View Full Version : Is Obama really qualified ?
leilanicandy
02-20-2008, 02:03 PM
How was Bush a fuck up?? Beyond getting us into Iraq. And on the Iraq issue, not only did he have creditable information of WMD's but he also had Congressional approval... Other than the Iraq war I think he's done an average job especially since he's had to work with a downturn economy... I just hate that he's going to go down as a "terrible" President because he listened to his sources and advisors and went into Iraq...
Man we don't give this much shit to the people who got us into Vietnam and kept us there... And those guys were ignoring the information of their advisors...
Other than the dept form the Iraq war. That will cause our children to have no social security. The many deaths that was lost from the war. That total more than any war before! He pass many bills that limited our freedom. Which is includes the famous bill 93 That allows a simple police officer to freeze your account. How smart of him! That is not the only thing it can do! Look up bill 93. Look all the bills he pass and veto in congress! Look at the people he choose for office. it to me look like he ran this country. Like how he ran his oil company in Texas. Which went into bankruptcy.
Pamela
02-20-2008, 02:23 PM
I believe it was Hillary that had the good welfare program. Another slap in the face for Hillary. I agree she must be tierd by now pulling all those dirty tricks. Who gives a crap if the world is ready. Besides those you dont like can always vote for McCain. Oh Pam you dont have to be on welfare to vote of him. Many millionaires back Obama. You can do it, just go to poll and vote for Obama. ;D
I know... i just don't know, ya know.
He's fresh, young and talks great. Man if i vote him in i hope something good comes our way. Or i am the kind of person who will kick myself in the ass.
I like Hillary, i do like Obama, but...i said harsh words about him which i meant, but guess i need to see the next debate coming up.
Actually i may vote for the man. Are we ready for a black man? I am worried USA may not be, i don't want another Kennedy going down. He's being compared to Kennedy i see on CNN.
He's a likable man imo.
leilanicandy
02-20-2008, 02:50 PM
I know... i just don't know, ya know.
He's fresh, young and talks great. Man if i vote him in i hope something good comes our way. Or i am the kind of person who will kick myself in the ass.
I like Hillary, i do like Obama, but...i said harsh words about him which i meant, but guess i need to see the next debate coming up.
Actually i may vote for the man. Are we ready for a black man? I am worried USA may not be, i don't want another Kennedy going down. He's being compared to Kennedy i see on CNN.
He's a likable man imo.
This is what makes us Americans. We question those who want to become our leaders. We are free thinkers!
leilanicandy
02-20-2008, 03:11 PM
I thought I also mention. He is is the first candiate for president. That inspire a new name for a flavor of Ben& Jerry Icecream.
VenusGoddess
02-20-2008, 05:51 PM
I kind of resent the welfare comment and Obama supporters. I am FAR from being on welfare.
He is young, he is full of ideas...I dunno...I kind of think he's refreshing. I'm tired of the "old timers" who just don't get change. They talk like they want change, but it ends up being the same old thing.
And GWB is a total fuck-up. Credible information on WMD's? I think NOT. It was even reported that after all the searches for WMD's in Iraq that nothing was found...but this is NOT what they said to Congress. They LIED to Congress and the American people...and they've not been impeached, WHY? Because the repubs currently control that arena. Clinton got impeachment proceedings (and an investigation into his extra curricular activities to the tune of several tens of millions of dollars) for getting a blow job. Bush lies to the American public and to Congress and he gets another term in office.
Aside from the fact that the Bush family is in so deep with the Saudi's and other mid easterners that they shouldn't have a seat in ANY political arena, what-so-ever. How else do you explain Osama bin Laden's family members being allowed to leave the country AFTER all flights were grounded and AFTER they started checking all mid-easterners?
It's also interesting to know that Bush has been backed by the "oil tycoons" for decades. His interest is NOT in America, but in the Middle East...where all of his money comes from.
For his blatant lies and fuck ups in office, the man's stuff should be seized and accounts frozen. Use that money to replenish what he has squandered away. How can you take a man who has run every corporation that he has and run them into the ground and put them into the presidency...in charge, basically, of the country's money coffers? Are people fucking insane?
Take his stuff...pay back the national debt and jail the fucker. Don't worry, if he's still living when he gets out, the middle east will make sure that he's got a comfy home and plenty of money to die with.
jester214
02-20-2008, 08:28 PM
Other than the dept form the Iraq war. That will cause our children to have no social security. The many deaths that was lost from the war. That total more than any war before! He pass many bills that limited our freedom. Which is includes the famous bill 93 That allows a simple police officer to freeze your account. How smart of him! That is not the only thing it can do! Look up bill 93. Look all the bills he pass and veto in congress! Look at the people he choose for office. it to me look like he ran this country. Like how he ran his oil company in Texas. Which went into bankruptcy.
The worry about the loss of social security came long before any debt from the Iraq war... I beleive I said "other" than the war... Again a war which was approved by Congress, and by a lot of Americans (atleast at the beggining). Actually Congress passed them first... For the most part I have few problems with the people he chose for office, look at the people Clinton chose... Yeah, he ran his oil comany in to the ground, and then "we" elected him...
jester214
02-20-2008, 08:40 PM
I kind of resent the welfare comment and Obama supporters. I am FAR from being on welfare.
He is young, he is full of ideas...I dunno...I kind of think he's refreshing. I'm tired of the "old timers" who just don't get change. They talk like they want change, but it ends up being the same old thing.
And GWB is a total fuck-up. Credible information on WMD's? I think NOT. It was even reported that after all the searches for WMD's in Iraq that nothing was found...but this is NOT what they said to Congress. They LIED to Congress and the American people...and they've not been impeached, WHY? Because the repubs currently control that arena. Clinton got impeachment proceedings (and an investigation into his extra curricular activities to the tune of several tens of millions of dollars) for getting a blow job. Bush lies to the American public and to Congress and he gets another term in office.
Aside from the fact that the Bush family is in so deep with the Saudi's and other mid easterners that they shouldn't have a seat in ANY political arena, what-so-ever. How else do you explain Osama bin Laden's family members being allowed to leave the country AFTER all flights were grounded and AFTER they started checking all mid-easterners?
It's also interesting to know that Bush has been backed by the "oil tycoons" for decades. His interest is NOT in America, but in the Middle East...where all of his money comes from.
For his blatant lies and fuck ups in office, the man's stuff should be seized and accounts frozen. Use that money to replenish what he has squandered away. How can you take a man who has run every corporation that he has and run them into the ground and put them into the presidency...in charge, basically, of the country's money coffers? Are people fucking insane?
Take his stuff...pay back the national debt and jail the fucker. Don't worry, if he's still living when he gets out, the middle east will make sure that he's got a comfy home and plenty of money to die with.
Who have no idea what you're talking about... What blatant lies and fuck ups, list them to me now. The ones he did with out congressional approval.
What conspiracy theory bullshit, oh yeah he's just protecting the Saudis and the rest of the Middle East, come on...
Maybe they let Osama's family leave because they realized that they were innocent and would probably have been in a lot of danger if they had stayed in the country... Nah, that sounds logical, it was probably because someone bribed him...
What did Bush lie about?? Do you honestly think he woke up one day, and said "Hey lets lie to eveyone and lets attack Iraq, then I'll be rich when I get out of office"??? The CIA told him they beleived the weapons were there, hell the UN were trying to send in inspectors... I guess they were just doing that for the hell of it??? IM NOT SAYING THERE WERE WEAPONS IN IRAQ. I am only saying that he beleived they were there because he was told they were there.
jester214
02-20-2008, 08:50 PM
Bush was a complete fuck up. The guy is just an idiot. Yeah he listened to his advisors at first - but after we realized it wasn't getting shit done his advisors and the entire country begged him to withdraw and he didn't listen then. Have you ever listened to him talk? He never makes an ounce of sense. He's said things like: "One of my toughest jobs as President has been connecting what we're doing in Iraq to the war on Terror." WTF? And recently when - I think it was Pakistan - got to elect a new president or whatever they have by the people voting -- i.e. democracy - and they didn't reelect the guy that George Bush had been using as his pocket puppet - the guy and Bush have been trying to find a way to overturn the vote and have the guy put back in office. Democracy? My ass.
He's a crooked politician and a dumbass to boot. He turned Texas and America into a joke. The rest of the world laughs in America's face because of him. When I went to Europe a few years ago we saw grafitied on walls in every country "FUCK BUSH"....Even they know he sucks.
He should have never been in office and its time we stopped keeping it in the damn family. What is this a fucking royal court? We've had two Bush's in office and it didn't work out. I don't want two Clinton's either. Bill Clinton was alright I guess but Hilary is a sneaky little bitch who makes even less sense when she speaks than Bush does. She never answers questions directly and she's spent her entire campaign bashing Obama and trying to dig up dirt on him so she can win instead of convincing America that she truly would be better based on her own merit rather than her opinion of Obama's lack of it.
People always go back to the war, even when I say name something else... We were entrenched in a country that was we blew to hell, they had no water, no power, and no political structure should we have simply said "woops, our bad, we're done now, ya'll got this right??".
Ask someone in a foreign country whats wrong with Bush "He invaded Iraq" is the typical response, "anything else" "no, just that he invaded Iraq". HE, god I'm so tired of people saying that, it wasn't just him, you even agreed and said he was advised to go in. Foreigners hate us no matter what we do, if we step in to something we're "Policing the world" if we don't get involved "we don't care about anyone but ourselves"... damned if we do, damned if we dont...
So he's a poor speaker, every president says stupid stuff... Clinton got on camera and said he didn't have sexual relations, he also said he "didn't inhale" WTF???
Actually he's trying to keep that guy in office because it's in the best interests for the U.S. Politically just: not really. Would I rather Pakistan have leaders sympathetic to terrorists: Hell No
leilanicandy
02-20-2008, 08:51 PM
The worry about the loss of social security came long before any debt from the Iraq war... I beleive I said "other" than the war... Again a war which was approved by Congress, and by a lot of Americans (atleast at the beggining). Actually Congress passed them first... For the most part I have few problems with the people he chose for office, look at the people Clinton chose... Yeah, he ran his oil comany in to the ground, and then "we" elected him...
The USA was out of debt. When Clinton got out of office. We had extra money to spend. Now we have exactly to much to pay off!
"WE", did not vote for Bush. Infact I voted for others! Those power hungry people elected him! If he can't run a oil company. How will he run a country? I dont want to get started on the people he elected into office.
I dont think was the best man for the job. There is alot of things that went to a major unbalance in this country. Because of his decisions!
Like I said the one that really tick me off was bill 93!
jester214
02-20-2008, 09:25 PM
The USA was out of debt. When Clinton got out of office. We had extra money to spend. Now we have exactly to much to pay off!
"WE", did not vote for Bush. Infact I voted for others! Those power hungry people elected him! If he can't run a oil company. How will he run a country? I dont want to get started on the people he elected into office.
I dont think was the best man for the job. There is alot of things that went to a major unbalance in this country. Because of his decisions!
Like I said the one that really tick me off was bill 93!
The US was out of debt?? What are you talking about...
people are so uneducated, they see a headline and don't read the story, they hear others say Bush is an idiot and they start chanting it to...
ahmeerah
02-20-2008, 09:34 PM
During the first 8 years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
leilanicandy
02-20-2008, 10:42 PM
Y'all do realize Bush isn't running, don't you?
yes I do!
leilanicandy
02-20-2008, 10:44 PM
The US was out of debt?? What are you talking about...
people are so uneducated, they see a headline and don't read the story, they hear others say Bush is an idiot and they start chanting it to...
I did not know anything about headlines. The budget and debt is posted on the goverment site.
I am not chanting! But maybe if I was into chanting! I will proubarly chant a hex on him! Make is nose grow everytime he lie.
Madcap
02-20-2008, 10:58 PM
I voted for Obama, and i'll vote for him again. I don't care how qualified people may or may not think he is, he can't possibly fuck things up any worse than they already are.
Plus he talks about change, then actually backs himself up UNlike most candidates who talk change. So it's something new, or more of the same two last names that have been in the white house since friggin 1988.
I'll take Barak, thanks. I got no troubles with a woman president, but just not Hillary.
I enjoy listening to him speak. He is a very good speaker. I do think it is weird that women are fainting at his rallies, though.
FBR
jester214
02-20-2008, 11:08 PM
^^^Agreed
dishis
02-20-2008, 11:09 PM
I just don't have any confidence in Obama. His speeches just seem empty, I guess I want more nut and bolts. I also want to know how he intends to pay for all his programs. Bush spent way too much much money, but if Obama does half of what he says I hate to think how much more it will cost us. I also don't trust him as commander and chief. Is he going into Pakistan uninvited ? Is he going to cut and run in Iraq ? What will he do if we have another terrorist attack on US soil? He talks about bring all Americans together, but he has one of the most liberal voting records in congress. Can anyone name anytime he has gone across party lines or done anything to bring the parties together while in congress ? Why would it be different as President ?
Also I thought this was fitting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2miYrDM8MQ
PookaShell
02-20-2008, 11:09 PM
People always go back to the war, even when I say name something else... We were entrenched in a country that was we blew to hell, they had no water, no power, and no political structure should we have simply said "woops, our bad, we're done now, ya'll got this right??".
Ask someone in a foreign country whats wrong with Bush "He invaded Iraq" is the typical response, "anything else" "no, just that he invaded Iraq". HE, god I'm so tired of people saying that, it wasn't just him, you even agreed and said he was advised to go in. Foreigners hate us no matter what we do, if we step in to something we're "Policing the world" if we don't get involved "we don't care about anyone but ourselves"... damned if we do, damned if we dont...
So he's a poor speaker, every president says stupid stuff... Clinton got on camera and said he didn't have sexual relations, he also said he "didn't inhale" WTF???
Actually he's trying to keep that guy in office because it's in the best interests for the U.S. Politically just: not really. Would I rather Pakistan have leaders sympathetic to terrorists: Hell No
Yeah - Bush was advised to go into Iraq - he also lied to congress about the terrorist leads he had there and they went in and found nothing and ended up making a huge mess that we had to pay to clean up.
Admittedly it was funny when Clinton said he "did not like it...and did not inhale..."
I had to laugh at Obama's response to the accusations of HIM doing drugs in the past...."I uh...I did inhale...frequently. That was the point." Got to love the man's honesty.
PookaShell
02-20-2008, 11:12 PM
During the first 8 years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
Do you have a link where you got this info? I need to use this for an argument I'm having between a past teacher who is against him. :)
jester214
02-20-2008, 11:15 PM
I just don't have any confidence in Obama. His speeches just seem empty, I guess I want more nut and bolts. I also want to know how he intends to pay for all his programs. Bush spent way too much much money, but if Obama does half of what he says I hate to think how much more it will cost us. I also don't trust him as commander and chief. Is he going into Pakistan uninvited ? Is he going to cut and run in Iraq ? What will he do if we have another terrorist attack on US soil?
Also I thought this was fitting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2miYrDM8MQ
I ask the same question about Hillary's universal healthcare.... I only trust McCain as commander and chief and part of that is because he served...
Madcap
02-20-2008, 11:26 PM
Great, so McCain can keep us in Iraq another decade. That's just wonderful.
PookaShell
02-20-2008, 11:28 PM
I just don't have any confidence in Obama. His speeches just seem empty, I guess I want more nut and bolts. I also want to know how he intends to pay for all his programs. Bush spent way too much much money, but if Obama does half of what he says I hate to think how much more it will cost us. I also don't trust him as commander and chief.
He wants to pay for his promises by making the current tax loopholes wealthy corporations get to enjoy no longer possible.
He wants to pay for his promises by making the current tax loopholes wealthy corporations get to enjoy no longer possible.Pooks, he is so vague how do we know what defines "wealthy corporations"? I make about twice what my highly compensated employees make and maybe 3-4 time what my rank and file employees make. Does that make me greedy? Am I taking advantage of their labor even though I put everything I own on the line to get my business going? Is it unfair that after years of blood, sweat and tears I finally get to enjoy the rewards for my risk?
FBR
dishis
02-20-2008, 11:51 PM
He wants to pay for his promises by making the current tax loopholes wealthy corporations get to enjoy no longer possible.
I just don't buy it there are not enough loopholes to close, and like it or not US Corporations are already taxed at a higher rate than almost any other country. Placing more of a burden on them will just make it harder for them to compete with other countries and it will cost jobs and slow down our economy.
PookaShell
02-21-2008, 12:05 AM
I'm writing a response about the tax business - and no, it won't compete with Melonie or Paris' response but I'll try to explain what I mean.
Dishis - as for the tax burden costing jobs and slowing down the economy - he wants to cut out loopholes for corporations that use cheaper overseas labor by phone rather than pay more for American employees and give tax breaks to companies that provide jobs and benefits to Americans in the hopes that it will help the economy rather than hurt it.
Richard_Head
02-21-2008, 12:10 AM
I just don't buy it there are not enough loopholes to close, and like it or not US Corporations are already taxed at a higher rate than almost any other country. Placing more of a burden on them will just make it harder for them to compete with other countries and it will cost jobs and slow down our economy.I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at this LINK (http://www.smartmoney.com/invisiblehand/index.cfm?story=20080125-corporate-tax-rate).
Richard_Head
02-21-2008, 12:11 AM
His speeches just seem empty, I guess I want more nut and bolts. Have you gotten nuts and bolts from McCain?
^^ Whew this is a big relief. Its good to know that while my company does around $15 million a year in sales while I do typically make around $50K net before corporate income taxes after paying all the costs associated with running my business, Obama won't toss me into the wealthy category. Thank you, Jesus.
FBR
xdamage
02-21-2008, 01:57 AM
Pooks, he is so vague how do we know what defines "wealthy corporations"? I make about twice what my highly compensated employees make and maybe 3-4 time what my rank and file employees make. Does that make me greedy? Am I taking advantage of their labor even though I put everything I own on the line to get my business going? Is it unfair that after years of blood, sweat and tears I finally get to enjoy the rewards for my risk?
FBR
Nope. In fact quite the opposite. If there is no pay off, then what is the point of taking the risk? What's the point of working so hard? Or being responsible 24/7? Business owners like yourself are also providing jobs for many. The country and it's people need people like you, and likewise you need to be able to make and keep a reasonably large profit or it's not worth the trouble. I suppose people take issue with owners and upper management making several million a year, but even that has to be put into some perspective (e.g., how many jobs does that business bring to the community? how much export business does the company do? etc.).
Melonie
02-21-2008, 04:05 AM
^^^ and this leads us back to the 'unintended consequences' of the Obama / Hilary financial philosophy (although some of those consequences are arguably intended very specifically)
- taxing US companies does one of two things ... it either causes them to raise prices (which hurts consumers), or it causes their profit MARGIN to shrink (which hurts employees and investors). In a global economy, US companies that are saddled with higher mandated costs of doing business (among them a higher tax rate) become less competitive ... which either prompts them to become non-US companies (to avoid the higher tax rates) or erodes their financial future. I would also point out that while Obama and Hilary talk a good game about corporate tax rates, they also both support tax loopholes that allow US software companies to side-step US taxes on royalty income from their software (by transferring ownership of that software to a low tax country like Ireland for example). So what's really being talked about here is taxing US companies that are inexorably tied to the US, like US oil drillers / refiners, like small manufacturers and small service companies etc.
- Obama and Hilary have made absolutely no mention of doing away with legal tax shelters for the very rich that does and will continue to allow the rich to avoid having to actually pay the higher income tax rates being proposed. The most common is triple tax free municipal bonds. Obama and Hilary both know that these are absolutely necessary to continue funding high levels of gov't spending ... and in reality they form an unholy partnership between gov't and the very rich where the very rich are allowed to profit from the taxes of lower income Americans via their triple tax free bond interest earnings. Variations on this theme are trusts, targeted tax credits for investors in gov't subsidized industries (like ethanol / solar / wind ). So the raising of individual tax rates will simply prompt the very rich to pull their money out of 'risky' corporate stock investments (which arguably create jobs and added value), and instead channel it into tax favored investments or into gov't subsidized companies (i.e. the very rich becoming de-facto partners with gov't).
- as discussed in other threads, increasing the minimum wage ALWAYS makes US businesses that rely on unskilled labor cut the number of workers that they employ along with raising prices for the product / services they sell. One perfect example is US fruit and vegetable production ... where increased minimum wage labor costs go directly to price increases in the grocery store, as well as prompting vastly increased imports of foreign grown fruits and vegetables (with associated health problems as well as US job losses).
- Obama's 'nobody who works in America should be poor' scenario , as well as his statements about reducing taxes on those earning less than $50k per year, implies that he strongly backs a wealth transfer scheme that will collect much more money from those earning more than $75k per year and spend that money on subsidies / benefits / tax reductions for those earning less. This creates a large 'moral hazard' for those Americans who have the potential to earn more than $75k per year. For example, if a future semi-skilled American can gross $50k per year and keep $45k after taxes, while at the same time a highly skilled American can gross $100k per year but only keep $60k after taxes, was it really worth all that tuition money and all of those years of college + all of that extra job responsibility + all of those extra working hours in exchange for a $15k differential in actual take-home pay ?
In dancer terms, if a dancer knew that she could earn $250 per night for the first two nights per week (total $500 gross) while only having to pay a $25 per night house fee (= net $450 for 2 nights), - but also knew that earning the same $250 a night working additional nights would trigger a new $150 house fee whenever she worked a third night, and trigger a new $200 house fee whenever she worked a fourth night - thus reducing her $1000 gross earnings for 4 nights of dancing to net total take home earnings of only $600 - , how many dancers would continue to work the third and fourth night for an additional net average increase in earnings of only $75 a night ? Obama's progressive tax rate changes would work exactly like this progressive house fee example - and would provide a similar discouragement for people who might otherwise 'try harder'.
~
Richard_Head
02-21-2008, 07:14 AM
God forbid the economy is stimulated by helping the middle class, oh the horrors. What makes you think that helping the middle class won't trickle up to those on the top??? I'm tired of the trickle down theory, time to try something new. As I recall the economy was humming along while Clinton was in office and at that time taxes were higher for those on top.
xdamage
02-21-2008, 08:11 AM
^^^
Clinton though may have just been at the right place at the right time, and attributing the economy of the time to him seems... hmmm... The crazy years of the Information Super Hiway economy couldn't possibly last because it was not based on anything remotely like sound business, rather just burning up other people's (venture capital) money.
Melonie's point though is valid. Economics requires looking at the whole system, so when you make a change, not only what is the immediate impact but also how are the costs and profits distributed. It's really no different then making a wave in a pool of water, that wave propagates outward and effects all the rest of the water around it.
The key problem is this. The simplistic answer is charge "the rich" more, and that appeals to the mind that wants a simple answer, but it just doesn't work that way. Unless "the rich" are willing to accept a lower income, all that ends up happening is that costs are passed on to others.
I do think there are long term solution to our economic situation, but it also comes at a cost, still there are winners and losers. One change is to focus on fixing our import/export imbalance. We can bring in more distributable wealth into this country, but of course that means less wealth in the countries we do business with. In a sense, much of the world has seen American Citizens as the greedy wealthy in the past, and we are beginning to see what it means to live with less wealth, all around. Still, we can change the balance so we are wealthier, but it will come at the expense that some countries are overall poorer.
Another option is to teach people starting at a much younger age new values, greater focus on efficiency, efficiency at work, efficient use of resources, efficient consumption, etc. This though would require several generations and basically means improving our standard of living by learning to be comfortable with less.
Eric Stoner
02-21-2008, 09:38 AM
God forbid the economy is stimulated by helping the middle class, oh the horrors. What makes you think that helping the middle class won't trickle up to those on the top??? I'm tired of the trickle down theory, time to try something new. As I recall the economy was humming along while Clinton was in office and at that time taxes were higher for those on top.
I hope everyone is sitting down. For once Richard and I are in general agreement.
A REAL middle class tax cut WOULD be stimulative because they have more capacity to consume than the rich. There are more of them.
When people get wealthier, the first thing they generally tend to do is to get out of debt - A good thing for the economy. Next they tend to upgrade their home - another good thing. Then they upgrade their car or buy new big-ticket items or save or invest.
Contrast that to what happens when you cut taxes for people who are already wealthy. They already are out of debt; live in a nice house; have a vacation home; drive an expensive car; own a boat; are eating out and are dining on filet mignon at home. They are more likely to save and invest any tax savings as opposed to starting new businesses or expanding existing ones. THAT is where
you want to target tax cuts.
The problem comes in defining " Middle Class". Obama says it's people making
$75,000 or less. First, their savings will be minimal as will any stimulative effect.
They are NOT the people starting new businesses. Depending on WHERE they live, the Middle Class can and does include people making as much as $200,000 a year and more.
What I'd like to see is taxing hedge fund and mutual fund managers at existing
tax rates and NOT at Capital Gains rates. I think we could handle a top rate of 37.5 % which is lower than under Clinton but higher than it is now.The key is WHERE you impose that rate; at what income level ? Too low and you stifle economic growth. Too high and you get very little revenue gain. Which brings us back to repeal of the AMT and ONLY McCain is talking about that.
Melonie
02-21-2008, 10:27 AM
^^^ good point on the Capital Gains versus ordinary income tax rates. In fact, increasing the differential in these tax rates was the #1 reason for economic growth in the 1990's (or maybe it's #2 after a huge reduction in cold war defense spending). As a side note, the capital gains tax rate reduction was accomplished by a Republican House and Senate, with Clinton reluctantly signing the bill eventually.
However, this also gave birth to a whole lot of financial shenanigans to allow more people to reclassify ordinary income as capital gains and thus reduce their tax liability - from tech companies 'paying' their key employees with stock options instead of high salaries, to hedge funds and the 'shadow banking system' creating new mechanisms to transmute interest income into capital appreciation via packaged bond conversion / leveraged buyouts / private equity etc.
Any recent history fans should check out Obama's proposed bill to 'unconvert' hedge fund capital gains back into ordinary income ... it died almost immediately and pissed off a whole lot of Obama's uber-rich early supporters ! See .
However it would appear that, after getting his hand slapped financially speaking, Obama has rejoined Hilary in 'calling for' tax increases on the uber-rich but all the while maintaining the tax shelters that allow the uber-rich to actually pay significantly lower tax rates than 'middle class' Americans must.
PS the fact that the Alternative Minimum Tax relief packages have NOT ever been able to garner enough congressional support for permanent fixes means that the US congress can 'do nothing' in regard to the AMT next year thus allowing the existing temporary relief to expire. This will result in about a $2000 increase in federal tax liability for Americans earning $75k per year, and greater increases for those earning $200k per year. Ironically, it's not expected to increase the tax rates of those earning more than $1 million a year ... mostly because Americans with incomes in this category can afford to take advantage of big ticket tax loopholes that the $75k to $200k earners simply cannot afford to take advantage of. Obama and Hilary are both counting on existing AMT tax relief expiring ... which will cause automatic and significant increases in tax revenues without actually calling for or having to deal with the consequences of a congressional vote to raise taxes !!!
Richard_Head
02-21-2008, 06:49 PM
Obama has rejoined Hilary in 'calling for' tax increases on the uber-rich but all the while maintaining the tax shelters that allow the uber-rich to actually pay significantly lower tax rates than 'middle class' Americans must.Where are you getting this from? The maintaining of the tax shelters that is? What did the GOP do to close those loopholes BTW?
PS the fact that the Alternative Minimum Tax relief packages have NOT ever been able to garner enough congressional support for permanent fixes means that the US congress can 'do nothing' in regard to the AMT next year thus allowing the existing temporary relief to expire. This will result in about a $2000 increase in federal tax liability for Americans earning $75k per year, and greater increases for those earning $200k per year. Ironically, it's not expected to increase the tax rates of those earning more than $1 million a year ... mostly because Americans with incomes in this category can afford to take advantage of big ticket tax loopholes that the $75k to $200k earners simply cannot afford to take advantage of. Obama and Hilary are both counting on existing AMT tax relief expiring ... which will cause automatic and significant increases in tax revenues without actually calling for or having to deal with the consequences of a congressional vote to raise taxes !!!You seem to keep forgetting that the GOP did nothing about the AMT either over the 7 years they controlled congress. Frankly, I don't think either side wants a permanent fix, I think we're going to continue with the one year fixes, it's just too good of a bargaining chip to give up.
Richard_Head
02-21-2008, 06:54 PM
Clinton though may have just been at the right place at the right time, and attributing the economy of the time to him seems... hmmm...Perhaps you are correct, I found this LINK (http://www.boom2bust.com/2007/12/12/is-a-republican-president-really-better-for-the-economy/) to be an interesting take on the economies of republican vs democrat presidents though. Enjoy.
Eric Stoner
02-22-2008, 12:19 PM
Perhaps you are correct, I found this LINK (http://www.boom2bust.com/2007/12/12/is-a-republican-president-really-better-for-the-economy/) to be an interesting take on the economies of republican vs democrat presidents though. Enjoy.
It doesn't matter and I don't care what party they are from. Eisenhower maintained confiscatory tax policies while JFK cut taxes and the economy boomed. Clinton gave us balanced budgets and surpluses with a REPUBLICAN Congress that passed Gramm - Rudman and capital gains tax cuts. Bush II and the Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors as did the Democrat Congresses under Reagan and Bush I.
Melonie
02-23-2008, 01:21 PM
Where are you getting this from? The maintaining of the tax shelters that is? What did the GOP do to close those loopholes BTW?
you might want to start here ...
The gist of production tax credits is that investors in these gov't subsidized businesses are allowed to deduct, dollar for dollar, the tax credits they receive against any other tax liabilities.
As to your GOP versus dems argument attempt, all it took to block GOP contrary positions was 40 senatorial votes.
Richard_Head
02-23-2008, 02:34 PM
you might want to start here ... http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/production-tax-credit-for-renewable-energy.html
The gist of production tax credits is that investors in these gov't subsidized businesses are allowed to deduct, dollar for dollar, the tax credits they receive against any other tax liabilities.Tax credits for alternative energy sources??? That's all you've got??? Sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument.
As to your GOP versus dems argument attempt, all it took to block GOP contrary positions was 40 senatorial votes.Ok, so that's why they didn't even float any proposals out there? Sorry, pretty weak again. All they needed for passage was 51 votes, there were more than 51 republican senators for all 7 years yet nothing was done (or even proposed if I recall correctly).
Melonie
02-23-2008, 02:46 PM
All they needed for passage was 51 votes, there were more than 51 republican senators for all 7 years yet nothing was done (or even proposed if I recall correctly
where have you been for the last 7 years. It takes a 60 vote majority to achieve closure on a filibuster threat and actually bring a vote on any Senate proposal, a tactic which allowed a democratic minority to block a wide range of republican majority proposals in the early 00's ... and which is now allowing a republican minority to block a few democrat proposals in the current congress.
That's all you've got??? Sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument.
there are tons of others ... such as allowing intellectual property developed by US tech companies to have ownership transferred to foreign countries (which reduces effective tax rates on royalties from 30 odd percent US to 10% Ireland in Microsoft's case, to name one example). And one of the biggies that has been in the news lately is high interest rate triple tax free muni bonds ... with a $50k minimum buy-in that keeps 'middle class' investors from directly participating.
Richard_Head
02-23-2008, 03:11 PM
where have you been for the last 7 years. It takes a 60 vote majority to achieve closure on a filibuster threat and actually bring a vote on any Senate proposal, a tactic which allowed a democratic minority to block a wide range of republican majority proposals in the early 00's ... I really don't recall filibusters (or the threat of a filibuster) being used by dems on much of anything besides judicial appointees, a tax reform bill I'm guessing would have sailed through without a threat of a filibuster, but I guess we'll never know because it wasn't even attempted.
and which is now allowing a republican minority to block a few democrat proposals in the current congress.A few? Don't you mean the most ever? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13977.html
there are tons of others ... such as allowing intellectual property developed by US tech companies to have ownership transferred to foreign countries (which reduces effective tax rates on royalties from 30 odd percent US to 10% Ireland in Microsoft's case, to name one example). And one of the biggies that has been in the news lately is high interest rate triple tax free muni bonds ... with a $50k minimum buy-in that keeps 'middle class' investors from directly participating.And Barack has stated that he favors these? I guess I missed that.
Melonie
02-23-2008, 06:09 PM
a tax reform bill I'm guessing would have sailed through without a threat of a filibuster, but I guess we'll never know because it wasn't even attempted.
well I hate to call bull$#!t, however in this case ...
this wasn't the first effort by senate republicans either, but like the others these attempts tend to receive extremely little media coverage ...
Richard_Head
02-23-2008, 07:28 PM
^^^I'm not sure what you're calling bullshit on here? Neither link is really proving your point. The first link is showing the GOP threat of a filibuster (yet again), the second link is showing the GOP putting yet more tax cuts to the wealthy ahead of an AMT patch.
Melonie
02-23-2008, 08:27 PM
well if you are looking for recent and obvious examples, try this one ...
... where Senate republicans attempted to block the giveaway of bogus income tax refunds to Americans that don't actually have to pay income taxes, as well as other democrat proposed gov't handouts. Obviously this attempt failed, but it was successful in knocking a few of the handouts out of the package (i.e. gov't subsidies for winter heating bills).
minnow
02-24-2008, 11:43 AM
[quote=FBR;1412908]Pooks, he is so vague how do we know what defines "wealthy corporations"? I make about twice what my highly compensated employees make and maybe 3-4 time what my rank and file employees make. Does that make me greedy? Am I taking advantage of their labor .......
FBR: You can sleep easy on this one, because average S&P 500 CEO made $15M total compensation, or 364 times Average Employee. Is that "big"? Consider that in 1980 (just before Space Shuttle 1st flew), SP500 CEO made 40 times average worker. I understand Japanese CEO makes 10-20 times Lowest Paid Worker in their company- look at the inroads they've made in automotive market share. Does anyone see something amiss here???:thinking:
Richard_Head
02-24-2008, 01:41 PM
well if you are looking for recent and obvious examples, try this one ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604621.html?nav=rss_politics
... where Senate republicans attempted to block the giveaway of bogus income tax refunds to Americans that don't actually have to pay income taxes, as well as other democrat proposed gov't handouts. Obviously this attempt failed, but it was successful in knocking a few of the handouts out of the package (i.e. gov't subsidies for winter heating bills).None of your examples are pre-2007 when the GOP controlled congress, why is that? If congress could pass the GWB tax cuts they could have certainly also passed legislation to close a few tax dodging loopholes.
Melonie
02-24-2008, 04:32 PM
None of your examples are pre-2007 when the GOP controlled congress, why is that? If congress could pass the GWB tax cuts they could have certainly also passed legislation to close a few tax dodging loopholes.
You asked for evidence of GOP action ! Prior to the 2006 election, it was the congressional minority of democrats who were making use of the 40 vote filibuster closure threat. One very clear result of that was the inability of the previous GOP congressional majority to make permanent changes re the Bush tax cuts and AMT relief. The 40 vote filibuster threat factored heavily into the 'compromise' tax relief measure that was finally passed in 2006 without any permanent action re AMT or tax cuts. Unfortunately, there is precious little in the way of old news coverage of the 'negotiations' which took place prior to the passage of the final 'reconciliation' act ... which is perhaps best explained via editorial bias.
(snip)"House and Senate conferees have finally agreed on language for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, destined to be known among tax pros as TIPRA. The year isn't a typo: this law had an unusually long gestation period because of disagreements between the House and Senate over what should be included. The title contains the word reconciliation because this legislation brings the tax law in line with last year's budget, but the word could apply equally to the resolution of seemingly implacable differences between the two houses of Congress."(snip)
those 'seemingly implacable differences' between the heavily republican house and the marginally republican senate in 2005 obviously refers to the democratic minority, but a minority with more than 40 votes, who were unwilling to agree to permanent changes re tax rates or AMT !
... is a reference going back to 2002, arguably the real origin of 40 vote filibuster 'veto' power in the US Senate
(snip)"Moreover, congressional Republican leaders are pushing all three of those priorities in the face of burgeoning budget deficits and potentially recalcitrant Senate Democrats, who still hold enough seats to filibuster bills not to their liking. One senior White House official said President Bush understands that he still needs Democratic support for his tax cut proposals, even with a Republican-controlled Senate.
"The president remembers life before Jim Jeffords switched parties," the official said, referring to Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and to the tough negotiations the White House had over the 2001 tax cut, when Republicans clung to a one-vote Senate majority.
Or as one senior Senate GOP tax aide put it, Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are acting like the dog that finally caught the car it had chased for years: They are not sure what to do next. "(snip)
Richard_Head
02-24-2008, 10:04 PM
^^^I'm still standing by my claim that the GOP could have closed some of these loopholes had they really wanted to. Kind of hard to pass if it's not even proposed though isn't it?
Obama qualified to what? Be President? Sure, he's a professional politician steeped in cronyism, has a dedication to enlarging government, even a slight warmonger.
He's not qualified to do anything right for America, however.
His voting record rivals Hillary for making my stomach flip, but sadly he might be less bad than McCain.
"Cutting loopholes" is just politician speak for raising taxes. The net effect of "closing loopholes" is that person or corporation paying more in taxes. Period.
Don't let envy of "wealthy corporations" trick you. Taxing a corporation is probably the WORST tax to institute because it is a direct tax on future production. It is a direct and explicit tax on capital goods and the calculus of future production.
In terms of economic harm, the worst states you can institute are the taxes that apply to people with a preference for the future. Taxing savers, investors, and capital structures(corporate) makes the present relatively more economical and encourages people to become more short-sighted in their economic calculations.
Both trickle down and trickle up are pointless. Any tax, anywhere, is taking money out of the efficient producer of that profit(be it a corporation, an investor, a laborer) and giving it to the rat-hole of government spending, which CANNOT calculate economically because it has no profit/loss text. When bureaucrats waste money, they never have to fear about personal liability for it, can rely on future taxes, and to add insult to injury, all government spending gets added to GDP as 'productive.'
People become no less greedy just because they collect a government check. We might even reason they become even more so.
As far as middle-class versus "the rich", the rich already pay the lion's share of taxes and that burden has gone UP in the Bush years. The rich have gotten richer, true, but their tax burden has not only increased, the PROPORTION has also increased.
Eric Stoner
02-25-2008, 08:30 AM
^^^I'm still standing by my claim that the GOP could have closed some of these loopholes had they really wanted to. Kind of hard to pass if it's not even proposed though isn't it?
That wasn't the REAL problem. Closing loopholes would have raised a few billion here and a few billion there. The real problem was the SPENDING ! 6 years of Bush with a Rep. controlled Congress and no fiscal discipline.