Second Thoughts about Obama

The Learned Joined: May 09, 2003 Posts: 134 Location: USA

I was leaning towards voting for Obama until I heard about his economic plan. Now I don't know. He says that 95% of small businesses don't make over $250,000 a year and won't see a tax increase, which is true. But most of these businesses don't hire more than 10 or 20 people. The most successful small businesses, the top 5%, are the ones that create the most jobs and the ones that are going to get hit with higher taxes. The first thing they're going to do to cut these costs is to lay people off. I don't see how this will help the economy.

Another thing: 40% of tax filers don't even pay any income taxes. How can you give someone a tax cut if they don't have any tax liability? All these people will just get an extra check in the mail. I'm not a political science major, but isn't redistribution of wealth socialism?

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:12 am

I don't think Obama really meant that. He's truly talking about the amount of income they make. When people think of multi-million dollar businesses, they usually think big corporations, lot's of employees. As you pointed out.. there are exceptions.

Also, even if Socialist leaning. What's wrong with that? Why would a socialist-like system fail?

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:24 pm

infidelguy wrote:

Why would a socialist-like system fail?

It wouldn't necessarily. I can't imagine anything could be much worse then what we're experiencing right now, with either Obama, McCain or socialism. People have been socially attuned to fear and hate anything socialistic. This all started with the McCarthy era rampage against communism.

If I voted, which I don't, I couldn't bring myself to elect a ticket with Palin on it. It would be like stacking an absurdity on top of the mockery that is already the American political system.

Intern Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 280 Location: Japan

Wow... it actually works.

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:11 pm

Obiden have shown themself to be so much more capable, competent and, yes, charismatic than those McPalin circus actors...
I'm afraid this election can't even be called a matter of choice anymore, it's too late for doubts.

Newbie First Class Joined: May 03, 2008 Posts: 33

he is going to tax personal income, anybody making $ 250,000 is going to see a tax increase no the bussinesses making $ 250,000. I dont even know nobody at the personal level that makes $250,000 at year

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:08 am

I wish I made that much. Smile

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:44 pm

So, now instead of calling Democrats 'liberals" as though that's a bad word, they have moved on to "socialist."

A couple of things. We have had social programs since the New Deal. That's what social security is. When we had a decent social net, the streets were not full of homeless people.

What we did was to redistribute the wealth to the wealthy. Lets call it socialism for the rich. The idea was that they would create jobs. We also deregulated the banks and lending institutions and anything else we could deregulate, giving the wealthy a great big boner. They were free from our pesky meddling in their affairs. We now see where that has lead us. Happy now?

I am not suggesting that a certain amount of freedom in the market is not necessary for the creation of jobs and on a more personal level, rewarding the entrepreneurial spirit.

But this fear of instituting programs that address deficiencies in our system, like the lack of decent healthcare for a large number of Americans is just stupid. Call it what you will, our country will not join the 21st century until we give up our stupid cowboy ways and take a good hard look at what is really important.

There is no pure system that will work. The best we can do is pick and choose from what will work. And right now, we have a pretty good idea of what has failed to work for the most people.

It makes me laugh to think that those screaming the loudest about Obama's socialism, which really isn't, are those who didn't notice that the middle class was taking on the biggest share of the tax burden. The irony is that a redistribution of wealth has already occurred. But no one called it socialism, so it was okay.

And then there are those who don't want to pay for anything at all and think government should stay out their pockets. Idealists who think that people will be motivated to be good actors if given enough freedom. Where is the evidence for that?

I could go on but I'm to tired to continue this rant.

I'll leave you with this. It is said that one sign of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. After almost thirty years of non stop deregulation and a shift in the tax burden, it's time for a change.

I'm voting for Obama, and even as a skeptic, I will keep my fingers crossed...

Confident Learner Joined: Oct 16, 2005 Posts: 83

I'm having second thoughts about Obama too. That's why I voted for him.

Jim Walker from nobeliefs listed some rational reasons to vote for Obama

I mean, what is the other choice we have? An old guy with failing health and a bad temper with a running mate who has private conversations with ghosts in multiple languages?:

http://nobeliefs.com/comments12.htm

I think it's quite obvious that between the two, it's almost like night and day. It's either a vote based on intelligence vs ignorance.

I'm personally not very comfortable with crazy people running my country anymore. I'm fed up with it.

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 2:01 pm

Here are some sites for Obama that can make you think.

http://www.matthew25.org/

http://www.prolifeproobama.com/

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

And if you made $450,000 a year you would only see a $1000 tax rise.

For businesses that make over $250,000 but that are not large, they actually come out ahead under Obama.

They will pay $0, yes, nothing on Capital Gains Taxes. They will be getting a cut on what they have to pay for employee health care. Small businesses will come out ahead under Obama.

Meanwhile the oil giants will pay more.

You've always seen a redistribution of wealth. Since 1981, Reagan and the Republicans following him have been redistributing it from the Middle Class and lower TO THE WEALTHY.

Time for President Obama to reverse that trend to the Clinton levels. I wish he'd go back to the Eisenhower levels. Know what the people making over $3.2 million adjusted paid under Republican President Eisenhower? 91%. And we did just fine then.

McLame himself said he isn't opposed to the well to do paying more to support the less well to do. Socialist!

Fucking flip flopping McLame has run a negative campaign from Day 1, and I am glad it is backfiring. He's been copying Obama and reversing himself constantly. Compare McCain today to McCain 2000.

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:09 pm

The only difference between personal and governmental redistribution of wealth is you have the illusion of control. The world is about redistribution of wealth, whether it be small business, corporations, governments or individuals doing it. It's what makes our pseudo market based economies thrive and the republican right is trying to make it sound "evil".

The republicans would have us believe that the average citizen has a better handle as to where the wealth should go, but I'm not actually sure most of the typical residents of this country do. In fact, from what I've seen, the typical American handles money as poorly or even more poorly then their government. The debt of both the private and governmental sectors is breathtaking and both seem to spend it just as frivolously.

SvZurich wrote:

McLame

You made me laugh Very Happy

I almost feel sorry for McCain. He's lost to an absolute moron more then once, and now he's *gasp*... loosing to an "extreme left leaning" black man. Oh the shame. If Barack wins, and I hope he does, at least I won't cringe anymore when the president addresses the nation. I absolutely shutter to think I might have to listen to more Palin prattle; I thought nothing could be worse then GWB and was monumentally wrong.

Quote:

I wish he'd go back to the Eisenhower levels. Know what the people making over $3.2 million adjusted paid under Republican President Eisenhower? 91%. And we did just fine then.

Sounds like that old devil Ike really knew how to "redistribute the wealth". He musta been when of dem evil socialist /Palin Wink

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:42 pm

I also call him McSame. I used to respect the man when he seemed to genuinely reform after the Keating Five/Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal. I honestly thought he had reformed, and felt sorry for him being the victim of the 2000 smear campaign Bush ran against him.

Then his voting record showed me he was just another Republican still, and his current smear campaign (one of the dirtiest in history, using the same people Bush did) disgusts me. Now that I know he was the culprit who started the USS Forrestal's fire, fuck him!

Exxon/Mobile does not need another tax cut. Connoco/Phillips/Union 76 do not need another. Sunoco doesn't either.

They need to pay to rebuild this nation and to relieve us all.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:17 am

SvZurich wrote:

I also call him McSame.

Have any cute pseudonyms for Palin?

Quote:

Exxon/Mobile does not need another tax cut. Connoco/Phillips/Union 76 do not need another. Sunoco doesn't either.

They need to pay to rebuild this nation and to relieve us all.

Here's the way I see it. Either you believe government would be better at spending/redistributing the oil companies wealth or the companies themselves. Personally, I'm not completely comfortable with the wealth being controlled by either faction. It's also possible that higher taxes on the oil companies will only raise the end user price to offset the company's higher tax.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:02 am

I believe business needs to be regulated by government, and under Reagan and the Bushs that regulation has been relaxed and neglected. Time to reign in these robber barons. Time for a transformation presidency who changes how America values things. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan were 3 transformational presidents. Obama has that potential if the people push him. McSame does not, and I have already seen over the last 8 years just how McSame's rule will go.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 549

Quote:

It's also possible that higher taxes on the oil companies will only raise the end user price to offset the company's higher tax.

Which is why a step is needed in the socialist direction if the oil companies are to be kept in check.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore