I never said that I don't think corporations should be taxed.
Okay, well then I guess your point that tax increases simply get passed onto consumers is moot.
As I posted, Exxon paid $27 billion in taxes, as much as the bottom 50% of all individual federal income tax payers.
Exxon made out like bandits, not to mention that the company has been setting records with their profits http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/business/exxon.php. $27 billion dollars isn't an argument for or against tax increases. Big numbers sure sound impressive, but they don't really tell the story. If a person making $14 hour with a family to feed has to pay a $300 fine for running a traffic light, it hurts. If a person making $50 million dollars a year runs a traffic light and has to pay a $300 fine, it's nothing- not even a deterrent.
Edited 10/20/2008 5:05 pm ET by friendwithbenefits
It seems like the more degrading the term used, even if it's baseless, it makes them "feel good" to use it. McCain will do NOTHING to help the Middle Class. We have been screwed over big time, and McCain wants to tax our Health Ins? He can pound sand on that.
Okay, well then I guess your point that tax increases simply get passed onto consumers is moot.
I would not agree with that. As I posted before, tax increases don't simply get passed on as a price increase.
Exxon made out like bandits, not to mention that the company has been setting records with their profits http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/business/exxon.php. $27 billion dollars isn't an argument for or against tax increases. Big numbers sure sound impressive, but they don't really tell the story. If a person making $14 hour with a family to feed has to pay a $300 fine for running a traffic light, it hurts. If a person making $50 million dollars a year runs a traffic light and has to pay a $300 fine, it's nothing- not even a deterrent.
I'm sure that anyone that had shares was happy to get a nice profit. I sure am happy anytime I can make "out like bandits" with my stocks.
Democrats harp all about tax breaks for oil companies, you would think Exxon doesn't pay much in taxes. Well, they do. And at 41%, your point about a guy paying a fine doesn't mean much.
>>> Honest to goodness, I wish that folks would actually research what they're saying before saying it. You are totally entitled to an opinion, but calling Obama's policies Marxist is not an opinion-based subject. Further, anyone who has read or researched Marx, Engels or anyone from those schools of thought understands that Obama would be an immediate Marxism reject. It's just factually incorrect to say that Obama's policies are in any way Marxist -
Actually, you're mistaken. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" and "class warfare" policies ARE Marxist by definition. But rather than provide the tenets of Marxism, I'll simply ask you explain how his policies are NOT Marxist.
>>> just as it is factually incorrect to say that McCain is in any way facist (as inflamed Obama supporters sometimes assert).
Again, I'll have to ask you what is it about McCain's policies that could make them fascist.
>>> There are legitimate reasons to reject either or both candidate, and legitimate reasons to embrace them. However, unfounded, unresearched assertions such as "he's a Marxist" only detract from your own credibility.
LOL! Somehow I don't think anything I could say shy of "vote Obama" would give me any "credibility" with the left. But I'll wait for your explanations above before dealing with your "expertise" on matters Marxist.
>>> Besides, The Communist Manifesto is a quick read, and is written at a 3rd grade level, so it doesn't take long to get through it and realize how lucky we are to live in a nation where those (and equally ridiculous ideas from the right) are not embraced.
Yet...but Obama's still a few points ahead. Hopefully, McCain will quash Barry's dreams of a resurgent communist empire...er...welfare state.
Mostly I agree. More ridiculous or just hyperbole, hard to say. But I think there is a grain of truth. As I understand it, McCain/Conservatives are slightly more fascist and Obama/Liberals are slightly more socialist.
>>> 1. I assume you are alluding to Obama's reference of "spreading the wealth around" as it regards taxation in the third presidential debate on October 13. If that is true, then I am happy to address that, but wanted to make sure we were speaking about the same subject.
Obama has been quite clear on this policy for some time. It’s the basis of his laughable, and deceitful “95% tax cut” scheme.
>>> If my assumption is correct, then my reply is that Obama's proposals, just like all Republican candidates' and Democratic candidates' (with the notable exception of Steve Forbes 8 and 12 years ago) have all held in them unequal taxation as a tenet. Higher taxation for higher earners has been an accepted component of the US tax code for decades upon decades. Check out Ronald Regan's tax policies - unequal taxation was equally important in his administration as well.
Sorry, but no. When previous President’s raised taxes they did so to accommodate government spending for programs. Not so with Obama. He has stated specifically, that the “tax cuts” he will provide to the “95%” and the subsidized healthcare will be paid for SPECIFICALLY by raising the taxes on “the wealthy.”
>>> Secondly, I think it critical to note that you cannot cherry-pick issues and label candidates or policymakers accordingly.
Of course you can.
>>> Obama's health care plan would be roundly rejected by any socialist nation, and his social and fiscal policies would likely be laughed at.
Um…no, don’t think so. There’s a reason that Obama’s health care plan is identified as “socialized medicine.” Even the government purchase and control of certain banking institutions has been decried as “socialist”…government running health care would be no less so.
>>> An example of dangerous cherry-picking: the recent bailout plan, supported and enacted by President George W. Bush is as close to Marxism as any policy in the US in the last several decades. The fact that Paulson succeeded in acquiring equity from faltering banks could easily be called Marxist-style nationalization. However, and I think this is a critical point: I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A MARXIST MOVE.
Your belief doesn’t make it so. It is a “socialist” move, but the degree to how much the government exerts control over these institutions and for how long will ultimately prove that label true or false.
>>> Given the wealth of evidence, I happen to believe it was the right move under the circumstances and further, given the myriad other policies enacted and supported by this administration, to say Bush is a Marxist is laughable. Just as saying that Obama (who is firmly in line with traditional US policy) is a Marxist is similarly over-simplistic and completely misses the mark.
Well, first of all, it wasn’t Bush’s plan, it was the brainchild of Paulson. And the “right move?” Doesn’t look that way so far, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it plays out. To your final point…no Bush isn’t a Marxist. He’s publicly denounced the plan but sees it as the lesser of two evils and feels that it should be as short-lived as possible. Obama, on the other hand, is not facing any kind of economic crisis…he simply feels that “the wealthy”…i.e. those who have earned x-amount of dollars…have simply been “too successful” and deserve to be punished by having some of their money taken away and given to those who did NOT earn it.
>>> 2. Regarding the idea that McCain is a Fascist, I am uncomfortable going into too much detail about this, as I stated before that I believe it to be a ludicrous assertion. It should not be too much of a challenge to draw out the same line of thinking that puts Obama in the Marxist camp in the firmly opposite direction. I included that note in an effort to demonstrate that we all are victims of loaded thinking at times, and are prone to see what we want to see. Both assertions are ridiculous.
There is nothing in McCain’s policies that even remotely resembles fascism. The end.
>>> 3. My "expertise" is a graduate degree in political science, a dissertation on international political economy and 5 years of teaching PolySci, International Political Economy and Political Theory at the collegiate level at a class 1 research university.
Odd, then that you are so dismissive of Obama’s policies, or that you miss the salient points he has made regarding the disparity in the distribution of wealth in this country and his specific efforts to rectify that by direct redistribution.
>>> I must note that my olive branch at the end - noting that we are lucky to live where we do - was ridiculed and there was more partisan detritus thrown at it. I am not interested in arguments that resort to name calling, but welcome reasoned replies. Please note that I have not shared my political affiliations in my posts, for all you know, my vote may agree with yours.
Your credentials indicate that you SHOULD be able to make an informed analysis of Obama’s policies. That you have not seems to indicate an ignorance of Obama’s personal statements regarding wealth disparity, class warfare and redistribution of wealth or that you choose to ignore them due to partisanship. I’ll wait for your explanation.
Pages
Okay, well then I guess your point that tax increases simply get passed onto consumers is moot.
Exxon made out like bandits, not to mention that the company has been setting records with their profits http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/business/exxon.php. $27 billion dollars isn't an argument for or against tax increases. Big numbers sure sound impressive, but they don't really tell the story. If a person making $14 hour with a family to feed has to pay a $300 fine for running a traffic light, it hurts. If a person making $50 million dollars a year runs a traffic light and has to pay a $300 fine, it's nothing- not even a deterrent.
Edited 10/20/2008 5:05 pm ET by friendwithbenefits
Yep, I am.
from mileainm:
"Obama's inexperience and Marxist policies are real issues."
Honest to goodness, I wish that folks would actually research what they're saying before saying it.
Okay, well then I guess your point that tax increases simply get passed onto consumers is moot.
I would not agree with that. As I posted before, tax increases don't simply get passed on as a price increase.
Exxon made out like bandits, not to mention that the company has been setting records with their profits http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/business/exxon.php. $27 billion dollars isn't an argument for or against tax increases. Big numbers sure sound impressive, but they don't really tell the story. If a person making $14 hour with a family to feed has to pay a $300 fine for running a traffic light, it hurts. If a person making $50 million dollars a year runs a traffic light and has to pay a $300 fine, it's nothing- not even a deterrent.
I'm sure that anyone that had shares was happy to get a nice profit. I sure am happy anytime I can make "out like bandits" with my stocks.
Democrats harp all about tax breaks for oil companies, you would think Exxon doesn't pay much in taxes. Well, they do. And at 41%, your point about a guy paying a fine doesn't mean much.
>>> Honest to goodness, I wish that folks would actually research what they're saying before saying it. You are totally entitled to an opinion, but calling Obama's policies Marxist is not an opinion-based subject. Further, anyone who has read or researched Marx, Engels or anyone from those schools of thought understands that Obama would be an immediate Marxism reject. It's just factually incorrect to say that Obama's policies are in any way Marxist -
Actually, you're mistaken. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" and "class warfare" policies ARE Marxist by definition. But rather than provide the tenets of Marxism, I'll simply ask you explain how his policies are NOT Marxist.
>>> just as it is factually incorrect to say that McCain is in any way facist (as inflamed Obama supporters sometimes assert).
Again, I'll have to ask you what is it about McCain's policies that could make them fascist.
>>> There are legitimate reasons to reject either or both candidate, and legitimate reasons to embrace them. However, unfounded, unresearched assertions such as "he's a Marxist" only detract from your own credibility.
LOL! Somehow I don't think anything I could say shy of "vote Obama" would give me any "credibility" with the left. But I'll wait for your explanations above before dealing with your "expertise" on matters Marxist.
>>> Besides, The Communist Manifesto is a quick read, and is written at a 3rd grade level, so it doesn't take long to get through it and realize how lucky we are to live in a nation where those (and equally ridiculous ideas from the right) are not embraced.
Yet...but Obama's still a few points ahead. Hopefully, McCain will quash Barry's dreams of a resurgent communist empire...er...welfare state.
In order:
1.
>>Both assertions are ridiculous.<<
Mostly I agree. More ridiculous or just hyperbole, hard to say. But I think there is a grain of truth. As I understand it, McCain/Conservatives are slightly more fascist and Obama/Liberals are slightly more socialist.
Socialism..................Obama.McCain................Fascism
It's only when a candidate is accused of being both a socialist and a Nazi that my eyebrows raise.
Unfortunately, I'm not politically literate enough to know what Marxism is or how any of the above compare to Communism.
>>> 1. I assume you are alluding to Obama's reference of "spreading the wealth around" as it regards taxation in the third presidential debate on October 13. If that is true, then I am happy to address that, but wanted to make sure we were speaking about the same subject.
Obama has been quite clear on this policy for some time. It’s the basis of his laughable, and deceitful “95% tax cut” scheme.
>>> If my assumption is correct, then my reply is that Obama's proposals, just like all Republican candidates' and Democratic candidates' (with the notable exception of Steve Forbes 8 and 12 years ago) have all held in them unequal taxation as a tenet. Higher taxation for higher earners has been an accepted component of the US tax code for decades upon decades. Check out Ronald Regan's tax policies - unequal taxation was equally important in his administration as well.
Sorry, but no. When previous President’s raised taxes they did so to accommodate government spending for programs. Not so with Obama. He has stated specifically, that the “tax cuts” he will provide to the “95%” and the subsidized healthcare will be paid for SPECIFICALLY by raising the taxes on “the wealthy.”
>>> Secondly, I think it critical to note that you cannot cherry-pick issues and label candidates or policymakers accordingly.
Of course you can.
>>> Obama's health care plan would be roundly rejected by any socialist nation, and his social and fiscal policies would likely be laughed at.
Um…no, don’t think so. There’s a reason that Obama’s health care plan is identified as “socialized medicine.” Even the government purchase and control of certain banking institutions has been decried as “socialist”…government running health care would be no less so.
>>> An example of dangerous cherry-picking: the recent bailout plan, supported and enacted by President George W. Bush is as close to Marxism as any policy in the US in the last several decades. The fact that Paulson succeeded in acquiring equity from faltering banks could easily be called Marxist-style nationalization. However, and I think this is a critical point: I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A MARXIST MOVE.
Your belief doesn’t make it so. It is a “socialist” move, but the degree to how much the government exerts control over these institutions and for how long will ultimately prove that label true or false.
>>> Given the wealth of evidence, I happen to believe it was the right move under the circumstances and further, given the myriad other policies enacted and supported by this administration, to say Bush is a Marxist is laughable. Just as saying that Obama (who is firmly in line with traditional US policy) is a Marxist is similarly over-simplistic and completely misses the mark.
Well, first of all, it wasn’t Bush’s plan, it was the brainchild of Paulson. And the “right move?” Doesn’t look that way so far, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it plays out. To your final point…no Bush isn’t a Marxist. He’s publicly denounced the plan but sees it as the lesser of two evils and feels that it should be as short-lived as possible. Obama, on the other hand, is not facing any kind of economic crisis…he simply feels that “the wealthy”…i.e. those who have earned x-amount of dollars…have simply been “too successful” and deserve to be punished by having some of their money taken away and given to those who did NOT earn it.
>>> 2. Regarding the idea that McCain is a Fascist, I am uncomfortable going into too much detail about this, as I stated before that I believe it to be a ludicrous assertion. It should not be too much of a challenge to draw out the same line of thinking that puts Obama in the Marxist camp in the firmly opposite direction. I included that note in an effort to demonstrate that we all are victims of loaded thinking at times, and are prone to see what we want to see. Both assertions are ridiculous.
There is nothing in McCain’s policies that even remotely resembles fascism. The end.
>>> 3. My "expertise" is a graduate degree in political science, a dissertation on international political economy and 5 years of teaching PolySci, International Political Economy and Political Theory at the collegiate level at a class 1 research university.
Odd, then that you are so dismissive of Obama’s policies, or that you miss the salient points he has made regarding the disparity in the distribution of wealth in this country and his specific efforts to rectify that by direct redistribution.
>>> I must note that my olive branch at the end - noting that we are lucky to live where we do - was ridiculed and there was more partisan detritus thrown at it. I am not interested in arguments that resort to name calling, but welcome reasoned replies. Please note that I have not shared my political affiliations in my posts, for all you know, my vote may agree with yours.
Your credentials indicate that you SHOULD be able to make an informed analysis of Obama’s policies. That you have not seems to indicate an ignorance of Obama’s personal statements regarding wealth disparity, class warfare and redistribution of wealth or that you choose to ignore them due to partisanship. I’ll wait for your explanation.
Pages