| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Obama The Socialist |
| Posted by: MacFive 27-Oct-2008, 09:56 PM |
| This is not going to go over well with many people. I fail to understand why an interview done in 2001 is not relevant to today's election: "A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda." Read more here: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/comments/ "Change we can believe in" and "Change we need" are perhaps mere code words for socialism - lets change the constitution to what we really want to do and that is to redistribute wealth. Grant it, I would probably be one of the people to benefit from redistributing wealth, but to me it just not seem right to penalize people that work extremely hard to become doctors, scientists or build a business up working 80 hours a week. Socialism is not something we need and if I recall, didn't we fight a 35 year cold war to prevent the spread of Socialism? |
| Posted by: Camac 28-Oct-2008, 06:40 AM |
| MacFive; The Cold War was waged to stop the spread of what we labled Communism which in fact was Bolshevism, an extreme Dictatorial form of Socialism which corrupted the tenents of Socialism. There is a vaste difference between Communism and Social Democracy. Look to Scandinavia, or the Netherlands or North to Canada which is a blend of both Capitalism and Socialism under a Parliamentary Government. Canadas' economy is Free Market just like yours but we have Social Programs for those who are in need. We also have of course Socialized Medicine, Old Age Pension, Canada Pension, Unemployment Insurane and Baby Bonus. Any resident or citizen of Canada is free to pursue the Capitalist Dream just like in the States. In my 40 plus years of working only once did I have to rely on Unemployment Insurance when I was laid off and I actually found a new job before the payments started. Our Socialized Medicine is the best safety net in the country as I know that if I am sick or need hospitalization I will not be bankrupted by the bills. So as I have stated maybe just maybe a little Socialism would do you guys some good. All you have to do is look at the Banking crisis you are going through. Camac. Camac. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 28-Oct-2008, 07:32 AM |
| Redistributive change can also mean taxing the windfall profits of the big guys like Exxon in order to help the small guy, both indviduals and businesses. This is what Obama has talked about during the campaign. He's not talking about taking anything away from anyone, just changing the tax rates to more realistically spread the tax burden to those who can afford it while giving some relief to the folks who can't afford it. Meanwhile, McCain's plan to tax health benefits and give a five thousand dollar credit directly to the insurance companies seems like a way to take money from the small guy and give it to the big corporations. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Oct-2008, 08:47 AM | ||
Buzzzzzzz! Wrong answer. He isn't going to ease any burden, period. Those "in need" he speaks of are the ones who, as we speak, already DO NOT PAY TAXES. Building the nation from "the ground up?" That's preposterous. What Obama's referring to here is more evidence of a flawed view. He wants to give to those making little and contributing nothing from what is taken from those giving over 1/3 of their gross earnings and contributing everything (jobs, revenues, GDP, etc.). No, spreading the wealth is not a slip of the tongue, it's exactly what Obama intends to do. A little Robin Hoodism. Take from the rich (punish success) and give to the poor (hand outs to the undeserving). Period. My fear is, unsubstantiated as it may be, is that such a system will serve as a deterrent to entrepreneurialism (new word) and more government control in what should be private commerce. |
| Posted by: Camac 28-Oct-2008, 08:51 AM |
| Question? Whats wrong with paying your fair share of Taxes? If I'm a multi millionaire why should I have more tax loopholes and breaks than the ordinary working stiff. If the country is good enough to live in it's good enough to pay taxes in. Camac. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 28-Oct-2008, 09:07 AM |
| If your not afraid to learn the truth, go to www.taxcutfacts.org and follow the hot link to read Obama's entire plan. Plus there is a widget to calculate how much tax relief you would get under his plan. |
| Posted by: valpal59 28-Oct-2008, 09:31 AM |
| Wouldn't there be a lot of money generated if they just did away with all of the tax loopholes? Val |
| Posted by: subhuman 28-Oct-2008, 10:26 AM | ||
Who owns Exxon? Is it an individual, or is it owned by the "little guys" via their 401(k)? Sure, nail the "big guy" even harder, and watch the "little guy" end up with even less to look forward to during their retirement. You may get an immediate tax break, but the end result will be that you have to invest all of it in order to maintain your retirement goals. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 28-Oct-2008, 11:34 AM |
| I'm not saying to take away all of Exxon's profit, just make the tax they actually pay more proportionate. I don't remember the percentages (nor do I remember where the actual report came from), but a large number of the fortune 500 pay no income tax due to loopholes in the tax code, yet they pay large dividends to their shareholders. The little guy has very few loop holes. Ask the guy making $25,000 a year who's supporting a wife and two kids. |
| Posted by: Patch 28-Oct-2008, 01:59 PM |
| Any tax on business is always passed on to the consumer. Were the "rich" and who defines rich as all things are relative, taxed at 80 % with no loop holes, the money raised would be only a drop in the bucket. The wealthy would move their money to more favorable tax countries and only bring back needed living expenses. The only thing that makes a country great is it's industry and we "gave ours away." That can be attributed to both parties though for different reasons. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: MacFive 28-Oct-2008, 04:31 PM |
| I heard tonight that they first said if you made $250,000 or less you would get a tax break....then it was $200,000 and now Biden said $150,000. I don't believe all of this talk about tax breaks. Thats what they do to get into office and then they will say because of the unusual financial condition they won't be able to follow through on tax breaks. |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 28-Oct-2008, 04:38 PM | ||||
Ditto! |
| Posted by: Patch 28-Oct-2008, 06:43 PM |
| A sporting goods tax was slipped under my radar and then my internet phone service was taxed, again without my knowledge. If one votes for a tax cut, he/she has truly wasted their vote. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 28-Oct-2008, 08:04 PM |
| I suppose you could call the video at this web site McCain the crook. http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo |
| Posted by: Patch 28-Oct-2008, 08:17 PM |
| I expect it will increase to a frenzied pitch in the next week. I have seen some rough elections but this one should get a prize. Both sides know who will win at this time. They are both polling daily. Locally our "conservative" newspaper said this AM that McCains team seems to be losing enthusiasim in Ohio.(?) I personally see some possible glitches yet. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: wxdavid 28-Oct-2008, 09:15 PM | ||
I wonder if the Carolina Scotsman is actually going to answer your post? surely he knows that if EXXON is slaped with a big windfalls profit tax they are going to pass it one all of us ?. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 28-Oct-2008, 09:45 PM | ||
I said:
If Exxon and other "big guys" don't want to pay their fair share, we don't have to buy their product. I use Exxon as an example because they are well known. Loopholes should be closed for individuals too. Whether or not one pays tax shouldn't be based on the accountant they can afford. All I want is for everyone, big or small, to pay their fair share. If you think the really "big guys" are paying, you're more naive than I thought. By the way, I don't have an axe to grind with Exxon. My son's in law is high up in the company, an executive VP. |
| Posted by: subhuman 28-Oct-2008, 09:49 PM | ||
My point exactly, as long as they pay those dividends our 401(k) continue to improve. Nail their profits, and they pay out less resulting in all of us having less money set aside for retirement than we planned on. Cut into their profits, and dividends decrease- and stock value drops if they pay lower dividends. Any changes that result in businesses getting taxed more and us getting taxed less just means that we have to spend our tax savings on retirement planning. Nail Exxon with more taxes, my retirement fund shrinks. Give me more money in my paycheck, I just end up investing that extra money in order to bring my retirement goals back in line with where they are right now. It doesn't result in more money in our pockets- unless you spend the money, then you're screwed come retirement time. I fail to see the improvement in this. I will go even further and predict that any tax break given to the "little guy" would be short-lived. In a few years our taxes would be back to where they are now, and business taxes would remain at elevated levels. Net result would be "Joe Average" working longer to accumulate sufficient retirement income. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 28-Oct-2008, 09:58 PM |
| And what about the majority of Americans who aren't shareholders of any company? Are their taxes subsidizing profits and therefore your retirement? Is that fair for them? |
| Posted by: subhuman 28-Oct-2008, 11:23 PM |
| The majority of Americans don't have one or more 401(k) plans? Can you provide statistics to back that up? |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 29-Oct-2008, 06:18 AM |
| I for one, do NOT know a single person that has a 401K or an IRA. These are not available (other than the IRA) to the MAJORITY of workers. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 29-Oct-2008, 06:26 AM |
| Have looked for statistics, but can't find any that are truly authoritive. They range from thirty percent of employers offering 401Ks to eighty percent and the percent of employees participating goes from twenty to seventy percent. I can only offer my own anecdotal experience. In the last few years, I've worked for two different small white collar companies and two different medium size blue collar industries. Both small businesses had no benefits and one of the industries had no 401K. That left only one offering 401K and I know that participation was low. I realize that the above does not prove one thing or the other, but I offer it to demonstrate where I get my impression from. BTW, if your retirement savings are in the market, you've had a bad couple of weeks. |
| Posted by: gwenlee 29-Oct-2008, 06:59 AM |
| Everyone should read the book by Neal Boortz about the Fair Tax. Then everyone would pay their fair share. Another way for all of us to share the wealth. |
| Posted by: John Clements 29-Oct-2008, 07:09 AM | ||
Hi Paul; So let me ask you all out there, how many of you make 150 grand a year, much less 250? (I know I never did.) And all though Obama may not be able to deliver on cutting tax’s for the dwindling middle class in this country, (because of the state of our economy), at least I agree with his thinking. Remember when Bush senior said…”No new taxes”. And finely, isn't it ironic that we’re being bailed out by communist China. So maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. JC |
| Posted by: valpal59 29-Oct-2008, 08:31 AM |
| There are very few employers in our small town that offer a 401K or even insurance to their employees. Unless you work for the school, hospital, one of the banks, the county or the city, you are SOL. Val |
| Posted by: morgana_l_f 29-Oct-2008, 08:35 AM |
| BAR ROOM ECONOMICS – HOW THE TAX SYSTEM WORKS Suppose that every day, ten people go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four (the poorest) would pay nothing. TheThe fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18. The tenth (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their "fair share"? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth and the sixth would each end up being paid to drink their beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each drinker's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth person, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the drinkers began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth. She pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor" The nine drinkers surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill. And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible! |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 29-Oct-2008, 09:19 AM | ||
The Earned Income Tax Credit will actually give a man in this scenario 100% relief from his tax bill. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 29-Oct-2008, 09:32 AM |
| Morgana, that was awesome! I've started several times to explain that very scenario and always get lost in the middle. The point I want to emphasize in keeping with your post is this. The rich already pay the lion's share. Their tax rate is 39%, of which they may get some amount of relief due to breaks, but still they pay the most. The top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the taxes! What they also do is provide all the jobs, and make investment in the nation possible. The enter scheme of the Democrat party when emphasizing tax cuts for the rich is designed to elicit an emotional response (they know jealousy) and to further class warfare. The people they exploit in making their case (the downtrodden) typically pay $0 tax anyway. Unreal. |
| Posted by: Patch 29-Oct-2008, 09:46 AM | ||||
I personally would like to see a "Value Added Tax" in place of our present one. Basic necessities would have to be exempted to allow relief for the lower income individuals or families. Then if you bought a new Mercedes, you you were taxed on that. If you bought a $400.00 car you paid tax on that. Designer clothes and shoes would be taxed more than generic equivalents. Those who spent more would pay more. It might encourage more to save also. With that system, I could become very frugal. Politicians could not play games with a VAT and they do not like it. It would give them more incentive to safeguard the economy too. A VAT would give people control of their tax bill to some extent. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: subhuman 29-Oct-2008, 10:53 AM | ||
I also wasn't able to find "hard figures" about how many people have 401(k) plans. 401(k) isn't the end of working-class ownership of large companies- valpal mentioned school, county and city as offering 410(k) plans. Technically they cannot do this, there's another designation for government plans, which are very similar to a 401(k) but with another designation (which I'm drawing a blank on right now). These people wouldn't be listed as having a 401(k), but the plan they are offered works virtually identically. This would increase the number of working-class people affected by tax hikes against large corporations. Personally, I'd rather see stiffer penalties for tax evasion/fraud. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco would be a prime target of mine. This is the company that back in 2000 was the most valuable in the world, with market capitalization of over $500 billion. They've since settled a $97 million dollar lawsuit brought by shareholders, and last year were fined $824 million(US) by Brazil for tax evasion. Odds are very good that you're using their products to read this- either directly (in your home, via their LinkSys brand of products) or through your IP. If you use a VOIP service for telephony, you're probably also using their products in your home for that purpose. Anyway, I digress... For the most part I try to not think about how my investments have gone this year. It's too depressing. I'm surprised to see how many people are saying 401(k) plans aren't offered in their area. While my current employer falls into the "no benefits offered" category, my previous five all offered them- and these are places that were definitely blue-collar jobs. |
| Posted by: flora 29-Oct-2008, 11:42 AM |
| Let the numbers speak! CAPITAL GAINS TAX McCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home sale will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX McCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.' INCOME TAX McCAIN (No changes) Income Tax Single, 30K $ 4,500 Single, 50K $12,500 Single, 75K $18,750 Married, 60K $ 9,000 Married, 75K $18,750 Married, 125K $31,250 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single, 30K $ 8,400 Single, 50K $14,000 Single, 75K $23,250 Married, 60K $16,800 Married, 75K $21,000 Married, 125K $38,750 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! INHERITANCE TAX McCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax Many families lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA New government taxes proposed on homes more than 2,400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least.... New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! You can verify the above at following web sites: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_ob ama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/ http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/ |
| Posted by: maisky 29-Oct-2008, 12:33 PM | ||
*heat attack*!! I agree with everything you said!  |
| Posted by: Patch 29-Oct-2008, 12:55 PM |
| I eliminated every risk possible four years ago. I could have made a good deal more if I had stayed in 3 more years but I could have opted for 4 and lost a lot. My thinking is that I didn't loose what I never had. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 29-Oct-2008, 01:42 PM | ||
Those websites are either mistaken or they outright lie. You can find Obama's entire tax plan at http://www.taxcutfacts.org . (it is too much to copy here) There are hot links there to a comparison of McCain's and Obama's plans as well as a detailed breakdown of Obama's plan. He bases what he says on what he actually plans to do. These other sites base what they say on wild rumor and their own speculation. Here's a quote from Obama's speech in Raleigh today: "We don't need another president who fights for Washington lobbyists and Wall Street. We need a president who stands up for hard-working Americans on Main Street," he said. "John McCain calls this socialism, apparently. I call it opportunity, and there's nothing more American than that." |
| Posted by: Patch 29-Oct-2008, 02:59 PM |
| I agree that everyone who wants to work must receive a living wage and that can not be done in the service industry. We need to get our industrial base back. That left for cheap labor because we allowed it. I care not what ones politics are, that was wrong! The success of NAFTA relied on the integrity and ethics of our corporate leaders and they were found grossly lacking. Much as they failed in todays financial crisis. As in raising children good behavior must be reinforced and bad behavior punished. The govt is rewarding bad behavior and nothing good will come of it! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 29-Oct-2008, 03:06 PM |
| This debunking of the false Obama tax plan is from factcheck.org, a wholly independent organization. The so called facts listed in the false comparison come from a mass circulated e-mail. No. A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false. Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberateOur own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links.Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales. Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all. Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000. Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000. Doubled Taxes? The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table. Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more. The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent. Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent. "New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water." Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading. The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that. There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now. The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies. -Brooks Jackson Sources “Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. “Energy and Environment. “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama on CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site. “Plan to Strengthen the Economy.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008. Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material. |
| Posted by: valpal59 29-Oct-2008, 03:33 PM |
I am getting to the point where I do not believe anything anyone says anymore.  Val |
| Posted by: flora 29-Oct-2008, 03:42 PM |
| Carolina: Thank you for your research into this email information. I don't wish to offend anyone and everyone has a right to their opinion. But from what I read there was not much of difference in the statement. Going from 15 to 20 percent taxes to 28 even if "it might not happen" is still raising taxes. Flora |
| Posted by: valpal59 29-Oct-2008, 03:42 PM |
| I just wanted to make clear that I didn't mean anyone here. I meant the media, the candidates and their web sites and web sites that gather the information. Val |
| Posted by: John Clements 29-Oct-2008, 05:00 PM | ||
I don't believe you Val. Isn't it intresting that McCain has yet to say the words "Middle Class" during his entire campain. I wonder why? |
| Posted by: Donny 29-Oct-2008, 05:27 PM |
| Greetings all, Interesting discussion all the way around, but I did not "hear" or "see" a lot of facts. I did see news reports of Obama lowering from 250K to 200K the definition of where the tax breaks would end. It was interesting to hear that Biden has driven that number down. Seems on both sides that when the tax intake becomes low the congressional agents we elect decide to change the definitions of taxes. For instance the Alternate Minimum Tax gets ordinary people who make small investments and are frugal so as to make more money available for investing. Both sides had a hand in this. Obama did talk with Joe the Plumber about redistribution of wealth and he has discussed payments of money to people who did not pay income tax. [This makes me wonder: if i'm a multimillionaire with zero taxes do I get a rebate because I did not pay taxes? Who makes that kind of decision?] This was an idea floated in the mid to late 1960s and did not sell to the general public. It was called a reverse income tax in those days. What's with all of the attacks on Palin? Could it be that there is a concern that women make up a huge portion of the Obama support base. What happens if women vote as a block for Palin like they did for Hilary? Why haven't the news media outlets condemned things like hanging Palin in effigy? This is reprehensible and is not freedom of speech, is it? If it is, why were the skinheads arrested for discussing killing Obama and a bunch of others. Isn't there free speech. What is the moral difference between discussing killing someone and showing someone being hung? Personally I have wanted Obama to step up and condemn the attacks, from right and left, on Palin just like McCain stopped them on Obama - "a decent family man with whom I have some disagreements". Earlier in the campaign Obama did make clear that attacks on family were off limits, right? But what happened when the blogs started attacking Palin and her new baby and her daughter and the daughter's fiance? When did families suddenly become fair game? Incidentally how much of Michelle Obama's 387K+ salary does she spend on clothes and where does her money go? This was a fair media question for Joe the Plumber? Apparently the Los Angeles Times has a video of Ayers, Khalidi, and Obama at the same party but do not want to release the tape because they want to honor an agreement with the provider of the film. Does anyone else wonder why the LA Times has historically printed pictures and released stories about CIA operatives and government agents which may lead to their deaths - becasue of "the public's need to know", but has a moral objection to showing a video that was provided about our political leaders behavior? Show the video and settle the issue one way or the other? As I've been writing this, I noticed there are getting more facts on the forum. Thanks to everyone. donny  |
| Posted by: Patch 29-Oct-2008, 06:36 PM |
| Today we have the "earned Income Credit" which gives money to low income families. I do not begrudge that. I do not know what the income levels are to qualify. I believe that any reduction in taxes we see will be because of reduced income no matter who is elected. The tax system is so complicated that it new taxes can be hidden and a cut in one area just returns somewhere else. Govt is addicted to money! I receive mailings from the two major parties and two independent parties. I pay little attention to TV so I can not attest to what is happening there but the mailings I receive from both the DNC and RNC are vicious. Both probably think I support them though I do not. This has been the nastiest election that I can recall. I will be glad when it is over. Neither contender is as bad as the other says and both are flawed. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Jillian 29-Oct-2008, 07:50 PM | ||
That is right on Patch.  Jillian |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 29-Oct-2008, 08:21 PM |
| Those who want to work need a decent wage! Those who cannot work need to be taken care of! Those who WILL NOT work need to starve to death! I'm tired of working to support the LAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 29-Oct-2008, 08:34 PM | ||
Where did you get your information? Why is it that people are ready to believe any rumor about Obama, but don't want to listen to the truth. Show me some evidence that this tape exists, otherwise it is just another wild rumor and lie that is circulating. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 29-Oct-2008, 08:36 PM | ||
But only for people making over $250,000 a year. That sure as heck leaves me out. |
| Posted by: gwenlee 29-Oct-2008, 10:40 PM | ||
I saw a clip about it on CNN and Fox gwenlee |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 29-Oct-2008, 11:23 PM | ||
And because you do not fit into this category, that makes it okay? It's Marxist. Barbara West, the Orlando reporter who questioned Biden about this issue nailed it. From easch according to his ability, to each according to his need is the Karl Marx mantra. So, how is Obama's ideas of taxing the rich more NOT like Marxism? |
| Posted by: subhuman 29-Oct-2008, 11:28 PM | ||
The other fact is that the majority of people don't realize how much this would impact them. I don't have current figures on this, but as of 2001 60% of the electricity generated in North America was from coal-fired power plants. Just about everything you buy has been transported to the store by truck, the freight industry is another one burning fossil fuels. How do you heat your home, and how does that fuel arrive? If it's heating oil or propane, it's delivered by truck. Electricity is covered above. Unless you're on piped-in natural gas or wood, odds are you'll see this increase. Where do you buy your food? How does it arrive at the grocery store? How about clothing? Both are distributed by the freight industry, which burns fossil fuels to deliver them. No matter what, if this goes through it will impact all of us in our wallets. |
| Posted by: Donny 30-Oct-2008, 12:50 AM |
Hi,  I got the news from a discussion on the Fox News O'reilly Program who suggested we research it for ourselves. I found the discussion coming out of the LA Times office itself. Which is where I learned about the morality of not wanting to create a problem for the person who provided them the tape which they admit they have. Another thing that really concerns me is that if Obama would promise to abide by governmental campaign financing if McCain would. McCain said he would also. Obama changed his mind. On what other issues will he change his mind when the other side agrees to his presentation. Will it be like Pelosi who got most of the votes she needed to pass the first attempted bailout package when McCain came back to help. If you remember there were enough votes to pass the bill until she stood up and went on a harangue blaming everything on the Bush administration and sabotaged the deal with the conservative republicans. If party is more important than country for Pelosi, what will she do to implement democratic agenda, whether or not Obama wants it. donny |
| Posted by: Jillian 30-Oct-2008, 04:52 AM | ||
Yes Dogshirt...as cruel as "starvation" may come off, I agree. The reality is that every abled body needs to work to contribute to social security and the economy. It's not social programs per se that I have a problem with (as you poignantly stated above), it's socialism and the entitlement-mindedness that comes w/it that I despise. Jillian |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 30-Oct-2008, 05:44 AM | ||
Were we a Marxist country ten years ago? The rate Obama is proposing is the same as it was then. |
| Posted by: Patch 30-Oct-2008, 06:14 AM | ||
You are right and there are too many who feel "entitled" to a living at taxpayer expense. Many worked for me on the "work fare" program to get food stamps. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Patch 30-Oct-2008, 06:19 AM | ||
Hunger and warmth can provide tremendous motivation! We just have to provide jobs for them to do. It is the children that I have compassion for as they were not able to "pick" their parents. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Patch 30-Oct-2008, 06:30 AM | ||
No we were not but one party controlled the Executive office and the other controlled the House and Senate ten years ago. Gridlock is about the best political state we can have. I will only be that way if McCain wins. No legislative seats will be picked up on his "coat tails." An Obama win will sweep a lot of R's out of office. D's traditionally institute more social programs. Maybe that is what we will need now. FDR started it. Since we are now in totally uncharted territory one can only guess as to where we are headed. As best I can research, no country has ever done such damage to it's self. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 30-Oct-2008, 11:58 AM | ||
Folks want to complain about the high price of gas and the extreme profits of Exxon, but when it's suggested that Exxon could pay taxes on that windfall profit, many of the same people start crying unfair and/or shouting socialism. (no Patch, I'm not picking on you. Your quote was just convenient.) You can't have it both ways. |
| Posted by: Camac 30-Oct-2008, 12:07 PM |
| The CarolinaScotsman; I agree with you. If any large corporation paid their fare share of taxes then it would relieve the burden on the working Middle Class. There are corporations here, the Big Banks being the worst offenders, that owe Revenue Canada Billions. Camac. |
| Posted by: flora 30-Oct-2008, 12:20 PM |
| I don't think the big corporations paying more taxes will be a guarantee to help relieve the burden on middle class. The more money the government gets, the more money they spend and not on social programs either. Flora |
| Posted by: Camac 30-Oct-2008, 12:39 PM |
| flora; I understand what you mean bit isn't up to the people to curb that spending. Ontario alone is being short changed 22 Billion a year. If Revenue Canada got all the money it was owed then things would definately be different and Ontario would not be on the brink of being a "Have Not" Province. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 30-Oct-2008, 12:46 PM | ||||
I take no offense. I just thought it interesting that these profits could be generated when a lot fewer people are on the roads and some are cutting food and heat to drive to work. I do not understand how profits can legitimately go up that much when they are selling less product. Less demand lowered crude prices. The next quarterly report will really be interesting. One answer to commuting is, move closer to your employer. Some due to a mortgage on a home they can not sell because of falling home prices and tight credit can not move. I believe that every business should be allowed to make a fair profit. However it appears obvious to me that both Industry and Government are totally out of control! I wish I had answers. I certainly have enough questions. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: gwenlee 30-Oct-2008, 01:25 PM | ||
Bill Clinton was president 10 years ago.  |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 30-Oct-2008, 01:26 PM | ||
In that regard, my wife lucked up. She got a job two miles from the house. As she says, if worse comes to worst, she can walk that far. |
| Posted by: Patch 30-Oct-2008, 02:23 PM | ||
Yes, and the Republicans had controlled the House and Senate for the preceding 4 years. The budget was balanced with a surplus, the economy was still good, we still had a lot of industry and our present crisis was in it's beginning stages. (Though we were not aware of it yet.) That is why I like gridlock. Gridlock may have short circuited this catastrophe long before we got here, but that is just conjecture. As to Marxism, I do not see it but maybe I am missing something. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Patch 30-Oct-2008, 02:37 PM | ||||
That is very fortunate. I do some very part time work in quality control and consulting. There is nothing that close to me. Most people in my community who are employed are driving 25 to 35 miles a day one way. Unfortunately many bought 4WD vehicles for the winter months (12 to 16 MPG and less) and they can not get rid of them as they owe more than they are now worth. If the Govt had warned us 4 to 6 years ago, most people would have been able to position themselves to survive this. In, at the very least, that respect the Govt. is at fault. Our Economic Development Director said publicly recently that we are fortunate to have such a high unemployment rate. That would be a ready labor force "should" an industry decide to locate here. Those receiving unemployment do not feel so fortunate I am sure. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 30-Oct-2008, 09:56 PM | ||
That was poor shopping on their part! I drive a 4WD Toyota pickup and get 23-25 MPG. 4WD is not the problem. Driving a 4WD as big as your damn house IS! |
| Posted by: Patch 31-Oct-2008, 04:39 AM |
| I agree, they could have made a better choice. Locally we have only the big 3 represented in dealerships. I question whether anyone here needs a 4WD anyway. I am too frugal to buy one under any circumstances. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: gwenlee 31-Oct-2008, 06:37 AM |
| We have been loosing our industries for years. Back in the early 80s the textile industries in the south were closing and people whos families had worked at these plants for generations no longer had a job. At that time it wasn't a high priority for politician or of concern to the rest of the US because they still had their jobs. But as the states with the auto industries ect have seen their jobs go over seas now it is an issue for the presidential candidates. I often wonder if the south had the electorial vote of these states if someone would have taken notice of where our jobs were going years ago. |
| Posted by: flora 31-Oct-2008, 06:41 AM |
| Have you noticed when you call for tech support, most of the time the call is answered from someone in India? Flora |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 31-Oct-2008, 07:17 AM | ||
Actually, the area I was in started losing textile plants in the mid to late sixties. A lot of the smaller mills were being bought out by the giants or closing their doors. When the big guys bought one of the small mills, the little guys production was moved to a big plant and the small mill closed anyway. Many of the small mill towns were left with nothing. |
| Posted by: Patch 31-Oct-2008, 08:04 AM | ||
I have gotten the Philippines recently. I have also had India and and Asia. These were the jobs that were expected to stay here as it was explained to me. Someone has to earn a living here or taxes are not an issue. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 31-Oct-2008, 08:17 AM |
| Patch; I liave in Southern Ontario and once when I had to get in touch with Maytag Canada, I got Tennesee. Most charming woman witha delightful souther accent. Still I call a Canadian number and was routed to Tenesee. You guys aren't the only one getting jobs outsourced. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 31-Oct-2008, 08:21 AM |
| I remember the textile industries leaving and I was opposed to it. I have always tried to buy American and shopped Wall Mart until they got caught arranging a fraud with the Chinese. I realize that many like Wall Mart. Unless you live in a large community, Wall Mart is a predatory corp. They will drive out the competition and then raise their prices. It seems many are willing to pay to get sc##wed. I will not buy anything made in Mexico or China! It means I buy less, pay more and look longer for what I need. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: John Clements 31-Oct-2008, 08:37 AM | ||
So true Carolina. Meanwhile, urban sprawl and “corporate malls” are in the process of squeezing out Main Street, and the middle class. JC |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Oct-2008, 09:19 AM | ||
If you genuinely need a working vehicle like that, it earns its keep in legitimate use and you factor the costs into your budget with a clean conscience. It's running far more vehicle than you need, for some kind of status or display (or compensatory ) reasons, that should and probably will come under some kind of regulatory oversight eventually. |
| Posted by: Camac 02-Nov-2008, 08:28 AM |
| This morning I read an article about a Republican Rally in Pennsyvania where the main jist was stopping Obama The Socialist, not Obama the Democrat. Why is it, it seems, that Americans have such a fear of Socialism? Do they equate it with Communisim? If so nothing could be further from the truth. Any country that has a Social Democracy can have as much or as little Socialism as it wishes. Scandanavia, The Netherlands, Germany, France, Japan, and Canada all have varying degrees of Socialism and surely you wouldn't call them Communists. Within these countries there is also Capitalism and Market Economies. Anyone has the right to succeed and make as much money as they can or want. They also pay higher taxes, which is only fair. This "Buggaboo" about Socialism meaning sharing the wealth is just that a "Buggaboo" Camac. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Nov-2008, 11:25 AM | ||||
Why don't we just have a scale at the tax office? That way we can do a height/weight comparison and, using a sophisticated math formula, calculate people's final tax bill. The obese would pay substantially higher taxes...say 4-5 times higher because they are using so much more of our food supply than what is required to live a healthy life. We could have government employees roaming the streets at night, monitoring houses with porch lights on and taxing them more for excessive use of our electricity. The possibilities here are endless! I hope my sarcasm is coming through ok. Laying it on as thick as I can.  |
| Posted by: InRi 02-Nov-2008, 02:49 PM | ||||||
| Camac, since I read your post, I though about it. I googled the definitions "communism", "socialism" and "social democracy" and found interesting things (again). Did you know that the term "communism" contains a lot more than these "creepy things", which tried to sell the Soviet union and their "satellites" in Eastern Europe as a desirable kind of social order. Unfortunately has just the most unacceptable kind of communism a certain importance in the world history and this little part of the term "communism" has set as a definition. (if you are interested read more ---> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunismus This site and all sites I named in this post are written in German but they contain a lot of informations, please try to find someone for a translation, who speaks better German as I can speak English) But that isn't the reason I write this. Camac, you wrote
I agree, that any of these countries is a communistic country. But I have a problem to accept, that they have socialism (in varying degrees of course). My problem is laying in one part of the definition "socialism":
(source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialismus) I'll try to translate this so exact as I can: "(Socialists)...are mostly of a common opinion that see in private property the root of all evil and therefore strive the collectivization of that..." Any of the named countries (want to) do this. I found inside of definition "social demcracy" something and I think this the best describe of these countries.
(source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialdemokratie) I'll try an exact translation again: "...that the social democrates see the state in the social main responsibility. Germans consider that it have the function to liquidate the roots of social unfairness, whereas the scandinavian social democrates strive a redistribution (welfare state). Anglo-Saxon social democrates see there function in that, to guide the economy to accept the welfare for their workers..." In contrast to socialists accept social democrates the private properties. I hope, that you see where is my problem. I could never say that one of named countries have socialism but I can agree insistent, if you say, that they have an social democracy in varying degrees. P.S. I was born and raised in a country, which had "real existing socialism" (look to the definition please) named German Democratic Republic (GDR) and if I look back, that wasn't my best period of live... This state defined as "...stay on the pre-stage to communism" - Thanks god, we broke down the (not only Berlin) wall in 1990... I hope, there aren't too many mistakes - I know my English can be God-awful Greetings from Austria Ingo |
| Posted by: InRi 02-Nov-2008, 03:02 PM |
| Sorry, I have to correct two links: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialismus http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialdemokratie Ingo |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Nov-2008, 04:25 PM | ||
This is an interesting analysis of how these three expressions of socialism focus their concerns -- stamping out social injustice or unfairness, distribution of resources (and I guess the means of production as well?), and getting the economy to care for the worker's needs. I think the third one, that you would call Anglo-Saxon, is most familiar in America as a socialist style of operating. It really is interesting to see these three distinct things set out separately. I think your translation is fine, and your English accomplishes all that it needs to. |
| Posted by: Jillian 09-Nov-2008, 08:42 AM |
| Ingo, I agree, your English does accomplish what it intends, and it is good to hear from someone who has experienced it. Jillian |
| Posted by: InRi 09-Nov-2008, 03:59 PM |
| Thank you for the compliment. Sometime it's difficult for me to follow the discussions, especially if you speak (write) about things, I haven't background informations enough... That's the reason too, that I don't write many and long threads. First I try to read and to understand and if it so I can answer too. I think after a time the things will go better. It's interesting for me to learn something about (not only) politics in other countries... For understanding, I didn't learn English in the school but I learned by selfmade and with help of a correspondence with someone from Poland. But that's round about 25 years ago! It's logical that my English is still a little bit rusty. (My daughter -17years- has a lot of fun if I ask her something about it). Sorry I am  Ingo |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 09-Nov-2008, 08:42 PM | ||
Ingo, Here is a website that does free translations that may be of help to you. http://www.freetranslation.com/ Here is an example of its translation of the sentence above to German: Ingo, Hier ist eine Website, die Übersetzungen befreit, die von Hilfe zu Ihnen sein dürfen. and back to english again: Ingo, Here a website that frees translations is, that may be of aid to you. It is not perfect, but close enough to give you the gist of the meaning. |
| Posted by: InRi 10-Nov-2008, 10:15 AM |
| Steven , thanks for help. I'm sure I'll use this site. Ingo |