...

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[mikki]

I think it brought up some interesting things but think that people have their minds made up already.

[Louis]

people have their minds made up already.

Which brings up a question regarding the second-to-last debate: Where in the world did they find an entire roomful of people who were still "undecided?"

I can't imagine, given all the time that's been spent, the ink spilled, the jaws flapped, etc., that someone would still be undecided. How much more information do those people need? What will it take for them to make up their minds?

[paulandmonster]

theese are not debates they are long adds. im so tired of all this just print your plan in all papers web etc. then let us decide. by the way arent theese guys senators shouldnt they be at work. the job we are paying them for. its not like theres not much going on.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[Ray]

I still think, despite the relative lack of substance, that they tell you a lot about the candidates. On the issues, I thought McCain was pretty sharp in the first and third debates. Not that I agreed with him, but I thought he was aggressive and made his points reasonably well. But he's so angry and irritated right now that he comes off HORRIBLY, which the snap polls after the debates showed. I'm ordinarily really tone-deaf to the sub-texts of these things - I didn't catch Al Gore's heavy sighs until they'd been pointed out by the media afterward. But McCain's seething anger is so evident that even I can see it.

I don't know if Ronald Reagan, with all of his incredible skills, could win as a Republican this year. And McCain is nowhere close to having Reagan's skills. And Obama, again, substance aside, is pretty unflappable. People pick up on this stuff more than the details. Which is unfortunate on one level but probably should be relevant. Since nobody knows what issues are gonna be thrown a a president in the heat of the situation or exactly WHAT they'd do, the HOW they'd handle it part, the character questions, become a big part of a lot of voter's decision. And I'm starting to believe it probably should.

-Ray

[WickedWheels]

Which brings up a question regarding the second-to-last debate: Where in the world did they find an entire roomful of people who were still "undecided?"

I can't imagine, given all the time that's been spent, the ink spilled, the jaws flapped, etc., that someone would still be undecided. How much more information do those people need? What will it take for them to make up their minds?

I'm still undecided.
I don't want either one of them.

[thwart]

Anyway, I think it's definitely O-ver.
+1. Barring something really strange happening...

I saw the side of McCain that caused some of his Senate colleagues to feel he would be somewhat dangerous as president. American hero---yes, but presidential material---no.

[aLexis]

I thought McCain's head was going to expolde. That's what kept me watching - I wanted to see if Obama could keep his cool when John McCain's head exploded. If you muted the t.v. and just looked at the split screen, it made for great viewing. And what's with the Sharpee?

[michael white]

McC might have gone for something inspirational, some new beautiful aspect of himself, but instead he did as promised, plumbing the Rovian depths, and came across as a petty and nasty loser. That's what the polls reflect: this goose is cooked.

[Chad Engle]

I'm still undecided.
I don't want either one of them.

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

Rush

[67-59]

I still think, despite the relative lack of substance, that they tell you a lot about the candidates. On the issues, I thought McCain was pretty sharp in the first and third debates. Not that I agreed with him, but I thought he was aggressive and made his points reasonably well. But he's so angry and irritated right now that he comes off HORRIBLY, which the snap polls after the debates showed. I'm ordinarily really tone-deaf to the sub-texts of these things - I didn't catch Al Gore's heavy sighs until they'd been pointed out by the media afterward. But McCain's seething anger is so evident that even I can see it.

I don't know if Ronald Reagan, with all of his incredible skills, could win as a Republican this year. And McCain is nowhere close to having Reagan's skills. And Obama, again, substance aside, is pretty unflappable. People pick up on this stuff more than the details. Which is unfortunate on one level but probably should be relevant. Since nobody knows what issues are gonna be thrown a a president in the heat of the situation or exactly WHAT they'd do, the HOW they'd handle it part, the character questions, become a big part of a lot of voter's decision. And I'm starting to believe it probably should.

-Ray

Ray, you and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I agree 100% with your assessment of McCain last night. I was encouraged that he seemed well prepared on the facts, but IMHO his demeanor was awful. The rolling of his eyes, constant interruptions, etc. got tiring even for someone who supports his political views. I can only imaging how offputting they were for opponents or "undecideds."

I also agree with your assessment of the chances any Republican has this year. Ws handling of the last few years has been pretty poor, and fair or not, most of the public automatically assumes that any Republican would simply continue with his policies. The economic collapse was the final straw. All things considered, I'm kind of amazed that McCain has kept it as close as he has.

I also have to agree with your assessment of Obama's demeanor. Political views aside, I was far more impressed with how he handled himself last night.

So in answer to the original question -- No, this debate was definitely not a game-changer.

[Viper]

O'bama = bright smile
Mc'Cain = frown

I think this election is choice between voting for Grimace versus Hamburglar.

http://www.toytokyo.com/shopping/index.php/page/product/product_id/8203

[malcolm]

I have several republican friends who I truly believe are still undecided or torn would be a better description. Their heart tells them to vote Obama because they are tired of the republican party that has left them behind as it has become this wayward moral compass for the religious right but they are also in that greater than $250 tax bracket and don't want their wealth redistributed simply because and worry about more government control because lets face it they one way to assure inefficiency is to let the government run it. I've made up my mind and hope I don't live to regret it, but I would like to see a party for people that are socially liberal ie: don't care who you sleep with or marry, think you unborn child is your issue or at least should not influence the leader of the free world yet still feel we can make our own financial decisions would like to see a fair tax structure and realize that people with 6 figure income are not necessarily evil. I don't mind paying my fair share I just don't think I should also have the privilege of doing so at a higher rate. I think a primary shortcoming of the Obama tax plan is that is assumes people over 250k are rolling in money and they are not, most probably have no more liquid capital than someone with half that they just have more expensive stuff and if you tax them into oblivion and they stop spending you'll really have problems.

[johnnymossville]

*post deleted. I was venting "Anger" LOL

[Ray]

I also agree with your assessment of the chances any Republican has this year. Ws handling of the last few years has been pretty poor, and fair or not, most of the public automatically assumes that any Republican would simply continue with his policies.
Well, you've had quite a few presidents elected over the past 40 years for reasons I thought were "fair or not". Its time my side got one :cool:

Amazingly, I'm still not feeling too comfortable about it, despite all of the evidence and polling. I think that's just endemic to generally supporting Democratic presidential candidates. The upside, of course, is that if Obama somehow doesn't win, I can still blame America first!

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . informed or not. Before this economic crisis I felt the election would come down to W's policies vs. the "Bradley Effect." Which faction was bigger, the one who felt Bush really has solidly hurt our country, or the group who simply wouldn't be able to bring themselves to pull the lever for an African American when they're in the privacy of the voting booth.

Thankfully--at least to me--I think the economic mess means more than enough people will overcome their subconscious racism to vote for Obama and even possibly make it a route. There's not much plausible deniability for the Republicans when this recession happens now and their guy has been in the white house for the last eight years. There's no previous administration to blame it on. I'm not sure there's anything at all McCain could do to overcome that.

BBD

[Tobias]

It put me to sleep, which is why I need you all to fill me in. :confused:
While Obama didn't deliver anything really new, he defended his position eloquently (oh, what an absolutely despicable quality for a POTUS to possess, :rolleyes: ), especially after 8 years of complete language massacre.
On the other hand, Mc's decision to paint O as unqualified rather than try to prove why he himself would be qualified was a real loser in my book. Isn't that no-no #1 Debating 101?

And, to accuse O of never having travelled south of the border when his own running mate (who is rapidly fading and becoming yet another albatross) got her first passport ever last year was just laughable. Who coaches that guy???
At every attempted attack, O was so cool that if he were an icetray even the Sahara wouldn't melt him, let alone a rambling old pit bull.

Anyway, I think it's definitely O-ver.Sound asleep? :rolleyes:

[michael white]

I truly hate it when people post clippings to illustrate what they might say themselves, but this one, today's op-ed in the Globe, seems pretty succinct:

"Obama grinned; McCain grimaced.

Each knows his destiny. One man is walking to the White House. The other is just a politically dead man walking."

[Tobias]

I can't imagine, given all the time that's been spent, the ink spilled, the jaws flapped, etc., that someone would still be undecided. How much more information do those people need? What will it take for them to make up their minds?Could if be indifference that fuels indecisiveness? Don’t know. Besides, if they don’t understand the issues, or see the two sides as equally good or bad (just in different ways), or see that neither side can do much to help them solve their personal problems, etc… then it would be more difficult to decide. Maybe those of us who made up our minds a long time ago are the real DAs of the world.

It seems that for many moderates neither candidate is adequate, otherwise they would have already decided, right? It’s much like being trapped in a high-rise fire and having to decide whether to jump or burn to death. Since both choices suck most people will wait to make a final decision until the very last second hoping for a miracle. They’ll decide only when time makes them.

[William]

I felt that at many points, McCain would make an accusation, Obama would answer…and McCain would continue as if Obama hadn’t said anything. It had the feeling of McCain just spouting talking points from Rove &Co. Obama actually tried to explain his stance on issues while McCain would touch the question then attack.

I came away with Obama as cool and collected fully interested in the issues while McCain came off as hot headed and skirting issues to press attacks.

Also, it will be interesting to see how McCain’s use of the word “health” comes off with Pro-choice women.




William

[jimcav]

my personal situation won't change--same job, same salary--sad to say it, I think neither guy is going to run the war on terror well. O may take "us" out of Iraq faster, but he is going to cave to those that want an USA foothold in the middle east. whether it is the biggest embassy ever, bases, etc. my guess is in 2011 we will be somewhere over there, maybe not Iraq, but somewhere, and in numbers.

but i am amazed that after a plethora of demonstrably bad executive leadership--economy, katrina, justice, war, privacy, whatever; that there is enough play for emotional issues to sway voters. I don't know what it is--i know what i think: race, religion. things that by the very design of the constitution (yes, as amended over time) should not be playing in gov't are in fact shaping it.

oh well, i soldier on. i may critique it now and then, but i believe in America, I am proud Obama could be president--it was just over 30 yrs ago that i was a kid in columbus georgia--even at fort benning i heard the n-word frequently. I hope our society continues to improve, that gov't functions to help set reasonable rules and encourages people to do the right thing. on taxes, on the highways, at Gitmo, in the boardroom, etc.

[Ray]

It’s much like being trapped in a high-rise fire and having to decide whether to jump or burn to death. Since both choices suck most people will wait to make a final decision until the very last second hoping for a miracle. They’ll decide only when time makes them.
I get your point but, DAMN, that's a bleak analogy. I hope neither option is quite THAT bad.

-Ray

[Tobias]

But McCain's seething anger is so evident that even I can see it.That’s funny Ray, but what exactly do you consider anger? BTW, I’ll accept your comment as an honest assessment and not as spin to lessen McCain.

Seriously, I’d like to know because I’ve had that discussion many times with friends from different cultural backgrounds. Many think there is a difference between being expressive and being angry. We could argue whether being expressive is or is not presidential, but to address your point more directly, can’t some people be angry enough to kill and never show it; like the proverbial cold blooded killer? Are we not talking about two different things?

Anyway, attorneys like BO are taught to conceal their emotions when it’s convenient for them. Could you imagine an attorney defending a criminal and looking at the guy in disgust? That would go over great with a jury. :rolleyes:

Ray, sleep well tonight -- your side has already won.

[Ray]

That’s funny Ray, but what exactly do you consider anger? BTW, I’ll accept your comment as an honest assessment and not as spin to lessen McCain.

Seriously, I’d like to know because I’ve had that discussion many times with friends from different cultural backgrounds. Many think there is a difference between being expressive and being angry. We could argue whether being expressive is or is not presidential, but to address your point more directly, can’t some people be angry enough to kill and never show it; like the proverbial cold blooded killer? Are we not talking about two different things?

Anyway, attorneys like BO are taught to conceal their emotions when it’s convenient for them. Could you imagine an attorney defending a criminal and looking at the guy in disgust? That would go over great with a jury. :rolleyes:

Ray, sleep well tonight -- your side has already won.
I think you're right that its possible for some people to be extremely angry and never show it. And they're just friggin' infuriating to the people who don't have that same control. Which is part of how I think Obama has done what he's done to both Hillary and McCain. They're thinking "who IS this guy - I can't get a rise out of him for anything and its really pissing me off" and it shows how much he's gotten under their skin. It's not to say he doesn't feel anger - he just knows how to control it, to use it to his best advantage. Reagan and Clinton both had a lot of that same ability. McCain shows EVERY bit of his anger it seems. For better or worse, that scares a lot of people who make these decisions based on their gut.

Me, I vote more on issues. I voted for Carter and Mondale despite their inferior dispositions (compared to Reagan) and for Gore and Kerry, who a lot of people saw as having inferior dispositions relative to Bush (I'm not ready to concede THAT one). So if the personalities were reversed, I'd vote for Obama anyway because I agree with him on far more. But if I was making a purely gut call, like a lot of late deciders do, I'd have probably voted for Reagan twice in the '80s and I'd vote for Obama this time. Just based on their ability to project calm in the midst of a storm.

-Ray

[William]

their ability to project calm in the midst of a storm.

-Ray

Which is certainly a what's needed in an economic crisis as well as foreign policy crisis. That would be more off putting to the likes of Putin who might have trouble reading an Obama like figure as opposed to a McCain type who wears his feelings on his sleeve.

I'm not nieve, but I certainly know the benefits of crontrolling anger and using it where appropriate as opposed as always coming off as a hot head. Folks are more unsure of your reactions and tend to be more cautious around you.

Just MHO.


William

[Tobias]

I get your point but, DAMN, that's a bleak analogy. I hope neither option is quite THAT bad.Ray, my personal opinion is that it’s far worse than most Americans imagine.

I think many smart Republicans have already written this election off because they know the next four years will be a disaster regardless of who gets elected; which is a sign to me to look for the much bigger picture and forget about all the details which in reality are next to irrelevant.

Our national hatred of Bush (mostly justified) has obscured the real serious problems we face, which is that as a society we can’t continue a lifestyle that is unsustainable.

The smartest thing I heard last night is when Obama finally admitted “we’ve been living above our means”. No freaking joke. But for all his optimistic talk about hope and a great future, that statement alone says clearly that tightening our belts is inevitable; and that won’t be the utopia he has been describing for two years.

On the other hand McCain can’t solve the problems either – they are too big. The only way we will get out of this mess is to hit a bottom so hard that the American people will finally wake up to reality. I think Obama will get us there much quicker, so in that respect he's a great choice for me.

[Tobias]

It's not to say he doesn't feel anger - he just knows how to control it, to use it to his best advantage.I also find it irritating when I can’t read people; makes it harder for me to trust them (which may be part of what I don't like about Obama). Regardless, controlling and concealment are different.

An expressive person may not be able to hide his or her emotions. A calm and collected cold-blooded killer isn’t controlling his anger when he murders. The fact that Obama appears in control doesn't mean he won't start WWIII -- just saying.

[jhcakilmer]

Ray, my personal opinion is that it’s far worse than most Americans imagine.

I think many smart Republicans have already written this election off because they know the next four years will be a disaster regardless of who gets elected; which is a sign to me to look for the much bigger picture and forget about all the details which in reality are next to irrelevant.

Our national hatred of Bush (mostly justified) has obscured the real serious problems we face, which is that as a society we can’t continue a lifestyle that is unsustainable.

The smartest thing I heard last night is when Obama finally admitted “we’ve been living above our means”. No freaking joke. But for all his optimistic talk about hope and a great future, that statement alone says clearly that tightening our belts is inevitable; and that won’t be the utopia he has been describing for two years.

On the other hand McCain can’t solve the problems either – they are too big. The only way we will get out of this mess is to hit a bottom so hard that the American people will finally wake up to reality. I think Obama will get us there much quicker, so in that respect he's a great choice for me.

+1

Whom ever is elected, inherits a country in rough, rough shape. Sorry to sound defeatist, but I think it's a loose-loose situation! I believe both men are capable, and ready to "try" and tackle the serious issues that we face......both just have very different ideals about how to get the job done.

I believe that "my" candidate can turn the country around, but it will be a slow process, more than just 4 years.

With all the debate about "experience", "ability", etc.. I really don't see how any former position, or training can really prepare you to deal with what the next president faces. It's a ridiculous notion to think that either candidate does not understand, or realize the magnitude of the issues.

Also, I really get annoyed with individuals that say they don't like either candidate, or haven't decided which to vote for. I can understand a skepticism, or indecision a year, or maybe even 6 months before the election, but with less than a month to go if you haven't decided, than you need to start looking more seriously at the issues, and each candidate's proposal.

[1centaur]

The pious moralism of "living beyond our means" and "profligate ways" is pretty rich coming from a guy who wants to spend a lot more money by taking it from some of those living apparently within their means and giving it to those who are not.

Irony or hypocrisy?

If his plan was to cut way down on government spending in order to afford some new programs and return some money to actual taxpayers, while simultaneously preaching a less envious lifestyle, I might be impressed by the preaching. As it is, I see someone creating an emotional pastiche through targeted words in order to achieve his personal goals.

BTW, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say those who view race as a positive factor in voting for Obama (from "he's black, I'm black," to "isn't it wonderful to have a black person be President given our history?" to "the rest of the world will like us more for our diversity") will outnumber those who view race as a negative factor in voting against Obama by 5 to 1. I would be interested to see neutral polling data on that point. I also think assertions of subconscious racism should just stop - they are counterproductive, unprovable, frequently offensive and undermine the path to genuine equality (which I define to mean, "who cares what his color is, positively or negatively?").

[jhcakilmer]

The pious moralism of "living beyond our means" and "profligate ways" is pretty rich coming from a guy who wants to spend a lot more money by taking it from some of those living apparently within their means and giving it to those who are not.

Irony or hypocrisy?

If his plan was to cut way down on government spending in order to afford some new programs and return some money to actual taxpayers, while simultaneously preaching a less envious lifestyle, I might be impressed by the preaching. As it is, I see someone creating an emotional pastiche through targeted words in order to achieve his personal goals.

BTW, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say those who view race as a positive factor in voting for Obama (from "he's black, I'm black," to "isn't it wonderful to have a black person be President given our history?" to "the rest of the world will like us more for our diversity") will outnumber those who view race as a negative factor in voting against Obama by 5 to 1. I would be interested to see neutral polling data on that point. I also think assertions of subconscious racism should just stop - they are counterproductive, unprovable, frequently offensive and undermine the path to genuine equality (which I define to mean, "who cares what his color is, positively or negatively?").

Making a lot of assumptions, plus I would say a large portion of Americans are live beyond there means.......the the freedom of our economic system compared to european economics. deregulation vs. regulation

Plus, I would venture to guess (just a guess, not a generality) as a whole since cycling tends to be an "expensive" sport that most cyclist, are paying their fair share of taxes.

Also your comments about race, and equality, really miss any form of reality.....I'm not saying I dissagree with many of your points.....but I hear so much from individuals which sounds like pseudo-racism. Plus, I see how minorities are treated, but our social services, healthcare, education system....and it's extremely obvious who gets the short end of the stick!

[Bobbo]

McCain did well, but it's too little, too late. I'm voting for McCain, but he's not going to be the next president. It's Bob Dole all over again - a moribund, stumbling, sleep-walking disaster of a campaign. If that's an indication of how he would run his White House, well, there you have it.

[Tobias]

If that's an indication of how he would run his White House, well, there you have it.Bush is too heavy an anchor for anyone to overcome. McCain's biggest mistake was not forcefully separating himself from Bush earlier on, but in reality it wouldn't have made enough of a difference.

In addition to what he said last night, he could have come out and said that he and Bush are as alike as Obama and Carter. Just because the two belong to the same party doesn't make them equal.

BTW: We survived Carter, we'll survive Obama. Both mean well.

[benb]

I think a primary shortcoming of the Obama tax plan is that is assumes people over 250k are rolling in money and they are not, most probably have no more liquid capital than someone with half that they just have more expensive stuff and if you tax them into oblivion and they stop spending you'll really have problems.

I find this kind of frightening. If someone is making that kind of money and is still spending so much that they are in financial trouble or can quickly fall into financial trouble, they don't need or deserve any government tax assistance. Lots of folks who make far far less manage to be financially responsible and secure, if someone makes $250k+ a year and is in trouble they truly need to stop living above their means, the percentage differences in tax difference are tiny and should not mean the difference between surviving under McCain and failing under Obama.

It gets lost in the debate mud slinging but the analyses are (supposedly) showing someone in the $250-600k range is going to stay at about the same Tax burden under Obama and get a $7500 tax cut under McCain. It's a very small percentage of total income. Lease the Mercedes Benz for 3 years instead of getting a new one every year.

It's really funny that the 250k range keeps getting brought up.. McCain is really, really playing to the extremely wealthy, or else he thinks there are a huge # of Americans who are delusional and think they are going to suddenly strike it very rich.

The differences between the two tax plans are seriously small for most of us making <$250k, and that is even assuming either one of them actually has any chance of pushing their plans through. When they yell back and forth about "Tax cut this", "Raise Taxes that" they're just trying to appeal to people who vote on gut reactions and can't do the numbers.

Whether I live in Massachusetts or New Hampshire and whether I own or rent has effects on my taxes that are an order of magnitude higher then whether the Obama or McCain tax plan goes through.

[Tobias]

Making a lot of assumptions, plus I would say a large portion of Americans are live beyond there means.......the the freedom of our economic system compared to european economics. deregulation vs. regulationMany here portray deregulation as a republican vice, but that’s not necessarily the case. My local paper recently had an article stating that Carter initiated much of the modern age of deregulation (I’m not sure I agree entirely). From Wikipedia:

"President Jimmy Carter devoted substantial effort to transportation deregulation, and worked with Congressional and civil society leaders to pass the Airline Deregulation Act (October 24, 1978), Staggers Rail Act (signed October 14, 1980), and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (signed July 1, 1980)."

[jhcakilmer]

Many here portray deregulation as a republican vice, but that’s not necessarily the case. My local paper recently had an article stating that Carter initiated much of the modern age of deregulation (I’m not sure I agree entirely). From Wikipedia:

"President Jimmy Carter devoted substantial effort to transportation deregulation, and worked with Congressional and civil society leaders to pass the Airline Deregulation Act (October 24, 1978), Staggers Rail Act (signed October 14, 1980), and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (signed July 1, 1980)."

Well, I can't really comment from first hand experience (since I was only 4 years old) but I wouldn't say that every sector should be either ambiguously regulated, or deregulated.......but certain institutions (healthcare, financial, etc) can be extremely detrimental to the basic fundemental structure of our country as a whole.

[soulspinner]

Either of these guys will be handcuffed because of what they inherit as prez. Even if they manage to get tax cuts pushed through on a fed level, this only weakens state and local cash flow. The whips comin down and whoever wins is likely to be a one termer....grease the revolving door, its going to be used. :crap:

[RPS]

BTW, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say those who view race as a positive factor in voting for Obama (from "he's black, I'm black," to "isn't it wonderful to have a black person be President given our history?" to "the rest of the world will like us more for our diversity") will outnumber those who view race as a negative factor in voting against Obama by 5 to 1. I would be interested to see neutral polling data on that point. I also think assertions of subconscious racism should just stop - they are counterproductive, unprovable, frequently offensive and undermine the path to genuine equality (which I define to mean, "who cares what his color is, positively or negatively?").From Houston Chronicle:

“Race debate shifts toward black voters…………If whites are deemed racist for refusing to vote for the first black Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, because of his race, then what do you call blacks who are supporting him because of it?”


The writer went on to dispel the notion by stating that blacks vote over 90 percent Democratic anyway, so it doesn’t prove anything. However, her logic seemed flawed to me (or at least incomplete) because it didn’t address why blacks also voted overwhelmingly for Obama over Clinton.

[benb]

All three of those were getting rid of government price controls on industries though.

Not necessarily the same thing as banking/investment/mortgage deregulation.

[paulh]

..... you can always blame Jimmy Carter for EVERYTHING!

[benb]

Either of these guys will be handcuffed because of what they inherit as prez. Even if they manage to get tax cuts pushed through on a fed level, this only weakens state and local cash flow. The whips comin down and whoever wins is likely to be a one termer....grease the revolving door, its going to be used. :crap:

Yah all this tax cut BS as if they think everyone is too stupid to realize how bad the deficits are.

[Ozz]

Yah all this tax cut BS as if they think everyone is too stupid to realize how bad the deficits are.
maybe not everyone....(i.e. the folks here on the forum)....the rest of the country....I'm not so sure. :crap:

[RPS]

Well, I can't really comment from first hand experience (since I was only 4 years old) Consider yourself lucky. ;) The biggest problem with Carter from my perspective is that he’s too nice a man to be president. I liked him; just didn’t like the outcome of his administration.

[malcolm]

benb, I think it is very true and even goes way beyond the $250k point. I don't mean they are in financial dire straights or can't pay their bills but trust me they don't have a ton of extra cash laying around. I'm sure there is a lot of spending that can be curtailed if needed but how will that help the economy.

I suspect you are fairly young because you sound like I did at one time. I can remember thinking how if you made 100k you would have it made, penthouses, movie stars. The reality is quite different most/many people elevate their cost of living as their income goes up. I know personally it has not been a linear relationship as my income has gone up. I probably have no more excess money now than I had at 1/2 the income I now make. I do have two businesses that are just starting to break even, a mortgage, a nanny, a retirement plan, etc.. Basically my existence is a small enterprise, increase my taxes and I'll cut my day to day spending back to necessities, increase them further and the businesses I've kept afloat with mostly my own money will be cut back or closed, now you are talking about 20 or so employees with benefits including health care and retirement that probably don't have the cushion I do. I don't know what the answer is but I don't think robbing peter to pay paul is the answer nor is it fair.



By the way I'm not asking for any tax assistance or tax break. I'm more than willing to pay what is determined to be my fair share. I just don't think it is fair to expect me to pay more because I make more and also do it at a higher rate. I make more because I educated myself and worked hard.

[EDS]

I find this kind of frightening. If someone is making that kind of money and is still spending so much that they are in financial trouble or can quickly fall into financial trouble, they don't need or deserve any government tax assistance. Lots of folks who make far far less manage to be financially responsible and secure, if someone makes $250k+ a year and is in trouble they truly need to stop living above their means, the percentage differences in tax difference are tiny and should not mean the difference between surviving under McCain and failing under Obama.

It gets lost in the debate mud slinging but the analyses are (supposedly) showing someone in the $250-600k range is going to stay at about the same Tax burden under Obama and get a $7500 tax cut under McCain. It's a very small percentage of total income. Lease the Mercedes Benz for 3 years instead of getting a new one every year.

It's really funny that the 250k range keeps getting brought up.. McCain is really, really playing to the extremely wealthy, or else he thinks there are a huge # of Americans who are delusional and think they are going to suddenly strike it very rich.

The differences between the two tax plans are seriously small for most of us making <$250k, and that is even assuming either one of them actually has any chance of pushing their plans through. When they yell back and forth about "Tax cut this", "Raise Taxes that" they're just trying to appeal to people who vote on gut reactions and can't do the numbers.

Whether I live in Massachusetts or New Hampshire and whether I own or rent has effects on my taxes that are an order of magnitude higher then whether the Obama or McCain tax plan goes through.

My only comment is that $250,000 really doesn't make you rich in a place like NYC, San Fran or similar city. Obviously those people (myself included) could move to less expensive places, but the jobs are in those urban areas.

[jhcakilmer]

Consider yourself lucky. ;) The biggest problem with Carter from my perspective is that he’s too nice a man to be president. I liked him; just didn’t like the outcome of his administration.

I've been very impressed with his philanthropic work since, but just because you care doesn't mean you can make it work!

I've always been proud to be a "bleeding heart", but I'm just not that "liberal".

[benb]

I don't necessarily even mean to imply $250,000 is "rich" today. And I totally understand being tied to expensive areas by career choice, I'm in that boat too, just very lucky at the moment to be able to live in NH without having been asked to take a pay cut.

It's just that as income goes up no matter where you are actual cost of living to survive as a percentage of total income drops off, so if you double your income and are not doing significantly better it's pretty lame to blame the Federal Government.

[RPS]

Yah all this tax cut BS as if they think everyone is too stupid to realize how bad the deficits are.Remember the theory that democracies are doomed to fail as soon as the majority figure out that they can vote themselves anything they want? It’s not that they are stupid; it’s the inability to see that in the long run they will be worse off.

Probably the best example of this is health care expenses which far exceed anything workers paid into the system (not that that money is sitting around in a bank account :rolleyes: ). These unfunded entitlements will force drastic change whether we like it or not.

[malcolm]

I don't think anyone is blaming anyone especially the government. I'm doing quite well and before I would blame anyone I would leave. I just don't see how paying more because you make more and then also doing it at a higher rate is fair.

[jhcakilmer]

I don't think anyone is blaming anyone especially the government. I'm doing quite well and before I would blame anyone I would leave. I just don't see how paying more because you make more and then also doing it at a higher rate is fair.

I think the reasoning is that we are lucky enough to live in a country were we have the opportunity to excel professionally, and financially..... because of that we are expected to contribute accordingly.

My issue is that the tax system doesn't really take into account the extra expenses that certain professions incur. For example, when I finish my medical degree I will have almost $400k worth of school debt.....2 undergraduate degrees, 1 masters, and medical......all at private schools. I know I'm at the high end of the scale, but many individuals with advanced degrees have massive amounts of debt.

Health professionals in the UK make less than there american counterparts, and are also taxed greater. I understand that's a different system, but we can draw similar conclusions.

[benb]

The reasoning for me is success is not completely of my own making, despite our american cultural "lone wolf" leanings.

I was lucky enough be born here, lucky enough to go to get good education, lucky enough the federal government & military have used tax dollars for research and development that have grown the industry I've worked in, etc, etc, etc..

No one is an island.. if the system collapses no matter how little taxes you have to pay you can still be f*cked.

[palincss]

Also, it will be interesting to see how McCain’s use of the word “health” comes off with Pro-choice women.



My wife's fuming mad, and ready to donate another hundred to Planned Parenthood.

[palincss]

And they're just friggin' infuriating to the people who don't have that same control. Which is part of how I think Obama has done what he's done to both Hillary and McCain. They're thinking "who IS this guy - I can't get a rise out of him for anything and its really pissing me off" and it shows how much he's gotten under their skin. It's not to say he doesn't feel anger - he just knows how to control it, to use it to his best advantage. Reagan and Clinton both had a lot of that same ability.


Not a bad quality for a President to have, atmo.

[zap]

My wife's fuming mad, and ready to donate another hundred to Planned Parenthood.

Not that planned parenthood has anything to do with planned parenthood.

[palincss]

McCain did well, but it's too little, too late. I'm voting for McCain, but he's not going to be the next president. It's Bob Dole all over again - a moribund, stumbling, sleep-walking disaster of a campaign. If that's an indication of how he would run his White House, well, there you have it.

Just consider for a minute if he were elected and didn't live out his full term. How would his successor be as President, do you think? Not only is McC old, and a cancer survivor, but he doesn't look at all well, atmo.

[RPS]

I've always been proud to be a "bleeding heart", but I'm just not that "liberal".Most people like to help others, but only as they see fit – let’s say “voluntarily”, or of their own accord. If forced into it they resent it, and will rebel. IMO it’s natural to dislike being told what to do.

That’s the biggest difference I see between Christianity and Communism/Socialism. Major goals are very similar, but one is voluntary and the other is forced. One works OK and the other doesn’t work at all.

Redistribution of wealth through preferential taxation is not voluntary, it’s forced. Maybe it’s a necessary evil for society to function (I don’t know), but in my book it has to be unnatural……too difficult for many to accept. That’s why I like a simple flat tax better than either candidate’s plan.

[fiamme red]

That’s the biggest difference I see between Christianity and Communism/Socialism. Major goals are very similar, but one is voluntary and the other is forced. One works OK and the other doesn’t work at all.Christianity works OK? Which political system are you referring to? :confused:

[RPS]

Just consider for a minute if he were elected and didn't live out his full term. How would his successor be as President, do you think? Not only is McC old, and a cancer survivor, but he doesn't look at all well, atmo.If we went strictly by their resume, what makes Obama more qualified than Palin? :confused:

Personally I think both are unqualified, but I'm curious how you conclude that one is far better than the other. :beer: I just want to learn.

[RPS]

Christianity works OK? Which political system are you referring to? :confused:I mean simply that if I see a homeless person and decide on my own to give him my coat; I’ll likely feel very good about myself for doing a kind act.

On the other hand if a government representative pulls me over, puts a gun to my head, and makes me give him my coat, I’ll be pissed for a very long time.

Same act, different outcome. Does that make sense? We don't have to make everything "political". :rolleyes:

[malcolm]

Sorry, but other than being born here I don't think that much of mine was luck. It was hard work and often hard decisions including delayed gratification. Like I said I'll not shirk my responsibility and I'll pay what ever I'm required, but is not fair and I find it somewhat insulting for my success to be considered luck.

[fiamme red]

I mean simply that if I see a homeless person and decide on my own to give him my coat; I’ll likely feel very good about myself for doing a kind act.

On the other hand if a government representative pulls me over, puts a gun to my head, and makes me give him my coat, I’ll be pissed for a very long time.

Same act, different outcome. Does that make sense? We don't have to make everything "political". :rolleyes:But is that Christianity, or just philanthropy?

The Christian Gospel goes much farther than that: "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also." (I assume that doesn't include government representatives? :p )

[Kirk007]

My only comment is that $250,000 really doesn't make you rich in a place like NYC, San Fran or similar city. Obviously those people (myself included) could move to less expensive places, but the jobs are in those urban areas.

Well folks in this category may not be rich but look at what percentage you are in compared to most Americans. I get the expense part; I used to be in that income/expense category living in a pricey neighborhood in Seattle with the house, two cars, private schools yada yada and yes the money goes quickly. My college roommate makes over $1M a year and laments cash flow. Of course half a dozen kids in the finest private schools, the mega-house etc. can do that to a person. But, consider that lifestyle and its privileges. It is quite nice, no? And it is all a personal choice of how and where to live.

Now I work for a non-profit making less than half of what I used to make. My quality of life is better. I work harder than I did before. I get more satisfaction from my job. My relative tax burden as a percentage is not that much different. So, its hard for me to accept the argument that those making large 6 figure incomes shouldn't be taxed at a marginally higher bracket because they are where they are solely because of "hard work." (and this is not considering the impact of the much greater deductions that seem to come with this income bracket and life style). In my mind, there is not necessarily a correlation between hard work, value, and income. Nor is there necessarily a correlation between income and what is given back to society. Does the small business person making 250K employing 20 other americans contribute to our society, absolutely. So does the public elementary school teacher making less than 40K. Who contributes more? Impossible to judge, its all subjective. But, in today's economy it is no question who has the greater economic means to pursue a comfortable life.

$250K seemed then and seems now like a lot of money. Many many Americans lead a fine life living on less than 100k a year; I don't think they are going to give much sympathy to the argument that our tax system is unfairly penalizing "the wealthy" with its progressive rates. But its complicated. Perhaps a pure consumptive based tax system would be better? All I know is that we can't have it all; we can't have the infrastructure we need, the social services we need, etc., without paying for them`one way or another. And the less corporate taxes, less government regulation manta of the last 8 years hasn't worked out so well for most of us.

I was raised with the idea that those who were fortunate enough (and no I don't buy that anyone, myself included, has made it "one our own" ) to have greater means were expected to give back more. I've never had a problem with that concept.

[thwart]

Re: Obama vs Palin
Personally I think both are unqualified, but I'm curious how you conclude that one is far better than the other.

Try YouTube; watch her interviews. Then watch last night's debate, or the very first one...

Draw your own conclusions.

[jhcakilmer]

Most people like to help others, but only as they see fit – let’s say “voluntarily”, or of their own accord. If forced into it they resent it, and will rebel. IMO it’s natural to dislike being told what to do.

That’s the biggest difference I see between Christianity and Communism/Socialism. Major goals are very similar, but one is voluntary and the other is forced. One works OK and the other doesn’t work at all.

Redistribution of wealth through preferential taxation is not voluntary, it’s forced. Maybe it’s a necessary evil for society to function (I don’t know), but in my book it has to be unnatural……too difficult for many to accept. That’s why I like a simple flat tax better than either candidate’s plan.

Well, I think both ideologies have one simple flaw.......humans. Unfortunately, we tend to be self-centered, and cynical....this is the only flaw, and it's fatal. Christians in general should be perfectly compatible with a socialized style government, sure it's "forced", but does everyone benefit, and is it fair? Unfortunately most Christians don't "walk the walk", myself included, at times.......if we all did, then we wouldn't need government.....hey wouldn't that be great!

Also, the only people that a Flat Taxation System benefits is the wealthy. It is not egalitarian at all for example.......If joe pays his percentage and has 90% of his discretionary spending money left and mike pays his percentage and has to decide if he wants to have a roof over his head and only eat every third day, or eat and live in a van, that is not egalitarian. The effect on each of them is not equal.
- it places a great burden on the middle class
- less funds for charities/non-profits
- less tax revenue - screw social services, medicare, medicaid, etc - hey, let poor people sink or swim, right??

[jhcakilmer]

Sorry, but other than being born here I don't think that much of mine was luck. It was hard work and often hard decisions including delayed gratification. Like I said I'll not shirk my responsibility and I'll pay what ever I'm required, but is not fair and I find it somewhat insulting for my success to be considered luck.


Malcolm, I must apologize if I offended you. What I meant to say is that we are "fortunate" to live in the US. In most places throughout the world, the opportunity to succeed is virtually nonexistent....no matter how strong your work ethic.

[RPS]

But is that Christianity, or just philanthropy?

The Christian Gospel goes much farther than that: "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;I don't much worry about what things are called -- they are what they are.

Interesting that means something different to me. A brilliant priest once explained it and it finally made sense. :)

[RPS]

Re: Obama vs Palin


Try YouTube; watch her interviews. Then watch last night's debate, or the very first one...

Draw your own conclusions.I thought I was clear on my opinion of their qualifications. :confused:

Besides, if I changed my mind because of YouTube I shouldn't be allowed to vote. :rolleyes:

[malcolm]

Offended is probably a strong word. I'm certainly not offended and respect and agree with your opinion on a larger scale. I certainly think those that have done well owe something to the place/system or whatever they flourished in. I'm just not certain it is as fair as it could be on an individual level and I have a problem with the determination of wealth and the feeling that the wealthy in some way owe those not as successful anything and yes I realize I have contradicted myself. That is what I struggle with.

[benb]

I was the one who said "lucky" and I will stand by that.

Hard honest work is rewarded much more greatly here in the US then in many other places in the world... we are all very, very lucky.

It's in our best interests to make sure the system keeps working so we don't have death squads or warlords or angry mobs in our neighborhoods.. that might have negative effects on "success".

[RPS]

Well, think both ideologies have one simple flaw.......humans. Unfortunately, we tend to be self-centered, and cynical....this is the only flaw, and it's fatal. Christians in general should be perfectly compatible with a socialized style government, sure it's "forced", but does everyone benefit, and is it fair? Unfortunately most Christians don't "walk the walk", myself included, at times.......if we all did, then we wouldn't need government.....hey wouldn't that be great!Although it's not my thing, I'll be happy to discuss any subject you want provided you don't use the word "fair" (or its equivalent) in your arguments. If you insist then there is no way to use logic so we might as well not start.

By the way, life as created by "God" is not "fair". Let me know how poor you have been during any part of your life and maybe I can relate to where you are coming from. I see you are suggesting I don't care about the poor which should be hurtful, but I'll ignore it.

In my case I was poor enough for a time that I have a very good idea. I don't have to pretend or imagine.

[EDS]

Well folks in this category may not be rich but look at what percentage you are in compared to most Americans. I get the expense part; I used to be in that income/expense category living in a pricey neighborhood in Seattle with the house, two cars, private schools yada yada and yes the money goes quickly. My college roommate makes over $1M a year and laments cash flow. Of course half a dozen kids in the finest private schools, the mega-house etc. can do that to a person. But, consider that lifestyle and its privileges. It is quite nice, no? And it is all a personal choice of how and where to live.

Now I work for a non-profit making less than half of what I used to make. My quality of life is better. I work harder than I did before. I get more satisfaction from my job. My relative tax burden as a percentage is not that much different. So, its hard for me to accept the argument that those making large 6 figure incomes shouldn't be taxed at a marginally higher bracket because they are where they are solely because of "hard work." (and this is not considering the impact of the much greater deductions that seem to come with this income bracket and life style). In my mind, there is not necessarily a correlation between hard work, value, and income. Nor is there necessarily a correlation between income and what is given back to society. Does the small business person making 250K employing 20 other americans contribute to our society, absolutely. So does the public elementary school teacher making less than 40K. Who contributes more? Impossible to judge, its all subjective. But, in today's economy it is no question who has the greater economic means to pursue a comfortable life.

$250K seemed then and seems now like a lot of money. Many many Americans lead a fine life living on less than 100k a year; I don't think they are going to give much sympathy to the argument that our tax system is unfairly penalizing "the wealthy" with its progressive rates. But its complicated. Perhaps a pure consumptive based tax system would be better? All I know is that we can't have it all; we can't have the infrastructure we need, the social services we need, etc., without paying for them`one way or another. And the less corporate taxes, less government regulation manta of the last 8 years hasn't worked out so well for most of us.

I was raised with the idea that those who were fortunate enough (and no I don't buy that anyone, myself included, has made it "one our own" ) to have greater means were expected to give back more. I've never had a problem with that concept.

I have no problem with the wealthy paying a higher percentage, but I do have a big problem with the wastefulness of the federal government and increased tax revenue, unfortunately, will likely result in greater waste (whether it be dems or republicans in control of the purse strings).

[michael white]

well,
it's not class warfare, this rollback. The class which has been decimated over the past two decades, beginning with Reagan, is the middle class, and that's not opinion: it's hard fact. The rich got richer and the middle class sank, and so did America.

No wonder we can't manufacture anything, we're missing the heart of the workforce. We need to work on that, and in my opinion, the various plans floated by the Democrats this year are simply logical approaches to healing America. You like recession and all the massive accumulation of widespread
failure? cool, don't support it. This nation was built on the back of the middle class, and they are who get to decide (soon) who gets taxed and how much. Frigging Period. Free country. Door swings both ways. etc.

[jhcakilmer]

Although it's not my thing, I'll be happy to discuss any subject you want provided you don't use the word "fair" (or its equivalent) in your arguments. If you insist then there is no way to use logic so we might as well not start.

By the way, life as created by "God" is not "fair". Let me know how poor you have been during any part of your life and maybe I can relate to where you are coming from. I see you are suggesting I don't care about the poor which should be hurtful, but I'll ignore it.

In my case I was poor enough for a time that I have a very good idea. I don't have to pretend or imagine.

I guess this is one of the pitfalls of an online discussion, compared too a face to face interaction. I apologized for anything I said (I definitely did not intend to imply a lack of caring on your part, more so a generality about an ideology). These are only my thoughts, and perceptions, and unfortunately much is lost with the lack of personal interaction. Much is mis-interpreted, which in my experiences seems to be the root of most confrontations.

As a christian, we believe that God created the world perfect, and completely egalitarian, and it is only by our own transgressions that we have "polluted" this perfect creation. The fact that God gave us "choice" over controlling every aspect speaks volumes about His "character", and His desire to have a "voluntary" relationship with His creation.

As far as my background, I was very fortunate growing up. My father had a very good income for many years, while working for his father (Logging Company). But when I was about 10 he split off due to personal issues, and started his own company. He still did okay, but there were several years were we rationed food, wore second hand cloths, no health insurance, etc. I started working in the woods with him at 13, and we worked long, hard hours......during the summer break, over christmas break, etc and sold firewood when I was in school.
I have also had the opportunity of traveling to some of the poorest parts of Africa, on medical missions. I try to volunteer as much as possible in my community, but life is busy right now. I really have seen poverty, and yes we have poor in our country, but nothing compared to most parts of the world!

This is a very small glimpse into my background, so I hope it gives you some ideal of where I came from.

I'm not one to judge anyone here for expressing their opinions, I understand the limitation of our interactions, and that certain statements may be mis-interpreted.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Just consider for a minute if he were elected and didn't live out his full term. How would his successor be as President, do you think? Not only is McC old, and a cancer survivor, but he doesn't look at all well, atmo.

. . . that neither candidate seems to be willing to address. It's also what really helped decide me. I think there's a good chance that given the stress of holding the office, McCain would not live out his term. That would leave Palin as president. Uh, no thanks . . .

My girlfriend has an interesting theory about that, though. She keeps telling me that if McCain were elected, Palin would suddenly have some sort of emergency and step down or otherwise quietly disappear, leaving McCain to appoint who he or the party right wing really wants after having done her part to gain the election victory. My reaction? Stranger things have happened . . .

BBD

[malcolm]

I'm the 50yo product of a single parent family with a mom that worked two jobs without any government support for most of my life. We never went hungry but never had money. I educated myself on student loans some of which I owe more interest than the original principle I borrowed, I never accepted any grants even though I qualified. Lucky, yes, but work ethic and hard work was a much larger factor. I agree fair is a bad word nothing will ever be perceived as fair by all.

[chuckroast]

Is is too early to begin handicapping the 2010 mid terms?

Possible scenario...Dems sweep in next month, including a filibuster proof majority in the House. Lack of checks and balances coupled with perceived mandate for "change" leads to over-the-top hubris and loss of focus.

Economy continues to decline as the correction finds it's balance point.

Public grows disenchanted and returns the Pubs to power at mid-term.

[michael white]

Is is too early to begin handicapping the 2010 mid terms?

Possible scenario...Dems sweep in next month, including a filibuster proof majority in the House. Lack of checks and balances coupled with perceived mandate for "change" leads to over-the-top hubris and loss of focus.

Economy continues to decline as the correction finds it's balance point.

Public grows disenchanted and returns the Pubs to power at mid-term.

whatever gets you through the night. :)

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[RPS]

I guess this is one of the pitfalls of an online discussion, compared too a face to face interaction. I apologized for anything I said (I definitely did not intend to imply a lack of caring on your part, more so a generality about an ideology).No need at all to apologize. It’s just that I interpreted your statement below as probably implying I don’t care about the poor; which is not the case. I just happen to have very different opinions on how they should be helped.- less tax revenue - screw social services, medicare, medicaid, etc - hey, let poor people sink or swim, right??

BTW: Treating everyone as equals works for me; I do it because I feel it's the right thing to do, not because I was taught. Because of it I find it difficult to show reverence towards anyone because it therefore places others below.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[michael white]

Since 1913
Applicable
Year Income
brackets First
bracket Top
bracket Source
1913-1915 - 1% 7% Census
1916 - 2% 15% Census
1917 - 2% 67% Census
1918 - 6% 73% Census
1919-1920 - 4% 73% Census
1921 - 4% 73% Census
1922 - 4% 56% Census
1923 - 3% 56% Census
1924 - 1.5% 46% Census
1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% Census
1929 - 0.375% 24% Census
1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% Census
1932-1933 - 4% 63% Census
1934-1935 - 4% 63% Census
1936-1939 - 4% 79% Census
1940 - 4.4% 81.1% Census
1941 - 10% 81% Census
1942-1943 - 19% 88% Census
1944-1945 - 23% 94% Census
1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% Census
1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% Census
1950 - 17.4% 84.36% Census
1951 - 20.4% 91% Census
1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% Census
1954-1963 - 20% 91% Census
1964 - 16% 77% Census
1965-1967 - 14% 70% Census
1968 - 14% 75.25% Census
1969 - 14% 77% Census
1970 - 14% 71.75% Census
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2008 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS

the point is current tax rates are nowhere near what they have been through much of the century. They are freakish. Is it a coincidence that this low current rate, this coddling of the wealthy, comes at a time of economic catastrophe? As Obama often says, he only wants to roll back the Bush cuts which helped create this mess, take it back to a Reagan-era ratio. There will still be country clubs, I would think.

[cdimattio]

Also, the only people that a Flat Taxation System benefits is the wealthy. It is not egalitarian at all for example.......If joe pays his percentage and has 90% of his discretionary spending money left and mike pays his percentage and has to decide if he wants to have a roof over his head and only eat every third day, or eat and live in a van, that is not egalitarian. The effect on each of them is not equal.
- it places a great burden on the middle class
- less funds for charities/non-profits
- less tax revenue - screw social services, medicare, medicaid, etc - hey, let poor people sink or swim, right??


Flat tax is not a concept in isolation. The larger benefit is the elimination of the obscene complexity of the US Tax Code. The special interests, favored parties and insane subsidies are the root of our taxation problem.

Flat taxes are generally presented with a progressive design. (i.e. no tax below xx in earnings, etc.)

The analysis is complex as those at the top end of the income pyramid have tax rates that might surprise you.

The election speeches offer great sound bites about higher rates for the $250K 'rich people' while private equity and hedge fund operators be allowed a capital gains rate of 15 percent on their millions of performance fee earnings? (Performance fees represent most of their earned annual income.) Hard to believe a 15% marginal tax rate can apply to married households earning $15K to $64K per year AND those who make $1 million to $xxx million per year. An increase in rates will not close this particular injustice.

Fixing the tax code is the issue and a simplified flat tax is a logical direction for the solution. Why increase the tax burden to the plumber or small business owner who creates jobs, and leave gaping loopholes for those with real wealth?

Besides... aside from some tweak the tax code and redistribute a bit of wealth, but does anyone really believe this country can afford any significant tax reduction?

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[jhcakilmer]

Flat tax is not a concept in isolation. The larger benefit is the elimination of the obscene complexity of the US Tax Code. The special interests, favored parties and insane subsidies are the root of our taxation problem.

Flat taxes are generally presented with a progressive design. (i.e. no tax below xx in earnings, etc.)

The analysis is complex as those at the top end of the income pyramid have tax rates that might surprise you.

The election speeches offer great sound bites about higher rates for the $250K 'rich people' while private equity and hedge fund operators be allowed a capital gains rate of 15 percent on their millions of performance fee earnings? (Performance fees represent most of their earned annual income.) Hard to believe a 15% marginal tax rate can apply to married households earning $15K to $64K per year AND those who make $1 million to $xxx million per year. An increase in rates will not close this particular injustice.

Fixing the tax code is the issue and a simplified flat tax is a logical direction for the solution. Why increase the tax burden to the plumber or small business owner who creates jobs, and leave gaping loopholes for those with real wealth?

Besides... aside from some tweak the tax code and redistribute a bit of wealth, but does anyone really believe this country can afford any significant tax reduction?

I'm no economics expert, but I try to do some research, and have read several theoretical options for a Flat Tax Systems, and I have yet to see one that I feel is any better than the system we currently have, or would really increase our revenue, or equal the playing field.

On another note I was also surprise to find that the "small business" owners would actually make out better with Obama's rather than McCains plan. Since the majority of "Small Businesses" are taxed on net profit (after business related deductions), which for 98% of them.. drops them below that $250K mark.

[RPS]

Flat tax is not a concept in isolation. The larger benefit is the elimination of the obscene complexity of the US Tax Code. The special interests, favored parties and insane subsidies are the root of our taxation problem.

Flat taxes are generally presented with a progressive design. (i.e. no tax below xx in earnings, etc.) Well said.

As Warren himself has stated, he pays fewer taxes than his secretary (or some lowly person below him). Of course, the super rich have a lot more influence over the political process than the middle class.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cdimattio]

....Joe the Plumber wants to buy his business, which he then complains will put him over the 250K limit. Well, he wants to do so because he wants to become rich, period. Again in my view: you get rich, then help society out a bit, rather than cry those crocodile tears. I have no sympathy. I have 0 sympathy especially for the upper 2 percentile super-rich and the corporations....

Too much class warfare and hypothetical editorial. Small business is an underlying economic engine in the US economy.

I guess I have a far different perspective on the $250K earning plumber, farmer or small businessperson. Fat cats are not well represented here. Generally no 6,000 square foot mini mansions or multiple foreign cars. They need to plow the money into tools, inventory, payroll or floating accounts receivable (it is no easy task to get paid in a timely fashion in the current environment). Homes are mortgaged to the limit to support the needs of the business because lending is not always available to them. Lots of folks in this group are just one bad year away from bankruptcy. Business results are uneven and a slowdown is just around the corner. Greater taxation here leads to less hiring and economic constraint.

The upper 2% that you should be concerned about do very little to create jobs and have tax strategies to ensure that they never come close to a 35% marginal tax rate. The tax strategies will continue to protect them even IF these election promises are kept.

[Louis]

BTW: We survived Carter, we'll survive Obama.

I am flabbergasted by the irony of this statement.

I guess if that's the criterion, then how would you gauge how we have fared the last eight years?

[michael white]

how would you gauge how we have fared the last eight years?

good for uh uh let me get back to you on that.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cdimattio]

I am flabbergasted by the irony of this statement.

I guess if that's the criterion, then how would you gauge how we have fared the last eight years?

Carter was derided for years. He ruined the Democratic Brand much like Bush has done for the Republican Brand. Hard to make any comparatives today because Carter has done such a remarkable job rehabilitating his reputation. You need to jog the memory a bit, but most did not fare well economically during the Carter years. US stature in the World was in question as well.

While Bush rightfully deserves scorn for the war and numerous issues, he seems to get blamed for every American failing. I expect history will treat him better because I cannot imagine any opinion could get worse.

Ironic to think that if Bush was a hypothetical single term president, he would have departed with a 57% approval rating.

[malcolm]

cadence90, privilege was used in sarcasm. I've lived on both ends of the economic spectrum. I spent many years in a trailer that didn't even have a skirt and along the way I got an education and went to work and now I'm considerably beyond that 250k mark. I don't mind paying to live here and I'll continue to pay what I'm required, it just seems screwed up to me that I pay more at what ever percent because I make more and also have to pay it at a greater percent. I don't hide money and don't have any shelters other than a home. It is even more infuriating that I have to pay someone to figure out how much I have to pay. BTW if you are interested I'll take money with the tax burden any day. It's nice to be able to afford a skirt for the trailer.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cdimattio]

Anyway:
1) Aren't the tools, etc. deductible and therefore lower the business taxable income to possibly under the propsed 250K number?
2) Aren't loans without adequate collateral considered to be risky and are partially to blame for the condition we find ourselves in now?
3) Aren't lots of people below this group also near or in bankruptcy?
4) Does greater taxation really lead to less hiring and economic constraints if/when business is good?


Due to securitization it is likely still easier to get a sub-prime real estate loan than credit for a thriving small business. It is also typical for a small business to have earnings but no cash. A plumber must invest in inventory which is not expensed until used. 'Tools' was a loose term which might include vehicles or tooling capitalized with a cost amortized over several years.

What happens when the Developer delays payment to the contractor until the house is sold? There are still earnings and taxes, even if you were not yet paid.

No cash, no expansion even if business is booming. Greater taxation is indeed a economic constraint.

You might be wealthy on paper and owe more taxes. Unfortunately you might never have a spare nickel, be riding around in a 10 year old pick-up and have not taken a vacation in 6 years. A hiccup in the business and you lose your house because that was the only business financing available to you. A far cry from the $250K "share the wealth" soundbite stereotype.

It is not popular, but why not make death taxes more burdensome? Capital is more productive in the hands of those who create wealth rather than the offspring of those who once created wealth. Most small business growth stories involve humble hard work and that same small business typically gets screwed up in the second generation.

Long winded way of saying there is a big difference between a scrappy small businessman and the typical grad school educated white collar $250K salaried corporate or financial services staff position.

[mikki]

BTW: We survived Carter, we'll survive Obama. Both mean well.

I hope so.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[Ray]

This may not be the answer you are looking for but:
intelligence, having a more open mind, exhibiting better leadership qualities, having a clearer world-view, and showing a demonstration of growth through-out the campaign process: O has improved, imho, while Palin has become an albatross whose greatest contribution to has been to bolster Tina Fey's career.

To go strictly by resume' in selecting a President in my view is folly; history has proved that, on both sides of the page, over and over.
+several.

rant on

One has intellectual curiosity and has grown immensely as a candidate during the last couple of years as an active campaigner. And his popularity has grown immensely as people have gotten to know him. And he's put it out there and been thoroughly vetted by the press and public. The other has (or is happy to appear to have) a pretty static view of the world and was a two-week flash in the pan who's popularity has tanked as people have gotten to know her (or NOT gotten to know her as she's been unwilling to hold even ONE press conference - Joe the frickin' plumber has been FAR more accessible to the press!).

Questioning Obama's experience and having doubts about him as a result is a legitimate issue, particularly compared to Hillary or McCain - both of them have been around the block and know a LOT and Obama's had to prove to voters that he was as good or better than them despite a relative lack of experience. So far, he appears to have convinced considerably more people than not. In comparison, Palin hasn't proven squat to most voters and probably wasn't intended to - she was picked to fire up the base and maybe pick off those few women for whom having a woman on the ticket was more important than who she is (there are not many such women, evidently). She's done and continues to do her job of firing up the base but has been steadily losing popularity among everyone else since she was picked, after an initial bout of curiosity. There are SO MANY qualified and knowledgeable Republican women who would have been better candidates if McCain wanted to pick a woman. They've done a valiant but apparently pained job of trying to defend her publicly - far better than she's done in her own defense. But she could see Russia? To me, the level of cynicism in that VP pick told me all I needed to know about country first.

Sorry, I usually try to be more of a commentator (with very obvious preferences) than direct critic, but McCain has really bummed me out. He has spent his career as a serious guy who's done a lot of what I considered good and a lot of things I didn't like, but approached them seriously and seemingly from a position of principle. I've liked him a LOT despite often disagreeing with him for most of his career. But he's lost my respect as a presidential candidate to an extent that I couldn't have imagined. In a way that Ford, Reagan, and Dole never did. Bush 41 lost my respect with his Willie Horton approach to the campaign despite also having been a serious guy and pretty good president. Bush 43 never had my respect to lose. But McCain had a LOT of it and has squandered it, mostly with his Palin pick. On the off chance he gets elected, I hope he governs better than he's campaigned. And DAMN I hope he stays alive.

rant off.

-Ray

[Ray]

the point is current tax rates are nowhere near what they have been through much of the century. They are freakish. Is it a coincidence that this low current rate, this coddling of the wealthy, comes at a time of economic catastrophe? As Obama often says, he only wants to roll back the Bush cuts which helped create this mess, take it back to a Reagan-era ratio. There will still be country clubs, I would think.
+ several more

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Obama's proposal to raise the rates on those over $250K from 36 to 39 percent? This is still incredibly low by historic or global standards. Its Clintonian level, no? I didn't see the economic "engine" too horribly disabled by those taxes then. And the budget was balanced (yeah, I know, with help from the Republican congress and a very favorable tech bubble that hadn't yet burst).

You tax the rich more than everyone else for the same reason you rob banks - that's where the money is. I get the arguments against progressive taxation. But I don't buy them. When I've been fortunate enough to make good money, I didn't mind the slightly higher taxes - I could afford them. Now that I don't make as much, I'd be hurt more by them. But frankly, I'm no where near poor enough to object to higher taxes if I needed to pay them. I also agree that the tax code is far too complex, but that's not the same as having a few steps of progressivity in it.

I realize that $250k is not enormous wealth in America. But its still in the top, what, 1-2% in the world? Probably the top .1%, but I don't have the statistics handy. In any case, it IS enormous wealth compared to how just about anyone else lives or has ever lived. And having cash-flow issues at $250k because you've developed expensive tastes just doesn't dredge up a lot of sympathy. Sorry. We, as Americans, live EXTREMELY well based on our dominance of global resources. My family income is now down below 100K but we're debt free, the kids have largely moved on, and I consider us to be VERY comfortable. Due to a very conscious decision not to evolve ever more and more expensive tastes (except for food!). Small condo, small cars, small vacations, etc, have not made us any less happy and I'd say jumping onto a much slower treadmill has made us far MORE happy. That's not a choice that anybody else has to make. But choices have consequences and if you're able to and choose to maximize your earning potential, I can't see getting too worked up over a 3% jump in income taxes for those who can afford it. That's my philosophy anyway. I guess I'm a socialist.

-Ray

[bnewt07]

A question from 'over then pond'.

We have no TV debates of leaders head-to-head like this during our General Election. Lots of reasons mooted, not least that it is more seen as a party v party contest rather than person v person.

Do they 'matter' to the US electorate? Are they looked upon by interested voters as key moments, or are they about air time and column inches?

Should the UK adopt a bit (more) from the USA!

[soulspinner]

+ several more

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Obama's proposal to raise the rates on those over $250K from 36 to 39 percent? This is still incredibly low by historic or global standards. Its Clintonian level, no? I didn't see the economic "engine" too horribly disabled by those taxes then. And the budget was balanced (yeah, I know, with help from the Republican congress and a very favorable tech bubble that hadn't yet burst).

You tax the rich more than everyone else for the same reason you rob banks - that's where the money is. I get the arguments against progressive taxation. But I don't buy them. When I've been fortunate enough to make good money, I didn't mind the slightly higher taxes - I could afford them. Now that I don't make as much, I'd be hurt more by them. But frankly, I'm no where near poor enough to object to higher taxes if I needed to pay them. I also agree that the tax code is far too complex, but that's not the same as having a few steps of progressivity in it.

I realize that $250k is not enormous wealth in America. But its still in the top, what, 1-2% in the world? Probably the top .1%, but I don't have the statistics handy. In any case, it IS enormous wealth compared to how just about anyone else lives or has ever lived. And having cash-flow issues at $250k because you've developed expensive tastes just doesn't dredge up a lot of sympathy. Sorry. We, as Americans, live EXTREMELY well based on our dominance of global resources. My family income is now down below 100K but we're debt free, the kids have largely moved on, and I consider us to be VERY comfortable. Due to a very conscious decision not to evolve ever more and more expensive tastes (except for food!). Small condo, small cars, small vacations, etc, have not made us any less happy and I'd say jumping onto a much slower treadmill has made us far MORE happy. That's not a choice that anybody else has to make. But choices have consequences and if you're able to and choose to maximize your earning potential, I can't see getting too worked up over a 3% jump in income taxes for those who can afford it. That's my philosophy anyway. I guess I'm a socialist.

-Ray


Bravo, well said.

[cdimattio]

Perhaps I don't understand your wording, but if you mean Estate taxes should be increased, I can't agree with this at all. My parents both died recently, I am the Trustee, we were not a rich family, and still (even with the $1M and then $1.5M (current) exemption, which we were nowhere near) between the IRS's idiotic, interminable and unfathomable comportment and the Estate Attorney's exorbitant fees, which increase w/IRS delays) my 2 brothers and I will basically net very little of what my parents worked hard to help us have in fact a better life, that we would have been aided in without this insane and stressful situation. Sorry, but my parent's legacy and capital would be FAR better off in my hands (I could have started an office, etc.; it is what I have worked for my entire adult life) than in the hands of the IRS and the Estate Attorneys....

Second, there is no proof, afaik, that offspring are not equally capable of creating wealth. I have no idea of the second-generation success/failure ratio, but it seems that a lot of successful businesses (look at newspapers, for instance) are in the hands of offspring for generations, no?

There is ample data to suggest a 70% or higher failure ratio among small business in a second generation.

Estate Taxes do carry an unfortunate burden of compexity like the rest of the tax code. In the US, billions and great minds are wasted on accountants and attorneys in unproductive activity related to byzantine tax codes.

Full circle to my original thought that tax simplification is the real issue. Raise the nominal rates and the wrong people are penalized. The top 1% will continue to have tax strategy to insulate themselves from any progressive rate increase. Tax simplification remains a more important topic than tax rates.

Aside from the complexity issue, I remain unsure why increasing taxes on earned dollars is more fair than increasing taxes on inherited dollars.

[RPS]

This may not be the answer you are looking for but:
intelligence, having a more open mind, exhibiting better leadership qualities, having a clearer world-view, and showing a demonstration of growth through-out the campaign process: O has improved, imho, while Palin has become an albatross whose greatest contribution to has been to bolster Tina Fey's career.Not the answer I wanted but the one I expected.

If you read your reply, you’ll see that it’s completely subjective -- which is the point I was trying to make. A resume should reflect accomplishments people have actually succeeded at, proving they had the capacity to do so, and “maybe” the capacity to take on more. When a person has accomplished great things it shouldn’t be too hard to state it objectively, right?

Your description, as well as Ray’s, is based on liking Obama. Those who like Palin can take the same approach and subjectively make her seem more qualified. Repeating that he/she can walk on water as an opinion doesn’t do it for me. I want tangible accomplishments. Actually, I expect them from everyone involved in this process. Sorry if that's too much to ask.

[sjbraun]

Just what executive experience does Mr McCain have?
He's run a Senate office for many years, but beyond that, his executive resume is pretty weak. To claim he has more experience than Obama seems a bit of a stretch to me. He doesn't seem to have the education or intellectual background that Obama has and his decision making, at least in this campaign seems somewhat unthoughtful. (The man likes to boast, "I'm a gambler." Is that a desirable quality in the President of the United States?)

Personally, I prefer thoughtful over impulsive.

Steve

[Ray]

Your description, as well as Ray’s, is based on liking Obama. Those who like Palin can take the same approach and subjectively make her seem more qualified.
You're right. That's what its based on. McCain and Biden have long legislative careers with a few big accomplishments and a slew of little ones. Obama has a short legislative career with a couple of big achievements and more little ones. Palin has a short executive career with a couple of big achievements and I'm sure several smaller ones. But, as we've discussed before, none of this necessarily qualifies anyone for president. Its a uniquely difficult job. Ideally, someone would have both extensive executive experience AND an intimate knowledge of national policy issues, which probably means some combination of having been a governor and senator or congress-person. I don't remember a candidate like that - most have been one or the other.

Some of our best presidents have had extensive experience as have some of our worst. Some of our best have had damn little experience, as have some of our worst. So it comes down to a gut call, hopefully an informed one. A huge part of it has to do with whether you agree with the candidate on most of the issues but assuming you do, another big part of it just comes down to whether you feel in your gut that they have the combination of intellect, integrity, guts, empathy, and whatever other personal attributes you value to be up to the job.

All we can go on at this point is polls - since he started his campaign, Obama has gotten progressively more popular. Palin has gotten progressively less popular. In this case, I share the popular opinion - in many cases I have not. Whether we elect McCain or Obama, only time will tell whether our guts were right or wrong.

I guess this is all a very long way of saying there's just no objective measure for this stuff that's ever worked very well, as much as you or I might like there to be one.

-Ray

[michael white]

[QUOTE=RPS] I want tangible accomplishments.
QUOTE]

Beating the likes of the Clintons and the GOP, uniting a national electorate and international audience, invigorating voters, so far, on a pretty unprecendented level, dealing with race in profound, sensitive ways . . .

these seem tangible to some voters, maybe not to others. But so far the former outnumber the latter. :)

[Joellogicman]

[QUOTE=RPS] I want tangible accomplishments.
QUOTE]

Beating the likes of the Clintons and the GOP, uniting a national electorate and international audience, invigorating voters, so far, on a pretty unprecendented level, dealing with race in profound, sensitive ways . . .

these seem tangible to some voters, maybe not to others. But so far the former outnumber the latter. :)

The job of administering the US is far to complicated for one person. The president does not singlehandedly run the administration. The president manages a team that runs the administration.

The Obama campaign is remarkably well organized. It is very adept at using technology. It has been able to out fundraise well established democrats and McCain - a reversal of fortune for a democrat over the past few presidential campaigns.

I expect the same well organized approach will manifest itself in cabinet selections and addressing the serious problems the US faces both abroad and domestically. I am no future teller, but I expect the US will see a refreshing change from the haphazzard, always partisan, and often inept style of management we have all witnessed over the past eight years.

[johnnymossville]

RPS, you gotta admit, Barrack has grown as a candidate. He dumped his racist church of 20 years "That's not the Man I knew!" uhuh, don't be silly Barry (Oprah even went a few times and decided it wasn't for her. Gee I wonder why?) and threw pretty much every America Hating buddy "He's just a guy in the neighborhood!" of his since youth under the bus (well, except his wife and she's pretty well hidden right now until after the election. He needs her). Speaking of which, where's Joe the Senator (It's about that three letter word J-O-B-S guy?) He's also changed his mind on drilling for oil, softened his stance on late term abortions and leaving botched abortion babies to die in hospital closets. He even gave some halfhearted nod towards school choice the other night. He's coming around slowly. Don't get me wrong, I said he's "grown" as a "candidate." Anything he says now is for votes only. His strange twisted radical leftist upbringing is still in there.

Funny how the reporting is all over Joe the Plumber the last couple days, yet almost nobody bothered to go interview William Ayers. We practically know the plumber's life story, yet are being kept from seeing what kind of hate came out of and still comes out of "Barrack's Pal" Ayers. "I thought he was rehabilitated!" The guy who it turns out quite possibly at least helped write or inspired the writing style of his own books.

Barrack still has no record to speak of whatsoever, which oddly enough, is probably his biggest strength. All those votes of "present" were for one reason only, so he could be on either side of any issue for the day he ran for president. Oh, he is good at giving speeches written by other people. That's cool. He's also got a good handle on class warfare "We gotta spread some of the wealth around!" (funny, he gave less than 1% of his own wealth to charity before running for office and can't take care of his own poor brother in Africa) and the subtleties of playing the race card. "He's got a funny name. He doesn't look like all those other Presidents on dollar bills!" Face it, nobody plays the race card like those Democrats! They've mastered it and are the only ones keeping it going for their own profit. He may have been right about the war, (debatable) but even there, I suspect if he was in any kind of position to actually vote on the war (again no experience) in the beginning he would have went along with Hillary and the rest of the Democrats who voted for it (or maybe voted present). It's easy to say something from the sidelines on war. After all, nobody likes war.

That said, the Republicans have been LOUSY for too many years!

If the Republicans hadn't acted like Democrats for the last 10 years, this race wouldn't even be close. Fannie and Freddie are Socialist Ideas Gone Wild and the Republicans went right along with it forcing banks to give loans to people that didn't qualify, not to mention the rest of us as we gleefully watched our house values rise artificially (faux capitalism) because of it, refinanced and blew the cash on stuff we didn't need. Now we are paying for it. We (conservatives) are getting exactly what we deserve here, which is a good thing in the long run I hope.

I'm still voting for the other guy though. I can guarantee he and his running mate, with warts and all, do indeed put country first. They have real records of being reformers willing to work across party lines and even against their own party when necessary. Call me a naive hick from the hills, but that matters to this voter.

[goonster]

[...] racist [...] America Hating buddy [...] late term abortions [...] leaving botched abortion babies to die in hospital closets [...]strange twisted radical leftist upbringing [...] William Ayers [...] [...] "Barrack's Pal" Ayers [...] class warfare [...] spread some of the wealth around [...] poor brother in Africa [...] playing the race card [...] race card [...] Socialist Ideas Gone Wild [...] forcing banks to give loans [...]

http://www.picpile.net/ims/pic_264UD99M/39587.jpg


Let me just say that current events are proving that apparently you can't force banks to make loans even if you give them billions of dollars.

[Ray]

Call me a naive hick from the hills....
OK, you're a naive hick from the hills. :)

I hope nobody here ever plans to run for anything because if you do, your past associations are gonna getcha. You've all been hanging out with me for a few years now and haven't "left the committee" as it were. And I'm a domestic terrorist myself. I blew up a billboard once (actually I just drove the getaway car - I was skeered of the explosives). I was a stupid college kid in a fit of Monkey Wrench Gang fury in the late '70s and we took that sucker down. Made a hell of a lot of noise too and made the papers the next day. We were careful to do it at a time when nobody would be hurt and nobody was. I wouldn't do it again, but I can't say I regret it, so I guess that makes me unrepentant. I've done good and positive works since then, but I'd be a stain on anyone running for office. I have a few friends that have had careers in politics, but none of them ever dared run for president. And I know I was the anchor around their necks - they knew as soon as they rose to that level, the scandal of having associated with me would bite them in the ass.

Damn, what power - this is a FUN game!

-Ray

[benb]

No one here could run for office, we're all doomed like Kerry for riding stinking bicycles.

[Joellogicman]

If the Republicans hadn't acted like Democrats for the last 10 years, this race wouldn't even be close. Fannie and Freddie are Socialist Ideas Gone Wild and the Republicans went right along with it forcing banks to give loans to people that didn't qualify, not to mention the rest of us as we gleefully watched our house values rise artificially (faux capitalism) because of it, refinanced and blew the cash on stuff we didn't need. Now we are paying for it. We (conservatives) are getting exactly what we deserve here, which is a good thing in the long run I hope.

No bank was being forced to loan money to any one, qualified or not.

If the reference is to the Community Reinvestment Act, it is high time 'conservatives' stop reading wacky blogs or listening to wild claims on radio and get actual facts.

CRA only applies to FDIC banks, most of the CRA recepients are in carefully monitored programs, CRA loans have not defaulted in numbers anywhere near the overall current default rate, nor do they make up a significant percentage of the current default portfolio. More significantly, CRA recepients are vetted through programs that are quite draconian. Most have to have pre-loan training, are screened rigorously, and then have to remain in oversight programs for years after taking their loans. In exchange, the banks get to retain their FDIC status. Retaining FDIC status is both voluntary, and - especially now - lucrative to banks.

The bulk of the subprime loans were made by non-FDIC institutions with little or no regulatory oversite and certainly no federal compulsion. Yes, some politicians expressed their hope that a greater percentage of working class people might become home owners. But that is a far cry from forcing. As it is, I fully expect the financial historians will show the majority of the subprime debt was not so much people borrowing who could not afford to buy a home, but rather otherwise solvent people borrowing under the assumption homes in rapidly growing appreciating areas would continue to appreciate. When the bubble burst, they all fell down.

[RPS]

You're right. That's what its based on.RPS, you gotta admit, Barrack has grown as a candidate.Yes and yes (I think :confused: ); but guys, please understand I’m not supporting or criticizing either side here – I’m not taking sides in this fight. I was merely pointing out what I perceived as illogical reasoning when someone implied that Obama is more qualified than Palin as if it was a matter of fact – which in my opinion is not. Whether one is more qualified than the other is immaterial to me because I see both as inadequate for the job based on many factors beyond just the ones that keep coming up in this forum.

By the way, when it comes to experience and being tested under fire, one could argue that the lowly major of Houston (a Democrat if you must know) has more applicable experience than either Obama or Palin. He’s had more time on the job, runs a city with extensive international ties, presides directly over a larger population, and has led the city through at least two natural disasters. Although not perfect, he’s done a good job managing a city with a population many times greater than Alaska.

But would I vote for him as president based on qualifications? Of course not. :beer:

[michael white]

OK, you're a naive hick from the hills. :)

I hope nobody here ever plans to run for anything because if you do, your past associations are gonna getcha. You've all been hanging out with me for a few years now and haven't "left the committee" as it were. And I'm a domestic terrorist myself. I blew up a billboard once (actually I just drove the getaway car - I was skeered of the explosives). I was a stupid college kid in a fit of Monkey Wrench Gang fury in the late '70s and we took that sucker down. Made a hell of a lot of noise too and made the papers the next day. We were careful to do it at a time when nobody would be hurt and nobody was. I wouldn't do it again, but I can't say I regret it, so I guess that makes me unrepentant. I've done good and positive works since then, but I'd be a stain on anyone running for office. I have a few friends that have had careers in politics, but none of them ever dared run for president. And I know I was the anchor around their necks - they knew as soon as they rose to that level, the scandal of having associated with me would bite them in the ass.

Damn, what power - this is a FUN game!

-Ray

Also, better pay me to keep quiet, those of you running for council! Why?
well for starters, I actually went AWOL from the US Navy for a chick back in the 70's, and GET THIS: I AM NOT EVEN SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And wait! there's MORE!

[Tobias]

An important ingredient missing from this powder keg is PRIDE. Where has American pride gone? Seriously; does it even exist anymore? And I don't mean the pride that comes from feeling good by helping others, but pride in being your own man/woman.

Unquestionably every time redistribution of wealth is debated it is presented as if those who will pay more taxes should resist it (are expected to resist it), and the poor who will receive more benefits should support it.

Maybe it’s being too proud on my part, but I don’t want help from the rich just because they can afford it without having to sacrifice. I want to pay my share whether it’s more difficult for me than the rest of you.

As an example, how many of you would go out to dinner in Aspen after skiing all day, and if you happen to end up in the same restaurant where Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are eating (just pretend you can afford being at the same place :rolleyes: ), expect them to pay your bill? Just because they are worth over $100 billion combined should they pick up the tab for everyone eating there on the basis they can afford it much easier than other patrons? (Cycling analogy, would you want a good climber pushing you up a hill on your next club ride, or do you want to make it on your own even if slower? Doesn’t the hard work make you stronger for the next ride?)

If Bill and Warren treated me to dinner I would accept it and thank them, but I sure as heck wouldn’t expect it. And I certainly wouldn’t walk up to them and request they do – I’m just to freaking proud. Isn’t that exactly what we are debating here?

No matter how we spin facts, Obama supports redistribution of wealth. He's made that quite clear. And so does Buffett – who of course can afford it. But the real problem is that Buffett supports Obama’s plan while he keeps paying less taxes than his help. And yes, I know that he’s promised to leave it all to charity, but why hasn’t he done it already instead of waiting until he dies? Could it be that he likes being the richest man on Earth? Does he like the power to influence the next president? What makes his wealth so special that he should keep his but others pay more?

The super rich (elite Democrats like Gates and Buffett) indeed do not pay their share, but they support redistribution of wealth from the tax-paying middle class (the base of the Republican party) to the minority-front-loaded poor (the voting base of the Democratic party).

Statements like the ones below make absolutely no sense to me. They appear completely inconsistent when viewed in proper context (granted my context is not the same as anyone else’s :rolleyes: ).I have no sympathy. I have 0 sympathy especially for the upper 2 percentile super-rich and the corporations.

Perhaps Joe and Mc need to visit the garment district in L.A. or a potato farm in Idaho

[Kirk007]

I've always been proud to be able to pay my taxes, even if the gov't often foolishly misuses that revenue. I also take pride in the fact that I was raised in a family where it was viewed as an honor and obligation to be able to support our nation consistent with our financial means, which were not much but no one in our family ever bitched about it. When I made twice what I make now I had no problem in paying incrementally more taxes; maybe not jumping for joy about it but certainly none of the rage I see from the right. Living in this country is a privilege, and not free. I completely get not being sympathetic for folks making north of 250K complaining of the incremental nature of our tax scheme. QUite the opposite, I see such complaining as largely the result of greed and misplaced sense of entitlement.

[benb]

As an example, how many of you would go out to dinner in Aspen after skiing all day, and if you happen to end up in the same restaurant where Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are eating (just pretend you can afford being at the same place :rolleyes: ), expect them to pay your bill? Just because they are worth over $100 billion combined should they pick up the tab for everyone eating there on the basis they can afford it much easier than other patrons? (Cycling analogy, would you want a good climber pushing you up a hill on your next club ride, or do you want to make it on your own even if slower? Doesn’t the hard work make you stronger for the next ride?)

If Bill and Warren treated me to dinner I would accept it and thank them, but I sure as heck wouldn’t expect it. And I certainly wouldn’t walk up to them and request they do – I’m just to freaking proud. Isn’t that exactly what we are debating here?


Too funny.. I saw them (the Gates) in a P.F. Chang's, no one bothered them. Everyone on this board can apparently afford to eat like them.

Did you have earplugs in your ears *every* time Buffet & Gates have appeared on TV stating the tax code is a joke and their taxes should be raised? McCain wants to give them a bigger tax cut then the guy making $250k-600k/yr.

[tomwd3]

I've always been proud to be able to pay my taxes, even if the gov't often foolishly misuses that revenue. I also take pride in the fact that I was raised in a family where it was viewed as an honor and obligation to be able to support our nation consistent with our financial means, which were not much but no one in our family ever bitched about it. When I made twice what I make now I had no problem in paying incrementally more taxes; maybe not jumping for joy about it but certainly none of the rage I see from the right. Living in this country is a privilege, and not free. I completely get not being sympathetic for folks making north of 250K complaining of the incremental nature of our tax scheme. QUite the opposite, I see such complaining as largely the result of greed and misplaced sense of entitlement.

I believe he was sayin the increase was from 36% to 39%.
I don't NET 250k (and I don't know any 2 man plumbing contractors who do)
But I feel that is a very small price to pay to give Gov't a chance to boost some of the less fortunate who are WORKING to get ahead (small business loans, small business tax credit & similar).
He wasn't talking about giving this money away at the local homeless shelter.
It was to help small business to get started.

[Joellogicman]

No matter how we spin facts, Obama supports redistribution of wealth. He's made that quite clear.

Actually, Obama has made quite clear that while there are many programs - such as improving education, urban infrastructure, energy independence, mass transit, etc. he supports, the massive budget deficit from fighting two wars, enhanced greatly by the recent bail outs, limit what his presidency can do. The US has to pay its bills. Seemingly no one wants to be the one who pays.

And so does Buffett – who of course can afford it. But the real problem is that Buffett supports Obama’s plan while he keeps paying less taxes than his help. And yes, I know that he’s promised to leave it all to charity, but why hasn’t he done it already instead of waiting until he dies? Could it be that he likes being the richest man on Earth? Does he like the power to influence the next president? What makes his wealth so special that he should keep his but others pay more?

Buffet has given away billions already. He lives a decidedly low key life style. One reason he has not given everything away now is that he is probably convinced as long as he is spry he can do a better job increasing the numbers than a charity board of directors.


The super rich (elite Democrats like Gates and Buffett) indeed do not pay their share, but they support redistribution of wealth from the tax-paying middle class (the base of the Republican party) to the minority-front-loaded poor (the voting base of the Democratic party).

You make some broad generalizations there that I doubt stand up to statistical scrutiny. Yes there are some real rich democrats. There are also many real rich Republicans.

Your suggestion the democrats are largely minority (oh my!) front loaded poor while the republicans are hard working tax payers is not sustainable. Many of the blue states are largely middle class working people. On the other hand, the deep south which still has the largest concentrations of poor (minority or otherwise) has been solidly republican since the Reagan era.

[harlond]

He's also changed his mind on drilling for oil, softened his stance on late term abortions and leaving botched abortion babies to die in hospital closets. He even gave some halfhearted nod towards school choice the other night. He's coming around slowly. Don't get me wrong, I said he's "grown" as a "candidate." Anything he says now is for votes only.This would be a more significant criticism if McCain hadn't done so much flip-flopping over the last 8 years as he wooed the religious right base.

Funny how the reporting is all over Joe the Plumber the last couple days, yet almost nobody bothered to go interview William Ayers. We practically know the plumber's life story, yet are being kept from seeing what kind of hate came out of and still comes out of "Barrack's Pal" Ayers.There's plenty of interviews of Ayers on the web if you look. It's funny you express skepticism about Ayer's rehabilitation, but aren't asking about interviews of Charley Keating, the man from whom McCain took bribes.

Barrack still has no record to speak of whatsoever, which oddly enough, is probably his biggest strength. All those votes of "present" were for one reason only, so he could be on either side of any issue for the day he ran for president. Dub had far less of a record in 2000, but I bet that didn't stop you from voting for him. By 2004, Dub had quite a record, and I bet that didn't stop you from voting for him either.

Face it, nobody plays the race card like those Democrats! They've mastered it and are the only ones keeping it going for their own profit.Harold Ford says hi.

That said, the Republicans have been LOUSY for too many years!No argument there.

If the Republicans hadn't acted like Democrats for the last 10 years, this race wouldn't even be close. Fannie and Freddie are Socialist Ideas Gone Wild and the Republicans went right along with it forcing banks to give loans to people that didn't qualify, not to mention the rest of us as we gleefully watched our house values rise artificially (faux capitalism) because of it, refinanced and blew the cash on stuff we didn't need. Now we are paying for it. We (conservatives) are getting exactly what we deserve here, which is a good thing in the long run I hope.I agree that the Republicans are not conservative. How your continued support of the Republicans fixes that is not clear to me.

I'm still voting for the other guy though. I can guarantee he and his running mate, with warts and all, do indeed put country first.Self-contradictory statement, Palin-wise.

They have real records of being reformers willing to work across party lines and even against their own party when necessary.You can find examples of Obama going against his party if you look.

Far and away the most significant statement in your whole long post is that the Republicans have been lousy for too many years, and that's the one thing that is NOT affecting your vote. Really, feeling as you do, shouldn't you be voting for Bob Barr or somebody else? Makes no sense.

[sloji]

What is not said is always more poignant than what is said. The context of the debate is the story and not the players on the stage. America is rebelling at the grass roots level and they voted with their dollars...they voted to walk away from mortgages and soon they will walk away from their credit cards and the stink will reach all the way up to heaven. (think the movie The Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino railing against God.)

The current bailout is a last ditch effort in the class war; prisons haven't worked, materialism is failing, the lottery economy has been exposed and noone is to blame...just ask a lawyer! The for profit medical system and it's largest insurer AIG had to be bailed out so that doesn't work. Hawaii's government sponsored program is now failing.

The solution is coming in the form of noone, not one, truly believing in these candidates but we do believe in rebellion and it's happening beneath our feet in every city in America. People are walking away from their debts because they no longer believe ...the ballots have already been cast and the rest is a foregone conclusion.


What debate? I saw two can's-o-beans...

[malcolm]

What is not said is always more poignant than what is said. The context of the debate is the story and not the players on the stage. America is rebelling at the grass roots level and they voted with their dollars...they voted to walk away from mortgages and soon they will walk away from their credit cards and the stink will reach all the way up to heaven. (think the movie The Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino railing against God.)

The current bailout is a last ditch effort in the class war; prisons haven't worked, materialism is failing, the lottery economy has been exposed and noone is to blame...just ask a lawyer! The for profit medical system and it's largest insurer AIG had to be bailed out so that doesn't work. Hawaii's government sponsored program is now failing.

The solution is coming in the form of noone, not one, truly believing in these candidates but we do believe in rebellion and it's happening beneath our feet in every city in America. People are walking away from their debts because they no longer believe ...the ballots have already been cast and the rest is a foregone conclusion.


What debate? I saw two can's-o-beans...


Not sure I follow all this. I agree with the assessment of the debates.

[Ray]

What is not said is always more poignant than what is said. The context of the debate is the story and not the players on the stage. America is rebelling at the grass roots level and they voted with their dollars...they voted to walk away from mortgages and soon they will walk away from their credit cards and the stink will reach all the way up to heaven. (think the movie The Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino railing against God.)

The current bailout is a last ditch effort in the class war; prisons haven't worked, materialism is failing, the lottery economy has been exposed and noone is to blame...just ask a lawyer! The for profit medical system and it's largest insurer AIG had to be bailed out so that doesn't work. Hawaii's government sponsored program is now failing.

The solution is coming in the form of noone, not one, truly believing in these candidates but we do believe in rebellion and it's happening beneath our feet in every city in America. People are walking away from their debts because they no longer believe ...the ballots have already been cast and the rest is a foregone conclusion.


What debate? I saw two can's-o-beans...
How is not paying your debt rebellion? Its just not paying your debt because you're over-extended. Some of these folks at the low end were talked into it by predatory lenders and didn't know any better and I have some amount of sympathy for them. But lots and lots of people just bought more than they could afford because they thought it would always just keep going up and the equity would support the debt. And gravity re-asserted itself like it always does and a lot of people got caught with nothing under their feet (like the coyote in the roadrunner cartoons). And credit card debt is just spending beyond your means. That's not rebellion - that's just getting caught in a bad situation of your own making. I don't see any moral high ground in this.

-Ray

[Tobias]

Did you have earplugs in your ears *every* time Buffet & Gates have appeared on TV stating the tax code is a joke and their taxes should be raised? McCain wants to give them a bigger tax cut then the guy making $250k-600k/yr.Not at all; I heard clearly. I'm asking why do they not actually pay more -- in line with what they "say" they should be paying. Who keeps them from paying more?

benb, when people are that rich, there are simple ways to shelter one's income (not in the sense of grocery and rent money like most Americans need, but in the sense that it adds to one's total worth). And it's perfectly legal, ethical, and moral. They simply use laws in effect so that at the end of the day many of them end up much richer than in the morning and yet don't pay a cent of income tax.

IMO the entire tax system needs a makeover.

[Joellogicman]

Some of these folks at the low end were talked into it by predatory lenders and didn't know any better and I have some amount of sympathy for them. But lots and lots of people just bought more than they could afford because they thought it would always just keep going up and the equity would support the debt. And gravity re-asserted itself like it always does and a lot of people got caught with nothing under their feet (like the coyote in the roadrunner cartoons). And credit card debt is just spending beyond your means. That's not rebellion - that's just getting caught in a bad situation of your own making. I don't see any moral high ground in this.

-Ray

Yes. A good percentage of the default portfolio includes people who borrowed as much as they could to buy homes in any other economic time frame they never could have bought. They were assisted by developers, mortgage brokers, and appraisers who were either caught up in the euphoria and lost track of their common sense (yeah, right) or deliberately played the system for what they could take (my money is on the latter).

My hope is Congress, the FBI, etc. fully investigate who did what. If they fail to, however, I am certain scholars will and there will be good books and articles on the topic in the years to come.

I predict right now that the majority of the foreclosures will be the result of speculation, people who lost jobs, suffered unexpected medical or other financial set backs and not because the government forced banks to loan to poor people.

[93legendti]

This would be a more significant criticism if McCain hadn't done so much flip-flopping over the last 8 years as he wooed the religious right base.

There's plenty of interviews of Ayers on the web if you look. It's funny you express skepticism about Ayer's rehabilitation, but aren't asking about interviews of Charley Keating, the man from whom McCain took bribes.

Dub had far less of a record in 2000, but I bet that didn't stop you from voting for him. By 2004, Dub had quite a record, and I bet that didn't stop you from voting for him either.

Harold Ford says hi.

No argument there.

I agree that the Republicans are not conservative. How your continued support of the Republicans fixes that is not clear to me.

Self-contradictory statement, Palin-wise.

You can find examples of Obama going against his party if you look.

Far and away the most significant statement in your whole long post is that the Republicans have been lousy for too many years, and that's the one thing that is NOT affecting your vote. Really, feeling as you do, shouldn't you be voting for Bob Barr or somebody else? Makes no sense.

If you like b.o., or always vote Dem., that's great, but let's not pretend he's anything other than a say anything to get elected socialist who wants to spread the wealth - at the cost of those who have wealth:

"...The Illinois senator shrewdly understands, for instance, that one of the appeals of both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts was that they were cuts for everyone who paid taxes.
And so he promises to cut taxes for almost everyone — 95% of Americans, he claims — when in fact he proposes refundable tax credits as disguised welfare payments for people with incomes so low they already pay no taxes.

He warned that "we've been living beyond our means," yet plans $293 billion in new annual spending, including at least $100 billion for health insurance alone. Even health experts who favor a single-payer system say the scheme has no meaningful cost containment.

Barack "I believe in free trade" Obama opposes the free trade deal with our ally, Colombia. The pact means a billion-dollar tariff cut on U.S. goods to create jobs for Americans.

His rationale for standing against it: Colombian "labor leaders have been targeted for assassination," therefore "we have to stand for human rights . . . which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement." He and running mate Sen. Joe Biden missed the vote on the Peru pact; close Obama adviser Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., voted against it.

As for Peru, the State Department reports "abuse of detainees and inmates by police and prison security forces," along with "harsh prison conditions . . . attacks on the media by local authorities . . . violence and discrimination against women; violence against children, including sexual abuse; trafficking in persons."

So the human rights alibi doesn't cut it. Does Obama, like so many other Democrats in Congress, resent the Bush administration working with Colombia to fight guerrilla narco-terrorists?

When Americans enter the voting booth, they would do well to think not of Obama's cleverly misleading words, but of his record as Congress' most liberal senator."

[Charles M]

AND...


Lets not pretend that Mc Cain and Palin are not simply twisting facts and trying for misdirection...


I Voted Republican 2 of the last 3 Times

I am in Arizona and have a large exposure to McCain...


I would rather vote for a brite guy that seems to think and act more presidential (0BAMA) than vote for for a guy that is so plainly depending on fabrication and misdirection as his foundation(McCain).


Frankly I am embarassed that John McCain is from and represents my state.


But rather than keep up the huge amount of useless bull***** that has no place here, I'll stick to the OP.


Yes I watched the last debate. Yes McCain did better than the first two. No I don't think he would make a better president that 0bama

[harlond]

If you like b.o., or always vote Dem., that's great, but let's not pretend he's anything other than a say anything to get elected socialist who wants to spread the wealth - at the cost of those who have wealth:And what is McCain but a say anything to get elected socialist for the rich? Coming from the right, the socialism charge falls pretty flat these days.

[malcolm]

I've always been proud to be able to pay my taxes, even if the gov't often foolishly misuses that revenue. I also take pride in the fact that I was raised in a family where it was viewed as an honor and obligation to be able to support our nation consistent with our financial means, which were not much but no one in our family ever bitched about it. When I made twice what I make now I had no problem in paying incrementally more taxes; maybe not jumping for joy about it but certainly none of the rage I see from the right. Living in this country is a privilege, and not free. I completely get not being sympathetic for folks making north of 250K complaining of the incremental nature of our tax scheme. QUite the opposite, I see such complaining as largely the result of greed and misplaced sense of entitlement.

I don't think many folks want or need your sympathy. I feel no rage and will pay what I have to. I just don't like the way it is assessed. Funny you mention entitlement, you seem to feel entitled to my money or at least telling my why I should be happy to give it away. Nobody over the 250k mark is happy and most under seem thrilled that we should have to pay more. I guess I would feel better about it if I thought it were being used wisely. I love this country and will always support it. I just think there has to be a better less complex tax structure.

[Joellogicman]

Barack "I believe in free trade" Obama opposes the free trade deal with our ally, Colombia. The pact means a billion-dollar tariff cut on U.S. goods to create jobs for Americans.

His rationale for standing against it: Colombian "labor leaders have been targeted for assassination," therefore "we have to stand for human rights . . . which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement." He and running mate Sen. Joe Biden missed the vote on the Peru pact; close Obama adviser Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., voted against it.

As for Peru, the State Department reports "abuse of detainees and inmates by police and prison security forces," along with "harsh prison conditions . . . attacks on the media by local authorities . . . violence and discrimination against women; violence against children, including sexual abuse; trafficking in persons."

So the human rights alibi doesn't cut it. Does Obama, like so many other Democrats in Congress, resent the Bush administration working with Colombia to fight guerrilla narco-terrorists?

When Americans enter the voting booth, they would do well to think not of Obama's cleverly misleading words, but of his record as Congress' most liberal senator."

is also closely working with the current administration to fight Narco-Terrorists in that country. Given what you report from the state department, Bush and Crew do not seem overly concerned about human rights records of those they support, eh?

In any event, bilateral agreements between one or two countries does not free trade make. Free trade needs to be worked on a global scale through existing and truly international organizations, not just between the US and its friends.

[Tobias]

And what is McCain but a say anything to get elected socialist for the rich? Coming from the right, the socialism charge falls pretty flat these days. :confused: The richest men in the US are Democrats (Buffett and Gates) and support Obama. How do you think he is outspending McCain by a wide margin? And since the deepest pockets in the nation are Dems and not Reps, what exactly does your statement mean?

Moderates and Republicans have already conceded the election to BO, so rejoice in your victory.

[Tobias]

And so he promises to cut taxes for almost everyone — 95% of Americans, he claims — when in fact he proposes refundable tax credits as disguised welfare payments for people with incomes so low they already pay no taxes.I’ll have to check into how much I’d get since this may be the best time ever to take an extended sabbatical. Why wait until retirement to ride my bike, get in shape, learn a new hobby, spend time with family, and travel to national treasures when I can get the government to pay for a portion of it now while I’m young enough to enjoy it. It's not like I need much, and can supplement the rest from savings.

[Joellogicman]

:confused: The richest men in the US are Democrats (Buffett and Gates) and support Obama. How do you think he is outspending McCain by a wide margin? And since the deepest pockets in the nation are Dems and not Reps, what exactly does your statement mean?

Moderates and Republicans have already conceded the election to BO, so rejoice in your victory.

There is a limit to how much individuals can donate to politicians and Obama does not take PAC money.

Obama is outspending McCain by a wide margain because Obama's organization has proven far better at getting individuals to donate to his campaign on line.

[sloji]

How is not paying your debt rebellion? Its just not paying your debt because you're over-extended. Some of these folks at the low end were talked into it by predatory lenders and didn't know any better and I have some amount of sympathy for them. But lots and lots of people just bought more than they could afford because they thought it would always just keep going up and the equity would support the debt. And gravity re-asserted itself like it always does and a lot of people got caught with nothing under their feet (like the coyote in the roadrunner cartoons). And credit card debt is just spending beyond your means. That's not rebellion - that's just getting caught in a bad situation of your own making. I don't see any moral high ground in this.

-Ray

When a wage slave rebels it's highly moral. You assume that credit card debt is living beyond your means when for a wage slave it's survival in the form of paying for medical bills. I see it everyday in the thousands and there is little luxury in paying 24%.

[malcolm]

Most people that could be considered wage slaves, probably would't have a credit card with a high enough limit to pay medical bills.

[sloji]

happens all the time ....I have one sitting on my desk right now, credit card companies make money by lending to those that can't afford to repay.

[malcolm]

what is the credit limit?
I think the goal is to have you max it out the make the minimum payment not default.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[sloji]

what is the credit limit?
I think the goal is to have you max it out the make the minimum payment not default.
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2008/03/maxed-out-movie-about-credit-cards-my-cynical-review.html

There is a movie maxed out that plays on this topic of how credit is used and abused and there is more than meets the eye going on. We have a caste system in America, read a bit of sociology and you'll see that whatever SES you are born into you will most likely die in.

Kings and serfs have always existed and nothing has changed. I'm a serf and though I joke about this topic and have for the past few posts there is some truth to these arguments.

[Kirk007]

Funny you mention entitlement, you seem to feel entitled to my money.

And how is this? I'm not receiving any government entitlements. I don't buy this wealth redistribution schtick. Its too simplistic of a generalization of complex social dynamics.

Nobody over the 250k mark is happy and most under seem thrilled that we should have to pay more.

When I was in this bracket I may not have been "happy" about it but I didn't begrudge the payments I made, although I did begrudge how they were spent.

I guess I would feel better about it if I thought it were being used wisely. I love this country and will always support it. I just think there has to be a better less complex tax structure.

Agree completely. Add to that responsible government where politicians actually do what is good for the country rather than what is good for their careers and reelection. I hope I live to see that day but I'm not opportunistic.

[Joellogicman]

So, I'm curious: of all the past Presidents, which one do you think had the "best" resume' and the most "tangible accomplishments" prior to being elected AND which then resulted in an effective and progressive (by that I mean successfully moving forward, not liberal, just to clarify) term or terms in office?

Looking at history, it is difficult to say which tangible accomplishment is an adequate indication of what will yield a great President.

Look at three Presidents with similar Pre-POTUS backgrounds, that is, the most important General of armed forces in combat at dire times for the nation: Washington, Grant, Eisenhower.

Washington's presidency is shrouded in birth of the nation mythos, but I think most historians will agree Washington is best remembered for what he did not do as POTUS - aggrandize himself and otherwise take on the trappings of aristocracy which ruled most of the rest of the world - than what he did.

Grant's presidency was an unmitigated disaster. While personally above question, he seemed unable to keep the lowest level of thieves out of the highest levels of his administration. He did nothing to address the failures of Reconstruction which caused such grief in the South and continued to harm the US as a whole through at least the 1970s.

Eisenhower was a caretaker POTUS at a time when the US enjoyed an unprecedented advantage in capital and manufacturing that a still war shaken world was far from catching up to. But while times were good for some, Ike stood on the sidelines while McCarthy flamed up paranoia and hate that did the nation no good. He did little to oppose the Jim Crow laws that so oppressed the thousands of the African-American soldiers who served so well under him in Europe. And curiously, he waited until he stepped down to say anything about the Military-Industrial Complex he apparently saw as a threat to the nation.

Looking at some of the intangibles in their background, you may find some clues about their different legacies. But even that is cloudy.

Washington was apparently a mid-level intellect with a humble demeanor and a strong sense of honor. Nevertheless, he owned slaves.

Grant almost flunked West Point, suffered bouts of alcoholism and probably depression. On the other hand, recent military historians are strongly arguing his generalship was brilliant. He was a very good writer. And his drawing ability, while not at the level of an Audobon or Picasso was very good.

Ike did well in West Point. His European theatre leadership in WWII is on record - although it is hard to argue he made many decisions that made more sense politically than to the war at hand. He cheated on the Mrs. Unlike Washington and Grant, he never did or tried much of anything in the private sector.

Seems to me the intangibles may have said as much or more about these three POTUSs than the tangibles.

[RPS]

Without posting the quotes, you have used the words "theory", "my perspective", "I think", "maybe" in your previous posts here: those are all as subjective as my own words are.Cadence, discussing or debating the merits of an opinion is one thing, but arguing and bickering whether the person is “wrong” for having that opinion is something entirely different. When the tone changes in that direction civility goes out the door IMHO.

Although not always successful, I try my best to differentiate between opinions and factual matters. When I use terms like those above I normally do so intentionally to clarify that I’m aware that it’s only my subjective opinion.

Hence, I’ll try to preface an opinion like “I think Palin is better looking than Obama”, but factually state “Obama is taller than Palin”. I do it intentionally to avoid pointless arguments, but apparently it isn’t working.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[malcolm]

Kirk007, I think we agree. It's not the money I mind as much as the way I think it is inefficiently used.

[michael white]

Hence, I’ll try to preface an opinion like “I think Palin is better looking than Obama”, but factually state “Obama is taller than Palin”. I do it intentionally to avoid pointless arguments, but apparently it isn’t working.


personally, I'm not that interested in either one's looks. But we need to see if Palin can hit a three-pointer. Maybe that's why they kept her under lock and key. . . she can't score?

[Tobias]

But we need to see if Palin can hit a three-pointer. Maybe that's why they kept her under lock and key. . . she can't score?How about let them duel it out with paintball long guns – unless you think Obama wouldn’t know which end of a rifle to hold. :rolleyes: