Dumb Dem Response to Palin Choice

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Um, Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004, not 2006. That's four years in the Senate, not 2.

What did actually accomplish? He's been writing books and tourning the country campaigning and raising money and getting in the pocket of big business while all the time pretending the opposite. I still say Palin is more qualified. Even her time as a mayor was worth more than being a senator.

1 Reply

@PJV,

If you're making less than $112,000, you'll get a bigger tax cut under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan. If you're making less than $227,000, you'll still get a tax cut under both plans, but a higher cut under McCain's plan.

If you're making more than $603,000, you'll get an increase under the Obama plan, whereas you'll get a significant cut under the McCain plan.

Do you think that people who are making more than $603,000 per years are middle class?

1 Reply

After loosing to McCain, will Obama continue to be a senator?

0 Replies

@squinney,

squinney.... alot of what Obama claims to have accomplished are lies where he latches on to other people's work and says he had something to do with it. Being a community organizer.....is no different that being on the PTA. By the way, Obama was an honorary professor, he never taught.

I think most people will be making their decissions based on what the core beliefs are of the candidates. It's basically a question of who you like and who you don't like. I don't understand the reason for picking on Palin since she's not the presidential candidate, McCain is. McCain doesn't look on the brink of death, I'd say he's going to live to be at least 95, like his mother. We are going to decide for ourselves who is the best risk to vote for.

2 Replies

@PJV,

PJV wrote:

By the way, Obama was an honorary professor, he never taught.

From where do you have that information?

This here is from factcheck.org:

Quote:

However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe, McCain's plan sounds better to me. Why not give a bigger percentage tax cut to those who are paying more taxes? The rich do pay more in taxes to begin with, and they often are the ones creating jobs.

By the way, if someone makes 603K per year they could be a hardworking small business owner who supports an extended family and employs 300 workers. Why is it that earning more than average is made out to be a bad thing to be punished?

3 Replies

@PJV,

I was not arguing that one plan is better than the other. I'm just saying that you don't seem to have your facts straight.

Your claim was that Obama is planning to raise taxes on the middle class. Do you consider people who earn more than $603,000 per year (and that's a per capita figure, not per household) to constitute the "middle class"?

0 Replies

@PJV,

It's simple - they have more to give, and raising their taxes does not materially affect their lifestyle.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@PJV,

PJV wrote:

Quote:
Um, Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004, not 2006. That's four years in the Senate, not 2.

What did actually accomplish? He's been writing books and tourning the country campaigning and raising money and getting in the pocket of big business while all the time pretending the opposite. I still say Palin is more qualified. Even her time as a mayor was worth more than being a senator.

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. Obama has spent far more time in the Senate then McCain has over the last year, actually voting on things. Many of the bills he supported would have passed without the Republican Filibuster or Bush's vetoes; it is not his fault that the obstructionism of the other party prevented good legislation from passing.

Palin's time as mayor is nothing to point to as a source of pride. She trashed the town's budget and mis-managed several aspects of governance there. If you like, I can provide more specific examples of her poor governance. Experience means nothing if your experience is in screwing things up.

You should admit that you incorrectly wrote 2 years, when Obama has in fact served 4 years in the Senate, instead of pivoting to another argument when you are called out on it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And not even in a dramatic way. Under the Obama plan, the top 1 percent would merely face a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income. However, the middle class would see a 5 percent tax cut under Obama.

In contrast to that, McCain would cut the taxes for the top 1 percent by a whopping 9.5 percent on average, whereas the middle class would merely get a tax cut of 3 percent.

Against the "current policy" baseline, Obama would raise revenues by about $600 billion over the next ten years, whereas McCain would lose $600 billion.

(source)

0 Replies

@PJV,

His mother was in the audience tonight, at 96. Looked pretty with it and healthy for 96.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Once again, you are attempting to mislead with lies.

Obama missed 48% of the votes and in some, just voted PRESENT. McCain is worse, but you need to tell the WHOLE TRUTH.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/missed/

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

His mother was in the audience tonight, at 96. Looked pretty with it and healthy for 96.

McCain's probability of dying in the next five years is 15% from the standard mortality tables. His mom is doing well, so that implies some good genes, but his father died at 70 and his grandfather in his 60's, so maybe not so good genes from that side. McCain is a cancer survivor and still bears the effects of torture he received in Vietnam. All told, should she be elected, Palin has a fair chance of becoming either acting President or President. Any actuaries out there with a more accurate number?

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

Once again, you are attempting to mislead with lies.

That's what Cyclotroll does best.

0 Replies

@PJV,

Quote:

old europe, McCain's plan sounds better to me. Why not give a bigger percentage tax cut to those who are paying more taxes? The rich do pay more in taxes to begin with, and they often are the ones creating jobs.

By the way, if someone makes 603K per year they could be a hardworking small business owner who supports an extended family and employs 300 workers. Why is it that earning more than average is made out to be a bad thing to be punished?

We're not just talking "more than average." We're talking 10x the median household income in the US. Making that kind of income is not punishment and neither is asking them to pay taxes. In terms of tax rate, there is a significant reduction in tax rate once you pass the social security threshold as it is. I love it when I pass the threshold for a given year and watch my paycheck zip upwards. If you make 603K/yr, you are paying a lower overall federal tax rate than someone making 80k/yr. More in taxes, but a lower tax rate.

Some reasons why the rich should pay a similar or higher percentage of taxes:

- Available discretionary funds are significantly higher. Your small business owner above has a whole lot of money left over after paying the mortgage, utilities, daycare, healthcare, etc. That guy at 80k/yr is doing ok to take a yearly vacation. Asking the rich guy to pay another 10k/yr will piss him off, but not impact his lifestyle at all. Cutting the 80k/yr guy's taxes by $1000 will make a real difference.

- Investment of excess funds only stimulates the economy if there is a lack of capital available for business growth. That is clearly not the case today. Wall Street is awash in money lo0king for reasonable investment opportunities. The rich don't run out and spend their tax cuts since they already own whatever they want (within reason). The middle income folks might be more tempted to spend and simulate the economy.

0 Replies

@PJV,

PJV wrote:

old europe, I don't understand your chart. Obama has stated he'd raise taxes on the rich.....but not on the regular folks making under 75 K. So to me that says he's going to raise taxes on everyone making over 75K.

That may be how you understood it, but you would be mistaken. Excluding one group from a proposal does not mean that all other groups are automatically included.

0 Replies

Dumb Dem Response to Palin Choice

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know