• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is everybody getting comfy with 'President" Obama?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Is everybody getting comfy with 'President" Palin?

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,318
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Obama will be the first President in quite awhile who didn't get elected by corporate money.
That's what makes his Presidency give me hope.
Talk about an inconvenient truth:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...cle=2008&cid=N00009638

Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $739,521
University of California $697,506
Harvard University $501,489
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
National Amusements Inc $432,169
Microsoft Corp $429,656
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Wilmerhale Llp $383,024
Time Warner $375,063
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409
Stanford University $341,399
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Jones Day $309,960
University of Chicago $294,237
General Electric $290,584

We've got alternative energy companies (GE - windmills baby!), banks and financial institutions (I thought Wall Street was run by a bunch of dirty rotten conservatives?), big-Education, you name it!

... no corporate money here though...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87

Playing two sides like Obama is basic class warfare. The rest of your concerns center around a progressive income tax system that gives the top 50% money back due to them paying a higher % in.
That's the point of a progressive tax system though. Do you think progressive taxation is a form of class warfare? If Obama were attempting to blame the wealthy for the average person's problems then I could see it being called class warfare. (chavez style) I haven't seen this from him at all though.
Sure it is i am not proposing it isnt. My point about the progressive system is when 50% of the income earners pay 94% of the taxes. Dont be surprised when 94% of the tax cuts hit 50% of the people.

On to Obama, what he is proposing is a tax cut for 95% of the people and placing it on the other 5. His rhetoric is clearly class warfare. When people ask about the tax cuts all his response is if you are in the bottom 95% dont worry about it. Vote for me and Ill put the screws into the top 5%. Under the guise of leveling the playing field. It is a PC term for the rich are getting away with murder, elect me and Ill right the wrong.
I think where we're getting off track in your argument is that you believe that the tax system should not become any more progressive than it is now, and Obama feels differently. Was it class warfare that got us to the amount of progressivism that we see today? The US tax code has become significantly more regressive during the Bush presidency, Obama is seeking to reverse that. You can call it 'putting the screws to the top 5%' if you want, but I don't see how eliminating your predecessor's tax cuts is exactly a form of class warfare.
Dont put words into my mouth with my progressive vs nonprogressive feelings on income tax. I have been in favor of progressive taxation for several years now. I only questiona and rightly so at which point do we see the best benefit not only in revenues vs cost of economic output and whether having a govt paid for the rich is better than having a govt paid for by everybody. But that is beyond this topic.

That said how Obama is presenting his plan is classic class warfare.

In the tax we are talking about(income) it has not become more regressive under Bush. A smaller % of tax filers are paying a larger chunk of the income tax. Where we have problems in the overall scheme of things is capital gains. Which is where the filthy rich hide. But that is beyond the scope of Obama's federal income tax plan which we are discussing in this thread.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: techs
Obama will be the first President in quite awhile who didn't get elected by corporate money.
That's what makes his Presidency give me hope.
Talk about an inconvenient truth:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...cle=2008&cid=N00009638

Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $739,521
University of California $697,506
Harvard University $501,489
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
National Amusements Inc $432,169
Microsoft Corp $429,656
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Wilmerhale Llp $383,024
Time Warner $375,063
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409
Stanford University $341,399
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Jones Day $309,960
University of Chicago $294,237
General Electric $290,584

We've got alternative energy companies (GE - windmills baby!), banks and financial institutions (I thought Wall Street was run by a bunch of dirty rotten conservatives?), big-Education, you name it!

... no corporate money here though...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...oButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=3

John McCains donations:

Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Goldman Sachs $220,045
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
AT&T Inc $183,663
Credit Suisse Group $175,503
PricewaterhouseCoopers $163,670
Blank Rome LLP $153,426
US Government $152,118
US Army $150,470

Wachovia Corp $147,456
Greenberg Traurig LLP $145,737
UBS AG $141,365
Bank of America $133,975
FedEx Corp $121,904
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $120,246
US Dept of Defense $118,125
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000

I call SHENS. If McCain is taking public financing how can he have any donors??????
This is the primary donators list. Not the general election.
Talk about an incovenient deception exposed.


btw wtf is the US Army doing donating to ANY candidate?
Double wtf what is the US government doing donating to McCain??
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,745
1,166
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87

Playing two sides like Obama is basic class warfare. The rest of your concerns center around a progressive income tax system that gives the top 50% money back due to them paying a higher % in.
That's the point of a progressive tax system though. Do you think progressive taxation is a form of class warfare? If Obama were attempting to blame the wealthy for the average person's problems then I could see it being called class warfare. (chavez style) I haven't seen this from him at all though.
Sure it is i am not proposing it isnt. My point about the progressive system is when 50% of the income earners pay 94% of the taxes. Dont be surprised when 94% of the tax cuts hit 50% of the people.

On to Obama, what he is proposing is a tax cut for 95% of the people and placing it on the other 5. His rhetoric is clearly class warfare. When people ask about the tax cuts all his response is if you are in the bottom 95% dont worry about it. Vote for me and Ill put the screws into the top 5%. Under the guise of leveling the playing field. It is a PC term for the rich are getting away with murder, elect me and Ill right the wrong.
If you call a 3% increase "putting the screws to the rich", you live a sad life.
That is how it is sold. If you feel it is so trivial. Feel free to pay 3% more when you file after the first of the year.
I would. The problem is the repubs have essentially taxed us anyway, but worse. They've already spent the money, and left us with the bill. You bitch about the taxation, but are happy to pile on debt, with interest?

And I'd hardly call a progressive tax system "class warfare". It's not like the rich are going to think "Well, I did want to run my business to the best of my ability and make a shit ton of cash doing it, but if I make an extra $3 Mil this year and have to pay an extra $100K, fuck that, I'm going back to bed". I hear a lot of people bitching that it'll take away the incentive to be rich, or to go into business. Please.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87

Playing two sides like Obama is basic class warfare. The rest of your concerns center around a progressive income tax system that gives the top 50% money back due to them paying a higher % in.
That's the point of a progressive tax system though. Do you think progressive taxation is a form of class warfare? If Obama were attempting to blame the wealthy for the average person's problems then I could see it being called class warfare. (chavez style) I haven't seen this from him at all though.
Sure it is i am not proposing it isnt. My point about the progressive system is when 50% of the income earners pay 94% of the taxes. Dont be surprised when 94% of the tax cuts hit 50% of the people.

On to Obama, what he is proposing is a tax cut for 95% of the people and placing it on the other 5. His rhetoric is clearly class warfare. When people ask about the tax cuts all his response is if you are in the bottom 95% dont worry about it. Vote for me and Ill put the screws into the top 5%. Under the guise of leveling the playing field. It is a PC term for the rich are getting away with murder, elect me and Ill right the wrong.
If you call a 3% increase "putting the screws to the rich", you live a sad life.
That is how it is sold. If you feel it is so trivial. Feel free to pay 3% more when you file after the first of the year.
I would. The problem is the repubs have essentially taxed us anyway, but worse. They've already spent the money, and left us with the bill. You bitch about the taxation, but are happy to pile on debt, with interest?

And I'd hardly call a progressive tax system "class warfare". It's not like the rich are going to think "Well, I did want to run my business to the best of my ability and make a shit ton of cash doing it, but if I make an extra $3 Mil this year and have to pay an extra $100K, fuck that, I'm going back to bed". I hear a lot of people bitching that it'll take away the incentive to be rich, or to go into business. Please.
Yeah, I noticed the billionaires didn't exactly stop trying to make money when they were taxed under the old rate.

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
If you call a 3% increase "putting the screws to the rich", you live a sad life.
That is how it is sold. If you feel it is so trivial. Feel free to pay 3% more when you file after the first of the year.
I would. The problem is the repubs have essentially taxed us anyway, but worse. They've already spent the money, and left us with the bill. You bitch about the taxation, but are happy to pile on debt, with interest?

And I'd hardly call a progressive tax system "class warfare". It's not like the rich are going to think "Well, I did want to run my business to the best of my ability and make a shit ton of cash doing it, but if I make an extra $3 Mil this year and have to pay an extra $100K, fuck that, I'm going back to bed". I hear a lot of people bitching that it'll take away the incentive to be rich, or to go into business. Please.
Yeah, I noticed the billionaires didn't exactly stop trying to make money when they were taxed under the old rate.
Not only did they continue to try and grow and make more money, but they succeeded too because they were willing to work hard. Again, there has never been any time in US history where a progressive tax plan has ever stopped the rich from getting richer. Even with a 3% increase they will continue to work, they will continue to grow, and they will continue to get richer.

At the end of the day, this is not an argument of whether or not Obama's tax plan will or will not work. It will work. It is a question of whether or not one believes that the system he proposes is fair which is 100% subjective. I believe that it is and I will continue to believe that no matter which side of the fence (rich/poor) I happen to sit on.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,318
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: techs
Obama will be the first President in quite awhile who didn't get elected by corporate money.
That's what makes his Presidency give me hope.
Talk about an inconvenient truth:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...cle=2008&cid=N00009638

Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $739,521
University of California $697,506
Harvard University $501,489
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
National Amusements Inc $432,169
Microsoft Corp $429,656
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Wilmerhale Llp $383,024
Time Warner $375,063
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409
Stanford University $341,399
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Jones Day $309,960
University of Chicago $294,237
General Electric $290,584

We've got alternative energy companies (GE - windmills baby!), banks and financial institutions (I thought Wall Street was run by a bunch of dirty rotten conservatives?), big-Education, you name it!

... no corporate money here though...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...oButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=3

John McCains donations:

Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Goldman Sachs $220,045
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
AT&T Inc $183,663
Credit Suisse Group $175,503
PricewaterhouseCoopers $163,670
Blank Rome LLP $153,426
US Government $152,118
US Army $150,470

Wachovia Corp $147,456
Greenberg Traurig LLP $145,737
UBS AG $141,365
Bank of America $133,975
FedEx Corp $121,904
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $120,246
US Dept of Defense $118,125
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000

I call SHENS. If McCain is taking public financing how can he have any donors??????
This is the primary donators list. Not the general election.
Talk about an incovenient deception exposed.


btw wtf is the US Army doing donating to ANY candidate?
Double wtf what is the US government doing donating to McCain??
Maybe if you'd quit trying to defend your foolish position you'd stop and read the page you quoted. There is nothing shens about this, OpenSecrets.org is a nonpartisan group conveying the facts equally about all political candidates as your own clip indicates...

These are PAC donations meaning they are "private" donations made by people affiliated with/employed by the group in question. However, while donations are not necessarily considered endorsement of a particular candidate by the group as a whole the contributions tend to follow a "pattern of benefit" that can usually be traced to voting benefit for the company in question.

For example, both presidential candidates received significant donations from firms who will be direct beneficiaries of the "bailout plan" they voted for - Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Chase, Citigroup, etc....

My point is, your assessment that Obama is somehow "not elected by corporate money" is simply delusional. You may not WANT to believe it but the facts don't support you in this case.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87

Playing two sides like Obama is basic class warfare. The rest of your concerns center around a progressive income tax system that gives the top 50% money back due to them paying a higher % in.
That's the point of a progressive tax system though. Do you think progressive taxation is a form of class warfare? If Obama were attempting to blame the wealthy for the average person's problems then I could see it being called class warfare. (chavez style) I haven't seen this from him at all though.
Sure it is i am not proposing it isnt. My point about the progressive system is when 50% of the income earners pay 94% of the taxes. Dont be surprised when 94% of the tax cuts hit 50% of the people.

On to Obama, what he is proposing is a tax cut for 95% of the people and placing it on the other 5. His rhetoric is clearly class warfare. When people ask about the tax cuts all his response is if you are in the bottom 95% dont worry about it. Vote for me and Ill put the screws into the top 5%. Under the guise of leveling the playing field. It is a PC term for the rich are getting away with murder, elect me and Ill right the wrong.
If you call a 3% increase "putting the screws to the rich", you live a sad life.
That is how it is sold. If you feel it is so trivial. Feel free to pay 3% more when you file after the first of the year.
I would. The problem is the repubs have essentially taxed us anyway, but worse. They've already spent the money, and left us with the bill. You bitch about the taxation, but are happy to pile on debt, with interest?

And I'd hardly call a progressive tax system "class warfare". It's not like the rich are going to think "Well, I did want to run my business to the best of my ability and make a shit ton of cash doing it, but if I make an extra $3 Mil this year and have to pay an extra $100K, fuck that, I'm going back to bed". I hear a lot of people bitching that it'll take away the incentive to be rich, or to go into business. Please.
You are such a liar. You wouldnt give 3% of your income above and beyond what is called of you unless forced by the hand of govt. So dont sit on your perch and tell me what a sad life I live because I point out a classic class warfare strategy when I see it.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
I would. The problem is the repubs have essentially taxed us anyway, but worse. They've already spent the money, and left us with the bill. You bitch about the taxation, but are happy to pile on debt, with interest?

And I'd hardly call a progressive tax system "class warfare". It's not like the rich are going to think "Well, I did want to run my business to the best of my ability and make a shit ton of cash doing it, but if I make an extra $3 Mil this year and have to pay an extra $100K, fuck that, I'm going back to bed". I hear a lot of people bitching that it'll take away the incentive to be rich, or to go into business. Please.
You are such a liar. You wouldnt give 3% of your income above and beyond what is called of you unless forced by the hand of govt. So dont sit on your perch and tell me what a sad life I live because I point out a classic class warfare strategy when I see it.
Duh, but that's life. Death and taxes. 3% will not impact the lives of the rich heavily.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Uhm... I think you need a fact check then.

He is indeed taking donations from business.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When the rich get richer and the poor get poorer the society is doomed to self destruct. Progressive taxes improve the life of everybody and preserve society.
You do realize, of course, that government helps the rich get richer. Don't you?

Or did you think that the boards of directors of defense contractors and media conglomerates are all full of homeless people?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When the rich get richer and the poor get poorer the society is doomed to self destruct. Progressive taxes improve the life of everybody and preserve society.
You do realize, of course, that government helps the rich get richer. Don't you?

Or did you think that the boards of directors of defense contractors and media conglomerates are all full of homeless people?
America. The land of fattest poor people in the world.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,360
25,111
136
What I want to know is why people who criticize Obama on one hand are calling him a socialist and on the other talking about how much corporate cash he's getting. Why would corporations give money to someone who is going to nationalize them?

Sorry guys, you have to choose. He can either be in the pocket of corporations, or a socialist. You can't have both.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I want to know is why people who criticize Obama on one hand are calling him a socialist and on the other talking about how much corporate cash he's getting. Why would corporations give money to someone who is going to nationalize them?

Sorry guys, you have to choose. He can either be in the pocket of corporations, or a socialist. You can't have both.
Perhaps they hope he supports corporate socialism.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,745
1,166
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87

Playing two sides like Obama is basic class warfare. The rest of your concerns center around a progressive income tax system that gives the top 50% money back due to them paying a higher % in.
That's the point of a progressive tax system though. Do you think progressive taxation is a form of class warfare? If Obama were attempting to blame the wealthy for the average person's problems then I could see it being called class warfare. (chavez style) I haven't seen this from him at all though.
Sure it is i am not proposing it isnt. My point about the progressive system is when 50% of the income earners pay 94% of the taxes. Dont be surprised when 94% of the tax cuts hit 50% of the people.

On to Obama, what he is proposing is a tax cut for 95% of the people and placing it on the other 5. His rhetoric is clearly class warfare. When people ask about the tax cuts all his response is if you are in the bottom 95% dont worry about it. Vote for me and Ill put the screws into the top 5%. Under the guise of leveling the playing field. It is a PC term for the rich are getting away with murder, elect me and Ill right the wrong.
If you call a 3% increase "putting the screws to the rich", you live a sad life.
That is how it is sold. If you feel it is so trivial. Feel free to pay 3% more when you file after the first of the year.
I would. The problem is the repubs have essentially taxed us anyway, but worse. They've already spent the money, and left us with the bill. You bitch about the taxation, but are happy to pile on debt, with interest?

And I'd hardly call a progressive tax system "class warfare". It's not like the rich are going to think "Well, I did want to run my business to the best of my ability and make a shit ton of cash doing it, but if I make an extra $3 Mil this year and have to pay an extra $100K, fuck that, I'm going back to bed". I hear a lot of people bitching that it'll take away the incentive to be rich, or to go into business. Please.
You are such a liar. You wouldnt give 3% of your income above and beyond what is called of you unless forced by the hand of govt. So dont sit on your perch and tell me what a sad life I live because I point out a classic class warfare strategy when I see it.
A liar? Hardly. I'm just not short sighted, and I believe you get what you pay for. I'm not saying you live a sad life, I'm saying that paying your fair share is in no way class warfare, let it go. I'm not bitching about my taxes, this country is in the hole financially and we need to buckle down. Part of that equation is increasing revenues. I don't get why people make such a big stink about it, unless they're being cheap. Time to suck it up.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm still convinced he's going to be a mediocre-to-terrible president... but fuck it.

let's get don't ask/don't tell off the books and give the democrats their chance to fuck it up too to prove that both parties are equally entrenched and incompetent.
Amen to that. I am no more concerned about an Obama presidency than I am a McCain presidency... pretty sure we got the bottom of the barrel from both parties this time around.

Way I see it, I will go on living my life either way. If the Obama people are right, I will have a fat tax break coming (not really, I wont get any of those tax credits I dont think, but I digress). As long as I can avoid paying attention to politics, I should be okay. :)
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: techs
Obama will be the first President in quite awhile who didn't get elected by corporate money.
That's what makes his Presidency give me hope.
I am all for hope (and change), but if you think the lobbyists arent already lining up, get real. a) They dont line up at the White House, they line up at the Capitol, b) Congress will have the same cast of clowns in it, so it wont matter either way.

Then there is that $200 million in "unaccounted for" money that NOBODY knows where it came from...
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: techs
Obama will be the first President in quite awhile who didn't get elected by corporate money.
That's what makes his Presidency give me hope.
I am all for hope (and change), but if you think the lobbyists arent already lining up, get real. a) They dont line up at the White House, they line up at the Capitol, b) Congress will have the same cast of clowns in it, so it wont matter either way.

Then there is that $200 million in "unaccounted for" money that NOBODY knows where it came from...
What 200 million?
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bobcpg
Well, I really don't like my paycheck money anyways. I think other people deserve it more.
You making more than $250,000 a year?
Why those evil people making over $250,000/year. How dare they!
Please remember it is only republicans who play class warfare.

how did we get to class warfare already? He asked him a question to help determine his tax liability. Perhaps next time you talk to you tax accounant, you can attack him for class warfare as well?
I dont make anywhere enough to require a tax accountant. Class warfare was interjected the second the under 250K comment was made. It is a real bitch when your parties candidate platform is playing 95% of the country agains the other 5.
I've never understood why tax cuts for the middle class are considered class warfare, but tax cuts for the upper class are considered 'economic stimulus'.
The middle class already pays a lower % of taxes, they don't need a tax cut. As far as I am concerned everyone should pay the exact same % of taxes, except the very poor and the elderly living off SS checks. Anything else is plain wealth redistribution and doesn't belong in a free market. Not that this is something that will ever be changed, because the majority of voters are of a lower income level and think that those who earn more should have an exponentially higher burden than them. I'm not talking about the Paris Hiltons and the billionares of the world, but what about those who work hard and make over $250k?

 
Dec 26, 2007
11,783
2
76
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And if we survive Obama, the worst of the worst, we can survive anything.
And what happens if we can't?

I believe it is going to take a very strong president to lead us out of this craphole we are currently in. I question if Obama is able to handle this. I also question if he will be a "rubber stamp" president since odds are it will be a democrat controlled legislative branch. I also worry about how he will do with foreign policy. I just don't like him.

Unfortunately McCain doesn't do any better in the "i'm worried about his presidency".

IMHO Clinton would have made a much better option than either of these two.
Are you certain that you want a third option? Perhaps what you along with millions of other Americans really want is simply to have more confidence in our government. I can't blame you for such a thing being lost considering the past 8 years. It is has had a large impact on us all.
You are most likely correct. I haven't sat down and thought about if I want a 3rd party or not. It has just as much chance (and most likely will) to get "influenced" by big business. It also has the ability to open up a new fringe, which would just be worse than the current two.

I am tired of constantly wishing our government worked better. I am tired of dealing with politicians who are so far removed from the topics they pass laws on. I am tired of having a president with a 20% approval rating. I am tired of having no real choice for a good elected official on the federal level. I am tired of a government that is so corrupt and bloated it no longer works effectively. I want change.* I want our country to be reformed into the country it should/could be.

* does not mean I am voting for Obama. Just because his slogan is "change" and such doesn't mean I believe him about it or think he will change it for the better. He might, but I have serious reservations with both McCain and Obama. Before you go telling me to make sure to vote for *Obama/McCain*, realize I don't believe either will bring about the reforms I think are long overdue and needed.


 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Oh, and as an answer the OP. I have no problem with an Obama presidency per se. He's no worse than any other career politician. I simply expect for the worst, and hope to be pleasantly surprised by his administration.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,891
2,197
126
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bobcpg
Well, I really don't like my paycheck money anyways. I think other people deserve it more.
You making more than $250,000 a year?
Why those evil people making over $250,000/year. How dare they!
Please remember it is only republicans who play class warfare.

how did we get to class warfare already? He asked him a question to help determine his tax liability. Perhaps next time you talk to you tax accounant, you can attack him for class warfare as well?
I dont make anywhere enough to require a tax accountant. Class warfare was interjected the second the under 250K comment was made. It is a real bitch when your parties candidate platform is playing 95% of the country agains the other 5.
I've never understood why tax cuts for the middle class are considered class warfare, but tax cuts for the upper class are considered 'economic stimulus'.
The middle class already pays a lower % of taxes, they don't need a tax cut. As far as I am concerned everyone should pay the exact same % of taxes, except the very poor and the elderly living off SS checks. Anything else is plain wealth redistribution and doesn't belong in a free market. Not that this is something that will ever be changed, because the majority of voters are of a lower income level and think that those who earn more should have an exponentially higher burden than them. I'm not talking about the Paris Hiltons and the billionares of the world, but what about those who work hard and make over $250k?
Or maybe people think that's the best way to pay for a trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar corporate bailout. The only other option is to never pay it back and keep borrowing from China. Or I suppose we could always jack up taxes on that "lucky ducky" waiting at the bus stop. But that wouldn't be class warfare, it's not really a war if the other side can't fight. Yep, that would be the "fair" thing to do.
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The middle class already pays a lower % of taxes, they don't need a tax cut. As far as I am concerned everyone should pay the exact same % of taxes, except the very poor and the elderly living off SS checks. Anything else is plain wealth redistribution and doesn't belong in a free market. Not that this is something that will ever be changed, because the majority of voters are of a lower income level and think that those who earn more should have an exponentially higher burden than them. I'm not talking about the Paris Hiltons and the billionares of the world, but what about those who work hard and make over $250k?
Fair enough...a flat tax system. However, that only works if you completely eliminate all deductions. For example, I myself am in the 35% bracket...however, I only actually pay around 8% because of deductions. If you changed the tax system so that everyone paid 15% and deductions were eliminated, I (and most others making good money) would be paying twice as much in taxes (at least).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY