She was impressively composed, definitely has talent... But she lied repeatedly

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: OrByte
I am not a tax expert by any means. But I don't agree with you that its the inefficiency of the tax burden that is actually worse for Americans than a direct tax increase.

I don't understand how if AMPM gets taxed $5 to sell a Big Gulp, then AMPM will pass that entire $5 tax increase down to me as a consumer. Is that increasing that big gulp price by $5? I think its more likely that if the tax burden for a corporation increases, then that corporation will POSSIBLY pass down that increase by some factor of the increase relative to whatever market demand price there is for it's product. In other words, that same Big Gulp will not have a price increase of $5 but more likely $.05.

In other words. IMHO its the very inefficiency in any tax increase passed to Businesses that protects Americans from having to dig deeper into their wallets wherein the alternative would be to pay for a direct tax increase.

I'm no expert, but I don't see the price of my Big Gulp increasing by a 1to1 factor related to any tax increase.

Not to mention that the tax breaks for businesses are not creating nearly as many jobs these days as they used to. There is so much work going overseas it is ridiculous.

I would blame that on a) some unions; and b) a country with a lower or no corporate taxes. It's stupid business decision to keep a company in the US when they can send it outside, be taxes much less, price their goods lower and sell more, which brings more profit. This also affects their stock prices and helps the US economy, albeit much less than if the company was actually in the US.

This is why the merits of the FairTax should be fairly discussed, but please, lets not turn this into a FairTax debate.

Some unions are partially to blame and we cannot control what other countries do so there is no benefit from pointing blame on them. However, the corporations are still the ones holding all of the aces. They have all the power in this situation and they are making choices which are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Their decision to make those extra bucks through overseas cheap labor is killing us.

The bottom line is that there are many slices to this huge complex pie and the only real answer is to achieve a balance which benefits the current state of the times the most. Right now, it is unbalanced. The little people are not seeing the kinds of benefits they should be seeing with their "investment" in business tax breaks. For the time being, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. As I have already stated, I don't believe the opposite end of the spectrum is very productive either but we cannot do this forever. The little people have a lot less money in their pockets even though the theory of business tax breaks suggests otherwise. Jobs are disappearing everywhere. Growth is practically unheard of. Too many people are not spending their money because they really don't have any to spend.

Balancing the equation more by putting more money in the pockets of the little people will influence more spending and they will spend it on products and services from businesses who are working hard to offer quality to the consumer. You can give as much tax breaks to business as you want. If the consumers are not left with enough money to buy their products it isn't going to do us any good.

I'm not pointing the blame at other countries. They are pretty smart. We should lower our corporate tax to bring business back. Why should a business operate in an area where they are less profitable. While being patriotic is a great talking point, it doesn't help them make money.

Putting more money in the little peoples pocket is why I'm a fair tax supporter.

You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: OrByte
I am not a tax expert by any means. But I don't agree with you that its the inefficiency of the tax burden that is actually worse for Americans than a direct tax increase.

I don't understand how if AMPM gets taxed $5 to sell a Big Gulp, then AMPM will pass that entire $5 tax increase down to me as a consumer. Is that increasing that big gulp price by $5? I think its more likely that if the tax burden for a corporation increases, then that corporation will POSSIBLY pass down that increase by some factor of the increase relative to whatever market demand price there is for it's product. In other words, that same Big Gulp will not have a price increase of $5 but more likely $.05.

In other words. IMHO its the very inefficiency in any tax increase passed to Businesses that protects Americans from having to dig deeper into their wallets wherein the alternative would be to pay for a direct tax increase.

I'm no expert, but I don't see the price of my Big Gulp increasing by a 1to1 factor related to any tax increase.

Not to mention that the tax breaks for businesses are not creating nearly as many jobs these days as they used to. There is so much work going overseas it is ridiculous.

I would blame that on a) some unions; and b) a country with a lower or no corporate taxes. It's stupid business decision to keep a company in the US when they can send it outside, be taxes much less, price their goods lower and sell more, which brings more profit. This also affects their stock prices and helps the US economy, albeit much less than if the company was actually in the US.

This is why the merits of the FairTax should be fairly discussed, but please, lets not turn this into a FairTax debate.

Some unions are partially to blame and we cannot control what other countries do so there is no benefit from pointing blame on them. However, the corporations are still the ones holding all of the aces. They have all the power in this situation and they are making choices which are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Their decision to make those extra bucks through overseas cheap labor is killing us.

The bottom line is that there are many slices to this huge complex pie and the only real answer is to achieve a balance which benefits the current state of the times the most. Right now, it is unbalanced. The little people are not seeing the kinds of benefits they should be seeing with their "investment" in business tax breaks. For the time being, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. As I have already stated, I don't believe the opposite end of the spectrum is very productive either but we cannot do this forever. The little people have a lot less money in their pockets even though the theory of business tax breaks suggests otherwise. Jobs are disappearing everywhere. Growth is practically unheard of. Too many people are not spending their money because they really don't have any to spend.
Balancing the equation more by putting more money in the pockets of the little people will influence more spending and they will spend it on products and services from businesses who are working hard to offer quality to the consumer. You can give as much tax breaks to business as you want. If the consumers are not left with enough money to buy their products it isn't going to do us any good.
I agree with this. If what we really have to choose in this election, is essentially the difference between the two economic philosophies, the fact that we have had one economic philosophy in charge for 8 years seems to beg a change to the opposite philosophy for the next administration.

Sort of like the same argument when applied to control of congress.

Bush didn't do it right... he lowered capital gains but didn't touch corporate taxes. You have to do both or you might as well not do either.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'm not pointing the blame at other countries. They are pretty smart. We should lower our corporate tax to bring business back. Why should a business operate in an area where they are less profitable. While being patriotic is a great talking point, it doesn't help them make money.

Putting more money in the little peoples pocket is why I'm a fair tax supporter.

You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

How exactly do you think the government is going to replace this loss in tax dollars? It has to come from someone's pocket. It is either going to be the rich who are having trouble deciding which investment to choose from or it is going to be the middle class and the poor who work their asses off just to ensure the bills are paid and that the kids can go to college.

The only other solution is to cut government spending which is nice in theory, but you can't just throw up your arms and make that decision without evaluating the consequences. From there, it becomes a debate of which government services should to be cut and we all have tons of different opinions on that one. Personally, I am not a big fan of cutting hardly any of them right off the bat. I am a fan of working hard as a country to help improve the efficiency of what we already have set in place so that we can get the same bang for less of our buck. Once we manage to do that, then we can start enjoying the fruits of our labor such as cutting taxes for the rich businesses. Until then...

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

Prices won't be lowered, wages will not go up. Business productivity has continued to climb year after year and wages are stagnant.

Unions? The Unions have no teeth anymore, the R's have stomped them into the ground.

Trickle down is a complete myth, we've been had twice, and you're eager for a third go around.

Flat tax/fair tax is just another way to rob poor people if you don't see that, then I don't know what will convince you. It's fundamentally built to shift more of the tax burden onto the average worker.

Effective tax rate is the only way to make things fair, it needs to be the same for everyone, whether they are making $1,000,000/yr off of investments or $30K a year in an office. Income is income and needs to be taxed at the same rate for everyone.

But, but, that means the rich pay most of the revenue's......I'm fine with that. The truth is that no matter what you pay in taxes, there will always be someone who pays less. Am I angry that someone working at McD's pays less income tax than me? The answer is no, as long as we are paying the same percentage, then things are just fine.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
I hope this runs in every major paper in America because they were grossly unfair to Obama last night.
 

davestar

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2001
1,787
0
0

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

Prices won't be lowered, wages will not go up. Business productivity has continued to climb year after year and wages are stagnant.

Unions? The Unions have no teeth anymore, the R's have stomped them into the ground.

Trickle down is a complete myth, we've been had twice, and you're eager for a third go around.

Flat tax/fair tax is just another way to rob poor people if you don't see that, then I don't know what will convince you. It's fundamentally built to shift more of the tax burden onto the average worker.

Effective tax rate is the only way to make things fair, it needs to be the same for everyone, whether they are making $1,000,000/yr off of investments or $30K a year in an office. Income is income and needs to be taxed at the same rate for everyone.

But, but, that means the rich pay most of the revenue's......I'm fine with that. The truth is that no matter what you pay in taxes, there will always be someone who pays less. Am I angry that someone working at McD's pays less income tax than me? The answer is no, as long as we are paying the same percentage, then things are just fine.

With all the loopholes, the US already has the lowest effective tax rate in the western world. so lowering it more will make it a tax free haven for business.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,899
7,428
136
The delusion that this coming pres. elections will be a close race because Palin is now in it is being deceptively perpetrated and perpetuated by those that actually do know the repub's chances of winning are slim to none. But please, keep it up, it's amusing.

How anyone can dismissively toss aside the mess the repubs have created of/for this nation, its economy and its standing in the world body politic under Bush's apocalyptic tenure, and how anyone with any common sense can buy into this silly notion and honestly think the repubs have an even chance of winning is amazing in the sense that the repubs are only deluding themselves, and all others should only watch this special case of mass hypnosis with curiosity and amusement and not actually get sucked/suckered into the Mother of All Big Self-Deluding Lies.
 

Druidx

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,971
0
76
Originally posted by: tweaker2
The delusion that this coming pres. elections will be a close race because Palin is now in it is being deceptively perpetrated and perpetuated by those that actually do know the repub's chances of winning are slim to none. But please, keep it up, it's amusing.

Ahh how soon they forget. Bush was a unpopular president, dems were pissed over 2000.
Becuase of those two things the Dems expected to win in 2004 but look how that turned out. Personally I think Obama will win but I think it will be closer than most Dem are expecting. Remember the real race just started.

 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: OrByte
I am not a tax expert by any means. But I don't agree with you that its the inefficiency of the tax burden that is actually worse for Americans than a direct tax increase.

I don't understand how if AMPM gets taxed $5 to sell a Big Gulp, then AMPM will pass that entire $5 tax increase down to me as a consumer. Is that increasing that big gulp price by $5? I think its more likely that if the tax burden for a corporation increases, then that corporation will POSSIBLY pass down that increase by some factor of the increase relative to whatever market demand price there is for it's product. In other words, that same Big Gulp will not have a price increase of $5 but more likely $.05.

In other words. IMHO its the very inefficiency in any tax increase passed to Businesses that protects Americans from having to dig deeper into their wallets wherein the alternative would be to pay for a direct tax increase.

I'm no expert, but I don't see the price of my Big Gulp increasing by a 1to1 factor related to any tax increase.

Not to mention that the tax breaks for businesses are not creating nearly as many jobs these days as they used to. There is so much work going overseas it is ridiculous.

I would blame that on a) some unions; and b) a country with a lower or no corporate taxes. It's stupid business decision to keep a company in the US when they can send it outside, be taxes much less, price their goods lower and sell more, which brings more profit. This also affects their stock prices and helps the US economy, albeit much less than if the company was actually in the US.

This is why the merits of the FairTax should be fairly discussed, but please, lets not turn this into a FairTax debate.

Some unions are partially to blame and we cannot control what other countries do so there is no benefit from pointing blame on them. However, the corporations are still the ones holding all of the aces. They have all the power in this situation and they are making choices which are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Their decision to make those extra bucks through overseas cheap labor is killing us.

The bottom line is that there are many slices to this huge complex pie and the only real answer is to achieve a balance which benefits the current state of the times the most. Right now, it is unbalanced. The little people are not seeing the kinds of benefits they should be seeing with their "investment" in business tax breaks. For the time being, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. As I have already stated, I don't believe the opposite end of the spectrum is very productive either but we cannot do this forever. The little people have a lot less money in their pockets even though the theory of business tax breaks suggests otherwise. Jobs are disappearing everywhere. Growth is practically unheard of. Too many people are not spending their money because they really don't have any to spend.

Balancing the equation more by putting more money in the pockets of the little people will influence more spending and they will spend it on products and services from businesses who are working hard to offer quality to the consumer. You can give as much tax breaks to business as you want. If the consumers are not left with enough money to buy their products it isn't going to do us any good.

I'm not pointing the blame at other countries. They are pretty smart. We should lower our corporate tax to bring business back. Why should a business operate in an area where they are less profitable. While being patriotic is a great talking point, it doesn't help them make money.

Putting more money in the little peoples pocket is why I'm a fair tax supporter.

You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

You are talking one hell of a tax cut to make American labor as attractive as 5 cent an hour Chinese labor.
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,589
0
76
Talk about lies, you pulled that off of Huffingtonpost, its NOT an AP article
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
After last night's speech I fully understand why the leftists have been gunning so hard at this woman for the last week.

Fact is, her "attacks" on Obama were reasonable challenges on ISSUES and his record as a public servant. She didn't attack his kids, she didn't go after his college coke habits, she and the other speakers went after his voting record (or lack therof) and his positions which is exactly what political opponents are supposed to do. I would expect the Obama campaign to do the same thing and raise issue with McCain/Palin on their stances and record as well - it's part of the process.

I don't know what kind of slap fight hugging contest you people expect but what I heard last night was a political candidate introducing herself, presenting her credentials/positions and highlighting differences in her stance versus her opponent's. If Obama can't handle having his positions scrutinized publicly perhaps he doesn't have the chops to be president where every decision he makes will be scrutinized by his countrymen and the international community.

Well said.

I was watching the Palin speech with my wife last night, she's an Obama supporter, and we were noticing the "diggs' Palin was getting in about Obama. I was kinda suprised when my wife turned to me and said something like "well, her critisms DO have a basis in fact". I don't know what prompted her to make that comment since no one was even talking about whether they were legitimate or not.

But that Obama supporter didn't see them as anything unfair or over-the-top.

We both thought that Palin and Rudy G did a great job with their speeches. And I was kinda suprised at the level of support Palin received from the crowd there.

Fern
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'm not pointing the blame at other countries. They are pretty smart. We should lower our corporate tax to bring business back. Why should a business operate in an area where they are less profitable. While being patriotic is a great talking point, it doesn't help them make money.

Putting more money in the little peoples pocket is why I'm a fair tax supporter.

You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

How exactly do you think the government is going to replace this loss in tax dollars? It has to come from someone's pocket. It is either going to be the rich who are having trouble deciding which investment to choose from or it is going to be the middle class and the poor who work their asses off just to ensure the bills are paid and that the kids can go to college.

The only other solution is to cut government spending which is nice in theory, but you can't just throw up your arms and make that decision without evaluating the consequences. From there, it becomes a debate of which government services should to be cut and we all have tons of different opinions on that one. Personally, I am not a big fan of cutting hardly any of them right off the bat. I am a fan of working hard as a country to help improve the efficiency of what we already have set in place so that we can get the same bang for less of our buck. Once we manage to do that, then we can start enjoying the fruits of our labor such as cutting taxes for the rich businesses. Until then...

That's a big area the current admin has failed tremendously. They have expanded government to an unacceptable level. Government needs to be cut and it takes leadership to make those tough decisions. Obama wants to expand government and that's just one of the many reason I will not vote for him.

Taxes need to be cut along with spending, I know. We need someone who will do that and I think McCain is someone who can and will. Let's hope he follows through.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

Prices won't be lowered, wages will not go up. Business productivity has continued to climb year after year and wages are stagnant.

Unions? The Unions have no teeth anymore, the R's have stomped them into the ground.

Trickle down is a complete myth, we've been had twice, and you're eager for a third go around.

Flat tax/fair tax is just another way to rob poor people if you don't see that, then I don't know what will convince you. It's fundamentally built to shift more of the tax burden onto the average worker.

Effective tax rate is the only way to make things fair, it needs to be the same for everyone, whether they are making $1,000,000/yr off of investments or $30K a year in an office. Income is income and needs to be taxed at the same rate for everyone.

But, but, that means the rich pay most of the revenue's......I'm fine with that. The truth is that no matter what you pay in taxes, there will always be someone who pays less. Am I angry that someone working at McD's pays less income tax than me? The answer is no, as long as we are paying the same percentage, then things are just fine.

Wages are not stagnant, if you truly think that you need to open your eyes and look around.

Prices will go down because one business will know they can take the short term hit and lower prices to gain more market share, then others will follow, so either prices go down or employees demand a higher wage.

If you think the fair tax hits the poor the most then you have not looked at the fairtax fairly. You are not taxed at all until the poverty level. The fairtax gives each family more money in their pocket for investing and only taxes them on what they spend, not what they invest in. You need to take another look at the fairtax with an open mind and not what someone who is concerned about losing the advantage of class warfare has told you.

This isn't a fairtax debate though, if you want to debate the merits of the fairtax I suggest you start a new thread and I will follow you there or you can PM me your rebuttal.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'm not pointing the blame at other countries. They are pretty smart. We should lower our corporate tax to bring business back. Why should a business operate in an area where they are less profitable. While being patriotic is a great talking point, it doesn't help them make money.

Putting more money in the little peoples pocket is why I'm a fair tax supporter.

You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

How exactly do you think the government is going to replace this loss in tax dollars? It has to come from someone's pocket. It is either going to be the rich who are having trouble deciding which investment to choose from or it is going to be the middle class and the poor who work their asses off just to ensure the bills are paid and that the kids can go to college.

The only other solution is to cut government spending which is nice in theory, but you can't just throw up your arms and make that decision without evaluating the consequences. From there, it becomes a debate of which government services should to be cut and we all have tons of different opinions on that one. Personally, I am not a big fan of cutting hardly any of them right off the bat. I am a fan of working hard as a country to help improve the efficiency of what we already have set in place so that we can get the same bang for less of our buck. Once we manage to do that, then we can start enjoying the fruits of our labor such as cutting taxes for the rich businesses. Until then...

That's a big area the current admin has failed tremendously. They have expanded government to an unacceptable level. Government needs to be cut and it takes leadership to make those tough decisions. Obama wants to expand government and that's just one of the many reason I will not vote for him.

Taxes need to be cut along with spending, I know. We need someone who will do that and I think McCain is someone who can and will. Let's hope he follows through.

Taxes cannot be cut until we can find a way to make ends meet without screwing ourselves in the process. You have to be careful. Cutting expenses often leads to cutting quality if you make bad decisions and cut too much too quickly. McCain will probably cut taxes, but most likely he will also end up borrowing a lot of money to make up for the loss. That or he will further damage the middle class which will cause them to start spending even less money and businesses and jobs will continue to plummet just like they are now and for pretty much the same reasons.

Obama has me convinced that he doesn't want to expand the government as much as he wants improve upon it which goes hand in hand with my philosophy on the matter. Him and I are not on the exact same page, but out of all possibilities (that includes all candidates. not just McCain and Obama.) his line of thinking is the closest to mine. Let's hope he is successful. Let's hope he ups the quality of what the government does so we can afford to downsize it later without sacrificing the quality of the service it provides.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

Prices won't be lowered, wages will not go up. Business productivity has continued to climb year after year and wages are stagnant.

Unions? The Unions have no teeth anymore, the R's have stomped them into the ground.

Trickle down is a complete myth, we've been had twice, and you're eager for a third go around.

Flat tax/fair tax is just another way to rob poor people if you don't see that, then I don't know what will convince you. It's fundamentally built to shift more of the tax burden onto the average worker.

Effective tax rate is the only way to make things fair, it needs to be the same for everyone, whether they are making $1,000,000/yr off of investments or $30K a year in an office. Income is income and needs to be taxed at the same rate for everyone.

But, but, that means the rich pay most of the revenue's......I'm fine with that. The truth is that no matter what you pay in taxes, there will always be someone who pays less. Am I angry that someone working at McD's pays less income tax than me? The answer is no, as long as we are paying the same percentage, then things are just fine.

Wages are not stagnant, if you truly think that you need to open your eyes and look around.

Prices will go down because one business will know they can take the short term hit and lower prices to gain more market share, then others will follow, so either prices go down or employees demand a higher wage.

If you think the fair tax hits the poor the most then you have not looked at the fairtax fairly. You are not taxed at all until the poverty level. The fairtax gives each family more money in their pocket for investing and only taxes them on what they spend, not what they invest in. You need to take another look at the fairtax with an open mind and not what someone who is concerned about losing the advantage of class warfare has told you.

This isn't a fairtax debate though, if you want to debate the merits of the fairtax I suggest you start a new thread and I will follow you there or you can PM me your rebuttal.

If you don't want to debate the fair tax and how unfair it is in this thread then stop bringing it up in your posts.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'm not pointing the blame at other countries. They are pretty smart. We should lower our corporate tax to bring business back. Why should a business operate in an area where they are less profitable. While being patriotic is a great talking point, it doesn't help them make money.

Putting more money in the little peoples pocket is why I'm a fair tax supporter.

You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

How exactly do you think the government is going to replace this loss in tax dollars? It has to come from someone's pocket. It is either going to be the rich who are having trouble deciding which investment to choose from or it is going to be the middle class and the poor who work their asses off just to ensure the bills are paid and that the kids can go to college.

The only other solution is to cut government spending which is nice in theory, but you can't just throw up your arms and make that decision without evaluating the consequences. From there, it becomes a debate of which government services should to be cut and we all have tons of different opinions on that one. Personally, I am not a big fan of cutting hardly any of them right off the bat. I am a fan of working hard as a country to help improve the efficiency of what we already have set in place so that we can get the same bang for less of our buck. Once we manage to do that, then we can start enjoying the fruits of our labor such as cutting taxes for the rich businesses. Until then...

That's a big area the current admin has failed tremendously. They have expanded government to an unacceptable level. Government needs to be cut and it takes leadership to make those tough decisions. Obama wants to expand government and that's just one of the many reason I will not vote for him.

Taxes need to be cut along with spending, I know. We need someone who will do that and I think McCain is someone who can and will. Let's hope he follows through.

Taxes cannot be cut until we can find a way to make ends meet without screwing ourselves in the process. You have to be careful. Cutting expenses often leads to cutting quality if you make bad decisions and cut too much too quickly. McCain will probably cut taxes, but most likely he will also end up borrowing a lot of money to make up for the loss. That or he will further damage the middle class which will cause them to start spending even less money and businesses and jobs will continue to plummet just like they are now and for pretty much the same reasons.

Obama has me convinced that he doesn't want to expand the government as much as he wants improve upon it which goes hand in hand with my philosophy on the matter. Him and I are not on the exact same page, but out of all possibilities (that includes all candidates. not just McCain and Obama.) his line of thinking is the closest to mine. Let's hope he is successful. Let's hope he ups the quality of what the government does so we can afford to downsize it later without sacrificing the quality of the service it provides.

The answer to peoples problems is not government, but that's a philosophical view that I don't really believe I can change. Obama wants to make government "better" by growing it, and once government grows it is very hard to shrink - so you're thinking that we can shrink it after he makes it "better" (read: increases it) is a pipe dream. And that's if Obama follows through with his promises, I already don't believe his changes will make it better as I do not want more government control over me and what I do.

McCain, if he follows what he says, will shrink the size of Government and also lower taxes. Both need to be done carefully. I don't think Obama has the kind of leadership and wisdom to make that happen. McCain wasn't my first choice for those changes, but he certainly is the best.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
You want to put more money is peoples pocket? Make their money worth more by lowering the corporate tax, thereby lowering prices and enabling businesses to pay their employees more. Of course, each business will take a different amount of profit and some will be nicer to their employees. But that's where their unions will come into play again and actually be a little beneficial to the American people as a whole.

Prices won't be lowered, wages will not go up. Business productivity has continued to climb year after year and wages are stagnant.

Unions? The Unions have no teeth anymore, the R's have stomped them into the ground.

Trickle down is a complete myth, we've been had twice, and you're eager for a third go around.

Flat tax/fair tax is just another way to rob poor people if you don't see that, then I don't know what will convince you. It's fundamentally built to shift more of the tax burden onto the average worker.

Effective tax rate is the only way to make things fair, it needs to be the same for everyone, whether they are making $1,000,000/yr off of investments or $30K a year in an office. Income is income and needs to be taxed at the same rate for everyone.

But, but, that means the rich pay most of the revenue's......I'm fine with that. The truth is that no matter what you pay in taxes, there will always be someone who pays less. Am I angry that someone working at McD's pays less income tax than me? The answer is no, as long as we are paying the same percentage, then things are just fine.

Wages are not stagnant, if you truly think that you need to open your eyes and look around.

Prices will go down because one business will know they can take the short term hit and lower prices to gain more market share, then others will follow, so either prices go down or employees demand a higher wage.

If you think the fair tax hits the poor the most then you have not looked at the fairtax fairly. You are not taxed at all until the poverty level. The fairtax gives each family more money in their pocket for investing and only taxes them on what they spend, not what they invest in. You need to take another look at the fairtax with an open mind and not what someone who is concerned about losing the advantage of class warfare has told you.

This isn't a fairtax debate though, if you want to debate the merits of the fairtax I suggest you start a new thread and I will follow you there or you can PM me your rebuttal.

If you don't want to debate the fair tax and how unfair it is in this thread then stop bringing it up in your posts.

I just stated that in my opinion it was the answer and in the same post I said this was not the thread to argue it's merits. You brought on the debate by arguing against my opinion.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
It's good that they are having to stretch tehir "facts" to be able to counter those given in speeches.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,673
28,826
136
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: HomerJS
She put down community organizers in that smug sarcastic tone. Look up the history of COs and you will see some notables. One outstanding one Martin Luther King Jr.

Text

She did not put down Community Organizers, she contrasted the the leadership experience and responsibility of OBAMA's work as a CO that is relevant to the office of president compared to that gained governing a state.

Lets dig in to how extensive his experience was while acting as a CO since you're mentioning names like Martin Luther King...

Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[12][14] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama



Wow, managing 13 people and a $400k budget - this guy is obviously presidential material... Not exactly the same caliber as governing a state of 670,053 people with a $2.9 billion state budget.

If you don't recognize a condesending tone when you hear it I can't explain. Nobody criticized her for being mayor but questioned if mayor of a town of 5000 people qualifies as tons of executive experiance.

You also compared one of Obamas first jobs to Palins last. Here are some things you left out.


After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[12][14] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[15] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[16]

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition.[18] In his second year he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors.[19] Obama's election in February 1990 as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[19] He graduated with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 and returned to Chicago where he had worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[18][20]

The publicity from his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.[21] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.[21] He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. The manuscript was finally published as Dreams from My Father in mid-1995.[21]

Obama directed Illinois Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[22][23]

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992?1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996?2004).[24]

In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.[12][25]

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[12][26] He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993?2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation from 1994?2002.[12] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995?2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995?1999.[12] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.[12]

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from the 13th State Senate District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[27] Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[28] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[29] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures,[30] and in 2003, Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[29][31]

Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, and again in 2002.[32] In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.[33][34]

In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[35] During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.[36] Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the US Senate.[37]

In mid-2002, Obama began considering a run for the U.S. Senate, enlisting political strategist David Axelrod that fall and formally announcing his candidacy in January 2003.[38] Decisions by Republican incumbent Peter Fitzgerald and his Democratic predecessor Carol Moseley Braun not to contest the race launched wide-open Democratic and Republican primary contests involving fifteen candidates.[39] Obama's candidacy was boosted by Axelrod's advertising campaign featuring images of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and an endorsement by the daughter of the late Paul Simon, former U.S. Senator for Illinois.[40] He received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.[41]

Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[42]

In July 2004, Obama wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.[43] After describing his maternal grandfather's experiences as a World War II veteran and a beneficiary of the New Deal's FHA and G.I. Bill programs, Obama spoke about changing the U.S. government's economic and social priorities. He questioned the Bush administration's management of the Iraq War and highlighted America's obligations to its soldiers. Drawing examples from U.S. history, he criticized heavily partisan views of the electorate and asked Americans to find unity in diversity, saying, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America."[44] Broadcasts of the speech by major news organizations launched Obama's status as a national political figure and boosted his campaign for U.S. Senate.[45]

In August 2004, with less than three months to go before Election Day, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[46] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[47] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes's 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history

Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005.[49] Obama was the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, and the third to have been popularly elected.[50] He is the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus.[51] CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes in 2005?2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007.[52][53]

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[55] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[56] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: "Lugar?Obama," which expanded the Nunn?Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[57] and the "Coburn?Obama Transparency Act," which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[58] On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Carper, Coburn and McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.[59]

Obama sponsored legislation requiring nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.[60] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[61] In January 2007, Obama co-sponsored the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed into law in September 2007.[62] He introduced S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections.[63] Obama also introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. [64]

Later in 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges.[66] He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, and co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.[67][68] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program providing one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[69]

Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006.[70] In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.[71] He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.[72] As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama has made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa

And oh by the way a successful campain for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Now I know you will say this doesn't mean much but so be it. Just wanted to get more of the facts out there.





 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
The answer to peoples problems is not government, but that's a philosophical view that I don't really believe I can change. Obama wants to make government "better" by growing it, and once government grows it is very hard to shrink - so you're thinking that we can shrink it after he makes it "better" (read: increases it) is a pipe dream. And that's if Obama follows through with his promises, I already don't believe his changes will make it better as I do not want more government control over me and what I do.

McCain, if he follows what he says, will shrink the size of Government and also lower taxes. Both need to be done carefully. I don't think Obama has the kind of leadership and wisdom to make that happen. McCain wasn't my first choice for those changes, but he certainly is the best.

McCain will not be able to afford what he wants to do without borrowing ridiculous amounts of money to make up for the deficit. I guarantee you that will be the case. Obama's plan isn't cheap, but I do believe it is still cheaper and that the juice will be well worth the squeeze. At the very least, that juice will put a better taste in my mouth than what McCain could ever possibly hope to provide me with.


Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
If you don't want to debate the fair tax and how unfair it is in this thread then stop bringing it up in your posts.

I just stated that in my opinion it was the answer and in the same post I said this was not the thread to argue it's merits. You brought on the debate by arguing against my opinion.

Oh please...bringing up the fairtax in a thread like this is like making a statement on a gay community forum that you believe gay marriage takes away from America's family values. Obviously it is going to result in controversy and arguing no matter how you spell it out. The only way to avoid it is to not mention it at all. You knew exactly what you were doing.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
The answer to peoples problems is not government, but that's a philosophical view that I don't really believe I can change. Obama wants to make government "better" by growing it, and once government grows it is very hard to shrink - so you're thinking that we can shrink it after he makes it "better" (read: increases it) is a pipe dream. And that's if Obama follows through with his promises, I already don't believe his changes will make it better as I do not want more government control over me and what I do.

McCain, if he follows what he says, will shrink the size of Government and also lower taxes. Both need to be done carefully. I don't think Obama has the kind of leadership and wisdom to make that happen. McCain wasn't my first choice for those changes, but he certainly is the best.

McCain will not be able to afford what he wants to do without borrowing ridiculous amounts of money to make up for the deficit. I guarantee you that will be the case.

Neither will Obama. When have healthcare entitlements ever cost as much as politicians said they would?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,899
7,428
136
Originally posted by: Druidx
Originally posted by: tweaker2
The delusion that this coming pres. elections will be a close race because Palin is now in it is being deceptively perpetrated and perpetuated by those that actually do know the repub's chances of winning are slim to none. But please, keep it up, it's amusing.

Ahh how soon they forget. Bush was a unpopular president, dems were pissed over 2000.
Becuase of those two things the Dems expected to win in 2004 but look how that turned out. Personally I think Obama will win but I think it will be closer than most Dem are expecting. Remember the real race just started.

Agreed.

Thank you for tempering my outlook on the upcoming elections with your thoughtful observation.:thumbsup:

 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
The answer to peoples problems is not government, but that's a philosophical view that I don't really believe I can change. Obama wants to make government "better" by growing it, and once government grows it is very hard to shrink - so you're thinking that we can shrink it after he makes it "better" (read: increases it) is a pipe dream. And that's if Obama follows through with his promises, I already don't believe his changes will make it better as I do not want more government control over me and what I do.

McCain, if he follows what he says, will shrink the size of Government and also lower taxes. Both need to be done carefully. I don't think Obama has the kind of leadership and wisdom to make that happen. McCain wasn't my first choice for those changes, but he certainly is the best.

McCain will not be able to afford what he wants to do without borrowing ridiculous amounts of money to make up for the deficit. I guarantee you that will be the case. Obama's plan isn't cheap, but I do believe it is still cheaper and that the juice will be well worth the squeeze. At the very least, that juice will put a better taste in my mouth than what McCain could ever possibly hope to provide me with.


Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Xavier434
If you don't want to debate the fair tax and how unfair it is in this thread then stop bringing it up in your posts.

I just stated that in my opinion it was the answer and in the same post I said this was not the thread to argue it's merits. You brought on the debate by arguing against my opinion.

Oh please...bringing up the fairtax in a thread like this is like making a statement on a gay community forum that you believe gay marriage takes away from America's family values. Obviously it is going to result in controversy and arguing no matter how you spell it out. The only way to avoid it is to not mention it at all. You knew exactly what you were doing.

How about this - You vote for Obama and I vote for McCain, deal?