So my Dad's an idiot.

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
He may turn out to be correct. We are already hearing it about WV.

If Obama doesn't play the race card, I'll be amazed.

We hear little about the majority of blacks voting for Obama, though.

If the majority of whites vote for Hillary or McCain, it is, or will be, attributed to racism.

When a black is voting for Obama with his race as a factor (his politics also have to be in agreement with them, they wouldn't vote for Clarence Thomas), as most are, it means that they're very excited to see one of the group which as a history of being discriminated against for hundreds of years be able to end the streak of 43 white presidents by having someone else get to be in charge for 4 or 8 years. It's racial, not racist.

When a white is voting against Obama because he's black, it's typically racist.

You can see the difference in the fact that the racist voters refusing to vote for Obama might say they are not willing to vote for a black, but Obama supporters don't say they won't vote for a white. Rather it's that they have never had a chance to vote for a black president before. There's some subtle line between 'preferring your own race', and being completely insensitive to other races having any equal chance for power.

While a member of an underrepresented minority and a member of an overrepresented majority voting for their own race looks like the same thing on the surface, it's not.

Of course all races are able to abuse the power of majority, to mistreat minority groups. Ask many white South Africans today how they feel. Ask many whites who are subject to the authority of Native Americans. But that's no excuse for equating the desire for some equal share by minorities with the corruption of being happy to vote for unfair dominance by the majority.

We don't see a lot of politics around the eye color of the president, because there isn't a history of discrimination, there's not bigotry around it. If there were, we'd see the same issues as we do with race. If we could say every president had one color of eyes and that for the history of our country other candidates were unelectable because the nation 'wasn't ready' for their eye color and such, the situation would resemble race, with candidates of the other eye color wanting to see one of theirs elected, etc.

Though I'm sure racism is a major motivating factor on both sides, it's unfair to say that whites who won't vote for Obama are racist. Couldn't it be possible that many whites are centrist or right leaning and see Obama as being too far left. I think that many of the white Democrats who wouldn't vote for Obama might be iclined to vote for someone like Colin Powell.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: MagicConch

Originally posted by: Aimster
my parents are voting republican because democrats are going to push up the capital gain tax.

This is a central issue for most people i know given the rapid increases in cost of living. If Obama could indirectly increase the performance of the avg portfolio enough to offset the higher taxes and then some I would vote for him, but of course he won't be able to do that.

That and how is he going to explain the contraction of investments and new businesses along with reduced tax revenue from the capital gains tax. But, he's not concerned with that apparently...he's just into his definition of fairness.

Cutting the capital gains tax does not increase capital gains revenues. This is a common myth.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: MagicConch

Originally posted by: Aimster
my parents are voting republican because democrats are going to push up the capital gain tax.

This is a central issue for most people i know given the rapid increases in cost of living. If Obama could indirectly increase the performance of the avg portfolio enough to offset the higher taxes and then some I would vote for him, but of course he won't be able to do that.

That and how is he going to explain the contraction of investments and new businesses along with reduced tax revenue from the capital gains tax. But, he's not concerned with that apparently...he's just into his definition of fairness.

You mean the same kind of 'contraction of investments' that happened when Clinton raised the taxes on the top 2% in 1993?

The affects of Clinton's tax increase were mitigated by a booming economy at the time. That also was an income tax, not a capital gains tax which is what we are discussing here.

You mean the terrible economy of the 1960's when capital gains and income taxes were far higher, yet we were able to spend up to 4% of the budget on a moon landing, reduce the poverty rate by a third with the great society, fight an extremely expensive war in Vietnam, and yet balance the budget in 1969 at the peak of those policies?

Interesting that you mention 1969. In 1969, The Tax Reform Act of 1969 was passed increasing the capital gains tax to almost 50%. As a result, tax revenues from the capital gains tax stayed below the levels they enjoyed in 1969 for many years later. This dried up investment in new ventures and new technologies during the 70s. Congress reduced the capital gains tax to 28% in 1979 over Carter's objections. This resulted in a boom of tax revenue and investment in new ventures and technology. Yet, some economists suggested that the 28% was still to high.

You're not concerned with fairness, you're not concerned with the labor of people being incented, by your own choice of policy. You perpetuate the myth that the wealthy respond to an increase in the capital gains tax by getting out of the stock market and other investments and put their money in a shoebox. They don't. They put it where they can make money, in investments, as history shows, not your false ideology. The wealthy are doing so extremely well that our society is threatened by the concentration of wealth.

No, I'm not concerned about fairness. Life isn't fair and it isn't up to the government to determine what is a 'fair' amount for someone to earn as income. It is the government's responsibility however to maximize their tax revenue while not impeding the development of business and new technologies that benefit everyone in this country. In other words, this is about efficiency.

Revenues from the current capital gains tax rate have been doing very well. I'm rightly concerned that an increase of the capital gains tax rate back to 28% as Obama proposes will depress tax revenues and new investments.

 

[LTC8K6]

"When a white is voting against Obama because he's black, it's typically racist."

Typically? It's always racist to vote against Obama because he's black.

The problem is that when whites don't vote for him, it's assumed to be because he is black and the whites are practicing racism.

When blacks vote for him for the same reason, because he's black, it's okay. It's never called racism. It's always explained away.