The Obama thread

Why shouldn't the poor pay 40% tax? It is good for the economy and would bring down the debt.

 

because they can not afford it.

 

They should have to pay it. They could work two jobs to do their part to spread more wealth. It's their patriotic duty.

 

if you take all their money then they won't contribute to the economy.

 

When its redistributed it will contribute to the economy.

 

yes it creates a flow of money that will constantly grow the economy.

 

I am glad you agree with me now, the poor, middle and upper class should pay the same % rate. That is much fairer than the system that is in place now.

 

do you get lost going to the bathroom. yes i want the rich to have less tax breaks and middle class to have more. if more people have the money they spend it faster. that is good for the economy. I rather see a few people go to college rather than cindy Mccain get to add to her diamond collection.
like it or not obama is going to tax Mccain's wife and give you a tax break.
==================================================================
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/24/massive-democratic-advantage-early-voting-nevada/
Massive Democratic Advantage in Early Voting in Nevada

 

Obama is actually more capitalist by doing this than the people trying to paint him as a socialist.

He happens to understand that the strength, direction, and base of a prosperous capitalist society comes from the CONSUMER. Not the people and corporations at the top.

The consumer chooses which products and services are the best and pour their money into them. This forces those with inferior products to INNOVATE. Build a better mousetrap if you will. While at the same time forcing those on top to constantly work to improve their products as well to stay on top. Not only does this better our own economy but it betters our position in the world as our exports increase due to the demand for our superior products.

If you don't force large corporations to improve their products and services by leveling the playing field with government regulations that prevent things like monopolies or price gouging, those large corporations will use shady tactics like that to oppress their small business competition instead of spending resources on R&D.

The "spreading the wealth around" as it's called is in reality the best method to give the power back to it's rightful owner, the consumers.

 

Because they did something bad to get it. They did it on the foot heals of the poor. They don't deserve it, so we are gonna make it fair and make them give it back.

Look, people think the rich are getting HUGE tax cut compared to the middle class and poor under Bush and again, as proposed by McCain's plan.

YES, THIS IS TRUE.

Because!!!! Now read carefully.

THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES.

So of course they stand to get a large cut. We are not talking about percentage cuts here. What we are talking about is the sheer size of the amount of dollars.

There is a difference between a percentage cut, and the amount of dollars associated with that percentage cut.

Here is the democratic tax plan in a nut shell.

Jer makes $10,000 per year
Pizza makes $1,000 per year

Jer and Pizza go to the store to buy a $1 bottle of Coke.

Jer makes more, so Jer pays $10 for that bottle of Coke.

Pizza makes less, so Pizza pays $.50 for that bottle of Coke.

Its the same bottle, same Coke, same volume.

Now, Home does not make anything. He's on welfare. He not only does not pay for that bottle of Coke, but gets a check for $20 to buy more Coke.

DOES ANYONE SEE ANYTHING WRONG HERE?

I cannot believe I have to waste time with something so remedial. The rich get larger tax cuts because the rich PAY MORE TAXES.

Now, the super rich? They own the bottling company, so I guess they can take a bottle of Coke off the line any time they want.

But do keep in mind that those Rich and Super Rich are the ones employing and paying salaries to the Jer's and Pizza's of the world. Punish them, Jer and Pizza are out of a job.

Want more wealth? WORK FOR IT! That's what America is all about. Work hard, you WILL succeed. Our country is about opportunity, not entitlement.

 

Seems logical to you doesn't it. So "remedial" as you put it.

Oops wait, there's one problem. THE PAST 8 YEARS (hell if you wanna be picky lets say the first 6 of Bush)

If giving the wealthy and large corporations tax breaks will generate jobs then why is our jobless rate so high? The tax breaks are in place RIGHT NOW and have been for years. So please spare us the argument that if we just elect John McCain he'll save us with tax breaks for the rich that'll mean jobs and happiness for all. Because the tax breaks are ALREADY THERE, RIGHT NOW and they don't work.

Hmmm, perhaps because it doesn't work because we're not giving the wealthy JOB BREAKS to pass down to the people. We're giving them TAX BREAKS. Which means putting MONEY in their pockets.

We now have literal PROOF with the jobless rate right in your face. Proof that when you put extra money in wealthy people's pockets they do not choose to do the right thing and use it in the best interests of the economy. They use it in the best interests of themselves.

So your analogy makes sense in a rational world where everyone thinks about what's best for the nation. But in the world we live in, everyone is out for themselves.

But there is hope. You see you can use selfish human nature against itself to better the economy. Just like when you put money into wealthy people's pockets and they use it to benefit themselves, you put it into poor and middle class pockets and they use it to better themselves too. It's called BUYING STUFF!

So please, enough with the scare tactics to try and convince the American people that it's a one way street. The large corporations NEED the consumers just as much as the consumers NEED them for jobs. If they don't employ consumers and make them comfortable spending then they wont buy their products.

The backbone of a true capitalistic society is the large and small businesses and their innovations. But the fuel that powers that machine is the consumer pouring money (life force) into those businesses.

 

You must be blind. Unemployment has, for the most part, stayed within NORMAL levels (less than 6%) throughout most of Bush's term. Is it possible that job loss is so high right now because maybe, quite possibly, we are in a huge ECONOMIC CRISIS right now where businesses can't get credit for payroll, benefits, etc.????

MONTH..........LABOR FORCE.......EMPLOYED.....UNEMPLOYED..UNEMP RATE/SA RATE*
2007 September 153,400,000 146,448,000 6,952,000 4.5% 4.7%
October 153,516,000 146,743,000 6,773,000 4.4% 4.8%
November 154,035,000 147,118,000 6,917,000 4.5% 4.7%
December 153,705,000 146,334,000 7,371,000 4.8% 5.0%
2008 January 152,828,000 144,607,000 8,221,000 5.4% 4.9%
February 152,503,000 144,550,000 7,953,000 5.2% 4.8%
March 153,135,000 145,108,000 8,027,000 5.2% 5.1%
April 153,208,000 145,921,000 7,287,000 4.8% 5.0%
May 154,003,000 145,927,000 8,076,000 5.2% 5.5%
June 155,582,000 146,649,000 8,933,000 5.7% 5.5%
July 156,300,000 146,867,000 9,433,000 6.0% 5.7%
August 155,387,000 145,909,000 9,479,000 6.1% 6.1%
September 154,509,000 145,310,000 9,199,000 6.0% 6.1%

 

no those tax cuts went to employ the chinese

 

It is.

You really need to look at this state wide as well. I'm in a blue state that continues the promise of the democratic tax plan.

Actually they DO work. Every year the Bush tax cuts have been in affect the revenue brought in by the federal government actually INCREASED. Do I need to whip those numbers out again?

Unemployment has actually been at its lowest levels in the US. Remember, some of us lived through the Carter years. Things are not horrible, and they are certainly not as bad as they have been in the past.

You have to look at things state by state too. There are actually more people working in the State of Wisconsin than at any other time in the states history.

Obviously things are changing with regard to unemployment, but that has nothing to do with tax cuts on the job loss front. It has to do with the ever changing dynamic economy. A lower demand for big expensive SUV's as an example has caused people to lose jobs at factories. That's an oil issue, not a tax cut problem. People in other sectors like construction are affected by a drop in the need for new construction as a result of over building, a housing boom, and a bubble burst, coupled with irresponsibility in Washington for decades.

That's not the result of tax cuts. Our economy actually grew, and the fed took in more revenue as a result of the tax cuts.

Problem is, the fed did not also curb their spending which they should have, which negated many of those gains.

How you can possibly blame a tax cut on unemployment rates lacks all reason.

No, tax breaks means people like me have more money to spend on job creation. Why do you think job rates increased more under Bush than under Clinton? Why do you think unemployment remained so low? Tax cuts.

What proof is that? Proof that in the previous administration, the majority of the jobs claimed as created were for the majority associated with the tech boom/dot bomb bubble?

? Where were you the last 8 years when jobs were being created at a historical rate? Do you even know what the unemployment rate is now?

Lets put things into perspective.

Bush takes office in 2001, inherits a recession, corporate scandals and a dot bomb burst, then has 9/11, yet still, even with a war and all the other dynamic things that have made up the economic landscape, still manages to create jobs, and sees lower unemployment rates than Clinton.

Again, where were you the last 8 years?

Yep, the benefit themselves, and those they employ, and the economy as a whole with the tax revenues they generate from the sale of goods, income taxes and employees income taxes.

Bad, bad, rich people.. Who do you think you are.

The only one employing scare tactics is Barrack Obama with this belief that I cannot survive without his helping me do it for me by spreading the wealth around.

How can you say something so accurate and profound after touting the complete opposite? Yes, the life force is the consumer. And when you tax those that earn from the "life force", that life force can no longer be sustained.

Consumers drive our economy, and the businesses that benefit from that consumption suffer when that "life force" ceases to be the consumer, and instead becomes the government.

Let me give you something even more remedial.

Flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage, no matter what, no exceptions. Consumption based, not based on income. NO DEDUCTIONS.

Producers pay NO tax.

In other words, eliminate corporate income tax. Eliminate Personal Income tax and rather move to a consumption tax.

Everyone would pay their fair share, including businesses that consume as well as produce.

 

I have to head out and provide a more thorough response when I get back.

But I just couldn't leave without saying that:

1) Yes as I typed my post above I thought the unemployment rate was at 6.1. I googled it just to be sure and I was right. So yes I do "even know what the unemployment rate is now"

2) When Clinton came in office the unemployment rate was 7.3. Then after he dropped it all the way down to below 4% Bush took over. Where are you getting this times were hard when Bush took over argument?

I'll be back to answer the rest.

 

Times were difficult because he inherited a recession, and dot com burst, a tech melt down, and a crippled over taxed economy that nearly collapsed post 9/11 as a result.

There were a lot of expenses involved in rebuilding and of course running a war machine, admittedly. 8 years of Clinton did more damage to this country long term, arguably than Carter ever did. And he really mucked things up.

Do keep in mind that Clinton inherited the positive effects of Reagan Bush which took affect a short time into his term, and continued until he began to revert to taxing the crap out of people again.

 

Charles Fried

Reagan Appointee and Recent McCain Adviser Charles Fried Supports Obama

 

Former Republican Gov. of Mass, Bill Weld is endorsing Obama too.

Just saw him on Hardball along with Christopher Hitchens who is also voting Obama.

 

Former Hillary Campaign Adviser supports McCain

Another Hillary Supporter Jumps ship to McCain

 

They are obviously mad that Hillary is not the Democratic Candidate for Obama and they are racist. /s


___
Mia your post would make more sense in the McCain thread. I posted Obama's endorsements here, because it's where it belonged.