Ridiculousness About Redistribution (Obama, educational, McCain, Americans)
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.
Please dont assume I am voting for McCain. I cant bring myself to vote for him or Obama to tell you the truth. They are both too in favor of stimulus checks, bail outs, and welfare (corporate and social) for my tastes.
I should get a little more familiar with the Medicare stuff, so thanks for the additional info.
P.S. - I know the feeling about knowing too much about a particular boring field as I am in a similar situation myself.
Oh, I see. Yes, I might have voted for a 3rd party, but I think it will be too close in FL so I wanted my vote to count. Someone on this board said there are no write-ins here, but there was definitely a place on the ballot for a write-in on the paper ballot before scanning it. Perhaps every county is different (I don't know!)
I am far from a Liberal, so I had a lot of doubts about Obama. That is one reason I wanted to vote early. I was driving myself crazy!
Ridiculousness About Redistribution: Drudge and Others - The Plank (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/27/ridiculousness-about-redistribution-drudge-and-others.aspx - broken link)
Yes, great article which explains a major assault the GOP has launched against Obama.. In 'talking' with GOP friends, the issue of "redistribution of wealth" seems to be a dominant theme for not even considering voting for Obama.. This, and the label of 'Socialist' that the GOP smear machine has effectively placed on the Dem candidate. It does seem to be a pretty effective ruse in continuing to generate fear while NOT talking about the issues..
I have not contradicted myself, thank you. It is obvious that there are problems with the tax system which I have pointed out in the past and that need to be fixed. There is absolutely NO way that we should be increasing corporate tax rates beyond where they are now, especially not in this economy.
I don't know. Citing that we have the 2nd highest corp. tax rate in the world but then acknowledging in the same breath that this rate is drivel since Corps. don't pay near the 2nd highest tax in the world sounds kind of like... why mention the 1st, since it is only in theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Corporations have some issues that need to be dealt with, but what do you suggest for a tax rate for them? 40%? 50%? 60%? If you fix the loopholes, and enforce actual collection we would be in much better shape.
Some issues? LOL... o.k. tel me this...according to each candidate's rhetoric, who is more likely to fix the loopholes and/or increase tax to large coporations. The man who said he would or the man who said he'd give them another tax cut? Don't play semantics with 'tax rates', that's baloney... who's more likely to have our businesses who are largely to blame for the current financial crisis pay their appropriate taxes... Obama or McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Every single company and individual in this country is over taxed, period.
Says you. But then why do we sit on 10 trillion dollars of debt and still trading at a deficit despite huge losses to the USD... all the while Fortune 500 companies account for some of the largest profits in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
And btw, grow up...the "McDumb" comment pretty much invalidates any intelligence you may have shown in the rest of your post. I dont care about McCain or Obama any longer, neither one of them is the solution to our problems and to continue pretending that one is so much better than the other is delusional at best.
McDumb, McCame, McInsane... perhaps that in and of itself would invalidate any point, but then your math if fuzzy on taxes so I'll leave that alone.
I'd still love to here your explanation on what '2nd highest tax rate in the world' is supposed to mean, in a negative sense as it's connoted, and how you feel that Japan's Gov't struggles for being the 1st highest corp. tax rate in the world.
Yes, great article which explains a major assault the GOP has launched against Obama.. In 'talking' with GOP friends, the issue of "redistribution of wealth" seems to be a dominant theme for not even considering voting for Obama.. This, and the label of 'Socialist' that the GOP smear machine has effectively placed on the Dem candidate. It does seem to be a pretty effective ruse in continuing to generate fear while NOT talking about the issues..
Bill Ayers advertised himself as being a communist with a small c just when he was beginning to partner with Obama on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, so the label of "socialist" is a kinder, gentler way of describing Obama. It fits. (Pretty much same difference, IMO.)
When you partner with a communist, you have to be willing to wear the same label. As for redistribution of wealth, it is a real goal and at the center of Obama's ideaology. While you suggest that this is a GOP ruse, Obama is undoubtedly kicking himself for his slip of the tongue because it IS an issue, he knew it would be, and didn't want it openly known or highlighted.
... If only that money had been used to start the bailout last spring/summer (when they all knew it was coming), we may have achieved a soft landing. Instead, the Bushies drove us off a cliff.
It is well known and documented that the Democrats blocked any effort to avoid the meltdown. Republicans warned of it, but Pelosi and Frank and Reid all pooh-poohed it. Barney Frank said that Fannie and Freddie were in good shape.
Obama continues to deny his close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to Obama's campaign.
Obama helped push us over that cliff (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd).
I don't know. Citing that we have the 2nd highest corp. tax rate in the world but then acknowledging in the same breath that this rate is drivel since Corps. don't pay near the 2nd highest tax in the world sounds kind of like... why mention the 1st, since it is only in theory.
Some issues? LOL... o.k. tel me this...according to each candidate's rhetoric, who is more likely to fix the loopholes and/or increase tax to large coporations. The man who said he would or the man who said he'd give them another tax cut? Don't play semantics with 'tax rates', that's baloney... who's more likely to have our businesses who are largely to blame for the current financial crisis pay their appropriate taxes... Obama or McCain?
Says you. But then why do we sit on 10 trillion dollars of debt and still trading at a deficit despite huge losses to the USD... all the while Fortune 500 companies account for some of the largest profits in history?
McDumb, McCame, McInsane... perhaps that in and of itself would invalidate any point, but then your math if fuzzy on taxes so I'll leave that alone.
I'd still love to here your explanation on what '2nd highest tax rate in the world' is supposed to mean, in a negative sense as it's connoted, and how you feel that Japan's Gov't struggles for being the 1st highest corp. tax rate in the world.
2nd highest corp tax rate in the world = fact
Some companies find ways around them = fact
Fixing the loopholes would instantly raise the realized tax revenues = fact
My apologies for mentioning the facts and trying to address the issue. If tomorrow they fixed the problem of taxes not being paid (which is my solution instead of just raising taxes higher and making it more lucrative for people to find loopholes) there would be no need to raise taxes. Raising taxes would be trying to fix the symptom, not the actual problem.
I refuse to address your question on who would be best to address the issue because quite frankly both candidates are a joke in my eyes and neither will address the real problem, and to try and distinguish which one might be marginally better is like arguing over weather you would rather fall off of a 200 foot high cliff or a 201 foot high cliff.
Again, your drivel about our debt in relation to Fortune 500 profits is irrelevant. The taxes are not being paid in full because of loopholes for the most part. The budget being so far gone is a result of our stupid war, and a result of our incompetent Senate/Congress (which both Obama and McCain are part of) and our highly incompetent President.
As for what you claim is "fuzzy math" sorry you see it that way, but these are some pretty simple facts that I've posted.
And Japan? There are so many differences between a country like that and the US, its really way to economically and environmentally complex to try and make an apples to apples comparison which you seem to be trying here.
Fixing the loopholes would instantly raise the realized tax revenues = fact
If history is any inclination, they won't be fixed. Corp. tax laws are far too complex and need to be overhauled
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
My apologies for mentioning the facts and trying to address the issue.
Apology accepted
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
If tomorrow they fixed the problem of taxes not being paid (which is my solution instead of just raising taxes higher and making it more lucrative for people to find loopholes) there would be no need to raise taxes.
I too would like this. For now, I say let's put a band aid on a broken system as this is election year we know what happens to really good ideas during election year (i.e. See Ron Paul). They get spun, and smeared, for going against the grain too much. And then the media outlets spin it, and then the masses eat the spin with a big silver spoon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Raising taxes would be trying to fix the symptom, not the actual problem.
It would certainly address the issue of tax assessment in the interim while a better solution can come to fruition. I think it would be far worse to LOWER the taxes to companies that are already paying relatively low taxes. Exxon Mobile just had the largest quarter in U.S. history... 14.83 billion! I don't think this is right... remember, we are only talking about 5% of businesses, and I think an even smaller percentage of citizens.
I refuse to address your question on who would be best to address the issue because quite frankly both candidates are a joke in my eyes and neither will address the real problem, and to try and distinguish which one might be marginally better is like arguing over weather you would rather fall off of a 200 foot high cliff or a 201 foot high cliff.
While I do empathize with you, having been a strong 3rd party supporter in the past; there's no way this election is going to a 3rd party... to the majority's eyes, this election is bigger than that and I don't mean that in the 3rd party is always a waste sense, I mean Nov. 4th 2008 is going to have the largest voter turnout in history is new voter registrations and early voter turn out are any sign, and there's just no way a 3rd party will win this election, I can promise you that. However, if folks become disenchanted with Obama and realize he's not the Holy Grail, I do think there will be a strong chance for a 3rd party rally in 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Again, your drivel about our debt in relation to Fortune 500 profits is irrelevant. The taxes are not being paid in full because of loopholes for the most part. The budget being so far gone is a result of our stupid war, and a result of our incompetent Senate/Congress (which both Obama and McCain are part of) and our highly incompetent President.
It's not just the war. Large caps have a lot to do with it. The recent 800+ billion dollar bailout is larger than the Iraq war to date, and this time, the money isn't coming from foreign investment but the printing press...
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
As for what you claim is "fuzzy math" sorry you see it that way, but these are some pretty simple facts that I've posted.
Well, yes, now that you admit there are tax loopholes, it becomes a tad less transparent. In your first comment you argued that 'tax breaks' are need for businesses to stay competitive. I think that is simply untrue because of the loopholes. You can argue that the system is designed to collect more taxes all you want, but if the system is not collecting those taxes because of loopholes, then your superlative pretense that we have the '2nd highest tax rate' becomes less poignant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
And Japan? There are so many differences between a country like that and the US, its really way to economically and environmentally complex to try and make an apples to apples comparison which you seem to be trying here.
LOL, you know... I'm not asking for a Japan Gov't financial report. You threw out an ambiguous figure (2nd highest tax rate) and used that as an argument against higher taxes in this country (for the rich) as though that's a bad thing. I pointed out the country that is the 1st highest tax rate, which does just fine taxing the hell out of their companies. Is that not a fair comparison? Neither here nor there, but the tighter relationship that has been created between large corps and businesses here in recent weeks, means we are a lot more like Japan's Gov't/Big Biz than we were before.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 10-31-2008 at 08:01 AM..
Bill Ayers advertised himself as being a communist with a small c just when he was beginning to partner with Obama on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, so the label of "socialist" is a kinder, gentler way of describing Obama. It fits. (Pretty much same difference, IMO.)
When you partner with a communist, you have to be willing to wear the same label. As for redistribution of wealth, it is a real goal and at the center of Obama's ideaology. While you suggest that this is a GOP ruse, Obama is undoubtedly kicking himself for his slip of the tongue because it IS an issue, he knew it would be, and didn't want it openly known or highlighted.
So everyone on the Woods Fund board, everyone who was involved with the CAC, everyone Bill Ayers works with at U of IL... is a communist?
So everyone on the Woods Fund board, everyone who was involved with the CAC, everyone Bill Ayers works with at U of IL... is a communist?
Or only Barack Obama?
Seriously - everyone, or only him?
Convoluted thinking to ask a question like that. It's the ideology that they share. Do a bit or study about the ideology and you'll understand.
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.
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.
I cant bring myself to vote for him or Obama to tell you the truth. They are both too in favor of stimulus checks, bail outs, and welfare (corporate and social) for my tastes.
There you go again
