87 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

Saw the video on Fox News this morning of Barack Obama speaking to some guy without his teleprompter.

Isn't it true that you are going to raise taxes?
Yes, I believe we need to spread the wealth around.

Edited by Savage, 13 October 2008 - 01:24 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Let me just refer you to Neal's Nuze.

http://boortz.com/nuze/

Monday, October 13, 2008

DEMOCRATS PLANNING ON A WIN ...

And who can blame them, considering the intelligence of the American voter.

As soon as the Move-On Democrat Party gets their Democrat president-elect they'll be off to the races ... first up, a new wealth redistribution bill, sometimes called a stimulus bill. It's a very simple plan. They take money away from people who don't support them and give it to people who do.

You did hear The Chosen One over the weekend ... I hope. Some plumber caught him in public without his teleprompter and started asking him some pointed questions about his tax plans. The Democrat/Socialist candidate told the plumber dude that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Well excuse the ever-loving horsesqueeze out of me, but that wealth isn't the government's to "spread around" as Barack puts it. The wealth belongs to the people who earned it, and the government can't spread it around without first seizing it. Of course seizing that wealth from the evil high-achievers is something that appeals to a huge number of voters in this country.

You've heard people say that politicians derive power through the current tax code by creating winners and losers. This is what Obama has been proposing all along with his "reduce taxes on 95% of Americans" lie. What Obama really proposes to do is to create winners of the middle class by making losers of the high-achievers ... taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

If Pelosi calls the congress back into session after an Obama win it's BOHICA time. Pelosi says that the special session would require what she says "harsh measures." Harsh for whom? For people who didn't vote for Obama, I suspect.

Here's something else you need to know. Remember the "drill here, drill now" bit? Democrats got worried. They thought that their refusal to exploit our own domestic oil reserves might cost them votes, so they rushed through a bill to open up some of our offshore sites and other federal lands to drilling. Now Pelosi's dog-washer Steny Hoyer is saying that as soon as Obama is elected they're going to re-institute the drilling ban. And just what is the message here? We'll promise you anything to get your vote, and then as soon as the election is over we'll go right back to doing what we were doing. In other words ... screw you suckers!

RACISM, RACISM, RACISM!

Throughout this campaign, we have heard the steady cries of racism ... people say that the only reason the most liberal Senator ever to run for president "a leftist Senator with a penchant for Marxist ideology" could possibly lose this election is because he is black and people are racist. As we get closer to the election, these stories have exploded into the media.

Let's go down the list of the few we got just over the weekend!

We have foreign leaders (technically a former leader) like Fidel Castro saying that the only reason million of people will not vote for Barack Obama is because of "profound racism in the United States."

In South Carolina, we have vandals spray painting "Republican means slavery" on the door of the GOP campaign headquarters. Because, to the mind of an ignorant voter with a racial chip on his shoulder, being a Republican automatically makes you a racist because you don't want Barack Obama to be president. Please remember the idiot Whoppi Goldberg when McCain appeared on The View. She asked McCain if he were elected would she become a slave again.

Here's Time Magazine proclaiming that the John McCain and Sarah Palin are using Obama's race to make him appear "anti-American." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his view of this country, could it?

Then we have Frank Rich in the New York Times over the weekend. Frank Rich says, "From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes." So there you have it. Not surprising that The New York Times publishes a column proclaiming that it is the Republicans who are playing the race card, and if Obama loses, it is because Republicans have stirred the racist pot.

Remember also other charges of racism in this campaign:

The use of the word "skinny" in referring to Obama is racist.
Using the words "community organizer" is racist.
Saying Obama "is an ultra-leftist" doesn't see America the same way a conservative would is racist.
Using his middle name is racist.
Just remember my friends: This is only the beginning. When Obama becomes our (czar) President any utterance of disapproval with any proposal he floats before the congress will, of course, be racist. It is going to be a fun four years.

Before we move on, I want to point you to one other part of this column by Frank Rich. He says, "Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them ..." I ask you this, how on earth are you expecting your president to save you? I've said this many times ... these federal elections should not be as important as we have allowed them to become. People should not vote for the person who they think will go to Washington and solve their problems! The problems that you should be voting on should be those in your local community, maybe even your state. But this notion that you are electing a president so he can go to Washington and "rescue" you is absurd.

AND THEN THERE WAS THIS FROM JOHN LEWIS ...

Over the weekend we heard from Georgia Congressman John Lewis. He says that the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign reminds him of the 1960s when Governor George Wallace fostered a hateful atmosphere in Alabama. Lewis says that John McCain and Sarah Palin are "sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Then the back peddling begins ... later on Saturday night, Lewis tried to say that he did not intend to compare McCain-Palin to George Wallace. Like hell and you know it. That's exactly what he wanted to do. Because any time that you can make Barack Obama appear to be the victim of his race, that makes Republicans, John McCain, Sarah Palin racists.

This is standard fare for John Lewis. I love the guy, really do. He's my congressman. But the fact is he is not exactly the brightest star in the firmament. He is a civil rights icon .. and his sole frame of reference on America, on the World, on economics, on social policy ... on virtually everything ... is race based. A few years ago there was a relatively minor local race in the Atlanta area where a black candidate happened to be running against a white person. John Lewis actually taped (along with Atlanta's mayor Shirley Franklin and former UN Ambassador Andrew Young) a radio commercial which said that if the white guy won blacks would once again be attacked with water hoses and police dogs. Mindlessly moronic .. plainly stupid .. but sadly these things come out of the mouth of John Lewis all-to-often. He gets a pass in these parts though because of his courageous civil rights history.

SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE POLLS

For all this talk about how racism is going to ruin this election for Barack Obama, Gallup has conducted some polls about how race is affecting people's vote. The data shows that, if anything, race could have a positive impact on Barack Obama's campaign. That's because voters are more like to vote for Barack Obama because he is black than to vote against him because he is black.

Here are some quick stats: 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of his race, but 9% say they are more like to vote for Obama because of his race. So what about the other 85% of people? They don't care.

MCCAIN FINALLY HITS ON OBAMA AND ACORN

Too little too late? You betcha. But the McCain campaign is finally trying to hit on Barack Obama's relationship with this corrupt, voter fraud organization ACORN. On Friday, McCain's campaign released a memo saying that Obama's affiliations with ACORN "raise serious questions about his judgment and ability to lead this nation." We know, we know ... this is a racist statement because Republicans are referring to Obama's days as community organizer. The McCain campaign has also posted a video which points to the connections between ACORN and the current mortgage crisis the fact that ACORN, with the blessing of our own government, bullied banks into giving loans to people who they know could not pay for them. Question ... where was all of this information in the last debate? Why has John McCain waited until now to make these connections?

Naturally, the Obama campaign responds with my favorite line ... these attacks from the McCain campaign attempt to "'turn the page from the issues that matter to American families." So there you go. The people don't want to talk about this, they want to talk about the economy! Hey, Barack, how about explaining the fact that an organization you worked for and have hired to get out the vote for your campaign is partly responsible for the current economy, thanks to the mortgage meltdown. Here's a picture of Our Savior at an ACORN meeting! Look at the picture and remember that some Obama mouthpieces say that he wasn't involved with ACORN. Yeah ... we're buying that.

Oh and the other response from Democrats ... the only reason the McCain campaign is hitting on ACORN is because McCain and Republicans are "hostile to the group's political agenda." Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says, "They're scared of too many poor people preparing to vote this year." So now the McCain campaign is engaged in class warfare and the only reason they are attacking ACORN is because they don't want poor people to vote. That is the logic of a Democrat.

OH AND BY THE WAY

Speaking of Barack Obama and ACORN, take a look at this little video from December 2007 where Obama says that ACORN and other community organizations are going to be shaping policies for his presidency. Remember that Obama is now denying any past affiliations with ACORN.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

After Barack Obama is elected, the Democrats in Washington are already planning on passing a $150 billion bill to extend jobless benefits, food stamps and possibly offer tax rebates (paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil).

Investor's Business Daily says that the markets have dropped so much because of one reason ... the prospect of having a Marxist in the White House.

read more ...

Edited by Savage, 13 October 2008 - 01:24 PM.

[Zenob]

You'll notice that the closer the election gets and the greater the realization that not only are we witnessing the end of the republicans hold on Washington but the end of their entire conservative movement, the far right becomes more and more shrill and hysterical. Seeing the end approaching is breaking their minds.

Somebody pass the popcorn. I'm loving this.

[Iam Empathy]

Equality is what we should be striving for as humans. This sort of hyper-capitalistic rhetoric is the sort of thing that leads to such huge gaps between rich and poor not just in third world countries, but also right here in the United States of America.

[Futurist1000]

Equality is what we should be striving for as humans. This sort of hyper-capitalistic rhetoric is the sort of thing that leads to such huge gaps between rich and poor not just in third world countries, but also right here in the United States of America.

Your absolutely right. Basically the United Nations should tax the top 10% of the world's population who are making 25,400 dollars or greater at 39.6 percent. Then that wealth could be funneled into helping the whole poor population of the world. Those rich fat cats making $25,400 don't need 39.6 percent of their money. That's just an obscene amount of wealth that isn't necessary.

Global Rich List.

Percentage of world population____Percentage of world income_____Yearly individual income
Bottom 10 percent______________________ 0.8_________________________$400
Bottom 20 percent_______________________2.0_________________________$500
Bottom 50 percent_______________________8.5_________________________$850
Bottom 75 percent_______________________22.3________________________$1,487
Bottom 85 percent_______________________37.7________________________$2,182
Top 10 percent__________________________50.8________________________$25,400
Top 5 percent___________________________33.7________________________$33,700
Top 1 percent____________________________9.5________________________$47,500

Edited by hrc579, 13 October 2008 - 10:54 PM.

[Iam Empathy]

Equality is what we should be striving for as humans. This sort of hyper-capitalistic rhetoric is the sort of thing that leads to such huge gaps between rich and poor not just in third world countries, but also right here in the United States of America.

So basically the United Nations

I think that you quoted the wrong person. I never said anything regarding the United Nations. What we need is a financial system that does not have debt "built-in" to it. We need real money backed by real value as opposed to fiat paper / plastic reserve notes. This in the long-run would more than likely lead to the world's freedom from class warfare.

Although, neither of the major candidates support these sort of fundamental changes. Ron Paul is really a wise guy when it comes from this. I strongly feel like Barack Obama would be far more inclined to listen to other points-of-view.

We need to look at things from a domestic perspective. We're always trying to be the dominant empire in the world mainly for the benefit of a few elites. The way to go would be to shift the focus back to our own currency / debt problems. This however would more than likely need a revolution of some sorts, because of course the status quo are not so inclined to give up their money and power so easily.

[eternaltraveler]

Equality is what we should be striving for as humans. This sort of hyper-capitalistic rhetoric is the sort of thing that leads to such huge gaps between rich and poor not just in third world countries, but also right here in the United States of America.

Your absolutely right. Basically the United Nations should tax the top 10% of the world's population who are making 25,400 dollars or greater at 39.6 percent. Then that wealth could be funneled into helping the whole poor population of the world. Those rich fat cats making $25,400 don't need 39.6 percent of their money. That's just an obscene amount of wealth that isn't necessary.

Global Rich List.

Percentage of world population____Percentage of world income_____Yearly individual income
Bottom 10 percent______________________ 0.8_________________________$400
Bottom 20 percent_______________________2.0_________________________$500
Bottom 50 percent_______________________8.5_________________________$850
Bottom 75 percent_______________________22.3________________________$1,487
Bottom 85 percent_______________________37.7________________________$2,182
Top 10 percent__________________________50.8________________________$25,400
Top 5 percent___________________________33.7________________________$33,700
Top 1 percent____________________________9.5________________________$47,500

i'm glad you brought this up. You are absolutely right. This ultra-capitalistic nonsense has got to stop. But I really think the top 10% can stomach more than a 39.6% tax rate. I mean do you realize that the top 10% make 30 times more than the bottom 50%? How can we stand for this? Even if those fat cats are are taxed at 66% they will still have 10 times as much money as most everyone else. That is more than enough incentive for them to continue to work hard. It's only fair.

[Iam Empathy]

[RighteousReason]

my god. I'm done here.

[RighteousReason]

you may think its ok to steal from high achievers... but you just wait until the day they refuse to be robbed anymore.

[Zenob]

you may think its ok to steal from high achievers... but you just wait until the day they refuse to be robbed anymore.

I'm still waiting for the day when someone explains to me why when 50% of rich corporations and multi-nationals don't pay ANY income tax the right wingers spend all their time crying about how the rich people are getting robbed. They REALLY confuse me when after making this claim they turn around and make the claim that POOR people caused the economic meltdown. It's almost as if they've been programmed with carefully worded talking points and canned ideological responses to questions. Oh wait...

[Iam Empathy]

It's always ironic and just a tad bit bizarre when I see on T.V about some poor or middle class folks who are supporting McCain. When clearly it's Barack Obama's policies which will provide a greater benefit for the poor and middle classes. It just goes to show the 'genius' of the McCain campaign (mainly staffed with lobbyists) into manipulation of the American people. Plus, the eagerness of 2000 and 2004 Republicans to bring out their flag waving side.

There is nothing endemically patriotic about waving a flag. Although, it seems like that's what the sham of a slogan "Country First" is trying to recreate in this campaign.

I recall back in 2003 right before and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. When us so-called "liberals" were warning what a mistake invading Iraq would be. It was the "red states" who looked at the progressives as being a bunch of nut jobs for being for the republic of the U.S and peace. Now the tables have turned. It feels like it's our turn to show that we were in fact right about Iraq, health care, and other issues all the time. Not to sound pompous. I'm just absolutely amazed to see the transition of the U.S over the last three years. And now the hard realities that we face, in particular because of the Bush administration's policies, are being felt throughout the nation. Which is why practically every candidate in every election race has copied Barack Obama's message of change. Every politician right now is biding for change.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 14 October 2008 - 04:18 AM.

[forever freedom]

Equality is what we should be striving for as humans. This sort of hyper-capitalistic rhetoric is the sort of thing that leads to such huge gaps between rich and poor not just in third world countries, but also right here in the United States of America.

Your absolutely right. Basically the United Nations should tax the top 10% of the world's population who are making 25,400 dollars or greater at 39.6 percent. Then that wealth could be funneled into helping the whole poor population of the world. Those rich fat cats making $25,400 don't need 39.6 percent of their money. That's just an obscene amount of wealth that isn't necessary.

Global Rich List.

Percentage of world population____Percentage of world income_____Yearly individual income
Bottom 10 percent______________________ 0.8_________________________$400
Bottom 20 percent_______________________2.0_________________________$500
Bottom 50 percent_______________________8.5_________________________$850
Bottom 75 percent_______________________22.3________________________$1,487
Bottom 85 percent_______________________37.7________________________$2,182
Top 10 percent__________________________50.8________________________$25,400
Top 5 percent___________________________33.7________________________$33,700
Top 1 percent____________________________9.5________________________$47,500

God.. load of garbage.





As elrond said, let's tax them 66%, they will still have more than enough, those unproductive capitalistic pigs that steal money from the hard working poor people!

Edited by sam988, 14 October 2008 - 06:01 AM.

[biknut]

This sort of backs up my assertion that when a Democrat politician says he's only going to tax the rich, his definition of rich is anyone making over $24,000. At least now we're all in agreement about this, right.

[Healthy Skeptic]

Perhaps we should look at the actual tax plans.

[eternaltraveler]

Perhaps we should look at the actual tax plans.

i'm wondering if you realize that those making more than half a million, and certainly those making more than 2 million have no problem just up and leaving this country if you make it too much of a pain to be here. We need them far far more than they need us. Contemporary liberals never can seem to grasp these simple long term implications. This is a big reason why america is now a nation of middle men; we make hardly anything.

Neocons can't seem to grasp that they actually are contemporary liberals (though they still have their guns).

In any case it is virtually irrelevant what this or that candidate's plans are. Congress makes the plans, presidents sign them. Though if obama wins it is more likely something like his "plan" will go through. McCain could never get his through a democratic congress.

[niner]

This sort of backs up my assertion that when a Democrat politician says he's only going to tax the rich, his definition of rich is anyone making over $24,000. At least now we're all in agreement about this, right.

Biknut, you forgot a zero there.

[niner]

i'm wondering if you realize that those making more than half a million, and certainly those making more than 2 million have no problem just up and leaving this country if you make it too much of a pain to be here. We need them far far more than they need us. Contemporary liberals never can seem to grasp these simple long term implications. This is a big reason why america is now a nation of middle men; we make hardly anything.

Elrond, what total tax rate (considering payroll, state, local, federal income with capital gains figured in, sales, and excise) do you think is so painful that people would consider leaving the country? Do we need the Wall Street Fat Cats who brought us the mortgage crisis? It looks like they need us more than we need them. At least that's the way our tax dollars are going. You can't seriously believe that the wealthy are going to skip the country because income tax rates go up a few percent, can you? Where would they move to? Some "Marxist" European country? Oh, I know, that great country where tax rates are low and there's no government on your back: Somalia! Contemporary conservatives never can seem to grasp these simple long term implications. Our manufacturing sector was shipped overseas because the owners could make more money by employing cheap foreign labor. Tax policy had nothing to do with that; it's just globalization at work.

[eternaltraveler]

Elrond, what total tax rate (considering payroll, state, local, federal income with capital gains figured in, sales, and excise) do you think is so painful that people would consider leaving the country?

Leaving the country is easy. I've spent years overseas without even having much money. As you are aware there are different thresholds for everyone. Some few idiots will stay here even if you tax them at 90%. Some are leaving now. This nation was created by people who left where they were because it sucked (whether it be siberia 10k+ years ago, or europe in the last few centuries).

Do we need the Wall Street Fat Cats who brought us the mortgage crisis? It looks like they need us more than we need them. At least that's the way our tax dollars are going.

I'm not going to debate the causes of the mortgage crisis in this thread. However I will say, as you are also aware, these fat cats are primarily scape goats because no one wants to take on the blame they deserve themselves (which is almost everyone).

You can't seriously believe that the wealthy are going to skip the country because income tax rates go up a few percent, can you? Where would they move to? Some "Marxist" European country?

Caribbean nations are nice, I lived in one for 2 years. Rich expats have their own communities in lots of them (by community I mean vast estate's touching eachother). How about that current flood over to Dubai? I know of a group of billionaires who are very seriously investigating creating their own sea based nation. There are plenty of nice places around the world with very low taxes (you know this).

Our manufacturing sector was shipped overseas because the owners could make more money by employing cheap foreign labor. Tax policy had nothing to do with that; it's just globalization at work.

Cheap labor is one factor. Tax policy is another factor (many of these corporations got huge tax incentives in the nations they moved too, and you know this). The 3rd and arguably biggest factor were our labor unions. Please do not ignore factors other than your favorite. I don't. I realize it is election time and you want to be behind your team for the win, but it looks like they are going to win by a fair margin so I think we can afford a greater degree of intellectual honesty.

[niner]

Do we need the Wall Street Fat Cats who brought us the mortgage crisis? It looks like they need us more than we need them. At least that's the way our tax dollars are going.

I'm not going to debate the causes of the mortgage crisis in this thread. However I will say, as you are also aware, these fat cats are primarily scape goats because no one wants to take on the blame they deserve themselves (which is almost everyone).

I'm not trying to debate the cause of the mortgage crisis, so let me rephrase the question: Do we need speculators who take great risks using a lot of leverage and just trade, not invest? Should a hedge fund operator who brings home $100M in a year be taxed at LTCG rates of 15% even though he never had any principle at risk? You seem to be saying that the wealthy are good for society *because* they are wealthy. I think it's more reasonable to say that some people get wealthy doing things that are a net positive for society, and some don't. A lot don't.

Our manufacturing sector was shipped overseas because the owners could make more money by employing cheap foreign labor. Tax policy had nothing to do with that; it's just globalization at work.

Cheap labor is one factor. Tax policy is another factor (many of these corporations got huge tax incentives in the nations they moved too, and you know this). The 3rd and arguably biggest factor were our labor unions. Please do not ignore factors other than your favorite. I don't. I realize it is election time and you want to be behind your team for the win, but it looks like they are going to win by a fair margin so I think we can afford a greater degree of intellectual honesty.

Tax "incentives" are not tax policy, they are bribes. The tax policy I'm talking about is on the US side. I don't believe that manufacturing was "driven" offshore by our tax policy alone. And elrond, don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty because I didn't mention every factor involved. You only mentioned taxation! Maybe in your head you weren't ignoring other factors, but in your post you did. I would think that I'd get a little more credit that just being behind my "team". That's insulting. The Democrats are not my "team". I favor them because they are more reality-based and have policies that are better for our society. I also favor them because the Republicans have been hijacked by a bunch of anti-intellectual liars. I will support whichever political party has the best policy as measured by things like actual facts and logic. "Teams" have nothing to do with who I support.

[eternaltraveler]

Do we need speculators who take great risks using a lot of leverage and just trade, not invest? Should a hedge fund operator who brings home $100M in a year be taxed at LTCG rates of 15% even though he never had any principle at risk? You seem to be saying that the wealthy are good for society *because* they are wealthy. I think it's more reasonable to say that some people get wealthy doing things that are a net positive for society, and some don't. A lot don't.

I don't disagree with any of what you just said. However how do you make the determination with who and who doesn't "deserve" what they have. Certainly not based only on your own morality?

The consequences are far too dire in making a mistake and punishing those that do deserve their wealth when we make sure we punish those that don't deserve it according to whatever morality we are using. In a court of law we only punish people who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that a lot of guilty people get away, but in our society we think that is ok if it means that we don't punish the innocent. Most people of wealth have earned it. Punish them and beware. They might either leave or just not bother to earn it.

And elrond, don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty because I didn't mention every factor involved. You only mentioned taxation!

I didn't mean to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps some degree of bias, which I have as much as most other homosapiens. It's extraordinarily difficult to see one's own bias. If i see it, I point it out. I mentioned taxation because it is the current factor under discussion. You appeared to come back to me with "it's not taxation, it's this other thing" when it is in fact both things and more. Please do point out bias I appear to have, as I would like to do my best to get rid of it.

The Democrats are not my "team". I favor them because they are more reality-based and have policies that are better for our society. I also favor them because the Republicans have been hijacked by a bunch of anti-intellectual liars.

Politicians are liars. Democrats are certainly not exceptions to this rule. Saying that republicans are liars when it is a trait shared by both parties demonstrates bias to me. This is not meant as an insult, as you are certainly far more intelligent than most people engaged in these discussions, and I respect you enough that I will give you my straight talk, rather than sugar coating it or just ignoring it as I do from most of the posters in the politics (and supplement) sections .

[niner]

Do we need speculators who take great risks using a lot of leverage and just trade, not invest? Should a hedge fund operator who brings home $100M in a year be taxed at LTCG rates of 15% even though he never had any principle at risk? You seem to be saying that the wealthy are good for society *because* they are wealthy. I think it's more reasonable to say that some people get wealthy doing things that are a net positive for society, and some don't. A lot don't.

I don't disagree with any of what you just said. However how do you make the determination with who and who doesn't "deserve" what they have. Certainly not based only on your own morality?

The consequences are far too dire in making a mistake and punishing those that do deserve their wealth when we make sure we punish those that don't deserve it according to whatever morality we are using. In a court of law we only punish people who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that a lot of guilty people get away, but in our society we think that is ok if it means that we don't punish the innocent. Most people of wealth have earned it. Punish them and beware. They might either leave or just not bother to earn it.

Taxes aren't "punishment". Let's not even worry about whether or not they "deserve" their wealth. (Although some clearly deserve it more than others.) Societies have expenses that need to be paid for, and the wealthy derive more benefit from society than the poor, so it's fair that they should pay more. The total tax rate on the middle class tends to be higher than the total tax rate on the wealthy. This is due to the capping of Social Security tax at $102K, the large amount of income taxed at LTCG rates for the wealthy, and the smaller fraction of the wealthy's income that is spent on sales and excise taxable items. I think that the overall tax rate on the hedge fund operator should be at least as much as the overall tax rate on the guy who mows his lawn.

The Democrats are not my "team". I favor them because they are more reality-based and have policies that are better for our society. I also favor them because the Republicans have been hijacked by a bunch of anti-intellectual liars.

Politicians are liars. Democrats are certainly not exceptions to this rule. Saying that republicans are liars when it is a trait shared by both parties demonstrates bias to me. This is not meant as an insult, as you are certainly far more intelligent than most people engaged in these discussions, and I respect you enough that I will give you my straight talk, rather than sugar coating it or just ignoring it as I do from most of the posters in the politics (and supplement) sections .

Politicians have to lie because the voters demand it. They can't handle the truth. Politician A: "We have a problem here. I'm going to have to raise taxes a bit." Politician B: "Everything is fine. We can have taxcuts AND benefit increases!" Politician B will probably get elected. However, there is a level of lying that goes beyond this. McCain keeps telling people that Obama will raise their taxes, which is not true for the general audiences he is speaking to. He blames the mortgage crisis on the CRA and GSEs, which is demonstrably untrue. Palin kept telling the story about how she said no to the bridge to nowhere, even after it was repeatedly pointed out in the media that this wasn't true. There are lots of other examples from the McCain Palin campaign, but not so much from the Obama campaign. The whole list of Right Wing Nutcase Talking Points is phony. Obama's a Muslim, he's not an American citizen, he's a terrorist, he'll raise taxes on the middle class, you won't be able to choose your own doctor, etc.. The campaign arguments I hear from the Left are a lot less detached from reality. I don't think that's bias; I think an objective observer would back this up.

[eternaltraveler]

Taxes aren't "punishment".

evidently you and I are using different definitions of this word. I was using the definition found here http://en.wikipedia....ent#Definitions

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal

In psychology, punishment is the reduction of a behavior via a stimulus which is applied ("positive punishment") or removed ("negative punishment").

taking someone's property away is unpleasant and aversive. When i was a child my mother used to take my toys away when I did something bad. There is a difference though, which is where i suspect you may be drawing the distinction. That being my mother would take my toys away in order to make me stop doing something. Whereas with regards to taxation we certainly do not want the person to stop doing the thing they were doing. However drawing on the work of BF Skinner in the definition of punishment used in pyschology it really doesn't matter what our intentions are, only what the actual results would be, with taxation certainly being a form of negative punishment. I don't think you can argue that at some threshold people will either stop doing the thing that gets them "punished", or simply leave the realm of punishment (cayman islands here I come!).

Societies have expenses that need to be paid for

they certainly do. I'm not going to argue here exactly what level of expense is justifiable, other than saying much lower.

Let's not even worry about whether or not they "deserve" their wealth. (Although some clearly deserve it more than others)

Those who "deserve" their wealth are going to be far less tolerant of having it taken from them than those that don't. Look at the huge brain drain from the soviet union.

the wealthy derive more benefit from society than the poor, so it's fair that they should pay more.

This is a straw man argument. You were talking about the middle class paying more than the wealthy as a percentage (which I disagree with, but we'll come to that later), but it is simply indefensible to hint that the poor pay more as a percentage, when the bottom 50% of income earners net receive resources from the fed (read: a tax cut for any of them is just giving them more welfare). Most of the bottom 50% are not "poor". Remember, the 50% mark is average.

Perhaps you aren't doing this and I've read this incorrectly.

But coming back to the concept of what is "fair". To be perfectly frank this concept of fair is just another expression of some morality, and is completely subjective. Lets get objective.

The bottom 50% need the top 2%. If they do anything to drive them away or even make them not bother to earn that extra million, they bottom 50% loose out big since a large percentage of that extra million goes straight too them. The top 2% have places to go. Punish them in your peril.

The total tax rate on the middle class tends to be higher than the total tax rate on the wealthy. This is due to the capping of Social Security tax at $102K, the large amount of income taxed at LTCG rates for the wealthy, and the smaller fraction of the wealthy's income that is spent on sales and excise taxable items.

total fed government income in 2007 (taken from wikipedia)

* $1.1 trillion - Individual income tax
* $869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
* $370.2 billion - Corporate income tax
* $65.1 billion - Excise taxes
* $26.0 billion - Customs duties
* $26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes
* $47.2 billion - Other

we know that based on income taxes alone the top 2% of income earners pay an average of $322,000 in income taxes each (2004 data). While the remaining 98% pay an average of $3037 each. Also we know that the top 2% pay half of that 1.1 trillion, or about 500 billion.

Those earning less than 75k paid an average of 6% of their income to income tax. While those earning more more than 75k paid an average of 17%, and those in the top 2% earned paid an average of 22%. This is income tax alone of course. Now lets assume all those earning less than 75k paid 6% to SS (we'll leave out medicare because it scales to infinity with income), making their total federal contribution 12%.

Now those earning more than 75k a year on average still pay SS up too 100k, and the income of this group somewhere between 150k and 200k. So lets say they pay 3% of their income to SS, bringing their total contribution to 21%. Those in the top 2% paid on average 22%, lets say they only contribute 1% of their income to SS, bringing the total to 23%.

Lets say the top 2% buy the least as a portion of income, so 1% would be reasonable (I couldn't find these figures, perhaps someone has?, so I'm just guessing, and trying to do it in favor of niner's position). That brings their total contribution to 24%

The top 20% contribute 2% to sales taxes (again, a guess), their total is now 22%.

The bottom 80% pay 5% to sales tax(...). Their total is now 17%

(obviously I'm simplifying grossly, and probably overly).

so we are left with 17%, 22%, and 24%.

Do you have any specific data that can contradict the above figures? And moreover, do you support Obama's proposed 11.5% and 8.7% tax increase to the top income earners (with tax cuts for everyone else)?

Edited by elrond, 15 October 2008 - 09:44 AM.

[biknut]

If you're voting for Obama because you think your taxes will go down you might want to think again.


When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year

http://www.cnsnews.c...px?RsrcID=37519

Also when Obama rolls the Bush tax cuts the standard deduction will be less, the marriage tax penalty will be back, and the tax rates will be back to 15/39% instead of the current 10/36%. So Obama is only playing word games with "TAX CUT ON THE RICH". Everyone will see an increase except those that do not pay taxes.

[Iam Empathy]

If you're voting for Obama because you think your taxes will go down you might want to think again.


When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama's plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama's plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year

http://www.cnsnews.c...px?RsrcID=37519

Also when Obama rolls the Bush tax cuts the standard deduction will be less, the marriage tax penalty will be back, and the tax rates will be back to 15/39% instead of the current 10/36%. So Obama is only playing word games with "TAX CUT ON THE RICH". Everyone will see an increase except those that do not pay taxes.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of your post.

Not knowing the accuracy of it, I can say that I make less than $30,000 per year. 90% of my friends and family make less than $30,000 per year. So it's all good for us.

It's a lot better than subsidizing the rich (a truly corrupted form of socialism) based on some bullshit "trickle down" theory that the Republican neo-cons have been doing for the last eight years with tax cuts for the super rich. These are the same failed Bush policies that John McCain and Sarah Palin wish to continue. Screw them.

The last eight years will stand as evidence that under the Bush tax cuts that this trickle down theory in reality is a sham. It simply doesn't work for 95% of Americans. The only ones who benefit are the rich and perhaps middle class mid-west farmers who grow corn, lol. The only thing that "trickles down" is urine from the rich taking a leak on the poor and middle classes.

Please excuse my language.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 15 October 2008 - 09:35 PM.

[RighteousReason]

bullshit "trickle down"

So you are getting your paycheck from a poor person? (how's that workin out for ya?)
Or are you being paid by the government? (NOW we understand your obsession with theft by taxation)

If it's not either of those options, isn't it logically the case that money is coming from richer persons (your employer) to poorer persons (you)?

Your point of view is so flooded with insanity I can't believe I'm wasting my time arguing with you. But its so damned easy, I have to say SOMETHING.

Edited by Savage, 15 October 2008 - 09:37 PM.

[Iam Empathy]

bullshit "trickle down"

So you are getting your paycheck from a poor person (how's that workin out for ya?)?
Or are you being paid by the government?

If it's not either of those options, isn't it logically the case that money is coming from richer persons (your employer) to poorer persons (you)?

Your point of view is so flooded with insanity I can't believe I'm wasting my time arguing with you. But its so damned easy, I have to say SOMETHING.

I'm self-employed. I get paid by normal, good-hearted Americans who hire me to do work. Many of whom own their own small businesses. Obama's economic plan stands to benefit all small businesses significantly better than McCain's plan.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 15 October 2008 - 09:38 PM.

[Iam Empathy]

bullshit "trickle down"

So you are getting your paycheck from a poor person? (how's that workin out for ya?)
Or are you being paid by the government? (NOW we understand your obsession with theft by taxation)

If it's not either of those options, isn't it logically the case that money is coming from richer persons (your employer) to poorer persons (you)?

Your point of view is so flooded with insanity I can't believe I'm wasting my time arguing with you. But its so damned easy, I have to say SOMETHING.

The reason it seems like "insanity" is because it's a different point-of-view.

Savage, I'm curious about you and the other McCain supporters on this board. Do you own a passport? Have you ever been to anywhere except for the U.S, Canada, or Mexico?

I ask this because I notice a strong correlation between people who are knowledge who have traveled. I'm an American who's spent seven years overseas, where I've been able to see how other systems work or don't work, plus also see how people from the other 90% of the world look at us Americans. Being experienced with life both in and outside of the U.S has helped to shape my worldview into a more complete view. That's not to say that in any way that I think I'm better than you. I honestly don't think that. It's just that everyone has an opinion. But a lot of times people live in small, insulated, closed worlds which end up shaping their worldview. No offense if this applies to you. I don't know you. I'm honestly just wondering.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 15 October 2008 - 09:46 PM.

[RighteousReason]

bullshit "trickle down"

So you are getting your paycheck from a poor person? (how's that workin out for ya?)
Or are you being paid by the government? (NOW we understand your obsession with theft by taxation)

If it's not either of those options, isn't it logically the case that money is coming from richer persons (your employer) to poorer persons (you)?

Your point of view is so flooded with insanity I can't believe I'm wasting my time arguing with you. But its so damned easy, I have to say SOMETHING.

The reason it seems like "insanity" is because it's a different point-of-view.

Hahahaha...

It seems like insanity because you are throwing all logic and causality out the window in your "different point-of-view".

I know you are just super-sensitive to how people think of the US, but anybody that has the least bit of education knows that we have the most powerful and successful economy on the planet, so why would we give a fck what people think? You take advice on weight loss from a fat ass?

'Lead by example' is entirely more sane than 'lead by blind emotional reaction'.

Edited by Savage, 15 October 2008 - 09:55 PM.

[Iam Empathy]

bullshit "trickle down"

So you are getting your paycheck from a poor person? (how's that workin out for ya?)
Or are you being paid by the government? (NOW we understand your obsession with theft by taxation)

If it's not either of those options, isn't it logically the case that money is coming from richer persons (your employer) to poorer persons (you)?

Your point of view is so flooded with insanity I can't believe I'm wasting my time arguing with you. But its so damned easy, I have to say SOMETHING.

The reason it seems like "insanity" is because it's a different point-of-view.

Hahahaha...

It seems like insanity because you are throwing all logic and causality out the window in your "different point-of-view".

I know you are just super-sensitive to how people think of the US, but anybody that has the least bit of education knows that we have the most powerful and successful economy on the planet, so why would we give a fck what people think? You take advice on weight loss from a fat ass?

'Lead by example' is entirely more sane than 'lead by blind emotional reaction'.

Sounds like you haven't been outside of the U.S before. Oh well, it's your loss. Not mine.

Besides, while I want America to be the strongest country in the world forever. Unfortunately, we're living in a world where European countries and China are either surpassing us right now as we speak or will be in the very near future. It's sad, because a lot of people still have a 20th century mentality. Whereas, what we really need is a 21st century mentality by looking at the realities of both the systems that work and don't work in America. We would be real patriots if we actually reaccessed what works and what doesn't work. We should be looking toward the future -- not of war, debt, and poverty. But one of peace and a strong America again.

Yes, America was the most powerful and influential country in the 20th century. However, I feel like this is simply untrue in the 21st century. Or rather, I should say that even though we still hold a lot of power and sway. Our actual power and prestige in the world is being decimated slowly, but surely.

As a proud American, it's been incredibly sad for me to watch from both at home and abroad from the last eight years.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 15 October 2008 - 10:02 PM.