PDA

View Full Version : Elections Has Anyone Here Changed Their Minds?


Flustrated
10-30-2008, 07:23 PM
On who you will vote for for president? I pretty much ran from D.C. after Ronnie got pounded. To me, it really doesn't matter who wins now. They both have good and bad things I like and dislike about them. So with all the "persuasive" posts we've had in D.C. over the past six months has anyone swayed you one way or the other?

Poll on da way....

KILLER_CLOWN
10-30-2008, 07:27 PM
Yes i was on the fence between writing in Ron Paul and selecting Chuck Baldwin. I voted for Baldwin. :D

|Zach|
10-30-2008, 07:27 PM
I was really wishy washy until McCain's campaign slogan was carved into my cheek. At that point I felt that this guy was a real 'go getter' and should lead this nation.

BucEyedPea
10-30-2008, 07:31 PM
I briefly considered McCain from all the socialist language of Obama. But then a NeoCon put a thread up on another board calling for mass murder of Persians and that slammed me back to reality. So I'm back to 3P. Believe me it was very, very brief flirtation. The both scare the hell outta me now.

|Zach|
10-30-2008, 07:34 PM
I briefly considered McCain from all the socialist language of Obama. But then a NeoCon put a thread up on another board calling for mass murder of Persians and that slammed me back to reality. So I'm back to 3P. Believe me it was very, very brief flirtation. The both scare the hell outta me now.

So a NeoCon (which to you is everyone) put a post on a board that from the sound of it was batshit crazy and THAT is what swayed you from McCain?

Ok.

BucEyedPea
10-30-2008, 07:36 PM
So a NeoCon (which to you is everyone) put a post on a board that from the sound of it was batshit crazy and THAT is what swayed you from McCain?

Ok.

Everyone is not a NeoCon to me. It is a particular persuasion that is dominant right now. Nice strawman and generality though.

That thread alone did not sway me, on the spot, it simply reminded me of what these dudes want to do since all the talk recently has been focused on Obama here.

Ultra Peanut
10-30-2008, 07:43 PM
I supported Obama in 2007.

I am pleased with my choice.

MTG#10
10-30-2008, 07:48 PM
I havent changed my mind about who Im voting for, still going with McCain. But I have changed my attitude about Obama if he does win. Before it was "we'll all be screwed, he'll never be my president". Now its "I'll support the leader of my country until he gives me a reason not to" - which probably wont take long.

|Zach|
10-30-2008, 07:52 PM
Everyone is not a NeoCon to me.



Sure.

Adept Havelock
10-30-2008, 07:58 PM
Yes. I'm voting the straight Whig ticket. Daniel Webster for President!

Flustrated
10-30-2008, 08:00 PM
I havent changed my mind about who Im voting for, still going with McCain. But I have changed my attitude about Obama if he does win. Before it was "we'll all be screwed, he'll never be my president". Now its "I'll support the leader of my country until he gives me a reason not to" - which probably wont take long.

I was all for McCain when he ran aginst Bush, but he has flopped on so many of the things he stood for then, that I fear he'll just continue to pander to the same groups that have caused him to change his stance. I don't agree with much of what Obama stands for, but I like the fact he has less political ties with lobbiests. This will be my first Democratic vote for president. So, I'll probably end up kicking myself in the ass as soon as I walk out of the booth. He really can't do anything too liberal without 60%. And something's better than nothing imo.

RJ
10-30-2008, 08:00 PM
I havent changed my mind about who Im voting for, still going with McCain. But I have changed my attitude about Obama if he does win. Before it was "we'll all be screwed, he'll never be my president". Now its "I'll support the leader of my country until he gives me a reason not to" - which probably wont take long.



Rep to you.

irishjayhawk
10-30-2008, 08:02 PM
Everyone is not a NeoCon to me. It is a particular persuasion that is dominant right now. Nice strawman and generality though.

That thread alone did not sway me, on the spot, it simply reminded me of what these dudes want to do since all the talk recently has been focused on Obama here.

ORLY?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-30-2008, 08:47 PM
ORLY?

Yes?

DaFace
10-30-2008, 08:54 PM
Your poll options leave something to be desired.

Flustrated
10-30-2008, 09:08 PM
Your poll options leave something to be desired.

yeah, i need to go to the rainman school of poll-building. I'm horrible.

DaFace
10-30-2008, 09:16 PM
yeah, i need to go to the rainman school of poll-building. I'm horrible.

Eh well. I voted for the first one, since I don't refuse to vote republican. In fact, I voted for Dubya in 2000. However, I've been an Obama supporter to some extent pretty much the whole time this time around.

Donger
10-30-2008, 09:18 PM
Eh well. I voted for the first one, since I don't refuse to vote republican. In fact, I voted for Dubya in 2000. However, I've been an Obama supporter to some extent pretty much the whole time this time around.

Curious, how is Rain Man going to vote?

RJ
10-30-2008, 09:23 PM
Since I don't like the poll, I'll just say......no.

Flustrated
10-30-2008, 09:26 PM
Eh well. I voted for the first one, since I don't refuse to vote republican. In fact, I voted for Dubya in 2000. However, I've been an Obama supporter to some extent pretty much the whole time this time around.

I voted for W both times, and after his speech to the nation after 9/11 I had goosebumps. I really thought he meant what he said when he told America those that hit us were gonna pay. I really thought he was serious about catching Bin Laden and ridding the world of Alqada (or however it's spelled these days). It really made me take notice when Pat Buchanon started predicting that Bush would use 9/11 to go after Sadam. When it happened it really made me open my eyes to Bush. That said, he was still a better option in 04 than Kerry.

Logical
10-30-2008, 09:28 PM
I changed my mind but not one of your options. I decided to vote for Obama as a protest vote against Palin.

DaFace
10-30-2008, 09:31 PM
Curious, how is Rain Man going to vote?

If I had to guess, I'd say he'll vote for McCain. However, I've not asked him specifically.

Donger
10-30-2008, 09:33 PM
If I had to guess, I'd say he'll vote for McCain. However, I've not asked him specifically.

So, you are actually "giving it to the man" literally. For shame.

DaFace
10-30-2008, 09:34 PM
So, you are actually "giving it to the man" literally. For shame.

I'm pretty sure Mrs. Rain Man is voting for Obama, so I'll leave the "giving" up to her.

Flustrated
10-30-2008, 09:37 PM
I changed my mind but not one of your options. I decided to vote for Obama as a protest vote against Palin.

damn! I should thought of that option...rofl

Donger
10-30-2008, 09:37 PM
I'm pretty sure Mrs. Rain Man is voting for Obama, so I'll leave the "giving" up to her.

ROFL

Logical
10-30-2008, 09:41 PM
damn! I should thought of that option...roflTouche

Rain Man
10-30-2008, 09:42 PM
If I had to guess, I'd say he'll vote for McCain. However, I've not asked him specifically.


I have already voted for McCain, though it was a very difficult decision. In many ways, I think Obama is the better candidate, and McCain's campaign is so poorly conceived that it gives me pause about whether he really knows what he's doing. But in the end, it comes down to taxes, and Obama's tax policy and other proposed anti-business policies will be a big hardship on my business and those of other businesses like mine, as well as being inherently unfair. I don't think this is the right time for the Feds to shut down business growth.

Also, I did it just to see our coworker from Berkeley's head explode.

Donger
10-30-2008, 09:44 PM
I have already voted for McCain, though it was a very difficult decision. In many ways, I think Obama is the better candidate, and McCain's campaign is so poorly conceived that it gives me pause about whether he really knows what he's doing. But in the end, it comes down to taxes, and Obama's tax policy and other proposed anti-business policies will be a big hardship on my business and those of other businesses like mine, as well as being inherently unfair. I don't think this is the right time for the Feds to shut down business growth.

Also, I did it just to see our coworker from Berkeley's head explode.

As have I. I did draw a large, turd-like object on my "mail-in" ballot, however.

Rain Man
10-30-2008, 09:44 PM
Eh well. I voted for the first one, since I don't refuse to vote republican. In fact, I voted for Dubya in 2000. However, I've been an Obama supporter to some extent pretty much the whole time this time around.

Don't be bringing terrorists and tax collectors to the office. Consider that a formal warning.

Rain Man
10-30-2008, 09:45 PM
As have I. I did draw a large, turd-like object on my "mail-in" ballot, however.


They're going to think you cast a vote for Senator Salazar.

2bikemike
10-30-2008, 09:47 PM
Your poll options leave something to be desired.

Agreed, Not everybody has Rainmans mad poll making skills. However I would choose to answer with "I have decided I dislike all our choices"

Dallas Chief
10-30-2008, 09:48 PM
FWIW, I still plan on voting for McCain. However, I don't plan to vote until 11/4. I don't ever vote early so I can let it play out. Things can change right up to the end. I don't think I'll change my stance, but you never know. I have warmed slightly to Obama, he seems like a pretty smart guy and comes off as somewhat genuine. The experience thing still gets me though when I find my self even considering a switch. I just can't get past the fact that the only thing he has ever done was run a pretty sharp campaign for POTUS.

Mecca
10-30-2008, 09:50 PM
I think experience is a little overrated it's not like McCain has been president before which is why that desk and chair ad they did made me crack up.

Donger
10-30-2008, 09:53 PM
They're going to think you cast a vote for Senator Salazar.

It was actually pretty funny. There was a lady in front of me at the DMZ that was acting like a CIA operative making a dead-drop. I followed her out to her car and stared at her very intently as she drove off, making note of her license plate number.

Flustrated
10-30-2008, 09:53 PM
FWIW, I still plan on voting for McCain. However, I don't plan to vote until 11/4. I don't ever vote early so I can let it play out. Things can change right up to the end. I don't think I'll change my stance, but you never know. I have warmed slightly to Obama, he seems like a pretty smart guy and comes off as somewhat genuine. The experience thing still gets me though when I find my self even considering a switch. I just can't get past the fact that the only thing he has ever done was run a pretty sharp campaign for POTUS.

I was one of those that thought W was genuine...hopefully my luck is better this time around. Although I really don't see much of anything changing too drastically. I don't think either candidate has the combination of leadership or support within their partys to really accomplish any thing too drastic.

wazu
10-30-2008, 10:03 PM
My mind pretty much only changes between Republicans and Libertarians.

Guru
10-30-2008, 10:15 PM
You are missing the options of I am voting against McCain or against Obama.

Flustrated
10-30-2008, 10:26 PM
You are missing the options of I am voting against McCain or against Obama.

We already covetred the,"Flustrated sucks at making polls part of this discussion."

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 10:32 PM
I was going to vote for McCain, essentially with the mindset, "I'm conservative, I should vote Republican." Then, I decided to try to learn about the issues and ended up voting for Baldwin.

Guru
10-30-2008, 10:37 PM
We already covetred the,"Flustrated sucks at making polls part of this discussion."

You can still update it.;)

Dallas Chief
10-30-2008, 10:55 PM
I think experience is a little overrated it's not like McCain has been president before which is why that desk and chair ad they did made me crack up.

I guess I wasn't clear. It's not the fact that he doesn't have presidential experience. I mean who really does, unless you are the incumbent? He has only been a US Senator for a couple of years- two of which he spent running for POTUS. What has he done? What has he accomplished? Any important legislation named after him? Having great ideas- or at least what he thinks are great ideas- does not qualify one for the highest office. You have to have done something- run a state, reached across the aisle, be a leader in your own party/caucus. Something? If I am wrong here then give me something that proves otherwise. I've looked and read and can't find anything meaningful...:shrug:

HolmeZz
10-30-2008, 11:35 PM
FWIW, I still plan on voting for McCain. However, I don't plan to vote until 11/4. I don't ever vote early so I can let it play out. Things can change right up to the end. I don't think I'll change my stance, but you never know. I have warmed slightly to Obama, he seems like a pretty smart guy and comes off as somewhat genuine. The experience thing still gets me though when I find my self even considering a switch. I just can't get past the fact that the only thing he has ever done was run a pretty sharp campaign for POTUS.

I thought experience was a winning argument for McCain.

Then he picked Palin. I know it's not the end all and be all, but I don't know how the idea of Palin potentially being President doesn't run through your head if you're going to pull the lever for McCain. And he brought that on himself.

HolmeZz
10-30-2008, 11:37 PM
Did BWillie click the wrong option? I thought he was an Obama guy.

Dallas Chief
10-31-2008, 12:54 AM
I thought experience was a winning argument for McCain.

Then he picked Palin. I know it's not the end all and be all, but I don't know how the idea of Palin potentially being President doesn't run through your head if you're going to pull the lever for McCain. And he brought that on himself.

Voting for him for POTUS, not her. Does she need to grow and learn? Absolutely. VP is a great place for that. She has just as much, if not more, experience as Obama. We'll see what happens in a couple of days I guess...

Mecca
10-31-2008, 01:29 AM
Voting for him for POTUS, not her. Does she need to grow and learn? Absolutely. VP is a great place for that. She has just as much, if not more, experience as Obama. We'll see what happens in a couple of days I guess...

That would be a great argument if John McCain wasn't the oldest man running for president ever, he could legit die.

In all fairness we've had some very good presidents who had little experience, FDR is a good example, you have to know if a guy has a first class mind or not, that means more than tons of years in Washington.

DaneMcCloud
10-31-2008, 01:29 AM
Voting for him for POTUS, not her. Does she need to grow and learn? Absolutely. VP is a great place for that. She has just as much, if not more, experience as Obama. We'll see what happens in a couple of days I guess...

Yeah, she's "governed". There's as many people in her state as there are in a 5 mile radius of my home.

Does that mean the my City Councilman is ready to be Vice President? My Mayor?

Would you vote for a ticket with Alcalde Villaraigosa?

Please answer honestly.

He's far more experienced than Palin.

FAR more.

Guru
10-31-2008, 01:40 AM
Yeah, she's "governed". There's as many people in her state as there are in a 5 mile radius of my home.

Does that mean the my City Councilman is ready to be Vice President? My Mayor?

Would you vote for a ticket with Alcalde Villaraigosa?

Please answer honestly.

He's far more experienced than Palin.

FAR more.

I think more information would be needed to make that decision.

DaneMcCloud
10-31-2008, 01:44 AM
I think more information would be needed to make that decision.

The point being that it's there and readily available.

Palin's truly like an SNL character at this point. She's done nothing to elevate her stature since being nominated. Instead, she's played directly into the hands of the opposing party and her detractors.

I can absolutely guarantee you that Tony Villa would be out there kicking ass and barring any real gaffes, he'll run in 2012 or 2016.

But the point was that there are far more qualified people out there than Palin.

IMO, she's an insult to truly successful and smart women everywhere.

CHIEF4EVER
10-31-2008, 03:22 AM
That would be a great argument if John McCain wasn't the oldest man running for president ever, he could legit die.

In all fairness we've had some very good presidents who had little experience, FDR is a good example, you have to know if a guy has a first class mind or not, that means more than tons of years in Washington.

LMAO at bolded part.

KCJohnny
10-31-2008, 03:43 AM
In all fairness we've had some very good presidents who had little experience, FDR is a good example, you have to know if a guy has a first class mind or not, that means more than tons of years in Washington.

State Senator, VP Candidate, Governor of NY. Yeah. Resume was paper thin.

:rolleyes:

MTG#10
10-31-2008, 04:39 AM
FWIW, I still plan on voting for McCain. However, I don't plan to vote until 11/4. I don't ever vote early so I can let it play out. Things can change right up to the end. I don't think I'll change my stance, but you never know. I have warmed slightly to Obama, he seems like a pretty smart guy and comes off as somewhat genuine. The experience thing still gets me though when I find my self even considering a switch. I just can't get past the fact that the only thing he has ever done was run a pretty sharp campaign for POTUS.

Is this the same liberal Dallas Chief from Chiefshuddle?

patteeu
10-31-2008, 08:02 AM
Curious, how is Rain Man going to vote?

I don't know, but I'd imagine he'll have the good sense to fire anyone who votes for Obama.

Baby Lee
10-31-2008, 08:14 AM
I have already voted for McCain, though it was a very difficult decision. In many ways, I think Obama is the better candidate, and McCain's campaign is so poorly conceived that it gives me pause about whether he really knows what he's doing. But in the end, it comes down to taxes, and Obama's tax policy and other proposed anti-business policies will be a big hardship on my business and those of other businesses like mine, as well as being inherently unfair. I don't think this is the right time for the Feds to shut down business growth.

Also, I did it just to see our coworker from Berkeley's head explode.

I don't know if I can go as far as to vote FOR Obama, but this has gone from schadenfruede to torture porn. I'm weighing the effects of the fiscal devastation I strongly believe from an Obama presidency against the mental meltdown I strongly believe if Obama loses. Is a McCain presidency [McCain? really?] worth all the disappointment of all those people for whom this is so important. They're already bearing scars from 2000 and 2004. Maybe the best thing for right now is to give them Obama, let them exult, free up all that baggage, hope like hell things go well and concurrently hope like hell 2012 isn't too far away, and things don't change too drastically, if things go the way I believe they will.

whoman69
10-31-2008, 08:57 AM
yeah, i need to go to the rainman school of poll-building. I'm horrible.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. What kind of poll doesn't have a Gaz option?

Dallas Chief
10-31-2008, 09:28 AM
Is this the same liberal Dallas Chief from Chiefshuddle?

Apparently not...

Dallas Chief
10-31-2008, 09:40 AM
Yeah, she's "governed". There's as many people in her state as there are in a 5 mile radius of my home.

Does that mean the my City Councilman is ready to be Vice President? My Mayor?

Would you vote for a ticket with Alcalde Villaraigosa?

Please answer honestly.

He's far more experienced than Palin.

FAR more.

That's up to you to decide if he is ready to be your mayor. I have never heard of the guy, so that'd be your area of expertise.

I don't think the population of a politician's represented district or state really has any relevance. Are not all representatives (HoR) equal in the eyes of the Constitution, regardless of the population of their district? I mean, they all have ONE vote. Right? Same with Senators. Isn't that the point of a representative government? Equal representation? Regardless of headcount, she is the Chief Executive of anf has very high approval ratings.

Dallas Chief
10-31-2008, 09:49 AM
That would be a great argument if John McCain wasn't the oldest man running for president ever, he could legit die.


Possibly. So could Obama. He could fall ill. Lung cancer from smoking? Then what? Reagan served until he was in late 70's right? To me that argument has a little bit of ageism bent to it. Ted Kennedy is 76 and gravely ill, has anyone called for him to resign? Check out this list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age


I'm just sayin...

jidar
10-31-2008, 10:17 AM
Unfortunately none of the options apply to me.

HolmeZz
10-31-2008, 01:19 PM
Voting for him for POTUS, not her. Does she need to grow and learn? Absolutely. VP is a great place for that. She has just as much, if not more, experience as Obama. We'll see what happens in a couple of days I guess...

She's not even in the same ballpark as him when it comes to knowledge, grasp, and competence in discussing the issues. If she had shown herself to be the experience argument wouldn't have much of an impact against her. But the fact that McCain had spent months attacking Obama's 'lack of experience', only to pick someone with marginal experience and a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues continues to hurt him. And your desire to not want to come to grips with that fact is clouding your judgment in this regard. If you're really concerned about the idea of Obama being President because of experience, you can't not have that concern about the real possibility of Palin leading the country if something happened to McCain.

DaFace
10-31-2008, 06:15 PM
I don't know, but I'd imagine he'll have the good sense to fire anyone who votes for Obama.

Heh...I don't think that would go over very well. We're a pretty young and relatively liberal group, so I'd be surprised if more than 20% of our staff vote for McCain. :)

patteeu
10-31-2008, 06:24 PM
Heh...I don't think that would go over very well. We're a pretty young and relatively liberal group, so I'd be surprised if more than 20% of our staff vote for McCain. :)

Rain Man carries a heavy burden. He must be some kind of saint. ;)

kstater
10-31-2008, 06:28 PM
I voted for W both times, and after his speech to the nation after 9/11 I had goosebumps. I really thought he meant what he said when he told America those that hit us were gonna pay. I really thought he was serious about catching Bin Laden and ridding the world of Alqada (or however it's spelled these days). It really made me take notice when Pat Buchanon started predicting that Bush would use 9/11 to go after Sadam. When it happened it really made me open my eyes to Bush. That said, he was still a better option in 04 than Kerry.

I fully expect McCain and Bush to hold a press conference Monday holding bin Laden's head on a stick.

kstater
10-31-2008, 06:29 PM
I have already voted for McCain, though it was a very difficult decision. In many ways, I think Obama is the better candidate, and McCain's campaign is so poorly conceived that it gives me pause about whether he really knows what he's doing. But in the end, it comes down to taxes, and Obama's tax policy and other proposed anti-business policies will be a big hardship on my business and those of other businesses like mine, as well as being inherently unfair. I don't think this is the right time for the Feds to shut down business growth.

Also, I did it just to see our coworker from Berkeley's head explode.

I think you have a valid point. I think a lot of people are going to vote based on economic policy. For me personally, my choice came down to my current situation, and how I think Obama's policy will benefit me more than McCain's.

patteeu
10-31-2008, 06:33 PM
I think you have a valid point. I think a lot of people are going to vote based on economic policy. For me personally, my choice came down to my current situation, and how I think Obama's policy will benefit me more than McCain's.

My experience has been that Obama's supporters tend to be more selfish than McCain supporters. You fit my profile.

kstater
10-31-2008, 06:36 PM
My experience has been that Obama's supporters tend to be more selfish than McCain supporters. You fit my profile.

Well, if voting for a candidate that I believe will be best for me, then yes, I guess I'm guilty.

To be honest, I can't really think of any other way to vote. I guess I'm missing something.

DaFace
10-31-2008, 06:41 PM
My experience has been that Obama's supporters tend to be more selfish than McCain supporters. You fit my profile.

So...it's OK for Rain Man to vote for McCain due to the effects on McCain's tax plan being more beneficial, but it's not OK for kstater to do the same due to Obama's tax plan?

alanm
10-31-2008, 06:48 PM
I havent changed my mind about who Im voting for, still going with McCain. But I have changed my attitude about Obama if he does win. Before it was "we'll all be screwed, he'll never be my president". Now its "I'll support the leader of my country until he gives me a reason not to" - which probably wont take long.
That's has always been my attitude even when I don't agree with the Presidents politics or the party in power. Especially since in my former job the President in effect was my boss.

Flustrated
10-31-2008, 07:54 PM
So...it's OK for Rain Man to vote for McCain due to the effects on McCain's tax plan being more beneficial, but it's not OK for kstater to do the same due to Obama's tax plan?

That's a great point. If you remember correctly, talk radio said the same types of things about Slick Willy. His tax policies will destroy America....blah blah blah. Then when the economy did well, they gave full credit to Gingrich, the Republican led congress, and Regan's policies from 8 years prior. The truth is, the Republicans had the White House, the Senate, and Congress, and did absolutely nothing to help middle America. Look where our economy is now. The way I see it, we either need a Dem in the White House with a Republican congress, or vice versa. Or, we could simply get Jesse Ventura or a like-minded independant in there and make the 2 partys do what's right for America and not the special interests that own them.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 08:02 AM
Well, if voting for a candidate that I believe will be best for me, then yes, I guess I'm guilty.

To be honest, I can't really think of any other way to vote. I guess I'm missing something.

I admire people who vote on the basis of what they believe is good for the country regardless of whether or not that coincides with their short-term, personal self-interest.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. - JFK

patteeu
11-01-2008, 08:13 AM
So...it's OK for Rain Man to vote for McCain due to the effects on McCain's tax plan being more beneficial, but it's not OK for kstater to do the same due to Obama's tax plan?

Knowing how much of an awesome boss Rain Man must be*, I'm confident that he's voting in the interest of all of his dearly loved employees. And on a larger scale, he's also able, because of his experience creating and growing a successful business, to understand what will help business flourish in this country and what will not. It helps all of us if business flourishes in this country, especially the vast majority of us who depend on business for our livelihoods.

-------------------
*You don't need to comment on this if you don't want to. :p

Ultra Peanut
11-01-2008, 08:23 AM
I have warmed slightly to Obama, he seems like a pretty smart guy and comes off as somewhat genuine. This is a serious question: Do you get that same feeling from McCain?

tiptap
11-01-2008, 08:40 AM
I admire people who vote on the basis of what they believe is good for the country regardless of whether or not that coincides with their short-term, personal self-interest.


But you don't get to decide for others what they consider is best for the country. It may well coincide with their short term interests or not. But it makes it more palatable when does.

DaFace
11-01-2008, 09:01 AM
I admire people who vote on the basis of what they believe is good for the country regardless of whether or not that coincides with their short-term, personal self-interest.

Knowing how much of an awesome boss Rain Man must be*, I'm confident that he's voting in the interest of all of his dearly loved employees. And on a larger scale, he's also able, because of his experience creating and growing a successful business, to understand what will help business flourish in this country and what will not. It helps all of us if business flourishes in this country, especially the vast majority of us who depend on business for our livelihoods.

-------------------
*You don't need to comment on this if you don't want to. :p

The problem is that you're assuming your preferred philosophy of trickle-down economics works and that the alternative of trickle up economics is flawed. That premise is hardly universally accepted, and without it, your argument that Obama supporters are being selfish doesn't hold water.

I'm certainly not guaranteeing that one is better than the other. If I could do that, we wouldn't need to have all these debates about which tax policy would be better - it would just be a given. My point is that you can't go criticizing people who buy into the philosophy don't like as being selfish while simultaneously assuming people who buy into the philosophy of the opposition are doing what's good for the country. The fact is, we simply don't know which is best.

Regarding your first sentence, I have no doubt that Rain Man is voting for what he feels is best for the country, and I've never been one to blame people who vote for "the other guy." I'm just saying you have no business criticizing others in this thread unless you can prove without a doubt that Obama's approach will not work - and not just that you don't like it or don't think it's fair.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 09:06 AM
But you don't get to decide for others what they consider is best for the country. It may well coincide with their short term interests or not. But it makes it more palatable when does.

I understand that some rare Obama supporters will have their hearts in the right place, but just won't think things through enough to vote the right way. That's not the case here though:

I think you have a valid point. I think a lot of people are going to vote based on economic policy. For me personally, my choice came down to my current situation, and how I think Obama's policy will benefit me more than McCain's.

BTW, I don't mean to be too hard on kstater. I don't think selfishness is that uncommon nor do I think it's entirely bad (some degree of selfishness is absolutely essential to a functioning capitalist economy). Furthermore, there are selfish voters on the McCain side of this divide too, it's just that I've noticed more selfishness among Obama voters.

Baby Lee
11-01-2008, 09:08 AM
I admire people who vote on the basis of what they believe is good for the country regardless of whether or not that coincides with their short-term, personal self-interest.

And I should?

I don't know if I can go as far as to vote FOR Obama, but this has gone from schadenfruede to torture porn. I'm weighing the effects of the fiscal devastation I strongly believe from an Obama presidency against the mental meltdown I strongly believe if Obama loses. Is a McCain presidency [McCain? really?] worth all the disappointment of all those people for whom this is so important. They're already bearing scars from 2000 and 2004. Maybe the best thing for right now is to give them Obama, let them exult, free up all that baggage, hope like hell things go well and concurrently hope like hell 2012 isn't too far away, and things don't change too drastically, if things go the way I believe they will.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 09:11 AM
The problem is that you're assuming your preferred philosophy of trickle-down economics works and that the alternative of trickle up economics is flawed. That premise is hardly universally accepted, and without it, your argument that Obama supporters are being selfish doesn't hold water.

I'm certainly not guaranteeing that one is better than the other. If I could do that, we wouldn't need to have all these debates about which tax policy would be better - it would just be a given. My point is that you can't go criticizing people who buy into the philosophy don't like as being selfish while simultaneously assuming people who buy into the philosophy of the opposition are doing what's good for the country. The fact is, we simply don't know which is best.

Regarding your first sentence, I have no doubt that Rain Man is voting for what he feels is best for the country, and I've never been one to blame people who vote for "the other guy." I'm just saying you have no business criticizing others in this thread unless you can prove without a doubt that Obama's approach will not work - and not just that you don't like it or don't think it's fair.

Of course I assume that my view of what's good for the country is right. We all do that. But that's not the issue here and it's not at all essential to my point that I be right. You've misread the debate. Maybe my last post will help clear things up for you.

DaFace
11-01-2008, 09:14 AM
Of course I assume that my view of what's good for the country is right. We all do that. But that's not the issue here and it's not at all essential to my point that I be right. You've misread the debate. Maybe my last post will help clear things up for you.

All I'm saying is that you are reading kstater's statement that he's voting for what's good for him personally as "I'm voting for the one that helps me out, and damn the rest of the country!" while simultaneously reading Rain Man's statement as "I'm voting for the one that helps me out, and that's good for the rest of the country!" That's all. I just think your bias is driving your reactions.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 09:18 AM
And I should?

That's a call we each have to make for ourselves. If you're asking me how to vote, I could try to get you to vote for the guy I prefer, but I can't tell you which of your contemplated paths will actually pan out for the greater good. The important thing, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that your analysis is based on more than just self-interest.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 09:30 AM
All I'm saying is that you are reading kstater's statement that he's voting for what's good for him personally as "I'm voting for the one that helps me out, and damn the rest of the country!" while simultaneously reading Rain Man's statement as "I'm voting for the one that helps me out, and that's good for the rest of the country!" That's all. I just think your bias is driving your reactions.

First of all, that's not all you were saying. At first you were saying that I was doing something I wasn't doing. You were saying that my argument depended on my personal opinion about what's good for the country actually being right, which it doesn't.

Second, I disagree that kstater's professed reason for voting is indistinguishable from Rain Man's. kstater was clear that his/her reason for voting Obama was based on self-interest. Rain Man has included self-interest among the arguments he's made for why he cast his vote, but he also included arguments about how business, in general, will be affected by Obama's tax plans and the negative repercussions that such plans can have.

It also helps that I know Rain Man and know that he's neither an ideologue nor selfish (as I'm confident you'd agree). If you'd have based your argument on someone else I might have had to express uncertainty about his motivations for voting, but Rain Man happens to be a special case.

Rain Man
11-01-2008, 02:49 PM
Knowing how much of an awesome boss Rain Man must be*, I'm confident that he's voting in the interest of all of his dearly loved employees. And on a larger scale, he's also able, because of his experience creating and growing a successful business, to understand what will help business flourish in this country and what will not. It helps all of us if business flourishes in this country, especially the vast majority of us who depend on business for our livelihoods.

-------------------
*You don't need to comment on this if you don't want to. :p


Hey. Why didn't DaFace comment on this?

Rain Man
11-01-2008, 03:00 PM
I don't know if I can go as far as to vote FOR Obama, but this has gone from schadenfruede to torture porn. I'm weighing the effects of the fiscal devastation I strongly believe from an Obama presidency against the mental meltdown I strongly believe if Obama loses. Is a McCain presidency [McCain? really?] worth all the disappointment of all those people for whom this is so important. They're already bearing scars from 2000 and 2004. Maybe the best thing for right now is to give them Obama, let them exult, free up all that baggage, hope like hell things go well and concurrently hope like hell 2012 isn't too far away, and things don't change too drastically, if things go the way I believe they will.


I've pondered that as well. The shrill screaming by the radical left would be deafening for another four years. It may be worth seeing Obama get elected just so the country can present a united front internationally for a few years, rather than have people constantly undermining the presidency and American policy from within. That has gotten really old.

I find it interesting that since the television era began in 1960 (just to use an arbitrary breakpoint) we've had five Democrat presidents elected and seven Republican presidents elected. I wonder if that balance is inevitable as people get tired of incumbent powers, or if it's an unusual phenomenon. One would generally expect that over time one would simply get more members and win more often, but it doesn't seem to work that way, and that's a good thing.

DaneMcCloud
11-01-2008, 03:12 PM
That's up to you to decide if he is ready to be your mayor. I have never heard of the guy, so that'd be your area of expertise.

I don't think the population of a politician's represented district or state really has any relevance. Are not all representatives (HoR) equal in the eyes of the Constitution, regardless of the population of their district? I mean, they all have ONE vote. Right? Same with Senators. Isn't that the point of a representative government? Equal representation? Regardless of headcount, she is the Chief Executive of anf has very high approval ratings.

Are kidding me? It's completely relevant!

Question: Would you vote for a ticket with a city Mayor as VP? Because Palin's serving a state of 600,000. Many cities across America have mayors that preside over more people and several who govern over millions and millions of people.

Not to pump him up but Antonio Villarogosa has been the mayor of Los Angeles since 2005. He's served in the State Assembly and was the Speaker of the Assembly & a city councilman before being elected mayor. He also served as one of Hillary Clinton's advisor. The point is that a guy like Tony Villa has served in state and local government in a state of 40 million people and is the mayor a city of 20 million people. He's far more experienced than Palin, yet IMO, there's no way he's ready to be VP of the USA.

In a state of only 600,000 citizens, there are many obstacles she's never had to face. Serious violent crimes, hate crimes, natural disasters that could affect millions of lives, diversity and so on. As I stated earlier, more people live in a 5 mile radius of my home in Los Angeles than live in the entire state of Alaska. How could you possibly think that's not relevant to becoming VP of the USA?

IMO, she's hardly worthy of a VP spot. And there's no way she's ready for the challenges ahead as VP and (please no!), president.

And she's proven it time and time again during this campaign.

DaneMcCloud
11-01-2008, 03:13 PM
I've pondered that as well. The shrill screaming by the radical left would be deafening for another four years. It may be worth seeing Obama get elected just so the country can present a united front internationally for a few years, rather than have people constantly undermining the presidency and American policy from within. That has gotten really old.

I find it interesting that since the television era began in 1960 (just to use an arbitrary breakpoint) we've had five Democrat presidents elected and seven Republican presidents elected. I wonder if that balance is inevitable as people get tired of incumbent powers, or if it's an unusual phenomenon. One would generally expect that over time one would simply get more members and win more often, but it doesn't seem to work that way, and that's a good thing.

I agree with everything stated here and pretty much sums up why I'm voting for Obama.

And the Supreme Court.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 03:21 PM
In a state of only 600,000 citizens, there are many obstacles she's never had to face. Serious violent crimes, hate crimes, natural disasters that could affect millions of lives, diversity and so on.

Obama hasn't faced any of those things either, unless you count his time working with ACORN.

Baby Lee
11-01-2008, 03:24 PM
I've pondered that as well. The shrill screaming by the radical left would be deafening for another four years. It may be worth seeing Obama get elected just so the country can present a united front internationally for a few years, rather than have people constantly undermining the presidency and American policy from within. That has gotten really old.

I find it interesting that since the television era began in 1960 (just to use an arbitrary breakpoint) we've had five Democrat presidents elected and seven Republican presidents elected. I wonder if that balance is inevitable as people get tired of incumbent powers, or if it's an unusual phenomenon. One would generally expect that over time one would simply get more members and win more often, but it doesn't seem to work that way, and that's a good thing.

My counter fear is that those same emotionally strained people will take from this the message that we all finally agree with all of their notions.

Michael Moore was on Maher last night and was remarking that everyone used to be uninformed, but now they're thanking him for showing them the truth and everyone agrees with him now. Interestingly, he stayed pronoun general on what people were tired of [this] and what needed to change [it], reminded me of Keenan's 'FIX IT!!!" guy on SNL WU.

Tax credits for veganism and bicycle share programs, and super stiff taxes on cars that have the power to get out of their own way. Single payer health care, 2 months paid vacation for all workers, perpetual unemployment entitlement, stipends for interpretive dance sabbaticals. You know, standard common sense stuff.

Rain Man
11-01-2008, 03:46 PM
On the topic of voting for selfish reasons vs. voting for the country, that's a tough question. Personally, I must admit that selfish reasons are to some extent driving my decisions. If Obama's tax policy goes through as planned, it's going to be painful for me and my company (and my employees). There's no doubt about that. However, that selfish motivation is also a reflection of my greater values that extend beyond the walls of my home.

When I look at the two candidates, and I'll admit that I'm not an expert on the details, I see that Obama offers a lot of short-term advantages, but at the expense of long-term values that I hold dear. McCain is not as strong a candidate in a number of respects, and his nightmarish campaign strategy has obfuscated and muddled his positions, but if he operates similarly to how he operated as a Senator, his presidency better supports my long-term values of making America a place where hard-working, ambitious people can be successful, where government programs do not outweigh market forces, and where government intervention in people's lives is a last resort and not a proactive policy. (I'll admit that neither candidate really supports that last value, but McCain is less far away than is Obama.)

I'll survive with either candidate, and I don't find either of them outright objectionable. I primarily am going with McCain because I think his administration will be in my house less often will an Obama adminstration, and is more interested in a free market where people earn what they're worth, and that reflects my bigger vision for what government should be.

Rain Man
11-01-2008, 03:56 PM
My counter fear is that those same emotionally strained people will take from this the message that we all finally agree with all of their notions.

Michael Moore was on Maher last night and was remarking that everyone used to be uninformed, but now they're thanking him for showing them the truth and everyone agrees with him now. Interestingly, he stayed pronoun general on what people were tired of [this] and what needed to change [it], reminded me of Keenan's 'FIX IT!!!" guy on SNL WU.

Tax credits for veganism and bicycle share programs, and super stiff taxes on cars that have the power to get out of their own way. Single payer health care, 2 months paid vacation for all workers, perpetual unemployment entitlement, stipends for interpretive dance sabbaticals. You know, standard common sense stuff.

It'll be interesting to see if the election is an electoral landslide, or if it's close. The thing that is both good and bad about the Electoral College is that a big Blue map will indicate a mandate of the people even if the vote is 52 to 48 percent. Ironically, I voted for McCain, but for the reasons Dane agreed with earlier, I almost think it would be more healthy for the country if Obama wins by a landslide rather than a close vote.

I suspect that the United States will likely become a huge social engineering experiment for the first 100 days of an Obama administration, so we'll see whether those interpretive dance stipends really do improve the nation.

All that said, I still think that there might be a McCain constituency that isn't being measured in the polls, and he could still come out of this with a win.

Calcountry
11-01-2008, 04:19 PM
I don't know if I can go as far as to vote FOR Obama, but this has gone from schadenfruede to torture porn. I'm weighing the effects of the fiscal devastation I strongly believe from an Obama presidency against the mental meltdown I strongly believe if Obama loses. Is a McCain presidency [McCain? really?] worth all the disappointment of all those people for whom this is so important. They're already bearing scars from 2000 and 2004. Maybe the best thing for right now is to give them Obama, let them exult, free up all that baggage, hope like hell things go well and concurrently hope like hell 2012 isn't too far away, and things don't change too drastically, if things go the way I believe they will.Fine, I could go along with this if we had a majority in the Courts, or, maybe a solid set of 41 conservative Senators that wouldn't have one defecting to break fillibusters.

But we don't. It will be full speed ahead on intrenching us for another generation of "New Deals". First stop, strengthening Unions, next stop silencing talk radio. We can top that cake off with a little gun control icing. God forbid we have any terrorism.

It will be a long 4 years.

|Zach|
11-01-2008, 04:31 PM
Fine, I could go along with this if we had a majority in the Courts, or, maybe a solid set of 41 conservative Senators that wouldn't have one defecting to break fillibusters.

But we don't. It will be full speed ahead on intrenching us for another generation of "New Deals". First stop, strengthening Unions, next stop silencing talk radio. We can top that cake off with a little gun control icing. God forbid we have any terrorism.

It will be a long 4 years.
To take this another step..

I could go along with this if I actually believed there were "conservatives" around.

You know...real conservatives...

Not the ones that I think the Iraq war was a conservative war and helped extend the power of the executive to crazy levels while not doing ANYTHING to pay down the debt of this nation.

DaneMcCloud
11-01-2008, 04:38 PM
Obama hasn't faced any of those things either, unless you count his time working with ACORN.

While that's probably true, I personally feel that he's far more equipped to handle these situations.

Palin, IMO, is not.

She can't even handle Katie Couric.

BucEyedPea
11-01-2008, 06:00 PM
I don't know, but I'd imagine he'll have the good sense to fire anyone who votes for Obama.

That may have to happen as a layoff, not a firing.

Flustrated
11-01-2008, 06:15 PM
It'll be interesting to see if the election is an electoral landslide, or if it's close. The thing that is both good and bad about the Electoral College is that a big Blue map will indicate a mandate of the people even if the vote is 52 to 48 percent. Ironically, I voted for McCain, but for the reasons Dane agreed with earlier, I almost think it would be more healthy for the country if Obama wins by a landslide rather than a close vote.

I suspect that the United States will likely become a huge social engineering experiment for the first 100 days of an Obama administration, so we'll see whether those interpretive dance stipends really do improve the nation.

All that said, I still think that there might be a McCain constituency that isn't being measured in the polls, and he could still come out of this with a win.

I wonder, Rain Man, did your business do worse than it is doing now when Clinton's tax rates were in place, or is it doing better now? I would think that if middle-class america had more opportunity to earn money it would create wealth for business owners like you (I like to call it trickle-up economics :D). Maybe you sell to a sector that is enjoying prosperity now? I'm not critisizing your opinion or your choice; this is a genuine question.

The_Grand_Illusion
11-01-2008, 07:06 PM
I wonder, Rain Man, did your business do worse than it is doing now when Clinton's tax rates were in place, or is it doing better now? I would think that if middle-class america had more opportunity to earn money it would create wealth for business owners like you (I like to call it trickle-up economics :D). Maybe you sell to a sector that is enjoying prosperity now? I'm not critisizing your opinion or your choice; this is a genuine question.


I've been in business since the Clinton days but the answer is easy. Anytime you take money out of the economy in the form of taxes, you are hurting the spending money people have to support small or big business. Taxes hurt everyone and we already pay way too much in taxes when you figure all the taxes people pay, including local, state, federal, all properties, utility and all hidden taxes. If people really took the time to figure all them up, they would be surprised at how much they really overpay in taxes. Just think of the spending power people would have if all the taxes weren't so high? That would be great for everyone.

***SPRAYER
11-01-2008, 07:09 PM
These folks are bombarding the airwaves with this stuff in all the swing states:

http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/

Logical
11-01-2008, 07:23 PM
I have never let taxes change my decision on a purchase. If I want it I buy it, if I am not sure I wait until I am. But it is never based on how much I pay in taxes.

banyon
11-01-2008, 09:00 PM
I've been in business since the Clinton days but the answer is easy. Anytime you take money out of the economy in the form of taxes, you are hurting the spending money people have to support small or big business. Taxes hurt everyone and we already pay way too much in taxes when you figure all the taxes people pay, including local, state, federal, all properties, utility and all hidden taxes. If people really took the time to figure all them up, they would be surprised at how much they really overpay in taxes. Just think of the spending power people would have if all the taxes weren't so high? That would be great for everyone.

This would be true if taxes went into a black hole, but they also go toward the purchase of goods and services. This is why the effect you predict here hasn't been measured in most of the instances of increased or decreased taxation in the economic data. When Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, there was an economic boom, not the converse, and there have been many statistically similar scenarios in U.S. history.

In fact, since the wealthy will tend to save and store this money out of active circulation, you could probably argue for the opposite effect when it comes to taxation on the upper quintiles.

Rain Man
11-01-2008, 11:35 PM
I wonder, Rain Man, did your business do worse than it is doing now when Clinton's tax rates were in place, or is it doing better now? I would think that if middle-class america had more opportunity to earn money it would create wealth for business owners like you (I like to call it trickle-up economics :D). Maybe you sell to a sector that is enjoying prosperity now? I'm not critisizing your opinion or your choice; this is a genuine question.

It's a reasonable question to ask. My firm was founded in mid-1999, so my business was just starting as the Clinton administration was ending. (I guess I could sincerely say that my most recent year was 68 times better than my only year under Clinton, but that would be a bit misleading.)

For my personal business, 37 percent of our work comes from government contracts, and I think another 20 percent or so comes from government subcontracts. We're actually positioned well if government gets bigger, so our revenues might not drop a lot, and could even go up.

The bigger problem is profitability. A tax increase essentially lowers our profit margin, which inhibits investment in new equipment and new market ventures, and also makes it harder to build up our cash reserve, which is used to ensure that we can meet payroll and also serves as our security blanket for making new hires and being sure we can afford them during their first six to 12 months when they're not profitable for us.

I guess we could raise our prices to try to get our profit margin back up, but the challenge is that the tax increases won't affect smaller firms as much, and my company is in the 96th percentile of size for our industry (even though we only have 21 employees). Smaller companies in my industry don't have enough revenue to have their profits hit the really high tax rates, so they won't get impacted as much and won't need to raise their prices as much. My company is big enough that any reasonable level of profits, when combined with my salary and my wife's salary, will put us into the "fat cat" hammer zone even though we never see much of that money. Even though we typically use most of our profits to buy things like computers and software and desks that would eventually help create more tax money, they still count as profits and we're taxed on them personally. As business owners, those "profits" stack atop our personal salaries and are therefore taxed at the highest rates in their entirety. Therefore, our profits get hit really hard and unless we want to spend our personal salaries on growth for the company (as opposed to our mortgage and our retirement fund), we're going to have a hard time growing.

Companies that are bigger than us will get hit as bad as us, but there aren't any of those in Colorado in my industry, and we very seldom compete against the national big dogs. We're at the 96th percentile, but the companies at the 99th percentile are a hundred times larger than us, and they run in a completely different competitive circle, generally on the East Coast. (Think Gallup and Roper and Ernst & Young and Deloitte & Touche.)

It's a little bit of a dice roll given the economy, but seriously, I may try to buy an office building if it looks like the taxes are going to rise as much as Obama wants. I'll eat beans for four years and not take vacations and bleed down my savings, but my 1040 will show big losses at the end of each year and I'll move out of the high-tax zone as much as possible. Why pay taxes when I can use it to pay interest on a building and be better off in the long term?

And as an aside, if I can do that with my little company, do you really think that Microsoft and Ford and General Electric are going to shrug and pay higher taxes? They're going to be practicing tax-avoidance strategies, too, and they've got armies of people to figure out how to do it. The only ones who'll end up paying higher taxes are the ones who can't figure out a way to hunker down in the short term. The only way to get the truly rich to pay more taxes would be to simplify the tax system so they can't find a way to avoid it.

Rain Man
11-01-2008, 11:50 PM
This would be true if taxes went into a black hole, but they also go toward the purchase of goods and services. This is why the effect you predict here hasn't been measured in most of the instances of increased or decreased taxation in the economic data. When Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, there was an economic boom, not the converse, and there have been many statistically similar scenarios in U.S. history.

In fact, since the wealthy will tend to save and store this money out of active circulation, you could probably argue for the opposite effect when it comes to taxation on the upper quintiles.


From a macro effect, you may be right. It'll generally circulate back around. From a micro effect, I'd rather spend the money I earn than have the government take it and give it to someone with a low-paying job and four kids. Maybe that's selfish of me, but that's my position and I'm sticking to it.

patteeu
11-02-2008, 07:20 AM
In fact, since the wealthy will tend to save and store this money out of active circulation, you could probably argue for the opposite effect when it comes to taxation on the upper quintiles.

:spock: Are you thinking mattresses?

patteeu
11-02-2008, 07:29 AM
And as an aside, if I can do that with my little company, do you really think that Microsoft and Ford and General Electric are going to shrug and pay higher taxes? They're going to be practicing tax-avoidance strategies, too, and they've got armies of people to figure out how to do it. The only ones who'll end up paying higher taxes are the ones who can't figure out a way to hunker down in the short term. The only way to get the truly rich to pay more taxes would be to simplify the tax system so they can't find a way to avoid it.

And then people like jidar and Warren Buffet will point to the fact that despite your marginal tax rate you ultimately don't pay a super high effective rate of taxes (even though you suffer from consequences of that high marginal rate) and use it as an argument to raise the top rate even further.

My personal opinion is that government could raise more revenue in a less economically disruptive fashion if they raised the rates on the lower tax brackets and lowered the top marginal rate. What do you think of the idea of a flat (or flatter) tax, Rain Man?

Hydrae
11-02-2008, 05:44 PM
I did exactly what I have planned for many, many months. I wrote in Ron Paul. I know it was basically a throw-away vote but it was a vote FOR someone for once.

BigMeatballDave
11-02-2008, 05:45 PM
This is a serious question: Do you get that same feeling from McCain?God, No!

Rain Man
11-02-2008, 09:11 PM
And then people like jidar and Warren Buffet will point to the fact that despite your marginal tax rate you ultimately don't pay a super high effective rate of taxes (even though you suffer from consequences of that high marginal rate) and use it as an argument to raise the top rate even further.

My personal opinion is that government could raise more revenue in a less economically disruptive fashion if they raised the rates on the lower tax brackets and lowered the top marginal rate. What do you think of the idea of a flat (or flatter) tax, Rain Man?

I think a flat tax would greatly enhance fairness, with perhaps an initial exemption for some amount corresponding to basic food and shelter. People keep talking about a progressive tax being "fair, because higher income people get more benefits from government", and I don't think they recognize that a flat tax still means that higher income people will be paying more. Much more. I don't understand how people think that "much, much more" is more fair than "much more".

I have no problem paying taxes, and I recognize that I get value from government services, and that taxes are necessary to pay for them. I just don't like taxes for the stated purposes of evening out incomes across the country.

I think you and I are on the same side on that.

penchief
11-03-2008, 06:05 AM
My experience has been that Obama's supporters tend to be more selfish than McCain supporters. You fit my profile.

Which is why Obama's campaign has appealed to a common purpose and national unity while McCain's campaign has been petty and divisive while appealing to fear, prejudice, and selfish interests.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 07:18 AM
Which is why Obama's campaign has appealed to a common purpose and national unity while McCain's campaign has been petty and divisive while appealing to fear, prejudice, and selfish interests.

You mean Obama's common purpose to eat the rich and his national unity of the victimhood-addicted oppressed in their fight against the so-called fat cat oppressors?

Donger
11-03-2008, 07:21 AM
Which is why Obama's campaign has appealed to a common purpose and national unity while McCain's campaign has been petty and divisive while appealing to fear, prejudice, and selfish interests.

Are you being serious?

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:22 AM
Are you being serious?

Let's hear this. Even from you, there is no denying or spinning these facts.

Donger
11-03-2008, 07:27 AM
Let's hear this. Even from you, there is no denying or spinning these facts.

I suppose if you think that Barack Hussein (allegedly) financing all his new spending through taxation of "the rich" is "unifying," then I can see the point.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:31 AM
I suppose if you think that Barack Hussein (allegedly) financing all his new spending through taxation of "the rich" is "unifying," then I can see the point.



Clarification needed there spin doctor. Everyone gets taxed. The rich should pay the higher bracket.

I could see though how it chaps your ass. Evil little black man vs. McCains always positive messages of hope.

Donger
11-03-2008, 07:35 AM
Clarification needed there spin doctor. Everyone gets taxed. The rich should pay the higher bracket.

I could see though how it chaps your ass. Evil little black man vs. McCains always positive messages of hope.

Barack Hussein has made it clear that he intends to pay for his spending by taxing "the rich." It's not my fault that Barack Hussein's message of "unity" includes class warfare.

And, "evil little black man"? Why did you write that?

penchief
11-03-2008, 07:36 AM
You mean Obama's common purpose to eat the rich and his national unity of the victimhood-addicted oppressed in their fight against the so-called fat cat oppressors?

To buy into your scenario one would have to believe that the last eight years did not happen. The blood-sucking elite have been waging class warfare on the middle and lower classes without being called on it for too long now.

Pointing out that trickle down class warfare/corporate welfare is taking place at the expense of this nation's prosperity and human justice does not equate to the act of actually waging class warfare.

And yes, when a person's economic viability is suppressed via trickle down class warfare and the usurpation of political power, that person's opportunity to prosper and live freely is also suppressed. When this happens en masse the way it has been happening under republican policies it will result in oppression. In fact, oppression has slowly evolved in this country over the past thirty years. It has been accelerated over the past eight years.

Donger
11-03-2008, 07:38 AM
To buy into your scenario one would have to believe that the last eight years did not happen. The blood-sucking elite have been waging class warfare on the middle and lower classes without being called on it for too long now.

Pointing out that trickle down class warfare/corporate welfare is taking place at the expense of this nation's prosperity and human justice does not equate to the act of actually waging class warfare.

And yes, when a person's economic viability is suppressed via trickle down class warfare and the usurpation of political power, that person's opportunity to prosper and live freely is also suppressed. When this happens en masse the way it has been happening under republican policies it will result in oppression. In fact, oppression has slowly evolved in this country over the past thirty years. And it has been accelerated over the past eight years.

All while paying the vast majority of this nation's tax burden. Those evil oppressors.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:40 AM
Barack Hussein has made it clear that he intends to pay for his spending by taxing "the rich." It's not my fault that Barack Hussein's message of "unity" includes class warfare.

And, "evil little black man"? Why did you write that?

Sarcasm. Pure sarcasm. I mean his middle name is Hussein, that must make him evil otherwise you wouldn't post it like that every time, right?

As far as your interpretation, it is wrong. I've heard him talk about decreasing oils windfall profits to pay for some of this but that is it and quite frankly I'm all for it. As far as all the rich paying for his spending he has merely stated that they should pay more. Your advocating the current system where buffets secretary pays a higher percentage than buffet himself. Sounds like you got an agenda to keep the poor folk down. That doesn't sound like the ideology of an immigrant coming over here for the American dream.

Donger
11-03-2008, 07:45 AM
Sarcasm. Pure sarcasm. I mean his middle name is Hussein, that must make him evil otherwise you wouldn't post it like that every time, right?

As far as your interpretation, it is wrong. I've heard him talk about decreasing oils windfall profits to pay for some of this but that is it and quite frankly I'm all for it. As far as all the rich paying for his spending he has merely stated that they should pay more. Your advocating the current system where buffets secretary pays a higher percentage than buffet himself. Sounds like you got an agenda to keep the poor folk down. That doesn't sound like the ideology of an immigrant coming over here for the American dream.

Perhaps I am mis-interpreting "spread the wealth around," eh?

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:47 AM
Perhaps I am mis-interpreting "spread the wealth around," eh?

Perhaps you are making it a bigger issue than what it is. Could you please show me the plan to take everything from the rich and give to the poor.

Please provide me with the robin hood brief.

Donger
11-03-2008, 07:49 AM
Perhaps you are making it a bigger issue than what it is. Could you please show me the plan to take everything from the rich and give to the poor.

Please provide me with the robin hood brief.

I said nothing about "taking everything" from them. Penchief is the one who mentioned "unity." I doubt "the rich" will feel the same way.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:51 AM
I said nothing about "taking everything" from them. Penchief is the one who mentioned "unity." I doubt "the rich" will feel the same way.


Oh, my bad. The top 1% probably won't like this as well.

LOCOChief
11-03-2008, 07:54 AM
I was considering voting for Obama / Biden and then realized that I can't vote for a terrorist Sympathizer, a radical black liberation theologist / muslim. someone who absolutely doesn't support our troops (75% of our troops know this). A Marxist socialist/ communist and most importantly a liar. This guy will lie about anything just to be elected, and his followers will cheat, lie and steal for the same reasons. No backbone, no spine just like his supporters.

Donger
11-03-2008, 07:56 AM
Oh, my bad. The top 1% probably won't like this as well.

The funny part will be watching that dollar figure drop.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 07:57 AM
The rich should pay the higher bracket.

Any good redistributionist would agree. Economists, however, don't (http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=regressive+tax).

patteeu
11-03-2008, 07:59 AM
To buy into your scenario one would have to believe that the last eight years did not happen. The blood-sucking elite have been waging class warfare on the middle and lower classes without being called on it for too long now.

Pointing out that trickle down class warfare/corporate welfare is taking place at the expense of this nation's prosperity and human justice does not equate to the act of actually waging class warfare.

And yes, when a person's economic viability is suppressed via trickle down class warfare and the usurpation of political power, that person's opportunity to prosper and live freely is also suppressed. When this happens en masse the way it has been happening under republican policies it will result in oppression. In fact, oppression has slowly evolved in this country over the past thirty years. It has been accelerated over the past eight years.

So you agree that we aren't headed for common ground or unity under The Redistributionist.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:02 AM
Any good redistributionist would agree. Economists, however, don't (http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=regressive+tax).


So the wealthier folks should pay a smaller percentage than a family struggling to make ends meet?

Any rich person would agree I doubt the poor/middle class would.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:03 AM
The funny part will be watching that dollar figure drop.


Yep that'd be funny.

:spock:

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:05 AM
So you agree that we aren't headed for common ground or unity under The Redistributionist.


I think we'll find more common ground or unity under Obama then we would under McCain. His sleezeball campaign should be enough of an indicator of that for anyone.

LOCOChief
11-03-2008, 08:09 AM
So the wealthier folks should pay a smaller percentage than a family struggling to make ends meet?

Any rich person would agree I doubt the poor/middle class would.

Not a smaller percentage, how about the same percentage? Why does this not sound fair?

FishingRod
11-03-2008, 08:15 AM
Oh, my bad. The top 1% probably won't like this as well.


schadenfreude

satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:19 AM
Not a smaller percentage, how about the same percentage? Why does this not sound fair?

If I have 10 dollars I'm gonna miss 2 a heck of alot more than someone who has 10 million is gonna miss 2 million

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:21 AM
schadenfreude

satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but when I pay a higher percentage than someone who has a gazillion times more money they are getting that satisfaction. To top that off the probably had a larger stake in keeping it that way.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:23 AM
If I have 10 dollars I'm gonna miss 2 a heck of alot more than someone who has 10 million is gonna miss 2 million

The economy is going to miss his 2 million a heck of a lot more than the 2 you and your buddies have to offer. The government is going to realize a larger percentage of the 2 they get from you and your buddies than they will of the 2 million as well.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:25 AM
So the wealthier folks should pay a smaller percentage than a family struggling to make ends meet?

Any rich person would agree I doubt the poor/middle class would.

I'd be happier with a proportional tax scheme that creates clarity in our tax code and puts everyone in the same tax boat. My point was simply that economists don't agree on what proportionality alternative (regressive, proportional, or progressive) *should* apply.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:27 AM
The economy is going to miss his 2 million a heck of a lot more than the 2 you and your buddies have to offer. The government is going to realize a larger percentage of the 2 they get from you and your buddies than they will of the 2 million as well.

what exactly does "you and your buddies" mean anyway

So your saying it's better to have 1 guy with 2 million dollars then it is to have 1 million guys with $2.

LOCOChief
11-03-2008, 08:29 AM
If I have 10 dollars I'm gonna miss 2 a heck of alot more than someone who has 10 million is gonna miss 2 million

If I'm all of a sudden missing $2MM I shit can your ass, move my company and holdings to a country more business friendly.

penchief
11-03-2008, 08:29 AM
So you agree that we aren't headed for common ground or unity under The Redistributionist.

Not at all. I think the fact that prominent economists, political institutions, and military members from the republican side of the aisle are endorsing Obama and his policies indicates a unifying aspect to his message.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:30 AM
If I'm all of a sudden missing $2MM I shit can your ass, move my company and holdings to a country more business friendly.


That's why we tax the fuck out of imports..

penchief
11-03-2008, 08:31 AM
I was considering voting for Obama / Biden and then realized that I can't vote for a terrorist Sympathizer, a radical black liberation theologist / muslim. someone who absolutely doesn't support our troops (75% of our troops know this). A Marxist socialist/ communist and most importantly a liar. This guy will lie about anything just to be elected, and his followers will cheat, lie and steal for the same reasons. No backbone, no spine just like his supporters.

Now I know why your handle is "LOCO"Chief.

LOCOChief
11-03-2008, 08:37 AM
That's why we tax the **** out of imports..

In a global economy?

penchief
11-03-2008, 08:37 AM
Not a smaller percentage, how about the same percentage? Why does this not sound fair?

Because those who are making great gobs of money are utilizing the resources and the infrastructure (including the legal) of this country at a higher proportion than the average working man who is just collecting a paycheck. This includes the burdens that are placed on the system such as environmental pollution and economic inequity.

IMO, it is a moral and patriotic duty to reciprocate their obligations by reinvesting back into the system proportionately through taxes, labor, and civic responsibility as a means of maintaining the system's viability for future generations as opposed to bleeding it dry the way trickle down class warfare/corporate welfare has done over the past thirty years.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:37 AM
I was considering voting for Obama / Biden and then realized that I can't vote for a terrorist Sympathizer, a radical black liberation theologist / muslim. someone who absolutely doesn't support our troops (75% of our troops know this). A Marxist socialist/ communist and most importantly a liar. This guy will lie about anything just to be elected, and his followers will cheat, lie and steal for the same reasons. No backbone, no spine just like his supporters.

To that sir I reply with fuck you.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:55 AM
what exactly does "you and your buddies" mean anyway

So your saying it's better to have 1 guy with 2 million dollars then it is to have 1 million guys with $2.

I wouldn't put it exactly that way, but pretty much. Maybe more like 4 million guys with $2 compared to 1 guy with $2 million. Pain trickles down just like prosperity does.

It means that there are a lot more of you $2 folks than there are of the $2 million dollar guys. Your $2 alone is insignificant to either the economy or the treasury, but yours along with those of all the other $2 folks has a great deal of impact. More so than that of the $2 million folks.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 09:00 AM
In a global economy?

Our country suffers from a widespread lack of understanding of how we fit into the global economy and how short-sighted some of their panaceas really are.

whoman69
11-03-2008, 09:38 AM
I can see no problem with a system that asks those who are gaining the most from the free market system in place to give the most back in the form of taxes. All the whining going around for the top 5% is just that, whining. They can more easily protect their wealth from taxation. I can see a problem with corporations that do business within the US and have a PO Box in the Caymen Islands as their address so that they avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

triple
11-03-2008, 09:40 AM
i think it has made me more solid for mccain whereas i was lukewarm before. when you see obama and biden talk, yeah they sound kooky and socialist, but when you hear people who support them supporting all the socialist outworkings and theoreticals that you just think about in passing when you hear them speak, that makes it a lot more scary than it would have been otherwise.

whoman69
11-03-2008, 09:43 AM
Our country suffers from a widespread lack of understanding of how we fit into the global economy and how short-sighted some of their panaceas really are.

What our country suffers from is trying to trade on a free basis with countries that do not have any labor standards, quality standards, pollution standards and then call it a level playing field. These same countries do not take US products and we wonder why there is a trade gap every year. Do these businesses that are shipping jobs overseas every year under the guise of free trade in a global economy wonder how they are going to sell their products to a marketplace that can no longer afford to buy them?

patteeu
11-03-2008, 10:04 AM
I can see no problem with a system that asks those who are gaining the most from the free market system in place to give the most back in the form of taxes. All the whining going around for the top 5% is just that, whining. They can more easily protect their wealth from taxation. I can see a problem with corporations that do business within the US and have a PO Box in the Caymen Islands as their address so that they avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

That can be accomplished with a proportional tax system (or even a regressive one) so that can't be your entire justification for progressive taxation, much less an even more progressive one than we have already.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 10:09 AM
What our country suffers from is trying to trade on a free basis with countries that do not have any labor standards, quality standards, pollution standards and then call it a level playing field. These same countries do not take US products and we wonder why there is a trade gap every year. Do these businesses that are shipping jobs overseas every year under the guise of free trade in a global economy wonder how they are going to sell their products to a marketplace that can no longer afford to buy them?

That's some backward thinking right there. Anyone who believes that it's a long term winner to continue to rely on the US market as the engine that pulls our economy along is bound for huge disappointment as the US inevitably loses market share to the rest of the world. We will lose far more jobs overseas if we continue to try to protect our workers from the realities of globalization than if we get our shit together and face the challenges presented by those realities. The time is now for us to realign our economy with a new emphasis on being a competitive producer rather than a super consumer.

mlyonsd
11-03-2008, 10:10 AM
Because those who are making great gobs of money are utilizing the resources and the infrastructure (including the legal) of this country at a higher proportion than the average working man who is just collecting a paycheck. This includes the burdens that are placed on the system such as environmental pollution and economic inequity.

IMO, it is a moral and patriotic duty to reciprocate their obligations by reinvesting back into the system proportionately through taxes, labor, and civic responsibility as a means of maintaining the system's viability for future generations as opposed to bleeding it dry the way trickle down class warfare/corporate welfare has done over the past thirty years.

Class warfare is brought on by the progressive tax system.

And there's nothing immoral or unpatriotic in regards to a flat tax.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 10:12 AM
Class warfare is brought on by the progressive tax system.Thanks a LOT, Teddy Roosevelt!

Rain Man
11-03-2008, 10:46 AM
Because those who are making great gobs of money are utilizing the resources and the infrastructure (including the legal) of this country at a higher proportion than the average working man who is just collecting a paycheck. This includes the burdens that are placed on the system such as environmental pollution and economic inequity.

IMO, it is a moral and patriotic duty to reciprocate their obligations by reinvesting back into the system proportionately through taxes, labor, and civic responsibility as a means of maintaining the system's viability for future generations as opposed to bleeding it dry the way trickle down class warfare/corporate welfare has done over the past thirty years.

You mean disproportionately? Because a progressive tax is disproportionate. A flat tax is proportionate.

Calcountry
11-03-2008, 10:54 AM
Curious, how is Rain Man going to vote?Rain Man is rich, yes?

mlyonsd
11-03-2008, 10:57 AM
Thanks a LOT, Teddy Roosevelt!

When I cross over into the next life I'm going to kick him right in the nuts.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 11:05 AM
Rain Man is rich, yes?

Rain Man's football team hasn't won a super bowl in almost 40 years just like most of the rest of us. In terms of the things that matter in life, how rich can he be?

penchief
11-03-2008, 11:54 AM
You mean disproportionately? Because a progressive tax is disproportionate. A flat tax is proportionate.

Not when one considers everything. For example, how much more taxing business is on all aspects of the infrastructure, the environmental impact, and the need to maintain conditions favorable to business at the expense of the general welfare (i.e. unemployment). Plus, by the time businesses are done with their loophools and tax breaks it can hardly be argued that they are paying their fair share.

I just think that it behooves the ruling class to consider how much it buffers their wealth when everybody benefits from a system that promotes opportunity and access for all rather than a system that suppresses quality of life issues for the many in favor of privilege and greed.

Trickle down class warfare, deregulation, and corporate welfare are policies designed soley to benefit the ruling class and not the average American. They promote privilege and greed. The republican party has become the gaurdians of greed rather than the promoters of liberty and justice for all.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 11:55 AM
Rain Man's football team hasn't won a super bowl in almost 40 years just like most of the rest of us. In terms of the things that matter in life, how rich can he be?

So if Obama could promise the Chiefs get a superbowl, his tax plan would be alright with you?

patteeu
11-03-2008, 12:15 PM
So if Obama could promise the Chiefs get a superbowl, his tax plan would be alright with you?

No, but if he actually delivered I'd consider it a silver lining in the dark cloud of his Presidency.

Rain Man
11-03-2008, 12:22 PM
Not when one considers everything. For example, how much more taxing business is on all aspects of the infrastructure, the environmental impact, and the need to maintain conditions favorable to business at the expense of the general welfare (i.e. unemployment). Plus, by the time businesses are done with their loophools and tax breaks it can hardly be argued that they are paying their fair share.

I just think that it behooves the ruling class to consider how much it buffers their wealth when everybody benefits from a system that promotes opportunity and access for all rather than a system that suppresses quality of life issues for the many in favor of privilege and greed.

Trickle down class warfare, deregulation, and corporate welfare are policies designed soley to benefit the ruling class and not the average American. They promote privilege and greed. The republican party has become the gaurdians of greed rather than the promoters of liberty and justice for all.

Man, businesses seem like they're really a bad thing. I guess their only redeeming feature is creating jobs that pay everybody.

I agree with you that the ruling class has self-interest at heart, and in fact I was blasting CEOs and Carl Peterson for nepotism on some other thread. I think that, at the apex of the power structure, capitalism breaks down. I don't think that 98 percent of American businesses operate at that apex, though, and they're the ones who will bear the brunt of increased disproportional taxes.

I may have inadvertently moved the discussion off topic a bit too by mentioning my business. I'm not sure, but I'd bet a majority of the $250K+ households in America are not business owners. For the matter, most CEOs aren't business owners. So perhaps we should discuss disproportionate taxing from the standpoint of mid-level VPs at the Otis Elevator Company, or a Director of Marketing at Pfizer.

A reasonable starting point is, How much more should a $250,000 household pay for government services compared to a $50,000 household? A flat tax would have them paying five times more. Do you think it should be more?

Frankly, I think five times is even a bit much. If the private sector operated the same way, a household going out to Chili's is going to pay $30 for dinner if they're a $50,000 households, and $150 for the same dinner if they're a $250,000 household. A Honda Accord would cost the $50K household $35,000, and Honda would make the $250,000 household pay $175,000. Does that seem fair?

And what if the mid-level VP at Otis Elevator makes $150K and is married to the Director of Marketing at Pfizer? Why should they pay more because they're married than they would if they were single? That's yet another problem with a highly progressive tax. It penalizes people for getting married.

Rain Man
11-03-2008, 12:33 PM
So if Obama could promise the Chiefs get a superbowl, his tax plan would be alright with you?

Honestly, I don't see that ever getting through Congress.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 12:38 PM
Man, businesses seem like they're really a bad thing. I guess their only redeeming feature is creating jobs that pay everybody.

I agree with you that the ruling class has self-interest at heart, and in fact I was blasting CEOs and Carl Peterson for nepotism on some other thread. I think that, at the apex of the power structure, capitalism breaks down. I don't think that 98 percent of American businesses operate at that apex, though, and they're the ones who will bear the brunt of increased disproportional taxes.

I may have inadvertently moved the discussion off topic a bit too by mentioning my business. I'm not sure, but I'd bet a majority of the $250K+ households in America are not business owners. For the matter, most CEOs aren't business owners. So perhaps we should discuss disproportionate taxing from the standpoint of mid-level VPs at the Otis Elevator Company, or a Director of Marketing at Pfizer.

A reasonable starting point is, How much more should a $250,000 household pay for government services compared to a $50,000 household? A flat tax would have them paying five times more. Do you think it should be more?

Frankly, I think five times is even a bit much. If the private sector operated the same way, a household going out to Chili's is going to pay $30 for dinner if they're a $50,000 households, and $150 for the same dinner if they're a $250,000 household. A Honda Accord would cost the $50K household $35,000, and Honda would make the $250,000 household pay $175,000. Does that seem fair?

And what if the mid-level VP at Otis Elevator makes $150K and is married to the Director of Marketing at Pfizer? Why should they pay more because they're married than they would if they were single? That's yet another problem with a highly progressive tax. It penalizes people for getting married.

They don't serve caviar at Chilis and Honda Accords don't have built in jacuzzis so your examples don't make any sense to me. :p

Rain Man
11-03-2008, 12:42 PM
They don't serve caviar at Chilis and Honda Accords don't have built in jacuzzis so your examples don't make any sense to me. :p

Good point. Hey, I wonder if a progressive-price private sector would get Lamborghinis down into my price range. If you charge the rich $10 million for one, could I get one for $30,000? And if they subsidize my gas too, that'd be way cool.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 12:51 PM
Good point. Hey, I wonder if a progressive-price private sector would get Lamborghinis down into my price range. If you charge the rich $10 million for one, could I get one for $30,000? And if they subsidize my gas too, that'd be way cool.

It would only be fair. If ultra-rich celebrities and fortune 100 CEOs can afford them, the downtrodden comfortably-compensated small business owners deserve them too.

Rain Man
11-03-2008, 01:00 PM
It would only be fair. If ultra-rich celebrities and fortune 100 CEOs can afford them, the downtrodden comfortably-compensated small business owners deserve them too.

Heck, yeah. Why should they have things that I don't, just because they have more money?

Baby Lee
11-03-2008, 01:33 PM
It would only be fair. If ultra-rich celebrities and fortune 100 CEOs can afford them, the downtrodden comfortably-compensated small business owners deserve them too.

If you hold it at the right angle, the Constitution gives citizens a fundamental right to horsepower and handling.

penchief
11-03-2008, 02:08 PM
Man, businesses seem like they're really a bad thing. I guess their only redeeming feature is creating jobs that pay everybody.

I agree with you that the ruling class has self-interest at heart, and in fact I was blasting CEOs and Carl Peterson for nepotism on some other thread. I think that, at the apex of the power structure, capitalism breaks down. I don't think that 98 percent of American businesses operate at that apex, though, and they're the ones who will bear the brunt of increased disproportional taxes.

I may have inadvertently moved the discussion off topic a bit too by mentioning my business. I'm not sure, but I'd bet a majority of the $250K+ households in America are not business owners. For the matter, most CEOs aren't business owners. So perhaps we should discuss disproportionate taxing from the standpoint of mid-level VPs at the Otis Elevator Company, or a Director of Marketing at Pfizer.

A reasonable starting point is, How much more should a $250,000 household pay for government services compared to a $50,000 household? A flat tax would have them paying five times more. Do you think it should be more?

Frankly, I think five times is even a bit much. If the private sector operated the same way, a household going out to Chili's is going to pay $30 for dinner if they're a $50,000 households, and $150 for the same dinner if they're a $250,000 household. A Honda Accord would cost the $50K household $35,000, and Honda would make the $250,000 household pay $175,000. Does that seem fair?

And what if the mid-level VP at Otis Elevator makes $150K and is married to the Director of Marketing at Pfizer? Why should they pay more because they're married than they would if they were single? That's yet another problem with a highly progressive tax. It penalizes people for getting married.

I don't think businesses are a bad thing. They are a good thing. But, IMO, businesses operate within a system that requires those who play the game to ante up more than those who don't. It is only fair when it comes to rules that both benefit businesses and protect society.

I don't really have a problem with a flat tax on personal incomes if there are no loopholes or tax breaks involved. I also believe that the free money ethic of Wall Street needs to be reined in. I believe that there is a greater argument to be made for higher taxes on capital gains than on a worker's income.

MagicHef
11-03-2008, 02:49 PM
Good point. Hey, I wonder if a progressive-price private sector would get Lamborghinis down into my price range. If you charge the rich $10 million for one, could I get one for $30,000? And if they subsidize my gas too, that'd be way cool.

Wow, I want to see this $10 million Lamborghini! But, if this did happen, I would just quit my job, and get everything I wanted for free. I'm pretty sure that's how all of this is supposed to work.