American 2008 Election

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Odainsaker A "tax credit" is credit applied to taxes due. Hence, an example "$5,000" tax credit to a taxpayer would mean that the taxing government would count that taxpayer as having already paid $5,000 to their assessed taxes. This would theoretically save the taxpayer from having to pay that money in the long term, and through proper individual financial management and budgeting, they can realize that money and put it to use to serve their own individually determined needs.

The broader idea is that government wants citizens to have and use their own money, usually in schemes whereby citizens can buy their own services such as health care insurance or for supporting social programs such a child care. By using a tax credit, the government does not have to actually distribute real money to citizens, but can instead claim that citizens gain access to more of their own money that would have otherwise been turned over as taxes.

Tax credits expecially came up in candidates' competing plans for providing broader national health care insurance. The government does not currently have the money to immediately pay for these plans outright, but by offering tax credits, it is subsidizing the plans by accepting less future tax revenue, and so is defering the costs. With money potentially in their hands, citizens can then use it as they need within the private market and stimulating competition. One of the criticisms for relying on tax credit schemes is that they in themselves do not automatically pay into or guarantee the targetted service, for the money does not magically appear and it is instead assumed citizens will properly manage their finances throughout the year in order to take advantage of the potential availability on their yearly taxes. Also, the tax credits rarely are of the size necessary to cover the full costs of the service for which citizens are expected to use it, leaving people still with either no service or cheap token insurance which pads the statistics but offer no real coverage when used. It is assumed citizens will still put forward their own money from elsewhere, which can be used in combination with their self-budgeted tax credit savings to make the total costs affordable, though it is debatable how many will be able to do this and many will still be left lacking. Lastly, tax credits and other subsidies left to citizens to take advantage of are easily negated by economic changes like unexpected higher gasoline prices, higher food prices, or higher interest payments, which forces citizens to naturally gravitate towards using any newly available money to cover the sudden higher costs just to maintain their current living standard.

quote>

 

And dont forget that when one tax is lowered, such as offering the income tax credits, other taxes will raise to cover the loss.

to take Skis example say they offer a 1000 dollor tax credit, And assuming your in the tax situation she described. you would get +$1000 dollors back on your tax refund.

But mean while the sales tax has gone up, school taxes go up, gasoline/electricty taxes go up.so they get it back some were, your probably not that far ahead of the game.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) looks up during a Veterans Day event at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

By Al Kamen and Philip Rucker

There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries. Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women's issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama's efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide.

And Obama could put her in his speed-dial for a 3 a.m. phone call every morning.quote>

 

[belfastuniguy 18]

Page Bump

[belfastuniguy 18]

Bump!!

[belfastuniguy 18]

one more time?

[belfastuniguy 18]

hhmmm one more??

[belfastuniguy 18]

OMG page bug is rather ridiculous..again!!

[Duke87 1,070]

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?

There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries. Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women's issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama's efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide.

And Obama could put her in his speed-dial for a 3 a.m. phone call every morning.quote>

Oh, hell no....

[Easy Bakes 253]

I would be very supprized if she got any kind of appointment from him.

[thesimbug 0]

    

foreigner learns us politics.

help requested.

first, let me thank you a very very big bunch for the numerous and, indeed, lengthy answers you already post for my questions.

i never think my curiousity would draw attention this much from simtropoleans.

each time i leave simtropolis, i get more enlightened.

all answers to this foreigner are highly appreciated.

but my previous questions are not the last ones.

i still have a big truck of curiousity.

then comes up this new question, requesting more patience for assistance:

rahm emanuel appointed as next white house chief of staff.

white house chief of staff is called "the 2nd most powerful position in washington".

why is white house chief of staff this powerful?

what makes white house chief of staff so influential?

you better read WIKIPEDIA'S PAGE ON IT first.

i raise this question because i already read it but i don't find it sufficiently satisfying.

i need a more strongly convincing explaination on why this position is so influential.

i also watch the whole episodes of COMMANDER IN CHIEF film series, but i fail to see any powerful-influential role played by the black republican white house chief of staff jim gardner, including that in his relationship with the first madame president mackenzie allen, an independent.

i thank you really much for all knowledge you would share with me!

i highly appreciate it!

long answers i really love.

and, in this case, strongly convincing answers i love more and more.

edit:

would anyone privatemessage me to tell me how to:

1. paste message from previous post in smaller characters inside a box (like what the topmost post on this page shows).

2. like no. 1, but in multiple forms (like what the topmost post on the pevious page shows).

3. paste a page from a location outside (like what the third topmost post on this page shows).

would you tell me too the rules in doing those 3 things?

thank you for your private messages!

    

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: thesimbug

rahm emanuel appointed as next white house chief of staff.

white house chief of staff is called "the 2nd most powerful position in washington".

why is white house chief of staff this powerful?

what makes white house chief of staff so influential?

you better read WIKIPEDIA'S PAGE ON IT first.

i raise this question because i already read it but i don't find it sufficiently satisfying.

i need a more strongly convincing explaination on why this position is so influential. quote>

One key part in that Wiki article lists the duties of the Chief of Staff:

Managerial

- Select key White House staff and supervise them

- Structure the White House staff system

- Control the flow of people into the Oval Office

- Manage the flow of informationquote>

 

Look at it this way:  there are many people who want to see the President, talk to the President, and convince him that they are correct about whatever issue is on their minds.   There is no way the President can listen to all of them; there just are not that many hours in the day.  and, in many cases, someone else can deal with it.

The Chief of Staff is the one who decides which people get to see the President and what information gets to his desk.

Now, the President and his staff talk about the various issues.  Obviously, the President can ask what is going on with a particular topic.  But the Chief of Staff weeds out what is important and what is not before it gets to the President's desk.

i also watch the whole episodes of COMMANDER IN CHIEF film series, but i fail to see any powerful-influential role played by the black republican white house chief of staff jim gardner, including that in his relationship with the first madame president mackenzie allen, an independent. quote>

Okay, that's a TV show.  That Hollywood's version of things.  Hollywood doesn't always get it right since they are going to entertainment, not education.

But, if you want a more accurate Hollywood version of the Chief of Staff, watch The West Wing.  Former White House staffers say that show is more accurate in terms of how things work.   (Many people did not like how that fictional administration handled things but that's a different topic.)

[thesimbug 0]

    

a foreigner learns us politics.

help requested.

let me sum up.

white house chief of staff is called "the 2nd most powerful man in washington", you say, because he is a gate keeper.

president's gate keeper from any information.

president's gate keeper from any people who wanna meet him.

one more thing:

white house chief of staff appoints, supervises, and fires white house staffers.

some facts still disturb me.

you know, one important body below white house chief of staff hierarchy is national economic council (nec).

and, so far, the most prospective candidates for the council's memberships, among others, are:

1. robert rubin, president bill clinton's secretary of treasury 1995-1999;

2. lawrence summers, president bill clinton's secretary of treasury 1999-2001;

3. paul volcker, president jimmy carter's and president ronald reagan's chairman of the federal reserve 1979-1987;

4. warren buffett, boss of berkshire hathaway, forbes' richest man on earth 2008;

5. more heavy weight people like jp morgan chase's jamie dimon, google's eric schmidt, economist laura tyson, economist gene sperling, etc.

you won't say that those heavyweights really won't be able to meet, contact, and send any kind of information to president barrack obama without initial permission from the gate keeper white house chief of staff rahm emmanuel, will you?

you won't say that those heavyweights will be able to meet, contact, and send any kind of information to president barrack obama only and really only with initial permission from the gate keeper white house chief of staff rahm emmanuel, will you?

(somehow, you start to remind me with house arrest )

in front of white house outsiders and in front of low and junior white house staffers, white house chief of staff may look all powerful, but if we climb higher ...

Q: how strong and powerful will a white house chief of staff stand in front of heavy weight godfathers sitting in national economic council (nec) .......... and national security council (nsc)?

don't you think that white house chief of staff's title as "the 2nd most powerful man in washington" is exaggerated and hyperbolic?

don't you think that white house chief of staff is a mere senior white house staffer sitting a little bit higher than other also-senior white house staffers sitting in national economic council (nec) and national security council (nsc)?

thanks a bunch for the knowledge you'd share!

you know, i love long answers.

strongly convincing answers, for this topic, i love more and more.

    

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: thesimbug     

you won't say that those heavyweights really won't be able to meet, contact, and send any kind of information to president barrack obama without initial permission from the gate keeper white house chief of staff rahm emmanuel, will you?

you won't say that those heavyweights will be able to meet, contact, and send any kind of information to president barrack obama only and really only with initial permission from the gate keeper white house chief of staff rahm emmanuel, will you?

(somehow, you start to remind me with house arrest ) quote>

No, I won't say those things.   It's not like the President is locked in a room and the chief of staff is the only guy that has the key.  That is taking the gatekeeper analogy too far.

Q: how strong and powerful will a white house chief of staff stand in front of heavy weight godfathers sitting in national economic council (nec) .......... and national security council (nsc)?

   quote>

"heavy weight godfathers"?    This isn't the Mafia.

But, to answer your question, I imagine that depends on the people involved

don't you think that white house chief of staff's title as "the 2nd most powerful man in washington" is exaggerated and hyperbolic? quote>

Probably.   Much of the language used in politics is hyperbole of one sort or another.

One thing I have learned over the years:  logic has little to do with it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Hillary isn't Secretary of State yet, and there are still major issues hanging over head concerning the post.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: hym Hillary isn't Secretary of State yet, and there are still major issues hanging over head concerning the post.quote>

Duh.  I know she isn't Secretary of State yet.  "Dare I say it" is suggestive.  Your comment changes nothing.  There is a good chance it could happen, so I want to know what people think about it, not argue about semantics and apparent illiteracy.

The fact of the matter is that no one is in any position at this time.  That does not mean it is not a topic for discussion.

Barbarossaquote>

There is also a good chance it won't happen.  Evidently, Bill Clinton has had post-Presidential dealings that the Obama team is concerned with.

[confused04 14]

The Minnesota Senate Recount began today. Right now the margin stands at a tiny 215 vote margin with 2.9 million votes cast (including non-votes for senate). That is just a paltry 0.008% difference. Before someone decries "Omg! Another recount! Those whiny losers!", Minnesota has an automatic recount by hand law if the margin is less than 0.5% and there is an additional law that if voter intent is clear, than it counts... even if they screw up filling out the ballot properly. It is likely that Franken will pull ahead as recounts tend to favor Democrats because it is generally, poor, minority, and disabled voters that undervote or improperly vote. At only 215 votes, lawyers will be standing at each table during the recount fighting to throw out or accept ballots. yay for long and protracted legal battle. If Franken does win which is pretty likely.... The US Senate will stand at 59-40 with the GA senate seat remaining undecided til the runoff (although the Minnesota Recount my last longer than the GA runoff). So now the most important race will be Chambliss-Martin. This could really determine how the next 2 to 4 years go.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I can't help but wonder and suggest that this thread be renamed American Politics. Now that the election is over, it seems to me that most of the conversation will now trend toward operations and the mechanics behind the new administration. Just a thought.  quote>

I was thinking that we could let it hang until the inauguration but you do have a point and the thread is getting too big to load to maybe it's a good time to shut it down and start over.

On that note, what are the thoughts on Obama's recent appointments? Rahm Emanual to Chief of Staff, Tom Daschle to DHHS (Dept of Health & Human Svcs), and, dare I say it, Hillary to DOS (Dept of State)?quote>

Technically, they are all appointment wannabees until they get confirmed but, yeah, they are not bad topics for discussion.

But, yeah, let's start a new thread.  This one is too long as it is.