What is "RICH"???
Find a Conversation
What is "RICH"???
| Tue, 10-14-2008 - 10:10am |
In your own opinion, what do you classify as "RICH" -- as in yearly income?????
| Tue, 10-14-2008 - 10:10am |
In your own opinion, what do you classify as "RICH" -- as in yearly income?????
Pages
I am posting what is being discussed by Obama to the public.
"I am posting what is being discussed by Obama to the public. I have no crystal ball to predict the future and neither does anyone else."
That's why I think looking at patterns of behavior is so important. If Obama were known to be a moderate Democrat, then you might be able to assume he wouldn't take the typical course on taxes (but then look at the Clinton example I gave you -- he was termed a "moderate"). In reality Obama's not a moderate, he's very much to the left, so you have to go based on actions, not words. And, while his time in the Senate has been very short, he's already voted for taxes many times including those making ~$40K a year and has would not support a bill to get some safety into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so while he doesn't have a long record to analyze and make him accountable for, the short record already shows enough to make the educated guess.
I think that's what's frustrating in this election is that people are willing to believe whatever is said, but there is no contract on his words. It's like a car salesman. Can tell you whatever he wants, but the only contract is the one in writing executed by both parties and that's all you can try to have upheld and take to court. What will you do if Obama does what's always done and the promise is gone?
For what it's worth, I personally don't believe the federal government should be in the business of funding schools unless there's a federal school since schools are a states issue. But, if the federal government raises our taxes again, states will pay more taxes to the federal government, so will all individuals and small businesses (and I'm leaving corporations out of it b/c corporations don't truly pay taxes, people that buy their products do), and that will put states in a tougher position to fund their schools, perhaps squeezing the same people over again to eek out more money for schools.
It's easy to give away candy in words. If we're going on words, the words I'd like to hear is what will be CUT because until a candidate talks in those terms, government will grow bigger which means tax increases. I think both candidates will grow the government since neither are talking about spending cuts, but I think it's very clear that Obama's promised much more goodies to the American people who are both believing in those goodies AND that it will always be someone else paying for it. Welcome to 1992 then!
American's new math:
60% of Americans pay taxes; 5% of Americans pay nearly 90% of the taxes collected; but one presidential candidate has gotten Americans to believe he's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans (and doesn't mention he's not going to renew the current tax cuts set to expire after the next president takes office).
Me: 44 - 3 daughters, 1 son
DH: 48 - 3 daughters, 1 son
TTC #1 together
Me/Leslie: 44 - 3 daughters, 1 son DH: 48 - 3 daughters, 1 son TTC #1 together
<
mom, how can you call Obama a "centerist"?
He has consistently had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, and for last year, was the most liberal.
"Huh? Do you realize the contradiction in this statement? Obama and Clinton are both centrist. Neither of these people are far to the left on economic policy nor trade."
No, there wasn't a contradiction, but you think Obama is a centrist and that's not at all the case. He's considered to be one of the MOST liberal Senators. We'll just have to agree to disagree there, but that's a biggie!
"The rest of your statement about him voting to raise taxes on people making $40,000 is not based on facts."
That is true. It had been misspoken about at one time that he was raising taxes on FAMILIES that made $42K a year when in reality he had voted to raise it for INDIVIDUALS making $42K.
"Neither candidate has proposed any (controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) yet but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?"
Forget about talk, the time I'm speaking about already came and went and Obama did not sign onto the bill. Such bad judgment. And, now our taxes will be higher as a result of the Democrats refusing to step in to put controls into these institutions.
"It still stands that both these politicians running for President have different economic, foreign and domestic views."
That's true to a point, but the point is that people are believing whatever Obama says and not looking at the record he already has and even things he has said during the campaign where he slides around what he's saying after getting reactions and then fine tunes what he says when in reality, as the CNN pundit and Obama supporter said, he will just do as Clinton did and raise taxes anyway, claiming things are far worse than he thought because he knows he's going to have to raise taxes to pay for all his programs, but he can't be honest about it during his campaigning.
"Education just happens to be one of my big priorities."
Yes but ....
it's not the FEDERAL government's place, that's a states issue.
In terms of spending money, yes, the government will spend our money one way or another because it's the only money the government has -- OURS. However, I won't give up on a pursuit to make government smaller. This idea that taxes only should ever stay the same or go up is defeatist (this goes for state and local levels, too. Some states already have nearly 10% sales tax rate -- that's outrageous!). The government is involved in too.many.things. Too many programs. And, as Huckabee says, with our tax code the way it is, our representatives have a job of lobbying to make one group WIN with the tax code while someone else is made a loser. Even with the talk of cutting unemployment benefits taxes for a while (both candidates are proposing) -- someone else will have to pay MORE to make up for that. There's never any talk of where programs will be cut, it's all giveways. There are some things only the federal government can do such as defense so it stands to reason a large chunk of the federal government should go for that purpose. Maybe if our representatives weren't so sidetracked on other things they could have more thoroughly hashed out even our foreign policies and defense spending vs. posturing and people that voted for the war acting like they never did and newcomers on the scene claiming innocence because they were never there at the time to put their reputation on the line in the first place.
American's new math:
60% of Americans pay taxes; 5% of Americans pay nearly 90% of the taxes collected; but one presidential candidate has gotten Americans to believe he's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans (and doesn't mention he's not going to renew the current tax cuts set to expire after the next president takes office).
Me: 44 - 3 daughters, 1 son
DH: 48 - 3 daughters, 1 son
TTC #1 together
Me/Leslie: 44 - 3 daughters, 1 son DH: 48 - 3 daughters, 1 son TTC #1 together
<>
Not sure how giving back taxes to the "spenders" and raising taxes for the wealthy
To me, being rich is all about lifestyle. If you have better-than-average "stuff" (house, car) and at the same time can afford all your needs, your kid's needs (inc college) and also can afford some luxuries, then you are rich.
I had a friend in college whose family lived in a beautiful house in Atlanta, always drove new cars, his parents bought him and his siblings new cars when they were teenagers plus paid for private colleges. They spent Christmas vacation at a ski resort in Utah, and still usually took a summer vacation - often abroad. They weren't Hilton family rich by any means, but they had a lot. I'd consider them rich.
Middle class and upper middle class families might be able to afford some of those things - maybe they can save and pay for college, but not go on fancy vacations while they're doing it. Maybe they have the big house and new cars - but are in debt up to their eyeballs because of it.
To me, the ability to live well, handle emergencies as they come up, and still have multiple luxuries is "rich"
mom, his voting record is consistently liberal.
The man is not in any way, shape or form a "centerist".
Pages