1
   

Obama's Plan For American Security

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 12:28 pm
It took our military about a decade, after he left office, to recover the material readiness and morale lost during Jimmy Carter's mostly foolish and very abrupt cutbacks in defense spending. The clip at the opening of this thread doesn't give me any confidence that Obama will do any better. Moreover his casual reference to curtailing the production of "fissile materials" suggests he may not even know what he is talking about.

His political record is that of a very left wing Democrat politician. I see nothing in his rhetoric that suggests that in office he will be anything else but that. In this case those old, shopworn ideas come in a very attractive package. However a turd with a ribbon around it is still a turd.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 12:37 pm
That's how I felt about George W Bush....

.... except there was never a ribbon.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 12:38 pm
Cycloptichorn- I have always lived UNDER my means. That allowed me to have a nice little cushion..........just in case. I really resent the people who have not made it financially in life, who are happy to expropriate funds from those who have. I have always despised people who have a case of the "gimmes".

I have always believed that the best helping hand is at the end of your own arm. I have forebears who were poor as churchmice, but would not accept charity. Oh, excuse me. Charity is not p.c. I think that charity is now called, "entitlements", although for the life of me, I cannot comprehend what people who look to live on government handouts are entitled to.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 12:45 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Cycloptichorn- I have always lived UNDER my means. That allowed me to have a nice little cushion..........just in case. I really resent the people who have not made it financially in life, who are happy to expropriate funds from those who have. I have always despised people who have a case of the "gimmes".

I have always believed that the best helping hand is at the end of your own arm. I have forebears who were poor as churchmice, but would not accept charity. Oh, excuse me. Charity is not p.c. I think that charity is now called, "entitlements", although for the life of me, I cannot comprehend what people who look to live on government handouts are entitled to.


Who exactly is looking to take money from anyone?

We are in debt as a nation. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts doesn't add to anyone's entitlement. All it does is help erase some of the deficit and some of the debt, if we are lucky and can cut spending as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 12:56 pm
Off the top of my head: Rolling back the capital gains tax will discourage small investors from investing in our economy.

If the less well to do people are given tax relief, how with THAT assist in lowering the deficit?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:03 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Off the top of my head: Rolling back the capital gains tax will discourage small investors from investing in our economy.

If the less well to do people are given tax relief, how with THAT assist in lowering the deficit?


Small business investors invested HEAVILY in our society during the 90's, when the tax levels were at the period in which we are discussing returning them to. So I don't actually believe there is any evidence that what you posit is in fact true.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:08 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Second editorial: Anyone who makes more then 75k a year in individual income IS rich. Sorry to have to point that out to you. Not insanely wealthy, but well off.

Cycloptichorn


You obviously don't live in New York city.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:17 pm
kickycan wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Second editorial: Anyone who makes more then 75k a year in individual income IS rich. Sorry to have to point that out to you. Not insanely wealthy, but well off.

Cycloptichorn


You obviously don't live in New York city.


Regional variances excepted.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:19 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Off the top of my head: Rolling back the capital gains tax will discourage small investors from investing in our economy.

If the less well to do people are given tax relief, how with THAT assist in lowering the deficit?


Small business investors invested HEAVILY in our society during the 90's, when the tax levels were at the period in which we are discussing returning them to. So I don't actually believe there is any evidence that what you posit is in fact true.

Cycloptichorn


I have read the response twice - and I still can't figure out what it means, or determine if it has anything at all to do with the statement to which it refers.

We do need to curtail spending ijn many areas, including that on the military. We also need to maintain taxation at levels that stop short of penalizing beneficial economic activity. I don't for a moment believe that the Democrats will give us any net reduction in spending. Instead they will simply move it from areas in which they have little interest to others that are demanded by the single issue groups that are the most portent forces in the party.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:25 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Off the top of my head: Rolling back the capital gains tax will discourage small investors from investing in our economy.

If the less well to do people are given tax relief, how with THAT assist in lowering the deficit?


Small business investors invested HEAVILY in our society during the 90's, when the tax levels were at the period in which we are discussing returning them to. So I don't actually believe there is any evidence that what you posit is in fact true.

Cycloptichorn


I have read the response twice - and I still can't figure out what it means, or determine if it has anything at all to do with the statement to which it refers.

We do need to curtail spending ijn many areas, including that on the military. We also need to maintain taxation at levels that stop short of penalizing beneficial economic activity. I don't for a moment believe that the Democrats will give us any net reduction in spending. Instead they will simply move it from areas in which they have little interest to others that are demanded by the single issue groups that are the most portent forces in the party.


I thought it was straight-forward; at times in which the cap. gains taxes were higher, we didn't see the drops in investment in America predicted by Phoenix.

I agree with you about curtailing spending; it's also an area which in some ways I, gasp, disagree with Obama on!!! Every time he says the words 'middle-class tax cut,' I cringe. NOBODY'S taxes need to be cut right now.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:46 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
woiyo- But of course. Obama's main constituency are those who think 75 grand is RICH. It is all a matter of numbers. People who don't have, love to get something from people whom they think do, even if those "rich" people are struggling to pay mortgages, and put their kids through college.


That shows you how out of touch Democrats are with middle class America.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Off the top of my head: Rolling back the capital gains tax will discourage small investors from investing in our economy.

If the less well to do people are given tax relief, how with THAT assist in lowering the deficit?


Small business investors invested HEAVILY in our society during the 90's, when the tax levels were at the period in which we are discussing returning them to. So I don't actually believe there is any evidence that what you posit is in fact true.

Cycloptichorn


I have read the response twice - and I still can't figure out what it means, or determine if it has anything at all to do with the statement to which it refers.

We do need to curtail spending ijn many areas, including that on the military. We also need to maintain taxation at levels that stop short of penalizing beneficial economic activity. I don't for a moment believe that the Democrats will give us any net reduction in spending. Instead they will simply move it from areas in which they have little interest to others that are demanded by the single issue groups that are the most portent forces in the party.


I thought it was straight-forward; at times in which the cap. gains taxes were higher, we didn't see the drops in investment in America predicted by Phoenix.

I agree with you about curtailing spending; it's also an area which in some ways I, gasp, disagree with Obama on!!! Every time he says the words 'middle-class tax cut,' I cringe. NOBODY'S taxes need to be cut right now.

Cycloptichorn


You are focusing on the wrong area as usual. Lower capital gains taxes INCREASES tax revenues as realized capital gains occur when rates are low as opposed to when Cap Gains rates are high. People are more likely to trade when cap gains rates are low.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm47.cfm

Myth 4: Capital gains tax cuts benefit the "wealthy."

Fact 4: Capital gains tax cuts improve the entire economy.

*
Capital gains tax reductions stimulate economic growth, which benefits the entire country. As President Kennedy noted, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
*
Capital gains taxes disproportionately hurt the elderly, low and middle-income investors who have less discretion over the timing of their capital gains.
*
Most people who report capital gains do not have high annual incomes.
*
People with high incomes are most sensitive to capital gains tax rates, because they possess the most flexibility and means to avoid high tax rates. When capital gains tax rates are high, people with high incomes do not sell their assets and realize their gains.
*
High-income people pay a greater percentage of capital gains taxes when capital gains tax rates are low than when capital gains tax rates are high.
*
High capital gains tax rates make capital scarce. When capital is scarce it goes to safe investments. Low capital gains tax rates make capital abundant. When capital is plentiful it goes to "riskier" investments - such as inner cities and disadvantaged areas.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 01:52 pm
Quote:
Lower capital gains taxes INCREASES tax revenues


This is untrue, and I don't care what you post from Heritage, who has been pro-tax cuts forever.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 02:18 pm
woiyo wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
woiyo- But of course. Obama's main constituency are those who think 75 grand is RICH. It is all a matter of numbers. People who don't have, love to get something from people whom they think do, even if those "rich" people are struggling to pay mortgages, and put their kids through college.


That shows you how out of touch Democrats are with middle class America.


It will be interesting to see if this is correct or not... since the general election will answer this question.

My sense is that it is the Republicans who are out of touch with middle class America, but we will see soon enough.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 02:28 pm
Quote:
My sense is that it is the Republicans who are out of touch with middle class America, but we will see soon enough.


ebrown_p - I would suspect that both the left AND the right are out of touch with the middle class. The right is more concerned about the wealthy, the left with the poor. And the middle class is caught..........................in the middle Sad .
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 02:37 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
My sense is that it is the Republicans who are out of touch with middle class America, but we will see soon enough.


ebrown_p - I would suspect that both the left AND the right are out of touch with the middle class. The right is more concerned about the wealthy, the left with the poor. And the middle class is caught..........................in the middle Sad .


It is interesting that you replace Democrat and Republican (which is what the discussion was about) with "left" and "right".

The election is a choice between Democrats and Republicans... and the American people will get to choose between them in November.

I am liking the Democrats chances... both in the presidential election and the Congressional elections. As a Democrat, having Barack Obama on the ticket makes me very happy (and I say that as a middle class American).
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 02:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Lower capital gains taxes INCREASES tax revenues


This is untrue, and I don't care what you post from Heritage, who has been pro-tax cuts forever.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 02:44 pm
Once again, NR isn't an objective source. It is a heavily right-wing magazine which ALWAYS advocates tax cuts. Always.

The cap gains tax cut is directly responsible for much of the deficit we find ourselves in these days. Under Bush, the debt has gone up by half. To suggest that any tax cut he has passed has RAISED revenue is foolish in the extreme. The exact opposite is true.

Just more trickle-down bullshit. Concentrating the wealth at the top of the society doesn't help anyone except the wealthy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 03:08 pm
Quote:
It is interesting that you replace Democrat and Republican (which is what the discussion was about) with "left" and "right".


ebrown_p - I think that my way of couching the issue should be relatively clear. Both Republicans and the Democrats are on a political continuum..................from the radical right to the moderates to the radical left. There are members of each party whose philosophy go along the lines of this continuum. There are moderates who will sometimes vote Republican, and sometimes vote Democratic, according to the candidates involved.

In order to satisfy each end of the "bell curve", both parties cater to those folks who make up the radical end of each spectrum, to some extent. As I have said, the left favors the poor, and the right favors the rich.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Feb, 2008 03:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Once again, NR isn't an objective source. It is a heavily right-wing magazine which ALWAYS advocates tax cuts. Always.

The cap gains tax cut is directly responsible for much of the deficit we find ourselves in these days. Under Bush, the debt has gone up by half. To suggest that any tax cut he has passed has RAISED revenue is foolish in the extreme. The exact opposite is true.

Just more trickle-down bullshit. Concentrating the wealth at the top of the society doesn't help anyone except the wealthy.

Cycloptichorn


Really? Got any opinion from an objective source to support your thesis?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 03:41:38