How about a real discussion on politics?

[sealybobo]

I've been a member of this discussion board for exactly one day and I joined in the hopes that I would find intelligent discussion of political issues which I don't seem to find on my "Roll Tide" message board or my favorite "Clay Shooting" message board.

I have yet to find those discussions. Maybe they are here and if I wade through enough disinformation threads from both parties I can find those gems, but they are not readily apparent.

So with that said I am starting this thread in the hopes that we can have some of those discussions. There is not much time before the general election but there is enough time to fully inform ourselves on the candidates and the platforms which they are running on.

I know most of you would like to know the ACTUAL positions of these candidates and not the junk being spewed by Dem and Repub hacks.

So I encourage you to post any question you may have on a major issue our country is facing and let's flesh out these candidates and what they believe.

Just remember folks:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald

So, let's start with some real numbers on McCain's and Obama's income tax plan since I noticed a great deal of wrong information on this board.

I pulled this information from the CNN Money section.

.......................................MCCAIN.................OBAMA
.
Income.............................Avg. tax bill............Avg. tax bill
.
Over $2.9M.......................-$269,364................+$701,885
$603K and up....................-$45,361..................+$115,974
$227K-$603K.....................-$7,871...................+$12
$161K-$227K.....................-$4,380....................-$2,789
$112K-$161K.....................-$2,614....................-$2,204
$66K-$112K.......................-$1,009....................-$1,290
$38K-$66K.........................-$319......................-$1,042
$19K-$38K.........................-$113......................-$892
Under $19K........................-$19.......................-$567

It looks like McCain will give the biggest tax breaks for those making $200,000 or higher.

Obama looks like he is sticking it to the wealthy, but his claims of making HUGE tax cuts for the middle class don't appear to be as large as some make out.

Thoughts?

From the horses mouth, I know that Obama is going to cut taxes more for the middle class. So all these people who don't care that the country is falling apart as long as they get their tax breaks, will be happy with Obama's tax breaks because they'll get more under Obama.

Yes, Obama is going to raise taxes on people that make over $250K. But do not feel sorry for them. They got tax breaks for the last 6 years that the rest of us did not get. Did they feel sorry for us? No.

So Obama isn't raising anyone's taxes. He's taking away an unfair tax that Bush was giving the top 1%. Clearly the country is in financial trouble, so why not? And Bush should have NEVER given tax breaks during a time of war. Even McCain agreed, before he flip flopped.

This election is the Statesman vs the Con Man.

 

[indago]

Clay Buster wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama is claiming he will institute a pay as you go platform which will eliminate new deficit and at the same time by getting out of Iraq he believes he can start paying down the deficit. And of course McCain says Obama's thinking is pie in the sky and will never work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

They're both "pie in the sky". A budget is just numbers on paper. Balance? Just shift the numbers around. And Obama is not going to "institute a pay as you go" system, regardless what he declares in such a "platform". He can send his wishes to the Congress, but making it happen will be what the Congress decides. The whole thing is just a Dog'nPony show for the masses to swallow whole, and swallow they do.

BOHICA

...and no reacharound...


-

 

[Caligirl]

Caligirl wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
How's the bible verse? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?
-------------------------------------------------------------

That's not a Bible verse, it's a communist doctrine.

Egads! You're right!

My dad would say that from time to time and he was very active in the church. I always figured it came along with stuff like feed the hungry and heal the sick.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[editec]

Very good post. I think I would enjoy having a beer with you.

Next time you're in Maine, look me up and bring the beer.

To follow up, what are some steps in your opinion, which would begin to bolster the falling dollar?

Pay down the national debt. Stop rewarding companies for offshoring. Impose tariffs that make sense.

I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but when I lived in Europe in the 80s the exchange rate was fantastic. Now with the unified Euro the dollar is taking a beating.

EURO is having it's own problems, now, too. they ALSO bought into the FREE TRADE mythology.

Is a stronger economy and cutting tax breaks for the wealthy the solution?

In part. But NOT if the government then spends the money like damned fools. There the conservatives and I are on EXACTLY the same page.

What are some other areas we should be concerned about?

Economically? The fact that we neutered unions and set ourseves up to become a feudal society.

Politically? The fact that the Supreme courts decided that money = free speech.

I know I'm over-simplifying this, but as you can tell I'm not nearly as versed in economic areas as I would like to be.

Well given that so many so called economists are flat out fools, or worse, aapologists for the monied class, makes it harder for we laymen to understand our economy, doesn't it?

 

[editec]

Yes, Obama is going to raise taxes on people that make over $250K. But do not feel sorry for them. They got tax breaks for the last 6 years that the rest of us did not get. Did they feel sorry for us? No.

Spot on.

So Obama isn't raising anyone's taxes. He's taking away an unfair tax that Bush was giving the top 1%. Clearly the country is in financial trouble, so why not? And Bush should have NEVER given tax breaks during a time of war. Even McCain agreed, before he flip flopped.

And again, spot on.

 

[editec]

McCain states he can have a balanced budget by 2013. Of course Obama says the plan is absurd and that it will take more than two terms of a president to balance our budget. McCain cited Reagan as an example of what he would do, but that may have been a bad choice since Reagan didn't balance the budget.

Didn't balance it? He spend money like a drunken sailor! He increased the national debt more than all other POTUS's combined who came before him.

That man's economic policies were disasterous to this nation's budget, and his deregulation of banking even more disasterous to this nation's economy.

Obama is claiming he will institute a pay as you go platform which will eliminate new deficit and at the same time by getting out of Iraq he believes he can start paying down the deficit. And of course McCain says Obama's thinking is pie in the sky and will never work.

Obama's plan calls for a gradual reduction in deficit spending. It is a moderate approach which may work given time. McCains's plan might also work, but the cuts in social spending would be disasterous for the working class economy.

Personally I don't believe either one of these candidates can have a balanced budget within two terms even with full cooperation from the House and Senate. The largest deficit in our nation's history will simply not disappear that quickly.

They might be able to balance the budget, the question what steps to reduce spending and/or increase tax revenues will they use to implement that reduction?

 

[indago]

Caligirl wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My dad would say that from time to time and he was very active in the church. I always figured it came along with stuff like feed the hungry and heal the sick. Thanks for clearing it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Speaking of communist doctrine, I posted this somewhere a few years back:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a lot of people anymore, if you bring up a Constitutional issue, or one pertaining to the Bill of Rights, you are met with Ardent Apathy, and a Sincere Disinterest.


As an example, I was invited to a Thanksgiving dinner at my brother's place a few years back, a general family get-together, and while we were all seated around the table eating dinner and chatting about this and that, the discussion came around to the Constitutional Centennial celebrations, and the programs on television which had the Centennial as a theme. I mentioned a poll that was taken on the streets, with the poll moderator asking various passers-by if they had heard of the phrase: "From Each According to His Ability; To Each According to His Need", and if they thought this phrase was in the Constitution of the United States, or the Bill of Rights. The answers that came back were, generally: "Yeah! I heard of that. I think it's in the Constitution somewhere, but I don't know the Constitution that good." "That would have to be in the Bill of Rights. It sounds like a right to me." "That's in the rights of the pursuit of happiness; but I don't exactly know which one it is."


I stopped talking, and there was silence for a moment, and then my brother asked: "Well, which one is it in?" I told him: "It's not in either. It's a communist doctrine." You could have heard a pin drop on the carpeting. The silence was deafening.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Caligirl]

LOL. It's striking.

Well, the constitution, the bible, communist doctrine, do we really need to keep them straight?

 

[Caligirl]

OK, a more serious question to get this serious thread back on track.

Clay Buster, what are the differences in how Obama and McCain would address Iran? At one point Obama said he would meet Ahmadinejad (sp) personally, but he has backtracked there.

I suspect Obama would send dimplomatc envoys, to use diplomatic pressure on Iran. I expect he would do this with the EU. I expect that McCain would not do that, would instead rely on whatever intelligence we currently have, and hold a threatening posture. Both have a goal of preventing a nuclear Iran and safeguarding Israel.

What are the real differences in how these candidates approach the issue of Iran?

 

[Clay Buster]

OK, a more serious question to get this serious thread back on track.

Clay Buster, what are the differences in how Obama and McCain would address Iran? At one point Obama said he would meet Ahmadinejad (sp) personally, but he has backtracked there.

I suspect Obama would send dimplomatc envoys, to use diplomatic pressure on Iran. I expect he would do this with the EU. I expect that McCain would not do that, would instead rely on whatever intelligence we currently have, and hold a threatening posture. Both have a goal of preventing a nuclear Iran and safeguarding Israel.

What are the real differences in how these candidates approach the issue of Iran?

Sorry for the tardy response Caligirl. Between watching the RNC and the ever present "honey-do" list I've been a bit swamped.

In response to your question, Obama definitely wants to have direct talks with Iran. He does take a tough position on their stances concerning Iraq, nuclear weapons, and terrorism, but he is willing to offer:

Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues...

McCain believes in tougher sanctions on Iran and but doesn't believe in holding high level talks with Ahmadinejad. This policy falls in line with Bush's except that Bush has reversed his policy somewhat and is now allowing talks
between US officials and Iranian officials.

This is a very touchy area and one that concerns me. One issue for me is that twice now McCain has claimed Iran is helping re-group and train Al-Qaeda but thankfully Lieberman was at his side the last time he made that statement and was able to correct it for him. We can't lump all these groups into one category as it will create further problems if we do. I'm pretty sure Baptists don't appreciate being called Catholics for instance. Not to mention I don't like the idea of swaying the American public on an issue that's simply not true. If these are honest mistakes on his part, so be it, but if not that really worries me.

McCain likes to posture and show power, but I think much of the world is realizing that we are over extended militarily and can only give lip service to world issues, i.e. Georgia/Russia.

To interject a personal note, my father is retired military and a staunch Republican. In conversations with many of his active military friends, there is a great deal of concern that even if we wanted to attack another country, we would be hard pressed to pull it off. We are stretched very thin; of course we can bomb anything we want to, but if we had to send in troops and hold ground, it could be ugly.

All of the intelligence reports that have come out in recent years seem to indicate that Iran is not in possession of nuclear weapons but that they are pursuing enriched uranium which doesn't necessarily mean they want bombs, they could simply want nuclear power for energy. (Or they may truly be after bombs. )

Either way it is a troublesome situation no matter which side you agree with.

I think Obama is a lightweight in this area but more than makes up for it with Biden on the ticket.

I think McCain truly believes his method is the best way to handle the situation, but he'll get little input from Palin on it.

Regardless of who becomes president I think we will see more talks between the US, Iran, and the EU.

(I still can't put links in my posts, but all information was pulled from CNN, Fox News, BBC, and NY Times)

I hope everyone has a great day. I'm off to watch my alma mater, the University of Alabama beat up on little ole Tulane, but I look forward to further discussions.

 

[bush lover]

I am so sick of the Democrat people whining about "poor people" and the "middle class." Their Messiah wants to raise taxes on people like me, the very people who create jobs for the so-called "middle class." Yet they want to give my tax money to their "poor people" in the form of tax rebates, so that the "poor people" wind up paying no taxes whatsoever. Instead of free tax gifts from me, how about if the "poor people" get an extra job?

 

[Chris]

Bush raised taxes more than any president in American history.

Deficit spending is an invisible tax.

 

[MartaK]

What is the projected deficit under McCain's plan? Say, with the wars continuing one year, five years, etc. Does he promise a balanced budget, etc.

McCain $5-trillion to national debt over 10 years with accrued interest.

Obama:$3.4 trillion

Source:Economist Len Burman is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute — a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization — and director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Interview with Mr. Burman here on the two candidates' plans.
Comparing The Candidates' Tax Proposals : NPR

 

[MartaK]

I am so sick of the Democrat people whining about "poor people" and the "middle class." Their Messiah wants to raise taxes on people like me, the very people who create jobs for the so-called "middle class." Yet they want to give my tax money to their "poor people" in the form of tax rebates, so that the "poor people" wind up paying no taxes whatsoever. Instead of free tax gifts from me, how about if the "poor people" get an extra job?

as long as you pull in less than $250K (jointly/per couple), your taxes will go down under Obama. Specifically, you will get a larger tax cut. His plan calls for middle income folks to get $2100 in cuts compared to McCain $1400 for the same bracket.

 

[midcan5]

Economics is never clear nor exact, unfortunately we live in world in which taxes are required to keep government functioning. So let me ask did Bush's tax reduction raise your standard of living? Did Reagan's largest ever tax increase in peacetime change your life? I would bet neither had much impact on anyone's life today. It may have helped the poor but I'm not sure? I am reading "Pale Horse, Pale Rider" today; Miranda just can't pay for a war bond. Her 18 dollar salary doesn't quite do it. Five dollars is too much.

Thank goodness we don't live in those depression times. My point here is what affects us mostly is not taxes, it is opportunity, it is reasonable prices, it is smart decisions that help us live well but with in our means. There are lots of other things as well but we have it good and taxes are not that important to me.

 

[tulipinvestor]

thats what they do

If you are a loser and looking for a wealth transfer from the successful, vote for Democrats

 

[midcan5]

thats what they do

If you are a loser and looking for a wealth transfer from the successful, vote for Democrats

Slogan, no thought. If you want a thought check these out.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

 

[mdjgirl7]

Hmm seems to me that there are a lot of rich people who own different businesses. Now if I am a wealthy business owner and my taxes go up guess what I pass that on to the consumer who is now getting the new and improved tax breaks for the unwealthy.

All we manage to so it swap money same system just turned a different way to try and make it look good. Somebody is going to pay for our bills and it will always be the middle class get used to it because I don't see that changing. Do you?