Jump to content

I'm voting for Obama. I hope you will, too.


LoyalFanInGA v2.0

Recommended Posts

[quote]Now, independent of ideology, what has to happen over the next few years? I don't imagine that folks will object much to the following:

1) We need to put folks back to work in productive jobs. [color="#FF0000"]- This would require the reclamation of our industrial base which has been almost entirely sent overseas, as well as a large chunk of our technological base. McDonalds and retail is not a productive job, unless you own the store. [/color]

2) We need to subordinate the financial aspects of our economy within the context of real economic growth, in which products and useful services are created and exchanged. [color="#FF0000"]What? You mean this fiscal "Perpetual Motion Machine" our economy has been running on is a [b]bad[/b] thing? Every time I hear the phrase "Consumer Driven Economy" I want to throw a shoe at the TV. [/color]

3) We need to adjust our attitude towards the rest of the world, being less of a dictator and more of a cooperator. That doesn't mean enfeebling our ability to defend ourselves. It does mean that all this nonsense about preemption and the circumvention of international law must stop. [color="#FF0000"]Right on. The purpose of our military is to defend our borders, not everyone else. We can do more positive to build democracy leading by example than by dropping bombs. Kind of like when the Spanish explorers were "Christianizing" American Indians...[/color]

4) We need to work towards a future that creates more opportunity and security for future generations and not live off a past which robs future generations of the flexibility they'll need to meet the demands of their time. Grandkids will thank us for this. [color="#FF0000"]I think if you take care of the first three, this one will sort of take care of itself.[/color]

5) We need to be more honest with ourselves such that we do not follow mistaken policies to their ultimate ends. We have to make adjustments well before we risk another collapse of the kind we are now facing. [color="#FF0000"]That would require life-long politicians and people in power setting aside their egos and acknowledging the error of their ways. It takes a special type of leader to do that, and I don't see any of those today. Hell, I don't see [b]any[/b] leaders, just politicians.[/color][/quote]


And as for Hamilton, do you really believe that he was a proponent of COMPLETE government control of the financial and insurance systems which is what we are getting really close to these days? How do you think they would feel about us holding a $10 Trillion ( :nasty: ) national debt, or that the value of our currency is backed by smoke and mirrors?

As always, stellar analysis, homer...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' post='712138' date='Oct 12 2008, 09:23 AM']Well put. This book I'm reading right now talks a great deal about another philosophical change that we need to make with regards to our security against Islamic terrorism, which is to abandon our cold war way of thinking and dealing with external threats and for us to get real about the way we have a split personality with regards to the Middle East. On the one hand, we have blank-check support for Israel, even though it isn't necessarily in ouinterest to do so, and on the other, we've allowed a brutal nation like Saudi Arabia keep us beholden to them because of oil, and we call them "friend", when they have proven to be anything but.[/quote]


A-fucking-men
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sois' post='711051' date='Oct 8 2008, 12:51 PM']I will vote for anyone who will pull ALL troops from ALL foreign countries and get our deficit switched to a surplus.

Oh wait, that is nobody.[/quote]


That was Ron Paul. He was also the only candidate not to vote for the Iraq War.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='712096' date='Oct 11 2008, 10:53 PM']Substantiate this claim, please.[/quote]


He wants to raise business and personal taxes to pay for social programs. That definitely leans too socialism.

Also----we will all get taxed if Obama is elected. All corporations build the tax cost into their products. So, their tax is essentially paid by the consumers. Tax big oil---our gas price goes up. Tax the power plants---our electric bill goes up. The shit rolls down hill and ends with us.

Worst case scenario---he really jacks up corporate tax and more of them go off shore. (we are already 2nd highest corporate tax in the world)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jungle1' post='712972' date='Oct 13 2008, 01:10 PM']That was Ron Paul. He was also the only candidate not to vote for the Iraq War.[/quote]
hmm, and here i was thinking there was this other guy who spoke out against it

[quote name='Jungle1' post='712979' date='Oct 13 2008, 01:16 PM']He wants to raise business and personal taxes to pay for social programs. That definitely leans too socialism.

Also----we will all get taxed if Obama is elected. All corporations build the tax cost into their products. So, their tax is essentially paid by the consumers. Tax big oil---our gas price goes up. Tax the power plants---our electric bill goes up. The shit rolls down hill and ends with us.

Worst case scenario---he really jacks up corporate tax and more of them go off shore. (we are already 2nd highest corporate tax in the world)[/quote]
1- obamas tax plan comes out at a net reduction
2- most corporations do not pay income taxes. so yes, our initial tax bracket for large corporations is among the highest, however no corporation pays anywhere near that.
3- youre basing your accusations on everything but fact
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='713069' date='Oct 13 2008, 02:14 PM']hmm, and here i was thinking there was this other guy who spoke out against it[/quote]

Speaking out against != Voting against

And Ron Paul [b]was[/b] the only candidate who would bring almost all, if not all, of our troops back home. Even if Obama wanted to he couldn't for his political health.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' post='712156' date='Oct 12 2008, 10:42 AM']Now, independent of ideology, what has to happen over the next few years? I don't imagine that folks will object much to the following:

1) We need to put folks back to work in productive jobs. - This would require the reclamation of our industrial base which has been almost entirely sent overseas, as well as a large chunk of our technological base. McDonalds and retail is not a productive job, unless you own the store.

2) We need to subordinate the financial aspects of our economy within the context of real economic growth, in which products and useful services are created and exchanged. What? You mean this fiscal "Perpetual Motion Machine" our economy has been running on is a bad thing? Every time I hear the phrase "Consumer Driven Economy" I want to throw a shoe at the TV.

3) We need to adjust our attitude towards the rest of the world, being less of a dictator and more of a cooperator. That doesn't mean enfeebling our ability to defend ourselves. It does mean that all this nonsense about preemption and the circumvention of international law must stop. Right on. The purpose of our military is to defend our borders, not everyone else. We can do more positive to build democracy leading by example than by dropping bombs. Kind of like when the Spanish explorers were "Christianizing" American Indians...

4) We need to work towards a future that creates more opportunity and security for future generations and not live off a past which robs future generations of the flexibility they'll need to meet the demands of their time. Grandkids will thank us for this. I think if you take care of the first three, this one will sort of take care of itself.

5) We need to be more honest with ourselves such that we do not follow mistaken policies to their ultimate ends. We have to make adjustments well before we risk another collapse of the kind we are now facing. That would require life-long politicians and people in power setting aside their egos and acknowledging the error of their ways. It takes a special type of leader to do that, and I don't see any of those today. Hell, I don't see any leaders, just politicians.[/quote]

Sweet....a double-quote of Homer...and some responses to Elflocko

1. We probably would have lost our unskilled industrial base anyway. We need to regain / maintain our lead in the "productive" skilled bases (sciences, R&D, engineering, etc). Pumping dollars won't necessarily do it, we need to incentivize (sp?) people to get engineering / science degrees again. Some of the best and brightest have chosen to go into the financial sector because that's where the outrageous sums of money are being made. I'm not sure how to go about making engineering degrees more attractive without somehow diminishing personal returns on financial markets (heavy regulation and taxes) and heavy spending in R&D, sciences, etc by the government. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Without some solution to this situation, we are going to continue to produce human capital that leans heavily toward the "FIRE" sector (borrowing the appropriate acronym from Homer) and away from "productive" endeavors.

2. Consumers are the driving force behind GDP...The investment portion (the major GDP lever in supply side economics) seems to have taken a hit as people chose to invest in existing "paper" assets instead of Property, Plant and Equipment.

3. The Russians apparently found Jimmy Carter just as terrifying as Ronald Reagan because of his annoying insistence on Human Rights rhetoric.

4. Agreed

5. Here's to hoping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='713109' date='Oct 13 2008, 04:32 PM']Speaking out against != Voting against[/quote]
its all semantics, their stances on the resolution was the same

that was my point, sorry if it wasnt clear

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='713109' date='Oct 13 2008, 04:32 PM']And Ron Paul [b]was[/b] the only candidate who would bring almost all, if not all, of our troops back home. Even if Obama wanted to he couldn't for his political health.[/quote]
i wasnt commenting on that part but i wouldnt support any candidate doing that anyhow

we have far too many foreign bases and meddle in other countries internal politics far too often, however a complete elimination of foreign bases is just as dangerous as expanding our current list of 700 bases. an intelligent draw down and change in independent foreign action is what is needed, not a complete elimination of any and everything foreign.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jungle1' post='712979' date='Oct 13 2008, 12:16 PM']He wants to raise business and personal taxes to pay for social programs. That definitely leans too socialism.

Also----we will all get taxed if Obama is elected. All corporations build the tax cost into their products. So, their tax is essentially paid by the consumers. Tax big oil---our gas price goes up. Tax the power plants---our electric bill goes up. The shit rolls down hill and ends with us.
[b]
Worst case scenario---he really jacks up corporate tax and more of them go off shore. (we are already 2nd highest corporate tax in the world)[/b][/quote]


Solution to that would be to crank up the tax rate for companies that outsource by 1,000X or so.

That oughta take the allure out of that practice...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' post='713313' date='Oct 13 2008, 08:34 PM']Solution to that would be to crank up the tax rate for companies that outsource by 1,000X or so.

That oughta take the allure out of that practice...[/quote]


Then corporations move their headquarters. And, more jobs leave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='713069' date='Oct 13 2008, 02:14 PM']hmm, and here i was thinking there was this other guy who spoke out against it


1- obamas tax plan comes out at a net reduction
2- most corporations do not pay income taxes. so yes, our initial tax bracket for large corporations is among the highest, however no corporation pays anywhere near that.
3- youre basing your accusations on everything but fact[/quote]

Here is a brief summary of what causes me worry with Obama's tax plan:
The damage to the economy is the [b]long-run budget problem of the United States[/b]. While Senator Obama raises taxes a great deal on upper income individuals, [b]the overall tax plan increases the national deficit.[/b] As a result, the country will be even less prepared to pay for current and future Social Security and Medicare obligations. [b]When money is needed to pay for those programs, it will be hard to tax the rich even more, given that the top rate will already be so high. Instead, in order to pay the government's spending and entitlement shortfalls, taxes would fall most heavily on middle-income Americans.[/b] After all, even successful taxpayers are not an infinite source of revenue.

FYI....I think Obama's total tax plan estimates that "rich" people will pay almost 2/3 of their income in taxes. That is crazy.

Now, Obama wants to let Americans withdraw amounts from their 401k tax free. Why?? This is not saving, it is just more personal spending. If you let everyone withdraw from their 401k now, it will take more out of the stockmarket and make us retire with less in the future. Then, someone down the road will have to increase social security benefits. It is a vicious cycle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='713069' date='Oct 13 2008, 02:14 PM']hmm, and here i was thinking there was this other guy who spoke out against it


1- obamas tax plan comes out at a net reduction
2- most corporations do not pay income taxes. so yes, our initial tax bracket for large corporations is among the highest, however no corporation pays anywhere near that.
3- youre basing your accusations on everything but fact[/quote]


Regarding US tax rates:
[url="http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html"]http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting....I pulled this off of the [url="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf"]Obama/Biden tax plan PDF[/url]
Points of interest below:

1. [b]Ordinary Income[/b]: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990's levels of 36% and 39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today...

2. [b]Dividends[/b]: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent. Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates.

3. [b]Capital Gains[/b]: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates that they pay today [15%]. For those in the top two income tax brackets - likewise adjusted to affect only families over $250,000 - Obama will create create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent.....

4. [b]Cutting Corporate Tax Rates for Firms that Create Jobs in America[/b]. Barack Obama will repeal tax breaks and loopholes that reward corporations that retain their earnings overseas, and will use those savings to lower corporate tax rates for companies that expand or start operations in the United States.

Based on that, I'm not finding anything adding up to 2/3 of income taxed. I didn't add the other things about small business benefits, just the stuff that goes directly to trying to figure out this "66.7%" tax rate number and that relates to corporate taxes. Sadly the "Cutting Corporate Tax Rates" section didn't have a defined number.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting



[url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/"]http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto...case-for-obama/[/url]

[quote][size=4]The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.[/size]

Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.

Or would they? But let’s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley—a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: “William F. Buckley’s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.” I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of “Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,” but it’ll have to do.

I am—drum roll, please, cue trumpets—making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first.

As to the particulars, assuming anyone gives a fig, here goes:

I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times—I’m beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, “As I warned the world in my last column...”—a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don’t—still—doubt that McCain’s instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.

McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were “jerks” (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam—his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, “The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor.” Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.

A year ago, when everyone, including the man I’m about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no—bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don’t see a whole lot of anymore.

But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.

As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he’s a Harvard man, though that’s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest.

I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...