What about the issues
Find a Conversation
What about the issues
| Thu, 09-11-2008 - 5:33pm |
I read pages, and pages, of he said she said BUT every little about issues. Why is this?? Are the issues not important or have we become puppets in this presidential election?? I would like to think that we, as adults, are mature enough to focus on this issues for a change. So, with that said, what is the biggest ISSUE that concerns you in this election??

Pages
Pretty good explanation. The social security system already benefits those at the bottom the most. Obama would make it an even greater welfare program:
Obama Turns FDR Upside Down
By LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
June 20, 2008; Page A13
Sen. Barack Obama has a bad idea for "extending the life of Social Security." He has proposed applying the Social Security tax to incomes above $250,000, in addition to the current tax on incomes up to $102,000. It's unfair, he explained, for middle-class earners to pay Social Security tax on "every dime they make" while the very rich pay on "only a very small percentage of their income."
Reporters cited the Obama statement without asking for the logic behind having someone making $100,000 pay on every dime and someone making $250,000 pay on just 41% of income, while someone making $10,000,000 would pay on 98.5% of income. There is no economic principle or theory of tax law that would endorse such a result.
Chad Crowe
Sen. Obama's logic is fairly obvious, although it hardly makes him an exemplar of the "new politics." The $100,000 to $250,000 group is a targeted voter demographic, and he really didn't want to sock them with a 12.4 percentage point hike in their tax rate. But, as Sen. Obama himself noted in his June 13 announcement, just 3% of workers make more than a quarter-million.
Neither Franklin Roosevelt, who started Social Security, nor the intervening three dozen Congresses thought they were imposing an "unfair" system on the middle class. There is a very good and principled reason why Social Security taxes are paid on just $102,000 of income: Benefits are calculated based on that same $102,000 of income.
The fundamental principle of linking taxes and benefits was established when Roosevelt designed Social Security. He wanted to make sure that it was not a welfare system, calling Social Security "a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts." His instincts have generally proved sound. Had Social Security been considered "welfare" rather than a return on taxes earned, it probably would never have had the popularity or the staying power that it has enjoyed for the last seven decades.
Although the formula connecting benefits to tax payments or "contributions" has evolved slightly over time, it still adheres to this basic message. Today, what Social Security terms a "low-wage" worker will pay (in present value terms) $77,197 over his or her lifetime and get $112,261 in benefits. A median-wage worker earning $42,000 will pay $171,550 and get back $187,085. A "high-wage" worker making $67,000 will pay $274,480 and get back $245,085.
Under the current formula, lower-wage workers get a slightly better deal than do higher-wage workers, assuming the same life expectancy. But the principle remains that as workers' wages rise so do the taxes they pay, and so do the benefits they will get from the system.
Sen. Obama would do away with this principle by requiring higher-end workers to pay taxes without getting any extra benefits linked to their higher contributions. This would be a big step toward turning Social Security from a contributory pension scheme into just another welfare program.
The economics of what Sen. Obama is proposing should be at least as troubling. A high-income entrepreneur would see his or her federal marginal tax rate rise to 53% from 37.7% under Sen. Obama's tax plan. He proposes a 4.6 percentage point hike in the personal income tax rate, a loss of some itemized deductions, and a 12.4 percentage point hike in the Social Security payroll tax. This would take a successful entrepreneur's effective marginal tax rate higher than what it was under Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon, when the maximum tax on an entrepreneur was 50%.
One of the lessons from the disastrous economics of the 1970s and the subsequent Reagan tax cuts is that everyone – particularly entrepreneurs – responds to incentives. If you take away 10% of a high earner's after-tax income at the margin, he will cut his taxable income by at least 4%. At the margin, this taxpayer now takes home 62.3% of his earnings, a figure that will drop to 47% under the Obama plan. According to a widely accepted economics rule of thumb, the entrepreneur's taxable profit would drop by 11.2%.
Now consider how the Obama plan would affect the taxes paid by such an entrepreneur with a taxable profit from his business of $500,000. Under current law, he would pay $27,148 in Social Security and Medicare taxes, plus $142,969 in personal income taxes, for a total of $170,117. If the taxpayer did not change his behavior at all, under the Obama plan he would face a $31,000 Social Security tax hike and a $11,494 hike in his personal taxes – or a 25% tax hike. But, if the taxpayer responds as the economic models predict, his taxable profit would drop to $444,000. His Social Security and Medicare tax bill would still soar to $51,580. But his income taxes, even with a higher tax rate, would drop to $132,882 for a total of $184,462.
In other words, Sen. Obama is planning on a combined series of tax hikes to produce $42,000 in tax revenue, but consensus economic modeling suggests the government's net take would rise only $14,000.
We should also keep in mind that the economic well-being of the country is not measured by how much taxes the government can collect, or even the size of the deficit. Rather, it is measured by the country's productive capacity. Our theoretical entrepreneur's 11.2% decline in taxable income reflects both less effort on his part and a less efficient use of his income in order to avoid confiscatory tax rates. Or, to put it directly, Sen. Obama's plan would reduce an entrepreneur's after-tax profits by $70,000 – $56,000 in lost profits and $14,000 more in taxes – just to produce a net revenue gain to the government of $14,000.
It is shocking to think that we have a presidential candidate who would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer. More likely, given the calculated political design of the proposal, no one in the Obama campaign told the candidate about the economic, ethical or historical consequences of his suggestion.
This indicates that what is really on offer is not some postpartisan approach to politics, but a Democratic candidate far to the left of Bill Clinton.
Thanks for the opinion piece but it is just that----based on OPINION and no facts to back them up.
He has stated that he's not opposed to raising FICA taxes on those making above $250,000. In fact I believe he said it's part of his "plan" to do so. He has not proposed increasing the wage base for determining eventual benefit payments. So he'd be in effect charging more for the same thing....A TAX INCREASE.
Social security is already a rip-off to those who qualify for the maximum benefit. Please read the article again if this is unclear. Not to mention those very same people who pay more into the system than they take out also are among the very few who ultimately pay taxes again on the benefits when they receive them making their value all that much less.
Franky it is my opinion that participation should be optional. The same with the universal health care, and medicare. It should be an available option for those who want to play they can pay. Those opting out should think hard about it because they shouldn't be allowed back in unless they're willing to pay to get back in and then it should only be allowed in very limited circumstances to discourage the opt-out.
But to tax even more wages...the cost to most business owners who pay both the employer and employee costs right now is very hard to bear....would put folks out of business. It would cost my company many thousands of dollars just in the employer matching funds alone depending how it ultimately shakes out.
I've heard nothing good for business out of that man. What's not good for business isn't good for employees because they go hand in hand. It's also not good for the taxpayer who is a very large customer of the United States government. Don't think for a moment that those costs won't be passed along to them in the end.
Frankly, my biggest issue is that too much is expected of a president. Back when we had 13 colonies and a few thousand people, the issues weren't so huge. Get out of Europe, create a new country, allow people the freedom to work & raise their families & practice their religion as they wish. Now, there are so many issues for the president I almost think that someone who is 72 might have actually learned enough to do it. But, it isn't a one man show anymore. I want to know who these people are going to put on their cabinet, and what these secretaries propose to do about the issues. I don't think the president manages the country anymore, s/he manages his secretaries and advisors. So, let me know who is lined up to fill in those other positions, and what they think. Hopefully Palin won't shoot McCain, and hopefully Obama has met enough really competent people in his time in Washington to fill in those seats responsibly.
I apologize if I haven't put any facts in there, but I find it too difficult to believe what either candidate is saying when I don't know who is backing them up.
You want issues?
First, education needs improvement. I don't think everyone is college material, and I don't think we should turn every primary & secondary school into college prep. Nor do I think community college is the answer to our prayers. NCLB needs to be reformed. No, I don't have any suggestions for how right now. Maybe bring back shop class and help those not college bound find what their true calling is so they can take the electives that will keep them interested in school until graduation so they can find a job. Which one of these guys is going to mess with NCLB? I hear talk of needing to improve in math and sciences, what about votech?
Second, welfare. It is hard for me to hear about a family where the parents won't get married because their welfare benefits will end and they won't be able to do the things they could before because they won't make enough money. Please fill me in on the welfare policies.
Third, the war in Iraq. Our military was poorly trained at the start of the Iraq war, and I think they are still not being trained to fight this particular war. It's like the English wearing bright red uniforms and marching in formation to take over the colonies when the colonists weren't playing by the same rules. We just aren't playing by the right rules to win. They do hate us. The ones that don't get refugee status in the U.S.A. Is it possible to only offer that if they agree to take diplomacy training and return for X amount of time to help their own country come out of the war? Is anyone offering that? Otherwise, no, we cannot leave, and we cannot fight, and we're kind of stuck until there is a better idea.
I guess I've got some researching to do.
1) If you look at your own article, you'll note that Obama is raising income taxes for some.
Yes, but only for the very wealthy.
<>
.....and that is all he has proposed is raising the cap but Obama has not specified what the rate would be, when it would take effect, whether it would apply to employers, employees, or both, or what the tax base would be.
auntanna, the big issue on the social security point is that up until Obama's proposal, the amount of money you pay social security taxes on, and the amount of pay that is used to calculate your benefits is identical.
I guess I'll have to jump in about the Social Security issue and say "life's not fair."
I work two jobs, one with a state
So in other words you're admitting he's being incredibly vague about what it is he's really going to do about taxes?
Gee, that's so reassuring and yet another reason I wouldn't go near him with a ten foot pole. He speaks about lowering "YOUR" tax rates and sticking it the "RICH" who can afford it! LOL!
Guess he knows his audience......too bad he's ignoring those who listen more closely.
Pages