Obama or McCain?

[Setec Astronomy]

I guess it was predictable that instead of an exchange of ideas and viewpoints, this would degrade into an exchange of insults and name-calling, and an effort to exclude people with other viewpoints, just like a Zaino vs. NXT thread. And just like a wax thread, in the end we're going to have to live with our fellow Autopians, our countrymates, and our neighbors (as in neighbors in the global community).

Why is it that if you like NXT, the Zaino guys are elitist snobs, while if you like Zaino, the NXT guys are know-nothing low-lifes? It’s the same nonsense in this thread.

[weekendwarrior]

By the way, do we know Obama or McCain's stance on the Zaino vs NXT subject?

I will be voting for the candidate that believes in the detailer's right to choose.

[DavidB]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

I guess it was predictable that instead of an exchange of ideas and viewpoints, this would degrade into an exchange of insults and name-calling, and an effort to exclude people with other viewpoints...

I agree... it was predictable.

I think it's okay to be passionate about your point of view, but not at the expense of others. This is a lesson most people need to learn.

Your point of view is just that; a point of view. For those of you who don't understand it, I have news for you, there is no right or wrong position. So bashing others to push a viewpoint serves no one, not even yourself.

A wise person evaluates all points of view and considers all the possibilities.

[kellyinkc]

Originally Posted by User Name

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Oh, and BTW, your "petition" took 10 years to compile and is signed by a bunch of "scientists" who have nothing to do with studying climate change. On a global scale, 30,000 signatures probably represents less than 1% of the world's scientists.

Consensus in science is NOT science.It is in politics. The earth warms and it cools period. Ice sheets once covered North America yet now are gone. Where did they go? Did the earth warm? A coal mine is in the Arctic. Plants were once there. Now ice.
We can't get a 7 day weather forecast right yet the computer models for the next 100 years show GW is a fact?


And I love how the UN goes to a warm places to discuss GW, make that climate change. The new buzz word now.
Al Gore rides around in a G 5, buying carbon credits from a company he just happens to have a financial interest in, to off set the pollution.
It's all about green all right, the dollar.
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat

Well all have our opinion and it is good to look at both sides.

[User Name]

I guess this was just an "honest" mistake...


President Osama? U.S. election ballot misspells Obama's name

[Scottwax]

Just the other day, Obama told Joe the Plumber "I think when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody".

Sure sounds a lot like Karl Marx's axiom "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by Scottwax

Just the other day, Obama told Joe the Plumber "I think when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody".

Sure sounds a lot like Karl Marx's axiom "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

You know Scott, with all due respect, we've had a progressive income tax for what, 50 years? Or for as long as we've had federal income tax? When Bush made his tax cuts (predominantly for the upper brackets), I didn't hear anyone complaining about that "redistribution of income"...well, yes I did, but I don't think it was you.

I understand your concern that a tax increase on the upper brackets might effect your business, but Joe the Plumber apparently makes $40K and he will get a bigger tax cut under Obama's plan than McCain's. He also is not a business owner, nor does he have any plans to be, from what has been reported in his 15 minutes, not to mention the fact that his business would have to net, not gross, more than $250K to be affected. All personal income is subject to income tax, only business profits (income) are suject to income tax, hence the statistic used in the last debate that 98% of small businesses make less than $250K.

I think I posted a more comprehensive version of this another time Obama and McCain Tax Proposals - washingtonpost.com , which shows Obama not increasing taxes until an income of $603K (he does however intend to adjust the FICA caps, which currently stop at $102K, he will apparently maintain the current cap, but begin to collect FICA again at $250K).

Would you care to guess what percentage of your clientele makes more than $250K, and, to estimate whether your possible lost business would be more or less than the approximately $1000 less in tax you would pay under Obama's plan?

I know you have a lot of customers, but I find it hard to believe that you have more than one or 2 who make more than $603K. It's not up to me who you like or who you vote for, I just don't understand the "Marxist" argument. The new tax rates will still be lower than they were for most of the Reagan presidency ( The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 ), and even at the lowest point ('88-'90), it was still a progressive tax. I would think that any progressive tax (vs. a flat tax) would verge on "Marxist" by your definition, and the rates right now are more progressive than they were in '88-90 (10-35% vs 15-28%).

As I said, you're welcome to vote for whoever you want to, based on whatever criteria you'd like, I just don't understand the general middle-class argument for the party that cuts the taxes for the other guy. If party preference has more to do with social issues, that's fine, at least I understand that, because the tax argument doesn't really make sense to me. I think if the income of that top .1% hadn't exploded in the last decade, they might not be targeted for a tax increase as much as they are.

FWIW, I've voted for about twice as many Republican presidential candidates as I have Democrats, so it's not like I don't look at both sides of the coin.

[Scottwax]

What that quote shows is Obama's SOCIALIST mindset more than Joe's personal tax situation.

I have dozens of millionaire small to medium business owner clients.

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by Scottwax

What that quote shows is Obama's SOCIALIST mindset more than Joe's personal tax situation.

I have dozens of millionaire small to medium business owner clients.

If we're going to just toss terms around, there are a lot of people that believe that this Republican president just nationalized the US banking system. Most people consider nationalizing industry to be a socialist precept.

Being a millionaire doesn't mean that you make more than $603K, or even $250K/year.

[calgarydetail]

Originally Posted by Scottwax

Just the other day, Obama told Joe the Plumber "I think when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody".

Sure sounds a lot like Karl Marx's axiom "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

I am going to start by saying i am what most would call a capitalist pig. I am an love it ... I am a student of objectivism (ayn rand's phil.) and am a firm belive in minimual govement intervention.
I am also going to say i am a Canadian, and thus do not have a vote in your election. The only vested intrest i have in who wins is how they effect the global economy (much like any leader of any nation).

the us seems to be based on a system of capitalism, its called capitalism (although not pure capitalism but thats another issue) but when it comes time for a big bail out to save your and the worlds econmy (canada had a somewhat similar 25billion bail out, although we didnt have bad debts like you) we dont call it what it is. Socialism. The goverment is bailing out an entire sector.

I not saying its a bad thing, nor am i saying its a good thing. I am simply stating it as it is. Its not capitalism.

Satec you bring up some good points.

*** I am again going to stress i am simply offering a subjective observation ofwhat is going on, i have no vote and no vested intrest in who wins. Please do not take offence to my comments****

[User Name]

Originally Posted by Scottwax

What that quote shows is Obama's SOCIALIST mindset more than Joe's personal tax situation.

I have dozens of millionaire small to medium business owner clients.

Well, let me ask you this...

When Dwight Eisenhower was President of the US, the highest marginal tax rate was 90% (1961). That rate took effect at $400,000.

Was Eisenhower (a Republican) and "socialist", "marxist" or "redistributionist"?

The reality is, Obama is far from a socialist because if he was and if he REALLY cared about taxing the wealthy, he'd talk about closing corporate and personal loopholes usually only available to those with money.

The reality is (as Warren Buffet will tell you), he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. He does so because of deductions, shelters and havens for people like him.

As for "Joe the plumber"... he's looking more and more like a plant, but even if he's not, he should be more concerned about paying the LITTLE tax that he owes and not some pipe dream about buying a business he can't afford.

Which brings me to another point...

Joe the plumber isn't pay his tax bill (as it is) and he wants me to believe if he has his own plumbing business (much of which is paid in cash) that he is going to reporty $300,000 worth of income? Yeah right!!!

Full 'o crap is what we say in the biz.

He'll buy the plumbing business, he'll earn $300,000 per year, more than 1/2 will be undeclared (because it's cash), he'll further decrease his "taxable income" by $90k with his expenses (cell phone bills, car lease, capital costs etc...).

Now, Joe the plumber is paying tax on 60k. 25% of 60k is 15k.

So, he has gross income of 300k, he pays 15k in tax, so Joe the plumber is really paying 5% of Federal income tax. Poor Joe!

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by User Name

When Dwight Eisenhower was President of the US, the highest marginal tax rate was 90% (1961). That rate took effect at $400,000.

Was Eisenhower (a Republican) and "socialist", "marxist" or "redistributionist"?

Ha. That made me go back and look at that whole link I posted, looking at the tax rates from 1913 until now. They started off very low, went up to over 70% during WW1, then dropped back down quite a bit until the depression, then shot up to 90-ish during WWII, where the top bracket stayed until...that great conservative LBJ lowered them to 70%.

And I've looked at a chart of the national debt, corrected for inflation, and it was pretty flat up until Reagan. We were able to fight WWII, the Cold War, and put a man on the moon, without increasing the debt. However, since the top tax rates were pulled down from 70-ish, we have developed a mountain of debt. It seems to me that rich people are still rich people, no matter what the tax rates are. The rest of us, are a different matter.