Obama's Agenda (political, of course)

[3113]

Can you tell me when I have ever quoted somebody out of context or misquoted them as badly as that clip does?

At the beginning of this thread. You quoted a very badly, taken completely out of context misquote.

 

[xssve]

"Redistribution" is "returning" payroll taxes to people who don't pay them and then "redistributing" the resulting debt onto our children.

 

[epiphany65]

Just read an interesting article from The New Yorker that pertains to this discussion. In it, they quote Palin as saying “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” It sounds like she has her own socialist tendencies herself. But, like the writer concludes "Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist."

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true

 

[3113]

But, like the writer concludes "Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist."

S' different among neighbors. You have to be a real American to understand that

 

[DesertPirate]

"Redistribution" is "returning" payroll taxes to people who don't pay them and then "redistributing" the resulting debt onto our children.

Add the total waste of taxpayers money by the Thundering Herd of Dumbass that passes for a Congress...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

EPIPHANY

No. It's a form of tax.

Alaska isnt harvesting the oil or refining it.

If I go fishing or hunting in Florida I have to buy a license for each activity. I'm not buying fish or venison from the state.

 

[Shwenn]

English is a living language, and meanings constantly change. What that means is that words mean what most people peceive them to mean. At one time, Socialism may have meant government (or community) ownership. However, the meaning has, by now, come to mean something more than that.

I want you to really think about this. Think about why this is.

McCain supporters, dyed to the core Republicans, seem to be the only people for whom the meaning of the word 'socialism' has changed.

That is the problem I see. It makes it seem like one of two things is true. Either you guys live in something of an ideological bubble where the only political analysis you read or hear is filtered through the Rebublican ideology. Or, it's some vast conspiracy where you are all being deliberately deceitful.

I would tend to think it's the former only because of my brother in law who outright refuses to read anything I suggest if the subject is political. And he is amazed and shocked that I actually read all the stuff he suggests even though I know before hand that I disagree with its basic assumptions and philosophies. He seems to feel that it is worth something to protect yourself from the ideas and words of your opposition.

 

[sweetness6280]

I want you to really think about this. Think about why this is.

McCain supporters, dyed to the core Republicans, seem to be the only people for whom the meaning of the word 'socialism' has changed.

That is the problem I see. It makes it seem like one of two things is true. Either you guys live in something of an ideological bubble where the only political analysis you read or hear is filtered through the Rebublican ideology. Or, it's some vast conspiracy where you are all being deliberately deceitful.

I would tend to think it's the former only because of my brother in law who outright refuses to read anything I suggest if the subject is political. And he is amazed and shocked that I actually read all the stuff he suggests even though I know before hand that I disagree with its basic assumptions and philosophies. He seems to feel that it is worth something to protect yourself from the ideas and words of your opposition.

Bold added.

My brother and I have much the same problem. I read everything he sends, even though I know it will be either something I disagree with, or worse, something completely false. He, on the other hand, will not even consider reading Obama's plan or anything else I send. LOL, he also thinks I'm "blindly following" Obama.

As I said before, this is politics at its worst. Using misleading labels and catch phrases that are inflammatory in order to scare voters. At the beginning, I had respect for McCain and believed him to be a man of honor. There is no honor in this type of campaigning.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SHWENN

First, there is no hardcore Republican support for McCain. The GOP rightwing nutjob base (me) hates him. Consequently, moderate GOP pols cant openly embrace McCain.

So your assertion is nonsense.

McCain and Obama are competing for soccer moms and white butt boys, and Obama is more appealing to them sexually.

 

[Shwenn]

SHWENN

First, there is no hardcore Republican support for McCain. The GOP rightwing nutjob base (me) hates him. Consequently, moderate GOP pols cant openly embrace McCain.

So your assertion is nonsense.

That hasn't been the impression I've gotten from the raging political discourse on this board for the last month.

Since I've been sitting here watching you spend all of your energy attacking Obama, I find even your personal assertion difficult to swallow.

You may not like McCain, but you are sure as fuck going to vote for him.

Sell your bridge to somebody else.

 

[Katyusha]

EPIPHANY

No. It's a form of tax.

Alaska isnt harvesting the oil or refining it.

If I go fishing or hunting in Florida I have to buy a license for each activity. I'm not buying fish or venison from the state.

They refine some of it but as far as I know all of that stays in Alaska.

As for the dividends, it's called the Alaska Permanent Fund, and it's 25% of all revenue from royalties, mining lease agreements, profit-sharing agreements, etc., that are already received by the state into a fund separate from the state's general fund. The principal is invested according to certain state laws and the income from those investments is then put into the general fund. The dividends paid to each Alaska resident come from the income of those investments as well.

The dividends, in other words, don't come from a separate tax. They come from the tax that the state already levies on those who profit from mining/harvesting Alaska's natural resources just as other states levy taxes on those who mine their natural resources. Alaska's just decided to do something different with some of that money; it's put into a separate fund for investment, and then the dividends (at least some) are distributed equally to each Alaska resident.

There's more to it than this but what I'm getting at is that it doesn't come from a tax that other states don't levy. The idea that every Alaskan should have an equal share of the profits made by investing revenue from certain taxes and other agreements is a form of socialism.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You may not like McCain, but you are sure as fuck going to vote for him.

No, he's not voting at all.

 

[Belegon]

My brother and I have much the same problem. I read everything he sends, even though I know it will be either something I disagree with, or worse, something completely false. He, on the other hand, will not even consider reading Obama's plan or anything else I send. LOL, he also thinks I'm "blindly following" Obama.

My brother-in-law continues to forward to me the most myopic or deceitful emails I have ever seen.

I used to copy-paste them into a "reply-to-all" and then go thru paragraph by paragraph with the explanation and citing facts to show them as untrue.

He stopped forwarding them and now copy/-pastes them into an email so I only reply to him.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

My brother-in-law continues to forward to me the most myopic or deceitful emails I have ever seen.

I used to copy-paste them into a "reply-to-all" and then go thru paragraph by paragraph with the explanation and citing facts to show them as untrue.

He stopped forwarding them and now copy/-pastes them into an email so I only reply to him.

ROFL!!! Good for you.

People seem to like the taste of the sand they stick their heads in... it's the only thing that makes sense...

 

[hamiJJ]

hmm

i love to watch some people debate this election, you have the die hards who would follow thier party into the desert with no water just becuase they family has always been in that party.

You have the generalists who say things like, hes a idiot or the guys a liar eor thier party did this in 1934

and you have the racists, i cant vote for a black muslim,

Then finally you have the normal people who i hope vote who are saying, you know what i dont think the last goverment did a very good job and we need t change alot.

i Just hope they are the in the majority

Oh im english and so what u vote for has a direct impact on me, and the irish and the french, german, etc etc etc

 

[midwestyankee]

My brother-in-law continues to forward to me the most myopic or deceitful emails I have ever seen.

I used to copy-paste them into a "reply-to-all" and then go thru paragraph by paragraph with the explanation and citing facts to show them as untrue.

He stopped forwarding them and now copy/-pastes them into an email so I only reply to him.

My brother-in-law (who's nominally a Democrat and actively campaigned for some of our past presidential nominees) does the same thing.

If all brothers-in-law are nutty-email-dickheads, who's left to vote with their brains? And don't tell me it's just women or I'll send you the latest email about how Obama is actually the son of Son of Sam.

 

[trysail]

Every time I see the highly manipulative and perjorative terms "progressive" income tax and "unearned" income my blood boils. Steve Forbes never stood a chance in hell of being elected but think how much easier life would be for virtually everybody if all income was taxed at 20%. No deductions. No earned income credits. No distinctions. No alternative minimum tax. No Form 1116. No Schedule D. No Schedules A & B. No tax avoidance shifting of income between ordinary income and capital gains.

It is, of course, completely inaccurate to assert that the U.S. has "always had a 'progressive' income tax regime." For that matter, the U.S. didn't have any income tax at all for a very substantial portion of its history.

Somebody has obviously been very successful at framing the terms of so-called debate on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_(U.S.)

 

[sweetness6280]

My brother-in-law continues to forward to me the most myopic or deceitful emails I have ever seen.

I used to copy-paste them into a "reply-to-all" and then go thru paragraph by paragraph with the explanation and citing facts to show them as untrue.

He stopped forwarding them and now copy/-pastes them into an email so I only reply to him.

LOL, I do this will emails I receive from everyone. Damn, I'm losing friends right and left.

I don't mind if I get an email which represents the facts correctly, even if I disagree with the sender's choices. It's these idiotic, false, and inflammatory emails that get me.

The brother has about given up.

 

[Belegon]

Actually, that brother-in-law has moved more to the center through this election cycle. Based on my most recent discussions, I will be certain to call him on election day because it seems like a football game in which the team that wins is the one that gets the ball last. Its like I keep pulling him away from this group of close-minded zealots and they keep pulling him back.

My sister is, unfortunately, a lost cause. I still don't understand how she can possibly still believe that Bush will be vindicated by history.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Someone please explain to me who the CENTER is.

 

[sweetness6280]

Every time I see the highly manipulative and perjorative terms "progressive" income tax and "unearned" income my blood boils. Steve Forbes never stood a chance in hell of being elected but think how much easier life would be for virtually everybody if all income was taxed at 20%. No deductions. No earned income credits. No distinctions. No alternative minimum tax. No Form 1116. No Schedule D. No Schedules A & B. No tax avoidance shifting of income between ordinary income and capital gains.

It is, of course, completely inaccurate to assert that the U.S. has "always had a 'progressive' income tax regime." For that matter, the U.S. didn't have any income tax at all for a very substantial portion of its history.

Somebody has obviously been very successful at framing the terms of so-called debate on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_(U.S.)

OK, so we used the no-no words "always" and "never." Sometimes in an effort to streamline a post, we assume some degree of knowledge from other posters.

You really think that people who make less than $20,000 a year should have to pay 20% of it to the government? That means they would have to try to live on less than $1700 a month. How can that possibly be easier for them?

I know I'm gonna get skewered for this, but I actually think a much more equitable system is to abolish income tax altogether, and institute a national sales tax. Families get to keep the money up front, and individuals are taxed on what they consume, not on what they earn. The more you make, the more you spend (most of the time). Families who save more than they spend would not be penalized. It also has no deductions, no earned income credit, no forms to fill out.

Do I think this will happen? No. The IRS is a bureaucracy, and killing one is kinda like trying to change the orbit of the earth.

 

[midwestyankee]

OK, so we used the no-no words "always" and "never." Sometimes in an effort to streamline a post, we assume some degree of knowledge from other posters.

You really think that people who make less than $20,000 a year should have to pay 20% of it to the government? That means they would have to try to live on less than $1700 a month. How can that possibly be easier for them?

I know I'm gonna get skewered for this, but I actually think a much more equitable system is to abolish income tax altogether, and institute a national sales tax. Families get to keep the money up front, and individuals are taxed on what they consume, not on what they earn. The more you make, the more you spend (most of the time). Families who save more than they spend would not be penalized. It also has no deductions, no earned income credit, no forms to fill out.

Do I think this will happen? No. The IRS is a bureaucracy, and killing one is kinda like trying to change the orbit of the earth.

Sweetness, I'm sure there have been good studies on the idea of a national sales tax but don't you think that it would be every bit as regressive as a flat income tax? After all, poor people use a far greater percentage of their income on goods that they consume than wealthier people. Sure, the wealthy buy more expensive cars and some expensive toys occasionally like a boat or a fur coat. But the vast majority of their income goes into non-consumables like investments, savings, real estate, and education.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SWEETNESS

The real villain is how corporations and individuals are allowed to offshore their income.

Lets say SWEETNESS INC buys Barbie dolls from China for 25 cents each. If SWEETNESS INC sells the dolls in America the income is $9.74 from a $9.99 retail sale.

But if SWEETNESS first sells the 25 cent dolls to SWEETNESS LLC of Cayman Islands and SWEETNESS LLC sells the dolls back to SWEETNESS INC for say $9.50, the taxable income declines to 24 cents.

Lets say you make a salary of $10 MILLION working for SWEETNESS INC. If you donate 9.9 MILLION of that salary to SWEETNESS CHARITIES in the Cayman Islands, your income tax comes out of the 100K NOT 10 MILLION. SWEETNESS CHARITIES then opens a bank account for you at a Cayman bank and deposits most of the 9.9 Million in the account.

 

[sweetness6280]

Sweetness, I'm sure there have been good studies on the idea of a national sales tax but don't you think that it would be every bit as regressive as a flat income tax? After all, poor people use a far greater percentage of their income on goods that they consume than wealthier people. Sure, the wealthy buy more expensive cars and some expensive toys occasionally like a boat or a fur coat. But the vast majority of their income goes into non-consumables like investments, savings, real estate, and education.

True, a lot of their income goes to investments and the like, but I have to say that a great deal of it is freely spent. I live in what has been declared the most affluent area in the country (still not sure why!). The wealthy buy expensive clothing, accessories, cars, etc. Most of the rest of us buy moderately priced items that serve the same purpose. I'm definitely not an expert on any of this, but I know that, as someone who earns on the lower end of the spectrum, it would be nice to have that money up front. I then get to decide if something is a necessary purchase or not. I don't know how most states are, but in Texas, grocery items and some other "necessities" are non-taxable.

I was not comparing the national sales tax to what we have now, but a flat income tax. I still think, when compared to a flat income tax, a national sales tax is far more equitable.

LOL, I still don't know if either will happen in my lifetime.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Mega corporations dont favor a national sales tax because its to their benefit to bribe Congress to saddle small business and individuals with the lion's share of taxes.

Around these parts if you open a florist shop next door to a McDonalds or WAL-MART your property tax is assessed as if your dinky flower shop were McDonalds or WAL-MART, because McDonalds and WAL-MART are the highest valued uses of the property. So YOU, McDonalds, and WAL-MART pay almost the same amount of property taxes.

If property tax was based on gross commerce WALMART would pay 1.5 million, McDonalds would pay 250K, and you would pay maybe 25K. As it is, each of you pay 150K. Everyone gets a break but you.