Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[Oyhedwig]

Nukatha that was an interesting read...but what I don't understand is why people say "oh man, Joe the plumber had the audacity to ask a question" when in reality, Obama told Joe that he probably wouldn't get his vote. But more importantly, it was MCCAIN that thrust Joe into the spotlight, not Obama...did we all watch that third debate? And listen to this "Joe the Plumber" tour nonsense? McCain put Joe there, not Obama. I don't feel sorry for "Joe the Plumber." He's getting exactly what he wanted...in fact, I even heard he's writing a book.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by Nukatha

And still none have read my link.

OK. Read it.

Synopsis: A man risks everything multiple times to start his business, build it larger, invest in risky production that could greater expand the business, and all the while hiring eventually 32 full time employees. And that Obama's "spread the wealth" plan is going to hurt the people who worked hard, take business risks that others wouldn't, and provide jobs.

Gulp's Liberal Response:
We tried this. It isn't working as well as we'd like or need it to, so we're going to try something else for a few years.

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

I read it. It's an isolated case.

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

Did anyone catch the fact that Palin stated a few months ago that her state "shares the wealth" with regard to the money they get from big oil? I found that very telling.

Here is a link to Keith Olbermann talking/ranting about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27424491/

And Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.

(on a side note, if Palin was a member of this site and posted that 'sentence', she would have been strung up!)

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

I read it. It's an isolated case.

Gotta be careful with the 'isolated case' idea. The majority of new jobs are created by small companies, especially when coming out of a recession. Don't believe me? Just ask an economist.

Sure, that guy may have only created 32... but they are new jobs. Multiply that by 100... and your county is prosperous. By a thousand and your area has hope. By 10,000 and your state is moving forward. The attitude that encourages such job growth is almost solely affected by the local tax situation.

That guy is much more typical than you make him out to be.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Buddy Lee

No, you don't.

But, you wouldn't need it. Under the Fair Tax the aggregate savings in your tax liability should offset (or more, given the macroeconomic benefits of the system) the savings you would receive from what you deduct for business expenses, and home mortgages.

If you want something (Fair Tax) for nothing (ability to deduct expenses from tax liability), then we are never going to improve the system. People need to think beyond their own wants, and desires in this matter. They need to realize what the real longterm advantages of the Fair Tax are without being trapped in their current way of thinking about the tax code.


Buddy Lee

P.S.:

I guess I am officially out of Haiku mode. Happy now Imax?

I'm not against the Fair Tax and not deducting expenses, I'm just trying to figure out how this would affect businesses. So the not paying business taxes will offset not getting business dections? Then the extra cost of things needed to operate a business under the Fair Tax should be offset by businesses charging more for their goods and services? Is that kind of how it would have to work? So then not only goods such as cars, boats and big screen tv's would cost the extra 23% or watever for the Fair Tax, but also the outside IT guy that services a business, the plumber coming to fix your leak, and the barber are going to also have to charge the extra 23% or whatever as well because if they are going to have to send it to Uncle Sam, then they need to get it from you first.

Maybe I still have it all wrong. Oh well, that's why I'm a painter and not a brain surgeon.

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by Nukatha

And still none have read my link.

I read it too. During many of the years that he was running his business and taking all of those risks, taxes were higher than they are now, and that didn't seem to deter him from doing it. The last few paragraphs seemed to have nothing to do with the rest of it, aside from calling Obama a socialist and talking about how Western Europe is apparently in decline and so on.

[Greyelephant]

Originally Posted by Gulp

OK. Read it.

Synopsis: A man risks everything multiple times to start his business, build it larger, invest in risky production that could greater expand the business, and all the while hiring eventually 32 full time employees. And that Obama's "spread the wealth" plan is going to hurt the people who worked hard, take business risks that others wouldn't, and provide jobs.

Gulp's Liberal Response:
We tried this. It isn't working as well as we'd like or need it to, so we're going to try something else for a few years.

Try something else for a few years? Yeah, that's what they thought in the 70's when Jimmy Carter became president. Do you know what happened then? Unemployment was skyrocketing, gas was not $4.00+ a gallon - gas simply wasn't available, interest rates were in the 20's. So when you say try something else, just make sure you understand just what this other "else" really means. Raising taxes isn't the solution. That has been tried many times already.

Now it's down to 200,000 a company makes that taxes will be increased. I guess when he gets into office it can be 150,000. Then maybe 100,000, or just go ahead and make it 50,000. Why not? Isn't it time to try "something else"?

It's estimated that Obama will spend 750 MILLION dollars in campaining when this is all said and done. Am I the only one who finds that a bit disconcerting? Before the most ever spent was around a forth of that. Where's this money coming from? Don't tell me contributions from the people because I find that way too hard to believe.

[Nukatha]

Originally Posted by Oyhedwig

Nukatha that was an interesting read...but what I don't understand is why people say "oh man, Joe the plumber had the audacity to ask a question" when in reality, Obama told Joe that he probably wouldn't get his vote. But more importantly, it was MCCAIN that thrust Joe into the spotlight, not Obama...did we all watch that third debate? And listen to this "Joe the Plumber" tour nonsense? McCain put Joe there, not Obama. I don't feel sorry for "Joe the Plumber." He's getting exactly what he wanted...in fact, I even heard he's writing a book.

When I read this, I read it not as a second 'joe the plumber' thing, but as a real person's story and argument against the liberal tax plan.

And as far as this Joe goes, I have to admit that he is helping McCain a bit. He is just like someone who wins the lottery. He currently has his 15 minutes of fame, and he seems to be taking advantage of the spotlight he has. I doubt that this time in 2009 he'll be brought up anywhere near as often as he is now.

[Greyelephant]

Originally Posted by Nukatha

When I read this, I read it not as a second 'joe the plumber' thing, but as a real person's story and argument against the liberal tax plan.

And as far as this Joe goes, I have to admit that he is helping McCain a bit. He is just like someone who wins the lottery. He currently has his 15 minutes of fame, and he seems to be taking advantage of the spotlight he has. I doubt that this time in 2009 he'll be brought up anywhere near as often as he is now.

As much as the media is bashing him, I feel he deserves to gain as much as he possibly can.

I still find it amazing how we can find everything out about this guy in little under a week, but still don't know everything there is about Obama.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

Did anyone catch the fact that Palin stated a few months ago that her state "shares the wealth" with regard to the money they get from big oil? I found that very telling.

Here is a link to Keith Olbermann talking/ranting about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27424491/

(on a side note, if Palin was a member of this site and posted that 'sentence', she would have been strung up!)

Did anyone catch that Biden said that those making over $150,000 would be taxed at a higher rate? Did you hear that Obama changed his wording on the $250,000 over the past weekend? He used to say everyone under $250k pays less taxes and now it's those under $200k.

Did you hear that Obama continually presses for transparency in government and yet his campaign finances are coming under scrutiny? It seems he has been accepting fraudulent credit card donations and gift card donations, all while having no semblance of the most basic of security measures (like automatically checking the name submitted matches the name the credit card company has on record or asking for the 3 digit security code on the back). In reality, there is absolutely no way to tell where he's getting the money from.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803413_pf.html

Obama's campaign has raised over $200M from donations of less than $200 a piece.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008...428.htm?page=0

This is a telling couple paragraphs from the above NY Post article:

But the Obama campaign is running a system that complicates the discovery of "something wrong." It has chosen to operate an online contribution system that facilitates illegal falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits.

Obama backers making such contributions may not be worried that "something wrong" will be detected if they have no intention of complaining about it.

This from the person who pledged to accept federal funds if his opponent did likewise. McCain did, Obama reniged. I guess he figured out a way to gather a lot more. I feel sorry for those who think this guy is any different than any of the rest of them. He's not.

There is only one political truth in DC... Follow the money. Something here absolutely stinks...

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Greyelephant

It's estimated that Obama will spend 750 MILLION dollars in campaining when this is all said and done. Am I the only one who finds that a bit disconcerting? Before the most ever spent was around a forth of that. Where's this money coming from? Don't tell me contributions from the people because I find that way too hard to believe.

As I said in the above post, the only rule in DC is follow the money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803413_pf.html

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008...428.htm?page=0