EVER. I don't agree with all sides of the Democratic party, and I didn't agree with all sides of the Republican party when I was registered with them. I've voted more 3rd party "protest" presidential candidates than anything else. In fact, Gore was the first time EVER I voted main party for president. Damned hanging chads! LOL


Vote for who you want based on policies that you believe will benefit the country over cosmetic things such as party affiliation, race, or otherwise. I can babble all I want about why I disagree with your position but you still have my respect for voting based on your values and not on some kind of loyalty ;)


das
 
Voting for a third party is like throwing your vote away. There's no way they'll ever win and it's not like the candidates will say to themselves, "Wow, John Nobody voted for Ron Paul in protest of me. I'm going to change my ways now."

And this very philosophy is the reason why this country remains as a two party system. I think the philosophy of "every vote counts" applies to every running party that actively participates in the presidential bid. This stands regardless of whether they have any real chance of winning an election or not.
Edited by ==Kyuubi==, Nov 1 2008, 11:16 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
(yes, I did read it. But I discount the effect because you can rightfully say even tax rates for large corporations trickle down to us...via increased cost of goods. ;) )

Every vote counts-one can argue not necessarily true in states that are consistently red or blue...but then again, it's like the ocean being made up of trillions of single drops. :)

And unless there is some last minute, huge Republican gaff, I seriously doubt the Dems will get that magic number of 60. It might be close, but I'm pretty sure they'll fall just shy. :)
Edited by Gwennie, Nov 1 2008, 02:15 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dennis
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gwennie
Oct 31 2008, 01:46 AM
I want to know, why, though, it's okay for McCain to switch his thoughts on how to tax the super wealthy DURING a recession to GIVE them more tax breaks? How will that help us get out of a recession?
It's common sense. The government is incapable of ending the recession. That's pretty clear. The only role government has in economic prosperity is blocking it. Companies have a certain amount of costs. Labor, materials, legal fees, taxes. When taxes go up, profits go down. When a business is losing money, they have to cut back. When they cut back on materials, they produce less. That means there's less for people to buy, and therefore the company makes less money. When the company makes less money, the government collects less taxes. When a company cuts back on labor, they lay people off, and former employees no longer pay taxes. The government makes less money. The Bush tax cuts led to huge increases in government revenue. They did so because when people have more money, they spend more and the economy grows. When the economy grows, people have more money, and the government raises more revenue.

You can say that in theory raising taxes leads to higher revenue, all things being equal. That's a false argument, however, because higher taxes leads to less prosperity. Liberals love to complain about trickle-down economics, but it's tried and true. The Reagan tax cuts led to the longest period of peacetime economic growth in history. The Bush tax cuts led to large economic growth dampened only by the burst of the housing bubble. The government's role isn't to play Robin Hood, robbing the rich to give to the poor. The government's role is to facilitate the free market, allow people to grow the economy based on their own merits. Thomas Jefferson said "A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Barack Obama claims to be lowering taxes on everyone below his $250,000 threshold. The problem is, 40% of Americans pay no income tax. Paradox? Not at all. You see, Barack Obama's idea of a tax cut isn't a tax cut. If you're unfortunate enough to pay taxes under his administration, he will take your money, and cut the rest of us a check. Does this make Joe Biden the Little John to Obama's Robin Hood? Unfortunately, even in the face of record tax increases on rich Americans, Obama will still not raise enough income to give 95% of Americans free money. So not only is his so called "tax cut" not a tax cut, it's not even physically possible without higher deficit spending, which, incidentally, he has promised to reduce.

If Benjamin Franklin were alive today, if he could see the sort of men we're about to elect to lead our nation, he would have mourned the end of our democracy. He said that "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
TheLetterQ
Member Avatar
I want to break free from your lies/ your so self-satisfied/ I don't need you
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
So then certainly you disagree with business owners giving money to and voting for Republican candidates because its in their economic interest? It goes both ways.

Your assuming that businesses can just "produce less" without losing money. If they decide to cut wages, buy less, fire people, etc., they will only be shooting themselves in the foot because they will be paying higher taxes AND making lower profits.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jeremy
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dennis
Nov 2 2008, 03:33 PM
Barack Obama claims to be lowering taxes on everyone below his $250,000 threshold. The problem is, 40% of Americans pay no income tax. Paradox? Not at all. You see, Barack Obama's idea of a tax cut isn't a tax cut. If you're unfortunate enough to pay taxes under his administration, he will take your money, and cut the rest of us a check. Does this make Joe Biden the Little John to Obama's Robin Hood? Unfortunately, even in the face of record tax increases on rich Americans, Obama will still not raise enough income to give 95% of Americans free money. So not only is his so called "tax cut" not a tax cut, it's not even physically possible without higher deficit spending, which, incidentally, he has promised to reduce.
Jeremy
 
"But Jeremy, McCain says that 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes! Tax credits for these people is taking money straight from the rich and giving it to the poor! That's socialist!"

Yes, it would be, if you didn't count the fact that these people still pay taxes. In case you all forgot, there are still sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, other state-level taxes, etc, etc. These people are paying taxes and they would not just be getting a free ride off the rich.


Just wanted to quote that, since it keeps being brought up.

Edit: While I'm here ...

Dennis
 
The Reagan tax cuts led to the longest period of peacetime economic growth in history.

You want to know why? Because before Reagan's Administration, the highest tax bracket was paying 70% of their income back in income taxes. You can't compare then to now. It's like comparing apples to oranges. There's almost a 40% difference in tax rates between then and now. Reagan's administration lowered taxes by 20% for the highest bracket within his first term in office. That's nothing to scoff at. You can't keep giving these people breaks. Obama's not proposing a return to 70% income tax for the extremely wealthy. That would be insane. He's just saying that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were too much. And I agree. The tax cuts are going to the wrong people, now that the rich have had their taxes slashed over 60% since World War II.
Edited by Jeremy, Nov 2 2008, 04:53 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gwennie
Member Avatar
Older than I look
[ *  *  * ]
And Obama's plans aren't mentioning cutting checks to people. It's money that will be used to help fund programs that desperately need funding.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7