Obama's electability

Cyclo
As much as I hate too I have to agree that the rich don't pay their share of taxes. Just as in insurance rates the more you insure for in value the more you have pay. It should be so in taxation as well. The more value one has to protect the more they should pay in taxes. Corporations as well as individuals. But since we have to depend on politicians to right this wrong I wont hold my breath until it happens.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your link does not disprove my comment.

Cycloptichorn

Then you have other issues.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Everyone knows Obama loves his country as well.

Cycloptichorn

Some people may, but not everyone as in McCain's case. This is not a snide remark, just a valid observation in regard to degree of certainty.

McCain says that he loves his country and he says it often and easily and with sufficient conviction to be convincing. Obama has a very difficult time getting out the words when he is pressured into saying something nice about America and he rarely if ever volunteers his esteem for his country. And therein is the difference in perception for those paying attention to the details. I am absolutely convinced that not 'everyone' is convinced that Obama loves his country.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And therein is the difference in perception

0 Replies

Well wouldn't you say that perception is a larger factor in who is elected President than are generally the issues at stake FD?

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Cyclo
As much as I hate too I have to agree that the rich don't pay their share of taxes. Just as in insurance rates the more you insure for in value the more you have pay. It should be so in taxation as well. The more value one has to protect the more they should pay in taxes. Corporations as well as individuals. But since we have to depend on politicians to right this wrong I wont hold my breath until it happens.

rabel, the rich already pay more according to their income, per your illustration, and in fact if you use your analogy, if insurance was applied the same way as income tax, the people with small houses and cheaper houses would pay nothing for insurance, yet they are still insured. They would be receiving insurance absolutely free because of the higher premiums paid by people with bigger houses.

I am surprised so many people don't understand how the tax system works now, but buy into the idea that the rich don't pay their fair share, which is a myth. Thanks to the rich, the government actually collects some tax money.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well wouldn't you say that perception is a larger factor in who is elected President than are generally the issues at stake FD?

Maybe, but I wouldn't say that your perception in this regard is very popular -- certainly not a majority.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Cyclo
As much as I hate too I have to agree that the rich don't pay their share of taxes. Just as in insurance rates the more you insure for in value the more you have pay. It should be so in taxation as well. The more value one has to protect the more they should pay in taxes. Corporations as well as individuals. But since we have to depend on politicians to right this wrong I wont hold my breath until it happens.

Rabel, see this REALLY GOOD ANALYSIS here:

Summarized:

The top 1% have 19% of the wealth and pay 37% of the taxes.
The top 5% have 33% of the wealth and pay 57% of the taxes
The top 10% have 44% of the wealth and pay 68% of the taxes
The top 25% have 66% of the wealth and pay 85% of the taxes.
The bottom 50% have 13% of the wealth and pay 3% of the taxes.

Analyzing the Bush tax cuts:
Top 1% - without tax cuts estimated they would pay 31%. With the tax cuts they are paying 37%.

Top 5% - without tax cuts estimated they would pay 33%. With the tax cuts they are paying 57%.

Top 10% - without tax cuts estimated they would pay 44%. With the tax cuts they are paying 68%.

Top 25% - without tax cuts estimated they would pay 82%. With the tax cuts they are paying 85%.

Most people in the bottom 50% who had been paying any taxes at all were dropped from the rolls.

And that isn't the whole picture either. It is that top 50% who invest most of the money that helps the economy grow. They take the risks in new business start ups and they are providing essentially ALL the employment in this country. They are funding the schools and the infrastructure of the cities and they are giving the lions share of contributions that build new hospital and library wings or foundations and private social services and charities that help the poor.

It is very easy to say that the rich don't pay their fair share. I don't think it applies to you Au, but it seems to make liberals feel righteous and noble to say it. But the facts simply don't support that concept.

The fact is, the more you try to soak the rich to make things 'fair', the more you will actually hurt the poor.

And that is the flaw in Obama's philosophy of making things fair.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, Rush conducted a spoof on the poor a few years ago, wherein he derided the poor for not contributing their fair share, and it sounded heartless which it was designed to do, but as you know he illustrates absurdity by being absurd, but he made a point, that the poor need to become part of game that is being played in this country, not spectators. As long as mediocrity is rewarded, we will reap more mediocrity.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well wouldn't you say that perception is a larger factor in who is elected President than are generally the issues at stake FD?

Maybe, but I wouldn't say that your perception in this regard is very popular -- certainly not a majority.

Of course it isn't popular among Obamamaniacs. In fact if we continue on this particular subject some are almost certain to show up to attack me, my character, my bias, my prejudice or whatever other label they choose to lay on me purely because I don't see him as the god almighty as they see him. They aren't going to be easily persuaded that he doesn't put his pants on one leg at a time like normal people or that he is flawed in any respect.

But I can think and observe for myself and I can read and hear what others are thinking too. According to the Rasmussen polls, Obama has a nice little lead but he isn't at 50% meaning that there are a majority of folks who think he might be less than the great messiah at this time. And at least some of them are noticing some of the same things I notice.

It isn't a matter of popularity. For some it is a matter of partisanship and for some it is a matter of observation and perception. And no amount of killing the messenger is likely to change that.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, Rush conducted a spoof on the poor a few years ago, wherein he derided the poor for not contributing their fair share, and it sounded heartless which it was designed to do, but as you know he illustrates absurdity by being absurd, but he made a point, that the poor need to become part of game that is being played in this country, not spectators. As long as mediocrity is rewarded, we will reap more mediocrity.

I know that and you know that. Striving for equality of outcome produces the same miserable results. But try to convince a bleeding heart liberal of that. Really tough to do.

0 Replies

Correction of my post re the tax breakdown, I forgot I was addressing Rabel and referenced Au in the post. Apologies to both.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

the poor need to become part of game that is being played in this country, not spectators. As long as mediocrity is rewarded, we will reap more mediocrity.

Yes, we don't need any Zacchaeus-type persons!

0 Replies

Zaccheus was actually among the despised rich as I recall. So poor analogy in this context.

0 Replies

Foxfyre... you need to read your Bible more.

Zaccheus... after coming into contact with Jesus, gave half of what he owned to the poor, and made restitution to anyone he cheated.

If only Republicans (who claim to follow Jesus) would be like this.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
Cyclo
As much as I hate too I have to agree that the rich don't pay their share of taxes. Just as in insurance rates the more you insure for in value the more you have pay. It should be so in taxation as well. The more value one has to protect the more they should pay in taxes. Corporations as well as individuals. But since we have to depend on politicians to right this wrong I wont hold my breath until it happens.

Rabel, see this REALLY GOOD ANALYSIS here:

Statistics are easily manipulated.

Why do you think this article from the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, says the exact opposite of what yours says?

Or this article, from an unbiased source?

And then there's this,also showing exactly the opposite of your article.

Maybe my links are just not objective and unbiased, like "The American."

0 Replies

There is one issue that as yet has not come up in this campaign. However, it probably will before long. And that is- is Obama a socialist? Having wondered about it I made the effort to see what I could find on the web regarding the question. I will not say what I found and leave it to those that are interested to do the research and make their own conclusions other than to say there is much in his background and associations would indicate at the very least his flirtation with socialism.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

As long as mediocrity is rewarded, we will reap more mediocrity.

I suspect this is how you got where you are today.

0 Replies

The analysis at the American magazine is false in several ways.

Just as an example, the author makes this claim:

Quote:

But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market.

This is not proof of a causal relationship. Only when compared to the lowest level of the recession has there been significant growth in the stock market or rise in business investment. It also ignores the fact that a lot of the growth over the last 5 years has been in the Housing market, which is pretty much sunk at the moment.

Quote:

When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

In this part, the author doesn't seem to realize that the rich have gained an even higher percentage of the overall wealth of the country; this has led to a rise in their tax receipts, even at a lower level of taxation.

There are a lot of ways that people who don't know much about economics can spin tax cuts for the rich as somehow a 'burden' for them, but it's just that - spin.

Let's look at who wrote this:

Quote:

Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a contributor to CNBC TV. He was the founder of the Club for Growth and has served as a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. His latest book is "Bullish on Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger" (Madison Books).

Founded the Club for Growth? Works at Cato and Heritage? Big fan of George Bush?

Not exactly what you would call an impartial source, in fact, I doubt you could get less impartial if you tried. What you see here is an example of the Rich writing reasons to defend their greed, and nothing more.

And if you don't believe that, answer a simple question: if the tax cuts on the rich actually make them pay more money, and a larger piece of the pie then before, why do they support them every time? The truth is that the data in this piece is presented in an extremely misleading way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

There is one issue that as yet has not come up in this campaign. However, it probably will before long. And that is- is Obama a socialist? Having wondered about it I made the effort to see what I could find on the web regarding the question. I will not say what I found and leave it to those that are interested to do the research and make their own conclusions other than to say there is much in his background and associations would indicate at the very least his flirtation with socialism.

You're really flailing about now. It's sort of pathetic.

I really hope you guys go with your smear and fear campaign, I really do. Obama will win by a landslide.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Obama's electability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know