President Obama

[Octopod]

Sharing the wealth gets my support.

[RackGaki]

Sharing the wealth is swell. Unfortunately, taking money from Tom to spend on Jerry doesn't fall into the realm of sharing.

[undamned]

Read the rest of his post. That's where he made you look silly.

FYI, I'd like to have a personal business someday. I find it extremely anti-"American Dream" to know that someone has decided to put a cap on my level of success. Mind explaining how that is silly?

And his retort to my "knives" comment wasn't even a sentence, let alone did it make any sense. So, maybe that fact that I couldn't even understand what he was saying does in fact make me look silly?

Actually, human is a species.

Main Entry:
race
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date:
1580

2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

-ud

[Twiddle]

i'm gonna be rich guys, just like that *snaps fingers* it won't take multiple generations of business savvy!

also oh god i'm paying slightly above bush tax cut level earning over $500,000 a year (and he won't even get rid of the multitudes of tax breaks available for the top brackets by property) this is SOCIALISM

[BulletMagnet]

I find it extremely anti-"American Dream" to know that someone has decided to put a cap on my level of success.

Calling a more progressive tax structure a "success cap" overdramatizes it by a span, in my opinion - if memory serves, McCain proposed a top income tax rate of around 35 percent ("America First"), while Obama's is between 39 and 40 ("Socialism"). In any event, as you probably already know, only a very small percentage of people are going to be paying anywhere near that much - and even if you're rich enough to be part of that group, it's really not that big of a difference, especially if you're making that much to begin with. If you're opposed to this sort of structure it's not because it's going to bankrupt you - one's resistance to it is based on purely ideological grounds. If that's your viewpoint that's fine, but methinks it's inaccurate to act as if this setup is going to turn us into Soviet Russia.

I must re-ask a question that I've asked many times before, and still have not received an answer to - why is directing wealth, in any amount and via any means, towards the wealthy "patriotic," but directing it towards anyone else in like manner is "class warfare?"

[Stormwatch]

Both are theft. Simple like that.

[sfried]

Maybe nihilism is a reflection of a religious view. If you once thought the meaning of all comes from a deity, and you lose faith, you may see things as meaningless.

But you can find meaning elsewhere; <randroid> The purpose of man's life is his own happiness, achieved by seeking his goals and ideals in a productive, rational manner. </randroid>

Sometimes man also seeks to ensure the happiness of others, which is why man sometimes strives for higher ideals, however impossible they may be.

Anyways, I'm not here to dabble in existencialism. I was arguing more about religious tolerance of various beliefs, rather than lambasting one ideological view over another's.

...and I still do not understand the hate on French people. Unless the simple answer (which persumably doesn't exist) is just sheer bigotry.

[innerpattern]

FYI, I'd like to have a personal business someday. I find it extremely anti-"American Dream" to know that someone has decided to put a cap on my level of success.
-ud

you love money more than sense...good job

[Specineff]

The root of evil is evasion, the refusal to think, to acknowledge reality. Religion is a syndrome of evasion, as it praises faith -- acceptance of the non-proven, non-probable, non-possible -- as an ideal.

I was just about to take a shot at you, SW, because of that comment, but better not add fuel to the fire.

[RackGaki]

why is directing wealth, in any amount and via any means, towards the wealthy "patriotic," but directing it towards anyone else in like manner is "class warfare?"

Easiest way to tell a fiscal conservative from a fiscal liberal. Your underlying premise, that the money "rich" people make is not their own, isn't accepted by a fiscal conservative to begin with. The government is not entitled to the money they are directing.

"Patriotic" isn't the word that I would use to describe lowering taxes, but when one of the pivotal moments of the United States' creation involved destroying tea because it was taxed by the British Empire, I wouldn't call "tax and spend" a patriotic endeavor either.

The Socialist slant the right-wingers put on the proposed Obama plan would have been alarmist and misleading, especially since our tax system is already progressive. However, when Obama listed off projects such as tax rebates (that would be given to those who don't even pay into the Federal income tax), upfront cash for college tuition, etc. etc., its adds up to taking money from one person to give to another. I would hope that had Obama promised to pay off the National Debt instead, people would have been more enthusiastic about paying money for something just and reasonable in the national interest.

Stupid election vocabulary aside, the core matter is weather or not you find that tax money to be property of the government or property of the people. I believe the Federal Government requires enough money to uphold the Constitution, no more, no less. They take what they need for the greater good of every citizen - ideally.

[Specineff]

IBTL.

[Twiddle]

oh no a political thread is getting political ibtl guys

or let's take a taco flavored piss we never get tired of that right guys?!?!

[CStarFlare]

Calling a more progressive tax structure a "success cap" overdramatizes it by a span, in my opinion - if memory serves, McCain proposed a top income tax rate of around 35 percent ("America First"), while Obama's is between 39 and 40 ("Socialism"). In any event, as you probably already know, only a very small percentage of people are going to be paying anywhere near that much - and even if you're rich enough to be part of that group, it's really not that big of a difference, especially if you're making that much to begin with.

When we're talking about large numbers, even one percent can be significant. "Oh well you have enough money anyway" is a cute response but I'm 90% sure that if anyone told any of us that we'd be raging pretty hard despite the fact that it's probably true.

If you're making enough money to be in that top tax bracket, you're probably spending a lot of money as well. Increasing their tax rate by 5% could be painful to a high-income family who's living at their means.

Not saying I'm opposed to Obama's tax plan, but it's not like they'll be completely unaffected. An extra $10k matters to pretty much everyone.

[Acid King]

Sick, isn't it? I don't recall who suggested this, but I'd support a law banning the teaching of religion to children.

I thought you were libertarian. When did you start peddling fascist, anti-individual bullshit like this?

[BulletMagnet]

@Stormwatch - I thought that for free-market stalwarts like yourself a huge wealth gap is the only reliable sign that things are being done "fairly," since it "proves" that the best and brightest are rightly thriving and everyone else is rightly not. And as I've mentioned elsewhere (in simplified terms, obviously), the closer any government gets to the "free-market ideal" in how it deals with business, the greater the wealth gap becomes - I see no real "practical" difference between a Bush-esque tax structure and a wholesale elimination of taxes and regulation, as the end results (an incredibly dominant upper crust) are the same, just the degrees of execution and methodology are different.

@RackGaki -

Your underlying premise, that the money "rich" people make is not their own

You've taken my viewpoint just a tad too far - I don't automatically assume that if someone's rich that they haven't completely "earned" it, though in some cases I believe that's true. What I'm making an issue of here is not anyone's state of being rich or poor, but rather the words used whenever there's any sort of change in the way wealth flows - no matter what the situation or the method (Obama's "tax increase" could just as easily be defined as a return the the pre-Bush structure, which it pretty much is), it's always "class warfare" if anyone but the rich comes out ahead. But any redirecting of wealth to the top is NEVER labeled as such - it's not so much any specific number that irks me so much as the knee-jerk labeling, which is NEVER questioned.

I wouldn't call "tax and spend" a patriotic endeavor either.

No argument from me, but out of curiosity who IS calling blind "tax and spend" policies the way to go? Who isn't suggesting that trimming some fat shouldn't be done? About the only diversion of paths I see here is whether you see universal healthcare or corporate tax credits as said "fat."

I would hope that had Obama promised to pay off the National Debt instead, people would have been more enthusiastic about paying money for something just and reasonable in the national interest.

I wouldn't have minded this either, but considering the sorry state the economy is in at the moment we're not going to have much money to spend on things we need right now, let alone projects that will take decades to pay dividends. The Obama argument seems to be, more or less, that we need to focus our spending on infrastructure, energy, and the like before we can do much else - basically, before we can try something as harrowing as reducing the debt, we have to be able to stand on our own two feet first. I have no idea whether that philosophy holds water economically, but I would guess that it's better than McCain's "cut taxes even further, keep the Iraq war going, and we'll pay for it all by eliminating earmarks" piffle, which wasn't so much a matter of theory as numbers simply not adding up. On that note, hopefully getting out of Iraq will free up at least a bit of money.

They take what they need for the greater good of every citizen - ideally.

As referred to earlier, I seriously doubt that anyone doesn't hold this point of view, in a basic sense. The trouble starts when you get into the details - is a universal health care system "for the greater good," or is "redistribution" of ANY kind patently "un-American," and thus not "the greater good?"

EDIT: @CStarFlare: For many what you say is likely true, but there are people who are willing to vote (and have voted) against their own immediate economic interest in hopes of makings things better for the country at large. I won't call their decision "right" or "wrong" (frankly, I wish that more people at the bottom WOULD vote in favor of their economic interests and leave most of the "social issues" garbage behind them), but it is something to take into consideration.

[Stormwatch]

Sometimes man also seeks to ensure the happiness of others, which is why man sometimes strives for higher ideals, however impossible they may be.

For that there is something called "charity". If you want to help the poor, by all means do it. With your money, of course. Mind you, I have a strong hunch that a bloated government makes people less likely to give to charity: "so much of my money's already gone to pay the pork, I don't have much to spare now."

Anyways, I'm not here to dabble in existencialism. I was arguing more about religious tolerance of various beliefs, rather than lambasting one ideological view over another's.

What could explain Prop 8, except a religion-fueled adherence to a certain prejudice? I mean, you can believe whatever you want, but what to do when the beliefs of a group drive them to take away the choice of another?

[innerpattern]

Sick, isn't it? I don't recall who suggested this, but I'd support a law banning the teaching of religion to children.

That's not the way to solve the problem and you know it...humanity must surpass religion for themselves, no one can do it for them...what you say makes you sound like the same religious nuts who thrive on forcing their doctrine onto others...that kind of thinking must also be surpassed...

[Ed Oscuro]

Who would you rather pass the nuclear football - Sidney Poitier or McNasty? That character issue trumped the "Obama is going to get schooled in a debate with some crazy" argument which unintentionally further promoted the JFK to Obama comparison (Vienna, May 1961). Thankfully, we live with JFK's experience as hindsight; the idea that Obama would rush into negotiations without any consideration of the political climate always was preposterous. Meanwhile, McCain flipped furiously between admonishing Obama for taking public policy stances "on violating another country's sovereignty" inbetween undiplomatic shots at Russia, China, and whatever other uppity places were getting under his skin at the moment.

Economic issues - the 'somehow, taxes are going to be increased on the sub-$250K yearly set' story is repeatedly discredited, tired, and sad. Senator Obama stated that he'll have to underfund or even cut funding on some programs he'd like to increase funding for in order to balance the budget (or get it more in line with where it should be). Sen. McCain continued to pretend that he could pay for two hugely expensive wars with fewer taxes - and the cornerstone of his tax policy was making the horrible Bush Tax Cuts permanent. All politicians in the modern age tend to be vague about what favored projects will be put on the chopping block because they want votes from interested parties - and so the economic policies should be regarded as a best-case scenario where money grew on trees. You can still learn a lot from examining these optimistic proposals, and apparently a lot of people did not do that.

Obama's liberalism as an issue - rather wrong-headed in my view. If you're centrist, Obama was the right choice; the evidence has been out there for a long while. Working in law school (I believe) with a noted scholar of the Supreme Court, he came to conclusions on gun rights and abortion that pleased neither far left or right, but nevertheless were supported by the Constitution. Senator McCain tried to reinvent himself dramatically in the preceding months, and his intentional alliance with the far right coupled with a fairly nearsighted and at times plain wrong (30 years of opposition to alternative energy, for instance) legislative activities meant he needed to explain his new views clearly. Comments from his own people that he didn't do well when the discussion hinged on the economy didn't help.

Beyond the Supreme Court, we only need look at the voting records - McCain as 90% Bush, and Obama as liberal mainly voting against many of Bush's policies.

@ BulletMagnet:

That is an interesting theory that I haven't heard before. If that is the case, wealth should really be aligned to one half of the bell curve, or something close, should it not? Of course, needs remain fairly constant (before medical expenses, which is another kettle of fish) from individual to individual and across all of society, which puts the lie to the social expediency of putting wealth out of reach for many people. Also, social considerations mean that the rich are just a pack of hootin' monkeys anyway, just like the rest of us.

[GaijinPunch]

Seriously. Are you ready to "share the wealth?" I support causes I deem worthy (including local poor) of my own accord, but the gov. reaching it's grubby hand into my wallet and giving it away is not cool.

I still think this phrase (while maybe used hastily in that debate) is taken out of context. If you look at what's happened the last 8 years, and for just about every Republican term (especially Reagan's), it's much easier to translate it, "Unfuck poor people".

I'm pretty sure my US taxes will go up, but saving me a few thousand bucks a year should not be the sole factor when selecting someone to lead us out of a debacle. One day, the economy will be good again, and we're going to face the same problems we had... the main one being that the world hates us. People bitch and moan about "the world is unsafe, let's bomb Iraq" but don't realize that the more people hate you, the less safe you are. In that respect, there's no question who the better candidate is.

Both are theft. Simple like that.

So all taxes are theivery. Another great post.

When we're talking about large numbers, even one percent can be significant. "Oh well you have enough money anyway" is a cute response but I'm 90% sure that if anyone told any of us that we'd be raging pretty hard despite the fact that it's probably true.

This goes both ways. Bush gave them more, Obama's taking more. Calling one right and wrong is neither here nor there. It's more like undoing the done.

@Everyone that gets all pissy about "sharing the wealth".

This is a time when I wish Fighter17 wasn't banned. He had a great philosophy on this stuff. If you search around, he said he had no problem with the lower class as long as they were, "trying to get out of being poor"... as if they had some type of disease, or addiction. Truly a miracle that fucked up style of thinking is. The fact is, there will alwyas be poor people, and these people are who keep the fucking country going. I don't see anything wrong with trying to make their quality of life better, and that doesn't mean hand them cash for doing nothing.

[sfried]

Anyways, I'm not here to dabble in existencialism. I was arguing more about religious tolerance of various beliefs, rather than lambasting one ideological view over another's.

What could explain Prop 8, except a religion-fueled adherence to a certain prejudice? I mean, you can believe whatever you want, but what to do when the beliefs of a group drive them to take away the choice of another?

You're generalizing that all members of a religious belief drove that amendment to pass, therefore you fall into the fallicy of thinking by affirming the consequent.

I certainly didn't ask for that proposition to be ammended. Oh wait, I forgot I can't vote...

[Damocles]

The positive part of Obama being elected (at least on my end): Firearm sales are through the roof here at the shop. Shooters remember Clinton, and know that more regulations/bans/registrations are on the horizon.

Not that this is a good thing as a whole.

[GaijinPunch]

Not that this is a good thing as a whole.

More guns on the streets is a good thing?

[Ed Oscuro]

Oh, McCain said a lot about making the rest of the world respect us again - and of course Bush himself has been spending his final years in office trying to do that as well. A big part of the equation here is actually the completely unfair (lol) mental aspect of the opposing party coming to the rescue. The core reason I think McCain wouldn't have lived up to his promises about working with the world is that it was increasingly clear he meant "those parts of the world that already love us, and also I'm in bed with people who hate the rest of the world." That, and being ornery and calling your wife a cunt don't instill confidence in me, either.

I always thought the "spread the wealth" around phrase was highly unfortunate to the point of being stupid, if you want to face off against a guy who's clearly Republican, but he was being honest. There are other formulations that mean pretty much the exact same thing while not scaring people. "Private splendor, public squalor" is one. "Unfuck poor people" is another, "Trickle-down economics is 4 dumbys," yet another, etc.!

You can't have a functional society without some redistribution of wealth to national projects, unless you believe in anarchism. Republicans don't believe in anarchism, and yet they have been rather dishonest about their own spending all throughout the election - and morons like Joe the Fake Plumber Wurzelbacher give them a free pass for it based on the pretty things they say. Thankfully, more people seem to have given Obama the nod for being more honest about the reality he'll be dealing with as President.

[Ed Oscuro]

When we're talking about large numbers, even one percent can be significant. "Oh well you have enough money anyway" is a cute response but I'm 90% sure that if anyone told any of us that we'd be raging pretty hard despite the fact that it's probably true.

It's a good thing you didn't say "I'm sure that if anyone told 90% of us that ["we have enough money anyway"], because more than 90% of you aren't getting a tax increase under Obama's repeatedly stated plan. Did you pay attention to what was being said this election cycle?

[Twiddle]

This is a time when I wish Fighter17 wasn't banned. He had a great philosophy on this stuff. If you search around, he said he had no problem with the lower class as long as they were, "trying to get out of being poor"... as if they had some type of disease, or addiction. Truly a miracle that fucked up style of thinking is. The fact is, there will alwyas be poor people, and these people are who keep the fucking country going. I don't see anything wrong with trying to make their quality of life better, and that doesn't mean hand them cash for doing nothing.

thank you. people forget the real reason why capitalism/consumerism works here

[szycag]

for quick reference

[Stormwatch]

You're generalizing that all members of a religious belief drove that amendment to pass, therefore you fall into the fallicy of thinking by affirming the consequent.

Well, I am guessing it's a pretty good hunch to say: people who oppose gay marriage tend to be the "religious right" type - which does not mean all religious people are like that.

Talking about religion, here's something funny: the most radical religious people often don't know their own faith. Sodom and Gomorrah is often mentioned, but is it really about homosexuality? Not at all.

[sfried]

You're generalizing that all members of a religious belief drove that amendment to pass, therefore you fall into the fallicy of thinking by affirming the consequent.

Well, I am guessing it's a pretty good hunch to say: people who oppose gay marriage tend to be the "religious right" type - which does not mean all religious people are like that.

Talking about religion, here's something funny: the most radical religious people often don't know their own faith. Sodom and Gomorrah is often mentioned, but is it really about homosexuality? Not at all.

Yeah, I know about that. Jesus was not a caucasian. And the number of the beast is actually 616.

Just to let you know, I'm not a fundamentalist. Just because people have a religion does not make them fundamentalist or extremist automatically. In fact, I prefer to keep out of American political labels; people are more complex than that.

[Elixir]

horrible img-timeline, ugh

[Damocles]

Not that this is a good thing as a whole.

More guns on the streets is a good thing?

By law-abiding citizens that pass state and federal background checks (as is current law)? Yes.