U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Who won the 1st Presidential Debate
McCain 124 32.04%
Obama 194 50.13%
It was a tie 69 17.83%
Voters: 387. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2008, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Texas
835 posts, read 1,194,667 times
Reputation: 173

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by southdown View Post
This is another poll, from one of the major UK newspapers...

Poll: Who did best in the US presidential debate? | World news | guardian.co.uk

Puts Obama at 84%, McCain at 15% at time of posting.
When did we let the Brits vote....didn't they give up that right after 1776....no no no wait a minute they never had it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2008, 05:42 PM
 
1,517 posts, read 2,476,906 times
Reputation: 336
Poll Results Suggest More Uncommitted Voters Saw Obama As Debate Winner - Horserace

Lied about financial crisis...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_129774.html


Wong on Kissinger...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/...6971221579660/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Texas
835 posts, read 1,194,667 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn View Post
Obama can learn the lesson but does not know what he is saying! Yeah that and on Pakistan oh my there were so many.

I also loved how childish Obama was about the song WTF! Was pretty proud of himself for a brief moment before he realized he should have not said that! LOL..
LOL so true.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Texas
835 posts, read 1,194,667 times
Reputation: 173
What would you expect CBS to say....how many flew on Obama's world tour from CBS....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,496,708 times
Reputation: 7107
Bill Schneider on CNN when asked by Dobbs about the debate; He said their poll showed obama won, but then he cautioned Lou and the audience to the fact that it had 14% more dems.

Lou just laughed his butt off.

Oh my.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 06:01 PM
 
1,992 posts, read 3,728,490 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshFresh View Post
most of the polls are saying Obama won or it was tie/close


in addition, Obama looked far more presidential

he talked on the middle class and healthcare . . . issues America cares about

only thing McCain did tonight was attack

McCain played the role of an attack dog, not the role of a presidential candidate
While I agree with you that Obama won, hands down, I was surprised by how well McCain did. I really want Obama to win the election, but I will live if McCain wins. I could not stand another Republican like Bush, but McCain will do okay if he can stay alive. I don't want Palin in there. I am anxious to see her debate. Truth is, I am not too crazy about her or Biden, but Obama is less likely to not complete his term than McCain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Texas
835 posts, read 1,194,667 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki View Post
The huffpo lies as it assumes it's readers are not smart enough to digg for the truth in older articles and the vote record from the senate....these articles are fact and can be proven by the public vote from the senate.
Quote:
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
John S. McCain on the senate floor 2005
Quote:
John McCain and Barack Obama now criticize the risk-tolerant regulatory regime that produced the current crisis. But Sen. McCain's criticisms are at least credible, since he has been pointing to systemic risks in the mortgage market and trying to do something about them for years. Sen. Obama's conversion as a financial reformer marks a reversal from his actions in previous years, when he did nothing to disturb the status quo. Mr. Obama's vice-presidential search committee, Jim Johnson, a former chairman of Fannie Mae, was the one who announced Fannie's original affordable-housing program in 1991 -- just as Congress was taking up the first GSE regulatory legislation. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee adopted a strong reform bill. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.
Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on "deregulation." This is a canard. There has indeed been deregulation in our economy -- in long-distance telephone rates, airline fares, securities brokerage and trucking, to name just a few -- and this has produced much innovation and lower consumer prices. But the primary "deregulation" in the financial world in the last 30 years permitted banks to diversify their risks geographically and attract more than $100 billion of new capital in the past year to replace most of their subprime-related write-downs.
Guess again who's to blame for U.S. mortgage meltdown
Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess - WSJ.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 06:18 PM
 
1,992 posts, read 3,728,490 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
If the consensus in the media is that it is a tie, you know Mac won, big. He mopped the floor with obama lastnight, showing what a naive, dangerous, lightweight he truly is.

Look how many times obama said Mac was right - even CNN noticed that. His contant interupting and putting up his hand to Leherer in an effort to stop the pounding was hilarious.

He was out of his league.
I think that agreeing with McCain and not arguing on points in which they were in agreement showed Obama to be more presidential. We cannot have someone in the White House who says, "My way or the highway!" We have had 8 years of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 06:20 PM
 
2,742 posts, read 6,865,727 times
Reputation: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by foma View Post
You make good points and I agree with your train of thought but there's a few things I would like to comment:



Income is classified as either ordinary income (wages) or capital gains (investments). Currently, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. If Obama wins, I guarantee you people with capital gains are going to sell in a frenzy to try and avoid paying the higher tax rate under his watch. Good or bad, honestly, I can't speculate, especially with the current unstable market.

I do have a question about selling a home. I don't own one so I am not familiar with the process but I thought gains (profit) from a home sale is nontaxable if you owned it for a certain number of years and it was your main residence.





I would like to add to this.

Example 1. Increase the price of my pizza.

You bring in $250,000 and increase the pizza price by $10%. That will increase revenue to $275,000. I'm doing hypothetical numbers just to simplify the problem. At the current tax rate of, say, 30%, the gov't will generate a tax revenue of $75,000. If Obama increased taxes to 40%, the gov't will generate a tax revenue of 110,000. Not bad. Obama just got an increase in tax revenue for the government of $35,000.

Now, my question is, what if business suffers beause of the price increase? We are all consumers so we can all agree if the price at a restuarant goes up, we're probably going to eat there less so let's say business drops from $250,000 to 225,000. The government doesn't get $110,00 revenue anymore. Instead, the government generates, again a rate increase of 40%, $90,000. This is still a revenue increase of $15,000, but not the $35,000 the government thought they were going to get.

Or, if you want to get really technical, because the revenue generated is now only $225,000, the government will get less tax revenue. Why? Because the revenue is under Obama's plan of "I'm going to raise taxes on people who's income is over $250,000." Obviously, the business is making less than $250,000 now. That actually means a tax revenue loss of $7,500 ($75,000 - $67,500).

That brings me to proposed #4 solution. People who are in the range of $250,000 are just going to make less so they deliberately won't have to pay more taxes. This idea is based on the substitution effect of behavioural responses to rate changes. In a nutshell, it basically means that it makes very little difference to someone in the $250,000 income range if he made $250,000 or, say, $225,000. Again, Obama's idea that inceasing taxes only on those who make more than $250,000 will generate much less revenue than he thinks it will. Ultimately, that means he's going to have to raise taxes on more than just people making more than $250,000. Or, he's going to have to cut a sh*tload of programs.

Obama's tax increase plan won't work to the extent that he thinks it will. He will ultimately have to increase taxes on more people. I'm not saying his plan is wrong, but I am saying that it is flawed.
Ok, about your question about home and selling home..
You have to report that as capital gain and you have to pay taxes, also I am not sure but if the house is below a certain point you dont have to pay for it.

Example 1. Increase the price of my pizza.

You bring in $250,000 and increase the pizza price by $10%. That will increase revenue to $275,000. I'm doing hypothetical numbers just to simplify the problem. At the current tax rate of, say, 30%, the gov't will generate a tax revenue of $75,000. If Obama increased taxes to 40%, the gov't will generate a tax revenue of 110,000. Not bad. Obama just got an increase in tax revenue for the government of $35,000.
Yes, you are right Obama increased tax reveneu 35k, but again, the owner will increase and pass this down to you.

Now, my question is, what if business suffers beause of the price increase? We are all consumers so we can all agree if the price at a restuarant goes up, we're probably going to eat there less so let's say business drops from $250,000 to 225,000. The government doesn't get $110,00 revenue anymore. Instead, the government generates, again a rate increase of 40%, $90,000. This is still a revenue increase of $15,000, but not the $35,000 the government thought they were going to get.
Now the rest. owner have to lower the price back and fire a worker.

Or, if you want to get really technical, because the revenue generated is now only $225,000, the government will get less tax revenue. Why? Because the revenue is under Obama's plan of "I'm going to raise taxes on people who's income is over $250,000." Obviously, the business is making less than $250,000 now. That actually means a tax revenue loss of $7,500 ($75,000 - $67,500).
right...

That brings me to proposed #4 solution. People who are in the range of $250,000 are just going to make less so they deliberately won't have to pay more taxes. This idea is based on the substitution effect of behavioural responses to rate changes.
Of course, a lot of people will start cheating or some how making less.

In a nutshell, it basically means that it makes very little difference to someone in the $250,000 income range if he made $250,000 or, say, $225,000. Again, Obama's idea that inceasing taxes only on those who make more than $250,000 will generate much less revenue than he thinks it will. Ultimately, that means he's going to have to raise taxes on more than just people making more than $250,000. Or, he's going to have to cut a sh*tload of programs.
And if you starting thinking about it, for all of his programs is almost imposible to do with only a tax increase to the rich.

Obama's tax increase plan won't work to the extent that he thinks it will.
No, it wont. tax increase only works when the increase is balanced and not targeted to the rich only.
He will ultimately have to increase taxes on more people. I'm not saying his plan is wrong, but I am saying that it is flawed.
And we havent finished, he also wants to increase on death tax.
For me this is way wrong. This money was already taxed, why tax it again and tax it harder?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,646 posts, read 13,894,201 times
Reputation: 1679
Quote:
Originally Posted by walksalone View Post
I beg to differ. Welfare programs are a combined effort between federal and state government. link


The Federal Government needs to really tighten the belt or get out of it altogether.
Thanks for the link. I would have like to see a more up to date analysis; however that was informative. It appears the system has more culpability than the recipients everyone loves to blame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:40 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top