i'm confused, how did obama....

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
i'm confused, how did obama....
242
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 9:43pm
6 years ago oppose the war in iraq? was he in senate then?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 9:53am
Whoa! I hadn't seen that Chris Dodd interaction before! Thank you for posting these videos.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 10:30am

Interesting--I didn't know about her.

To prevent any confusion that might arise down the road by readers of your post, I'd like to point out that the swastika is a symbol that's been used in several religions, one of which is Hinduism. The symbol dates back to the Neolithic period.

"The right-hand swastika is one of the 108 symbols of the god Vishnu as well as a symbol of the sun and of the sun god Surya. The symbol imitates in the rotation of its arms the course taken daily by the sun, which appears in the Northern Hemisphere to pass from east, then south, to west. (It is also a symbol of the sun among Native Americans.)"

http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/symbols/swastika.htm

Hmmm...sahasranama refers to the 1000 names of Vishnu. Why does that name ring a bell?

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 6:32pm

< Well, first of all, I didn’t propose a flat tax, but since you mentioned it, everyone paying…say…15% of their income would at least have the appearance of “fairness”…and “the rich” would still pay exponentially more.

>>> A flat tax isn't fair, it is regressive.

I disagree. With a flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage of their income.

< Wrong premise.

>>> Fair enough. Please explain why.

You said…“Because in a capitalist system where profit is inherent and assumed, profiting means overcharging someone but getting them to agree to pay it.”…and I dispute your allegation that “profiting means overcharging someone.”

< Again… What services do the rich get for their tax money that the people who pay little or no taxes don’t get?

>>> Here is a *biggie* that few people ever mention. Holding assets is completely dependent upon social stability. If there is a collapse in order, in economics (like we've been facing) assets fly out the window. Most assets are on paper, and even tangible assets can lose value. In the immediate aftermath of WWII in Europe, cigarettes were in huge demand and were an informal currency, while monetary assets were less so.

The discussion was concerning ���social stability,” or instances of “emergency”…it was regarding the payment of taxes and your allegation that “rich” people derive a greater benefit, which I disagree with.

>>> So the wealthy benefit hugely from law and order, from social programmes that contribute to stability, because it protects their assets. If things collapse, they can lose everything overnight.

The “rich” don’t benefit from law and order on a daily basis any more than the rest of society. And in an emergency, law and order protects society pretty evenly across the board…but if the wealthy’s “assets” should collapse, it’s likely that everyone else’s “assets” would collapse as well.

>>> They also have more of a stake in say... the UCC, in the various police and fire services, even in road use if they are invested or own businesses dependent on transportation, on financial regulation and law, etc.

Again, I disagree…if a wealthy person’s business owns a truck, it’s driven by a middle class employee.

< Again, I’ve presented the positions of the two Presidential candidates and you’ve once again come back with “because I say so.” If the tax cuts screwed up the country then spare us the rhetoric and tell us HOW they screwed up the country and why Obama says he won’t remove then as long as the economy is weak?

>>> I've already explained and you ignore... but the tax cuts piled onto our national debt, and along with this dumb and unneeded war, really increased what we owe as a nation, our debt held around the world.

You have a very linear view of taxes. Yes, giving a tax cut means less tax to the government…but a stimulation of the economy means more sales tax, more jobs means more employees paying more taxes. BTW…the war wasn’t dumb and it was needed at the time, as determined by the President, the Congress and the UNSC.

>>> I see the right talk about national security all the time, as if the left doesn't care... well I suggest you consider what this huge amount of debt in the hands of say... China does to our national security. The right can talk tough and flash military muscle all they like, but if you do this behind the scenes that is largely for show.

Actually, with China heavily invested in the US, it makes it that much less likely that they’d screw with us…which enhances our national security. And as far as the left’s position on national security…pretty abysmal.

< The Republicans advocate low taxes because they feel that the American people should be able to keep more of their money because that builds jobs, encourages investment and risktaking and stimulates the economy. The Democrats on the other hand want to oppressively tax the people in order to pay for their socialist, Big Brother government.

>>> Where do you think money goes when it is paid in taxes? Do you think it goes in a vault and is never used again? Or does the government pay it right back out, and simply finds its way into other private hands? The government is but one very temporary stop, and it contributes to the economy as well.

And? The Republican philosophy encourages growth, the Democrat philosophy harms the economy.

>>> There are services we must have, there are protections that should exist in a modern society. These things carry a cost, and we pay for them. Tax rates are hardly oppressive. They are lower now than 40 years ago, a tax cut was not needed, and it has harmed us overall. It was for show, to help get elected because it souunds, not for sound government purposes.

Less oppression doesn’t mean no oppression…and the tax cuts helped the economy, which is why McCain supports them and Obama isn’t going to rescind them in a poor economy…and continuing to parrot the party line won’t change the facts.

< Obama is a fool. His spending will increase the deficit and his weedwacker philosophy towards the military, like his foolish Democrat predecessors, only serves to weaken the country, hurt national security, and strengthen out enemies.

>>> After the end of the cold war, the first defence cut was proposed by Dick Cheney. The right buys into the propaganda of left is weak on defence and right is not, yet ignore such facts. I keep seeing the right claim Democrats are weak on defence, yet they do not acknowledge that Cheney prepared the 1993 budget which included a sizeable cut.

I don’t think you can hang your argument on Dick Cheney. He doesn’t work unilaterally and a “cut” doesn’t indicate the kind of weakness on defense that the left usually displays.

>>> The right acts like government is evil, like it does not play a prominent role in society...

No, the left acts like government is a parent to irresponsible children.

>>> well, who handles disputes between businesses?

A court?

>>> Who creates the roads that trucks drive on?

Depends on the road.

>>> Who guards life and property?

The police? The military?

>>> Who sets the rules under which business operates?

Legislatures?

>>> There is a cost to government. Taxes should not be too high, nor too low.

And fairly applied.

>>> In the 1990s we had a pretty good balance. Bush threw that away for political gain, leaving our children with the debt.

Obviously there are a lot of people who disagree with you…including McCain and Obama.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 6:46pm
where else but in america can you make more and be expected to pay a higher percentage of your income just for that reason? i don't make a ton of money, between dh and i we make $150000 or less but i would never expect someone who makes more to pay a higher percentage than we do! i have plenty of family that are in the million or more bracket per year (one a pro baseball player*yankees player*) but should they pay more cuz they make more? nope, i don't think so. i don't see a dime of their money, and wouldn't expect to, they earned it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 7:06pm

I disagree. With a flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage of their income.


Person a makes 40,000 and pays 4000 in taxes. Person b makes 400,000 and pays 40,000 in taxes. Same rate?


Nope. :)


Suppose


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2008
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 7:29pm
They can be followed - the question is who is willing to follow them? Some people just want to argue and choose not to see what they don't want to see.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 10:29pm
I'm with you. It's pretty sad to see liberalism neutering America and turning it into a welfare state.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 10:39pm

*** Person a makes 40,000 and pays 4000 in taxes. Person b makes 400,000 and pays 40,000 in taxes. Same rate? Nope. :)

Yep,,,10% is 10%. Why should the guy who makes more pay a higher percentage than the guy who earns less?

>>> Suppose the basic cost of food, clothing, and shelter - the minimum basic cost of food, clothing, and shelter - is 25,000. Now do the math... Person a... 40,000 minus 25,000 = 15,000. 4,000/15,000 = 26.67%Person b... 400,000 minus 25,000 = 375,000. 40,000/375,000 = 10.67%

Fuzzy math. The rich guy and the poor guy aren't living in the same neighborhood, let alone in the same house. The rich guy probably also spends more on his food and probably doesn't shop at Target.

>>> Now which is paying more taxes as a percentage of disposable income?

Nice twist...but we tax income, not disposable income. And it's not the rich guys responsibility to cover the nut of the poor guy. It's the poor guy's responsibility to live responsibly and cover his own nut.

>>> And yes, the rich benefit, because their assets need constant, 24 hours a day, seven days a week protection as brought about by a stable society.

The ridiculously ambiguous "societal protections" you mentioned protect the assets of the poor guy just as much as they protect the assets of the rich guy...and the rich guy pays 10 time more for that same protection. What a gyp!

>>> If these two fundamental points can't be followed, then there is no point in my saying any more.

Oh, we "follow" them...they're wrong, but we "follow" them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 10:45pm
So who determines these basic costs, do we elect a special commission to set this math formula into motion?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 11:14pm

<<"Now, that's a never ending battle... if you ever understand it, please explain it to me!">>


That's a pwomise! LOL

Djie

Djie

Pages