American 2008 Election

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: IDS2 I agree with screamingman. If you're making 200k a year and are sitting pretty, I think you can sacrifice your 3rd yacht for a raise in taxes while the lower class's rates stay the same or drop. Call it wealth redistribution, but it's a brilliant idea. Of course, don't tax them so much that there's no incentive to do business, but why not make the wealthy pay a bit more? They can afford it.quote>

Just how much "wealth redistribution" do we need?  Are you aware that, according to the IRS, the top 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all the nation's income tax, the top 10% account for just over 70% of collected income tax, and the top 25% of Americans pay about 86.25% of the nation's income tax.  That leaves the other 75% shouldering a whopping roughly 14% of the nation's income tax revenue?  At what point do we finally agree that "the rich" are paying their fair share?

EDIT:  The link will download an Excel file from which the data was gathered.quote>

Thats very misleading because you aren't representing the ACTUAL distribution of wealth. The top 1% have 40% of the nations financial wealth. The top 20 % have 92.2% of the wealth... The bottom 80% has a MEAGER 8.8% of the US' financial wealth. Seems like the top 25% aren't actually paying their fair share after all.... Figured if you had 92.2% of the wealth, even on a FLAT Tax they aren't paying their fair share, never the less a progressive tax. On paper, yes tax rates are higher for the rich, but there are so many loopholes that you could set the tax rate at 100% they'd still manage to get away with paying very little. The tax code benefits the rich who can itemize their wealth and use various credits and deductions in their favor, never the less invest their money in off shore PROPERTIES (which is legal and untaxable by the US, only by the host government, which the tax haven du jour is Dubai).

Obama has NEVER once advocated raising taxes for the VAST majority of people yet the right have been trying to spin it as if everyone will see their taxes raised. Obama's plan, which he admits might have to be delayed due to the bail out, calls for a tax reduction for those earning under $250,000 which he claims is like less than 90% or whatever (don't quote my number, i can't remember), but MOST people won't notice it. If you're walking away with 90 million dollars, you can stand to pay a few more in taxes. Right now, I suggest a freeze on tax hikes and allowing much of the Bush tax cuts for the richest 15% of America to expire. We've already done loads of tax rebates, and now a bailout, we are in NO position to cut taxes further. McCain and Palin are throwing out a VERY misleading 1 trillion dollar deficit claim that Obama will have despite the fact that their current plan is just as unfundable with a MUCH larger tax cut with very little in appreciable spending cuts. Yes, we LOVE hearing about cutting out pork barrel projects, but they actually make up VERY little of our governments spending. Both Obama and McCain have not addressed the serious budget deficits and crushing debt our government is in.

Besides... Republicans tend to replace the word "taxes" with "fees", its one of the more misleading fiscal tactics used. But anywho... to restate, the Democratic ticket does not suggest raising taxes unless you make more than $250,000.

[GMT 389]

palin has some sort of progress, the tv show was like... she knew what she's talking about ^^

anyhow, I still endorse Paris ;-)

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

It would be interesting to see the numbers based on gross income, not adjusted gross income and see what the resulting tax rates are for each group.   The basic formula is:

Gross Income - (all the various deductions) = Adjust Gross Income

Using Barbarossa's examples . . .

Let's say that top 1% guy has a Gross Income of $5M, but has tax deductions of $2M.  His Adjusted Gross Income would be $3M and 30% of that is $900,000.   But, $900,000 is only 18% of the original $5M.

Let's say that the other guy makes $27,000 and doesn't qualify for deductions.   His 30% is actually 30%.   So, in effect, he is paying a higher tax rate than the top 1% guy.

Please note that I am not advocating eliminating tax deductions.   In a free society, tax deductions are a major "carrot" to encourage people to spend their money in certain ways.  Giving that up would be a major problem.

[Aontan 0]

Palin says Obama pals with terrorists

Sunday, 5 October 2008 09:37

The US Republican vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, has accused Democratic candidate Barack Obama of being pals with terrorists.

With the Republicans trailing in the polls a month before the Presidential election, Ms Palin said the time had come to take the gloves off.

Speaking yesterday at a fundraiser in Colorado, Ms Palin told supporters Senator Obama 'is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.'

Her comment referred to William Ayers, who supported Barack Obama's first run for public office in 1995.

The relationship between Senator Obama and William Ayers, a member of the radical 1960s group the Weathermen that committed bombings on the Pentagon and the Capitol, was highlighted in The New York Times yesterday.

Governor Palin's sharp jab is in step with recent Republican campaign statements that the McCain camp plans to launch a fierce assault on Barack Obama with the presidential election only 30 days away.

The Obama campaign described the attack as 'desperate and false.'

'Governor Palin's comments, while offensive, are not surprising, given the McCain campaign's statement this morning that they would be launching Swiftboat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation's economic ills,' said Obama-Biden spokesman Hari Sevugan.

'What's clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy,' he said.

Story from RTÉ News:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1005/uselection.html

quote>

[TV-VCR 15]

Originally posted by: Aontan

Palin says Obama pals with terrorists

Sunday, 5 October 2008 09:37

The US Republican vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, has accused Democratic candidate Barack Obama of being pals with terrorists.

With the Republicans trailing in the polls a month before the Presidential election, Ms Palin said the time had come to take the gloves off.

Speaking yesterday at a fundraiser in Colorado, Ms Palin told supporters Senator Obama 'is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.'

Her comment referred to William Ayers, who supported Barack Obama's first run for public office in 1995.

The relationship between Senator Obama and William Ayers, a member of the radical 1960s group the Weathermen that committed bombings on the Pentagon and the Capitol, was highlighted in The New York Times yesterday.

Governor Palin's sharp jab is in step with recent Republican campaign statements that the McCain camp plans to launch a fierce assault on Barack Obama with the presidential election only 30 days away.

The Obama campaign described the attack as 'desperate and false.'

'Governor Palin's comments, while offensive, are not surprising, given the McCain campaign's statement this morning that they would be launching Swiftboat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation's economic ills,' said Obama-Biden spokesman Hari Sevugan.

'What's clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy,' he said.

Story from RTÉ News:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1005/uselection.html

quote>

quote>

*headwall*

Well here we go, the the GOP going to really start playing dirty. It was going to happen sooner or later. God forbid if the majority of America falls for it.

[IDS2 3,428]

HYM: Like I said, percentage is different than total dollar amount. If everyone paid 20%, the janitor making $20,000 a year would only recieve $16,000 of that while the lawyer making $200,000 a year would get $160,000. As you can imagine, you can do very well with 160K a year with a family of 4+ but would struggle with only 16K and a wife and kids...or even 10%, say there's a waiter living on tips and $7.00 an hour. He could make 10-20K a year if he's lucky. If $2,000 of that is taken from him, that's a new car or a year's worth of groceries. What if he has a family? The dentist making 200K a year will be just fine with 180K. 20K is a lot of money, but he still has 9X that amount left over to buy a yacht, RV, new house, whatever he wants. He'll still be sitting pretty, he can live without that 20K, which is equal to our waiter friend who makes what the dentist pays.

 That article...is why I dislike Sarah Palin. She is lying through her teeth and doesn't seem to even listen to anybody that doesn't agree with her views. She needs to get a grip or all this crap will only hurt their already desperate campaign. Seriously, making up stories like "Obama is best buds with Al Qaeda!!!" Is pretty pathetic-yeah you have freedom of speech, don't abuse it! She also spent some of the debate weaseling her way out of tough questions "Yes, I support so-and-so, but I want to talk about economics!" 

In short, I find it hard to listen to her anymore, it seems most of what is coming out of her mouth now is a twist of the truth in a last desperate cling to woo voters. Like at the debate, Joe Biden was stating facts and she was constantly denying them even though they were clearly FACTS, which if I remember right are defined as true statements, not opinion. Sure, Biden was pushing the envelope quite a bit too but not like Sarah. 30 seconds later you see a McCain commercial that couldn't be any more biased with clips from the Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor...are you serious? 

My point is, candidates always lie during their campaigns, no denying that, even Obama and Biden do it but these two seem to be ad-libbing their way to November 4. Do they go to improv 30 minutes before these speeches? These lies are becoming increasingly apparent and the public seems to have found out. 

Anyone who disagrees with this, I'm interested to hear your views, I try to be central but I guess I'm not being fair. Anyone who likes McCain/Palin please let me know!

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: IDS2 I agree with screamingman. If you're making 200k a year and are sitting pretty, I think you can sacrifice your 3rd yacht for a raise in taxes while the lower class's rates stay the same or drop. Call it wealth redistribution, but it's a brilliant idea. Of course, don't tax them so much that there's no incentive to do business, but why not make the wealthy pay a bit more? They can afford it.quote>

Just how much "wealth redistribution" do we need?  Are you aware that, according to the IRS, the top 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all the nation's income tax, the top 10% account for just over 70% of collected income tax, and the top 25% of Americans pay about 86.25% of the nation's income tax.  That leaves the other 75% shouldering a whopping roughly 14% of the nation's income tax revenue?  At what point do we finally agree that "the rich" are paying their fair share?

EDIT:  The link will download an Excel file from which the data was gathered.quote>

I think that what you need to realize is how the mathematics behind tax rates actually works.  If the average Top 1%er has an average yearly income of $5M, then a 30% tax rate means he pays $1.5M in taxes.  However, if a typical "lower classer" averages $27k/yr, and they are subject to the same 30% tax rate, then they are paying $8,100.  I am being very simplistic here.  As you can see, it comes as no surprise that the amount of revenue the IRS obtains is going to be skewed.  I think this remains true even when we consider that the population of poor and middle class far outnumbers the wealthy.  I could be wrong, but it is definitely something to consider.

Barbarossaquote>

I'm fairly aware of how the math works.  Thing is (and in hindsight, I guess I didn't make this clear enough), people complain that "the little guy" makes up the bulk of US tax money and that the "fat cats" aren't paying anything.  The IRS statistics clearly say the reverse is actually true.

Originally posted by: IDS2 HYM: Like I said, percentage is different than total dollar amount. If everyone paid 20%, the janitor making $20,000 a year would only recieve $16,000 of that while the lawyer making $200,000 a year would get $160,000. As you can imagine, you can do very well with 160K a year with a family of 4+ but would struggle with only 16K and a wife and kids...or even 10%, say there's a waiter living on tips and $7.00 an hour. He could make 10-20K a year if he's lucky. If $2,000 of that is taken from him, that's a new car or a year's worth of groceries. What if he has a family? The dentist making 200K a year will be just fine with 180K. 20K is a lot of money, but he still has 9X that amount left over to buy a yacht, RV, new house, whatever he wants. He'll still be sitting pretty, he can live without that 20K, which is equal to our waiter friend who makes what the dentist pays.quote>

The problem with the "you're already earning more than a comfortable living so taking more from you isn't going to hurt you" ideology is that it punishes people for making a success of themselves and effectively attempts to enforce a salary cap.  This kind of policy dances with the same problem that a socialist system deals with--stripping people of their incentive to improve themselves because the government or whoever is taking the rewards from them.  If the government doesn't take too much, people might still be willing to work harder to make more money or whatever.  If the government takes too much, people realize that there isn't any point as they are no longer working to improve themselves, thus meaning they're wasting their time.  And when they reach that point, "wealth redistribution" becomes detrimental.

[Duke87 1,070]

...and out comes the mud.

And I get to just sit back, watch, and laugh, since I'm not voting for either of them regardless.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Palin is an idiot. The neo-cons are banking on McCain's kicking the bucket so that they can have an even better puppet in office than Bush.

Like Duke87 said, I can't help but laugh at their death-throes. quote>

 

I'm not going to laugh until I see how many people are buying it.  In politics, perception is more important than reality.  

For instance there are those who are convinced (and are teaching their children) that the Founding Fathers meant for the USA to be a Christian nation, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and the Treaty of Tripoli was approved in 1797 by our Founding Fathers while containing the phrase "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

Politics is about making people agree with whatever you want them to agree with.  Reality is secondary. 

[IDS2 3,428]

Thank you Barbarossa, you summed up the McCain campaign in 2 sentences-not much else to say. Sarah Palin has absolutely no right to hold any high position like vice president, let along president...*shudder* John McCain is OK but his policies are mostly useless and he loves to throw mud. Still going with Obama.

[TV-VCR 15]

[Duke87 1,070]

By the way, Ski... Love the sig.

For posterity's sake, this is what I'm commenting on.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

 By the way, Ski... Love the sig.

For posterity's sake, this is what I'm commenting on.quote>

Thanks, Duke      

I saw a bumper sticker like that on a car.  

Beebs thought it was rather bland so he jazzed it up for me.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Duke87

 By the way, Ski... Love the sig.

For posterity's sake, this is what I'm commenting on.quote>

Thanks, Duke      

I saw a bumper sticker like that on a car.  

Beebs thought it was rather bland so he jazzed it up for me.

quote>

 

Id vote for him

[confused04 14]

How dare you vote for that hippy Kenobi!!

He's associated with TERRORISTS! Do you not remember that he worked with the treacherous Jedi Rebellion, particularly Yoda!!

We need someone who is not afraid to flex our military might and protect us from galactic threats. Palpatine-Vader '08!

Registration closed in AZ, AR, CO, DC, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MI, MS, OH, PA, TN, TX and VA. Hope you are registered whoever your voting for! Although for the McCain camp, I would be disheartened to hear the vast registration bias for the Democrats (5 to 1 in CO for example).

Anywho... for those of you outside Minnesota, you are missing out on the most expensive Senate Campaign and we are the ONLY state in the US where McCain is actually purchasing more ads than Obama (as of last week, I believe that may have switched too). But, FINALLY having a comedian in the election has finally paid off.

The Senate campaign is just the worst I've ever witnessed since 1996 (when I can actually remember anything about ads). The local media has just been blasted all candidates (yea, we have 3 major parties in Minnesota, TAKE THAT you bi-party states!). The attack ads have just been OVER the top featuring nothing but unabashed lying and distortion that even political lay men can see through. Polls currently have Coleman-Franken-Barkely at roughly 43-38 -18 (averaging several polls and adjusting for a few biases). Its gonna be a nail biter to the end...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: confused04

We need someone who is not afraid to flex our military might and protect us from galactic threats. Palpatine-Vader '08!quote>

As if you have a choice. The Empire isn't a democracy. It's, well, an empire.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: confused04

How dare you vote for that hippy Kenobi!! quote>

Hippy?  Yeah, let's bring back hippies!  

If hippies had been running the country the last 40 years we would already be using "alternative" energy on a widespread scale and we would not be dependent on foreign oil.  But the treehugger lobbyists never had the funding that the oil lobbyists do so we are where we are.

Oh well, gotta play the ball where it lies.  even if it is in a quicksand trap.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: confused04

How dare you vote for that hippy Kenobi!! quote>

Hippy?  Yeah, let's bring back hippies!  

If hippies had been running the country the last 40 years we would already be using "alternative" energy on a widespread scale and we would not be dependent on foreign oil.  But the treehugger lobbyists never had the funding that the oil lobbyists do so we are where we are.

Oh well, gotta play the ball where it lies.  even if it is in a quicksand trap.

quote>

 

Umm  I thought the hippies were in charge now?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Umm  I thought the hippies were in charge now?

quote>

Umm . . . for example?

or maybe the issue here is the definition of "hippie"

[The Border City Kid 0]

hippies created woodstock, therefor they would get my vote if i was a us citizen

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: confused04

How dare you vote for that hippy Kenobi!! quote>

Hippy?  Yeah, let's bring back hippies!  

If hippies had been running the country the last 40 years we would already be using "alternative" energy on a widespread scale and we would not be dependent on foreign oil.  But the treehugger lobbyists never had the funding that the oil lobbyists do so we are where we are.quote>

Assuming that they had been able to push through "alternative" energies (which seems somewhat doubtful given the unresolved technical hurdles we're still facing), the next question would be "At what cost?".  Had there not been the investment in oil that there was, one could wonder whether the modern medical establishment would be able to treat the range of ailments that it presently can treat.  Nearly all the products found on store shelves need oil (or some oil product) at some point in their manufacturing.  Many of the advances we have made today have been possible because of easy access to oil resources.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

 Nearly all the products found on store shelves need oil (or some oil product) at some point in their manufacturing.  Many of the advances we have made today have been possible because of easy access to oil resources.quote>

Which is all the more reason why we shouldn't be using it for purposes where we could use alternatives instead.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

 Nearly all the products found on store shelves need oil (or some oil product) at some point in their manufacturing.  Many of the advances we have made today have been possible because of easy access to oil resources.quote>

Which is all the more reason why we shouldn't be using it for purposes where we could use alternatives instead.quote>

I'll rephrase that quoted segment a bit differently.  They used oil because it was the only way they knew how to make it.  There were no "alternatives"; you either made it with oil or you didn't make it at all.  To paraphrase a chemical engineer I know (who was talking about plastic production), "They've known for decades that plastics could be made from things other than oil, but they didn't know how to actually make it work.  It wasn't till the last several years that the finally figured out how to make non-oil based plastics, and it wasn't till just a few years ago that they finally figured out how to make those plastics cost effective."

Yeah, nowadays, it makes some sense to attempt to quit using oil to make everything, but the reality is that, up till recently, most stuff was made with oil because they couldn't make it cost effectively using any other method.  Oil was the "stepping stone" that allowed us to get to this point.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Umm  I thought the hippies were in charge now?

quote>

Umm . . . for example?

or maybe the issue here is the definition of "hippie"quote>

 

I meant in a general sense. All those college age kids in the late 60s&70's are how old now?

Most of them abandond the hippie movement when there was money to be made in Politics

not by pushing the hippie agenda but maintaining the some old system.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

  "They've known for decades that plastics could be made from things other than oil, but they didn't know how to actually make it work.  It wasn't till the last several years that the finally figured out how to make non-oil based plastics, and it wasn't till just a few years ago that they finally figured out how to make those plastics cost effective."quote>

Which goes back to my original (although not clearly stated) point:  I believe that technologically, we can do whatever we set our minds to do.

If it had been a priority, back in the 60s, to resolve those technical hurdles you mentioned, we would have developed alternative energies by now.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

  "They've known for decades that plastics could be made from things other than oil, but they didn't know how to actually make it work.  It wasn't till the last several years that the finally figured out how to make non-oil based plastics, and it wasn't till just a few years ago that they finally figured out how to make those plastics cost effective."quote>

Which goes back to my original (although not clearly stated) point:  I believe that technologically, we can do whatever we set our minds to do.

If it had been a priority, back in the 60s, to resolve those technical hurdles you mentioned, we would have developed alternative energies by now.quote>

Possibly.  "Money and manpower" doesn't solve all problems.  Some of the hurdles have been so persistent that both government and corporate researchers have deemed it a waste of time to continue trying to solve them.  It doesn't bode well for a technology when even the scientists are saying it's time to admit defeat.

On a different note, the ACORN organization has drawn the attention of local police and the FBI for possible voter registration fraud.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Possibly.  "Money and manpower" doesn't solve all problems.  quote>

True.  But, as the cliche goes, necessity is the mother of invention.  and, until recently, many people haven't believed it was necessary.

It doesn't bode well for a technology when even the scientists are saying it's time to admit defeat.quote>

Maybe.   But my parents were taught that there is nothing smaller than an atom and I was taught there were only three states of matter.   The scope of human knowledge is expanding all the time.  (well, except during the Dark Ages but that's a different issue.)

On a different note, the ACORN organization has drawn the attention of local police and the FBI for possible voter registration fraud.quote>

Quoting from that article:

"We have identified about 100 duplicates, and probably 280 addresses that don't exist, people who have driver's license numbers that won't verify or Social Security numbers that won't verify. Some have no address at all." quote>

As I recently trained check-in judge for this election, I can tell you the procedures for such cases in Maryland.   First time voters are flagged in the computer.  At the time they check in, we ask them to show ID.  If they can show valid ID, we give them an access card for the machines.  If they can not show valid ID, we send them to the table for a provisional ballot.  Provisional ballots are coded as to why the voter was not allowed to vote on the machine.  They start sorting out the provisional ballots the next day and figured out what the issue is.

[confused04 14]

60 Seats... is it possible?

The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail for the golden 60 seat majority in the Senate. 6 months ago, the notion of a filibuster proof Senate was laughable. Now its a small, but real possibility. With MS-B, WA, MN, NC and OR tightening more than expected, the magical 60 has become quite a tantalizing prize that the DSCC is hoping Obama's coattails can deliver. Ironically, it was the bitter primary battle that threatened to tear the party asunder that may be benefiting many of these races. As the registration drives conducted by the Clinton and Obama camps helped obliterate voting records (in Minnesota, we smashed our previous caucus record of 80,000 for the Democrats to 214,000). Continued registration drives in all 50 states that was once the cornerstone of the ambitious Obama campaign may pay off, even in red states which saw a handful of Republican districts fall to the Democrats in special elections this past year. Certainly doesn't help that the AK and MN senators have been embroiled in scandal with both incumbent Republicans dropping quickly in the polls. This week a new scandal rocked Senator Norm Coleman which may seal his fate as he was already facing scrutiny for what some have described as "below market rent" for a portion of a large apartment in Washington DC ($600 a month). Personally, despite my biases, I think Norm was innocent on THAT charge as his rented portion was rather small (one room). The new scandal was actually about personal gifts of suits from long time friends which was supposedly not reported because they fell below the ethics rules defined gift limit. But, none the less, comedian Al Franken whose campaign was looking like a drowning mess who himself was embroiled in tax issues has climbed in the polls. Currently, most bloggers and stock trading sites list the Democrats gaining about seven seats (putting the Senate officially at 56-42-2). But, MN and MS-B have trended towards the democrats.

At the very least, Minnesota's once close polling shortly after the RNC has returned to its liberal populist ways and has posted double digit margins in favor of Obama. In other news... this will be Minneapolis' last election (if plans are carried out properly) where local offices are voted in the traditional manner. Starting in 2009, Minneapolis will institute instant run off voting. This will supposedly help third parties... too bad Minneapolis essentially only has one party, the DFL. Between Minneapolis and St. Paul, there are NO Republicans in office. All DFL and ONE green, so the Democrats might lose a seat or two to the Green party... If Minneapolis election laws pass constitutional muster, St. Paul will also institute that policy (I can only hope ) I was reading up on Minnesota House races... I might save myself the time bubbling in my candidate... Democrats win this district with over 70% of the vote, I might vote Liberal or Socialist just for giggles...