Sarah Palin: 20/20 Interview

[RobInKuwait]

Market decline is not always a bad thing. May reflect some correction in the fundamental value of stocks and provides opportunity for consolidation.

Yeah, but the reason for the market decline is a bad thing. When the cost to invest in a company is increased by 25%, and taxes on small businesses increases dramatically, the fundamental value having money in the economy suffers.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Here's the fact: George Bush went into Iraq for one reason and one reason only..... and that was to capture Saddam Hussein, not because it was for the best interest of our country, but it was more of a personal vendetta in retaliation for Sadaam Hussein making the president's father (George Bush Sr) look like an incompetent president during his presidency. This was a promise George Bush made to his father once he was elected president. With that being said, you can see why George Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless of the fact that Iraq did not have any WMD. This is why the Bush administration falsifided the evidence in the first place, and also one of the reason's Colin Powell left the administration (George Bush lied to him also).

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I realize you believe strongly about this, but if you want others to acknowledge that something is a fact, you should provide evidence.

Let's be real...... it took a brutal dictator such as Saddam Hussein to govern a country such as Iraq.

I understand where you are coming from and the same thing has been said of Yugoslavia, however, you could use the same logic to justify any brutal dictator. Hitler, Stalin, Castro....obviously it took a brutal dictator to govern the country, because they were the ones governing the country.

 

[strategicmove]

Yeah, but the reason for the market decline is a bad thing. When the cost to invest in a company is increased by 25%, and taxes on small businesses increases dramatically, the fundamental value having money in the economy suffers.

Yes, but I find it hard to associate your current comments with Obama's economic policy.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Yes, but I find it hard to associate your current comments with Obama's economic policy.

Capital Gains:

Invalid Link Removed

Sorry, capital gains was not 25% increase, its a 66% increase.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends by a staggering two-thirds, moving the rate up 10 percentage points to 25%, which could curtail investment and business on Wall Street, a backbone of the city's and state's economy.

According to the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Mr. Obama's tax hike would knock off $2.5 trillion in capital formation over five years, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product.

"If we are only growing around 2% over the next five years, then we will have virtually zero growth for the period," the president of the institute, Stephen Entin, said. "This will create a permanent hit of 5% or greater to GDP."

Small Business:

Invalid Link Removed

Basically, when Obama tries to hit the "rich" with higher taxes, he will by its very nature, hit small business owners, who are often on tight profit margins and barely squeaking by, even making over $250,000 a year.


Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century. What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

As a business owner, if the bottom part comes true, it will royally piss me off and I will consider moving my business elsewhere.

 

[suncloud]

i thought you were in burma....

 

[AE14]

I agree but as you know, history tends to judge a bit better decades later as the consequences and total picture are more clear.

I agree 100%, I think Truman is a fine example of the changes. I dont know if Bush will benefit the way Truman did, unless Iraq becomes a thriving democracy that has turned into a powerful partner in the ME

 

[Fastone]

btw, the Palin bump is over, Obama is back on top in the polls.


:bruce3:

 

[dsade]

As a business owner, if the bottom part comes true, it will royally piss me off and I will consider moving my business elsewhere.

We would be sunk.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

We would be sunk.

Don't you know you are a part of the wealthy and its your patriotic duty to pay more taxes?

 

[aristo3369]

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I realize you believe strongly about this, but if you want others to acknowledge that something is a fact, you should provide evidence.

I understand where you are coming from and the same thing has been said of Yugoslavia, however, you could use the same logic to justify any brutal dictator. Hitler, Stalin, Castro....obviously it took a brutal dictator to govern the country, because they were the ones governing the country.

Fact: We invaded Iraq to search for WMD and to capture Saddam Hussein. Fact: We captured Saddam Hussein. Opinion: We knew Iraq did not posses any WMD, this was just used as justification to accomplish Fact (1). which is: George Bush went into Iraq to hunt Saddam Hussein Down and the evidence was the capture of Saddam Hussein and the famous statement "Mission Accomplish".



I disagree with the above statement about using the same logic. Remember in the Middle East death cannot be used as a threat or deterent. As with the 3 countries you mentioned, death is and was used as a means of threat or punishment to rule or control.

 

[aristo3369]

Capital Gains:

Invalid Link Removed

Sorry, capital gains was not 25% increase, its a 66% increase.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends by a staggering two-thirds, moving the rate up 10 percentage points to 25%, which could curtail investment and business on Wall Street, a backbone of the city's and state's economy.

According to the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Mr. Obama's tax hike would knock off $2.5 trillion in capital formation over five years, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product.

"If we are only growing around 2% over the next five years, then we will have virtually zero growth for the period," the president of the institute, Stephen Entin, said. "This will create a permanent hit of 5% or greater to GDP."

Small Business:

Invalid Link Removed

Basically, when Obama tries to hit the "rich" with higher taxes, he will by its very nature, hit small business owners, who are often on tight profit margins and barely squeaking by, even making over $250,000 a year.


Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century. What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

I know where you pulled this information from and the logic and math are both incorrect.

 

[strategicmove]

I know where you pulled this information from and the logic and math are both incorrect.

Agree. It is unfortunate that this whole thing is completely overblown to Mr. Obama's disadvantage. The narrative did not reflect the thrust and intent of his plan. In my opinion, the apparently preferred and accepted erroneous interpretation of Mr. Obama's proposed tax policy is just another weak excuse to justify embracing an alternative campaign that has demonstrated seriously compromised economic thinking.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Fact: We invaded Iraq to search for WMD and to capture Saddam Hussein. Fact: We captured Saddam Hussein. Opinion: We knew Iraq did not posses any WMD, this was just used as justification to accomplish Fact (1). which is: George Bush went into Iraq to hunt Saddam Hussein Down and the evidence was the capture of Saddam Hussein and the famous statement "Mission Accomplish".

Recheck your facts. We found WMDs. Also, that "famous statement" came well before Saddam was caught.

I disagree with the above statement about using the same logic. Remember in the Middle East death cannot be used as a threat or deterent. As with the 3 countries you mentioned, death is and was used as a means of threat or punishment to rule or control.

Death cannot be used as a threat or deterrent in the Middle East?
That makes 0 sense. I understand that in Middle Eastern culture people often don't value life like they do in Western Countries, but to say fear of death is not a deterrent is asinine.

Also, what you're saying is irrelevant to my argument. I said, that if a dictator is in power, OBVIOUSLY it took a dictator to govern the country. The logic is irrefutable because the dictator is in power....you follow?

 

[RobInKuwait]

I know where you pulled this information from and the logic and math are both incorrect.

The links are included in the posts. They're based exclusively on statements Obama has made on the campaign trail. I'll try to find youtube videos of him saying it.

Invalid Link Removed

This is information from the Wall Street Journal.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Agree. It is unfortunate that this whole thing is completely overblown to Mr. Obama's disadvantage. The narrative did not reflect the thrust and intent of his plan. In my opinion, the apparently preferred and accepted erroneous interpretation of Mr. Obama's proposed tax policy is just another weak excuse to justify embracing an alternative campaign that has demonstrated seriously compromised economic thinking.

I realize it was not his "thrust" or "intent", but it is the reality. High taxes are never good for the economy, not matter which economic class is the victim.

There's nothing "alternative" about a tax and spend liberal. We've had them many times to the same ugly results.

 

[aristo3369]

The links are included in the posts. They're based exclusively on statements Obama has made on the campaign trail. I'll try to find youtube videos of him saying it.

Invalid Link Removed

This is information from the Wall Street Journal.

John McCain's tax plans would have everybody pay a little less in taxes with the wealthiest paying a lot less. Barack Obama's plan would have a the wealthy pay a lot more and would give middle- and lower-income people bigger breaks than McCain's plans. Obama would raise income and capital gains taxes on earners over $250,000. McCain would cut the estate tax. Obama would raise it on estates over $3.5 million.

The tax plans Obama McCain
$227,000 - a year - plus $23,000 more $15,000 less
$112,000 - $227,000 (15% of population) $2,300 less $3,200 less
$66,000 - $112,000 (20% of population) $1,290 less ($500 per worker tax credit for $0 to $150,000) $1,009 less
$38,000 - $66,000 (20% of population) $1,042 less $319 less
$19,000 - $38,000 (20% of population) $892 less $113 less
$0 - $19,000 (20% of population) $567 less $19 less

Impact of tax changes on federal budget: Returns $700 billion Costs $600 billion

Tax breaks for all: College credit: $4,000 a year per student in college Double dependent credit: from $3,500 to $7,000

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Numbers are estimates and averages.

 

[RobInKuwait]

John McCain's tax plans would have everybody pay a little less in taxes with the wealthiest paying a lot less. Barack Obama's plan would have a the wealthy pay a lot more and would give middle- and lower-income people bigger breaks than McCain's plans. Obama would raise income and capital gains taxes on earners over $250,000. McCain would cut the estate tax. Obama would raise it on estates over $3.5 million.

The tax plans Obama McCain
$227,000 - a year - plus $23,000 more $15,000 less
$112,000 - $227,000 (15% of population) $2,300 less $3,200 less
$66,000 - $112,000 (20% of population) $1,290 less ($500 per worker tax credit for $0 to $150,000) $1,009 less
$38,000 - $66,000 (20% of population) $1,042 less $319 less
$19,000 - $38,000 (20% of population) $892 less $113 less
$0 - $19,000 (20% of population) $567 less $19 less

Impact of tax changes on federal budget: Returns $700 billion Costs $600 billion

Tax breaks for all: College credit: $4,000 a year per student in college Double dependent credit: from $3,500 to $7,000

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Numbers are estimates and averages.

Which is what I said. He is raising the taxes on small businesses. I don't think theres a way to research this, but I'd say 95-98% of profitable small businesses make $250,000 a year or more. Hence the tax on small business.

You did not refute anything I posted, you just wrote it as dollar values instead of percentages.

 

[aristo3369]

The links are included in the posts. They're based exclusively on statements Obama has made on the campaign trail. I'll try to find youtube videos of him saying it.

Invalid Link Removed

This is information from the Wall Street Journal.

Didn't you watch Bill Oreilly (The factor)? Like I said Mr. Kuwait, do your homework first.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Didn't you watch Bill Oreilly (The factor)? Like I said Mr. Kuwait, do your homework first.

Not sure what you mean by that Mr. 69? I posted several sources showing that Obama will raise taxes on small businesses as well as capital gains taxes and you haven't posted anything to refute that, and you're saying I haven't done my homework?

 

[aristo3369]

Not sure what you mean by that Mr. 69? I posted several sources showing that Obama will raise taxes on small businesses as well as capital gains taxes and you haven't posted anything to refute that, and you're saying I haven't done my homework?

I'm sorry. I was more focus on the overall big picture Impact of tax changes on federal budget: Returns $700 billion Costs $600 billion and I see you are more focus on small businesses. I take it you own a business. If you do, you may have a valid argument.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm sorry. I was more focus on the overall big picture Impact of tax changes on federal budget: Returns $700 billion Costs $600 billion .

Then at least get the facts straight.


An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary - Revised September 15, 2008

Abstract

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

"Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."



Invalid Link Removed

 

[RobInKuwait]

I'm sorry. I was more focus on the overall big picture Impact of tax changes on federal budget: Returns $700 billion Costs $600 billion and I see you are more focus on small businesses. I take it you own a business. If you do, you may have a valid argument.

I do not own a business. I would like to someday. I do know that small business is one of the strengths of this country, and stifling it would cause a downward spiral affecting the rest of the economy.

Cutting taxes on the poor and middle class, but keep in mind neither the poor or middle class CREATES jobs, so taxing the rich, who does CREATE jobs will indirectly hurt the poor and middle class.

After all....what good is a tax break without a job? :sad:

 

[strategicmove]

The differences here are more dramatic: Invalid Link Removed

Update was from September 12th, though.

"..........In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain's plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator's plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers. "

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The differences here are more dramatic: Invalid Link Removed

Update was from September 12th, though.

"..........In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain's plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator's plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Which doesn't take into account increased revenue from a pro business platform.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers. "

Which doens't take into account decrease in revenue from a non pro business platform (that make sense? :lol.

 

[strategicmove]

Which doesn't take into account increased revenue from a pro business platform.
.
.
.
Which doens't take into account decrease in revenue from a non pro business platform (that make sense? :lol.

Sure, but it is speculative how much these would amount to, as they would be hard to pin down, due to the fact that there would be counter-balancing effects.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Sure, but it is speculative how much these would amount to, as they would be hard to pin down, due to the fact that there would be counter-balancing effects.

Its true, its hard to nail down, but more growth will occur with less taxes than more taxes, conversely if negative growth occurs, it will occur at a greater rat with more taxes...I don't think anyone will argue those points.

Based upon that, Obama should get diminishing returns on the taxes he does implement, while McCain should get increasing returns.

Also, factor in the long term hidden costs of having a democratic congress and a democratic president both interested in universal health care and taxes could very well skyrocket when they realize that their "great ideas" cost money to implement.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Sure, but it is speculative how much these would amount to,

...based on current conditions.

You cant judge an investment while ignoring the potential return which basically both of these analysis do....simply because its impossible. New business, increased GDP, more consumer spending, increased workforce, etc....it simply isn't something you can really measure accurately based on a tax plan. Both will tell they can, but are full of it.

McCain invests a bit more in business. Obama invests a bit more in the consumer. Given the past 4 years and consumer judgement, I don't trust the latter.


Plus this doesn't incorporate the biggest factor on spending....Healthcare and Social Security.

 

[strategicmove]

Its true, its hard to nail down, but more growth will occur with less taxes than more taxes, conversely if negative growth occurs, it will occur at a greater rat with more taxes...I don't think anyone will argue those points.

I am not sure these points are as obvious as you would like them to be. Mr. McCain's plan has a bigger revenue impact. If he is not pro-deficit, he has to make up the revenue loss from somewhere. Where would this come from, looking at the typical sources of government revenues? In Mr. Obama's case, he arguably has a lower revenue impact to compensate. Some say his taxes may distort relative competition for small-business owners, yet it is not clear how much the higher disposable incomes of the average American can compensate for the potentially lower investment in small business operations. And do not forget that businesses pay taxes on their profits.
Furthermore, if the rich pay more taxes, it would reduce their ostentatious consumption. A lot of this consumption is often on imported goods and services.

Based upon that, Obama should get diminishing returns on the taxes he does implement, while McCain should get increasing returns.

Both increasing and decreasing returns as economic concepts are finite constructs. While I do not understand how these returns should emerge, their impact will be dated, if they do!

Also, factor in the long term hidden costs of having a democratic congress and a democratic president both interested in universal health care and taxes could very well skyrocket when they realize that their "great ideas" cost money to implement.

This not only presupposes that a Republican health care would not only be significantly less expensive, but also subsumes that the Democratic campaign is naive in terms of the costs of an implemented health care program.

 

[strategicmove]

...based on current conditions.

You cant judge an investment while ignoring the potential return which basically both of these analysis do....simply because its impossible. New business, increased GDP, more consumer spending, increased workforce, etc....it simply isn't something you can really measure accurately based on a tax plan. Both will tell they can, but are full of it.

The reason I wrote that the compensating amounts would be hard (not impossible) to measure was that the entire analysis is based on a closed economic system! Integrate the foreign exchange aspect, as well as economic growth in the rest-of-the-world, and the pictures gets muddy, as many more important variables (and their ultimate economic effects) need to be quantified.

McCain invests a bit more in business. Obama invests a bit more in the consumer. Given the past 4 years and consumer judgement, I don't trust the latter.

My understanding is that McCain will make the Bust tax cuts permanent, so it is also consumer-oriented.

Plus this doesn't incorporate the biggest factor on spending....Healthcare and Social Security.

These affect both Republicans and Democrats to different extents.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The reason I wrote that the compensating amounts would be hard (not impossible) to measure was that the entire analysis is based on a closed economic system!

Which is why I immediately brought up the pro business aspect.

Integrate the foreign exchange aspect, as well as economic growth in the rest-of-the-world, and the pictures gets muddy, as many more important variables (and their ultimate economic effects) need to be quantified.

Which is the reason why it comes down to more economic philosophy than anything.

My understanding is that McCain will make the Bust tax cuts permanent, so it is also consumer-oriented.

While Obama will probably repeal it which has to be considered when judging his tax platform.

In politics, when you repeal a cut that might cost you $2000/year, but then you enact another law which gives you a cut of $1000/year....its called a tax cut even though you pay more in the end.

These affect both Republicans and Democrats to different extents.

Generally Democrats will spend more on these social programs.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I am not sure these points are as obvious as you would like them to be. Mr. McCain's plan has a bigger revenue impact. If he is not pro-deficit, he has to make up the revenue loss from somewhere. Where would this come from, looking at the typical sources of government revenues? In Mr. Obama's case, he arguably has a lower revenue impact to compensate. Some say his taxes may distort relative competition for small-business owners, yet it is not clear how much the higher disposable incomes of the average American can compensate for the potentially lower investment in small business operations. And do not forget that businesses pay taxes on their profits.
Furthermore, if the rich pay more taxes, it would reduce their ostentatious consumption. A lot of this consumption is often on imported goods and services.


Both increasing and decreasing returns as economic concepts are finite constructs. While I do not understand how these returns should emerge, their impact will be dated, if they do!



This not only presupposes that a Republican health care would not only be significantly less expensive, but also subsumes that the Democratic campaign is naive in terms of the costs of an implemented health care program.

I agree with J. Peterman, it is a fundamental philosophical difference.

As much as I've tried I can't for the life me understand how the other side's view could ever work....but I understand that a lot of people feel that way for some reason so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

As much as I've tried I can't for the life me understand how the other side's view could ever work....but I understand that a lot of people feel that way for some reason so I'll leave it at that.

The most effective way to rise to power or even keep it (which is strange) is to pitch the rich against the poor. It has worked throughout history all over the world and always will.

 

[RobInKuwait]

The most effective way to rise to power or even keep it (which is strange) is to pitch the rich against the poor. It has worked throughout history all over the world and always will.

Change! :fool2:

 

[AE14]

its funny, JP is right here, as both candidates are doing it over and over again. If I have to listen to a nonsensical speech from either one of these two about the working man struggling (which is true, but then give us some reason to cling to you ie. how you will help).

It is the same crap over and over again, but it will work for one of them

 

[RobInKuwait]

its funny, JP is right here, as both candidates are doing it over and over again. If I have to listen to a nonsensical speech from either one of these two about the working man struggling (which is true, but then give us some reason to cling to you ie. how you will help).

It is the same crap over and over again, but it will work for one of them

McCain isn't doing the politics of envy. He's saying those things to show he knows what the working man is going through. Obama makes it sound like rich people are criminals for making money.

 

[AE14]

McCain isn't doing the politics of envy. He's saying those things to show he knows what the working man is going through. Obama makes it sound like rich people are criminals for making money.

rob, honestly, dont let your bias get the best of you. Both sides are full of :dump: and are trying to appeal to that audience. They are smart to do it, but to think otherwise is a tad naive

 

[strategicmove]

McCain isn't doing the politics of envy. He's saying those things to show he knows what the working man is going through. Obama makes it sound like rich people are criminals for making money.

I must agree with Reaper329. Even in your bias, it might help sometimes to sound balanced. Anyone that is anything close to neutral in this campaign will admit that the McCain of 2008 has very little to do with the McCain of 2000. The principles for which he was known and respected have now given way to opportunism: say and do the things voters expect to hear and see. Unbelievable switches in opinion and character! Not even to talk of the nauseating tone (and content) of his ad attacks aimed at Mr. Obama. Somethings else. I am always clueless when some Republicans painfully struggle to cast Mr. Obama as an "elite". Perhaps, they should look up the meaning of the word. Then, they should examine Mr. McCain's circumstances and see who fits that description better. I am sure you will find a way to spin all this in McCain's favour. Feel free! One last thing. Except you are super-rich yourself, you can only speculate how the super-rich react to Mr. Obama's (economic) plans. If they really thought he regarded them as "criminals for making money", as you suggested, I doubt they would have turned up in such numbers during the week in Hollywood to help him raise several millions in one evening alone. Perceptions are not always true, Sir! And bias can distort reality! Your turn!

 

[Mo250]

I must agree with Reaper329. Even in your bias, it might help sometimes to sound balanced. Anyone that is anything close to neutral in this campaign will admit that the McCain of 2008 has very little to do with the McCain of 2000. The principles for which he was known and respected have now given way to opportunism: say and do the things voters expect to hear and see. Unbelievable switches in opinion and character! Not even to talk of the nauseating tone (and content) of his ad attacks aimed at Mr. Obama. Somethings else. I am always clueless when some Republicans painfully struggle to cast Mr. Obama as an "elite". Perhaps, they should look up the meaning of the word. Then, they should examine Mr. McCain's circumstances and see who fits that description better. I am sure you will find a way to spin all this in McCain's favour. Feel free! One last thing. Except you are super-rich yourself, you can only speculate how the super-rich react to Mr. Obama's (economic) plans. If they really thought he regarded them as "criminals for making money", as you suggested, I doubt they would have turned up in such numbers during the week in Hollywood to help him raise several millions in one evening alone. Perceptions are not always true, Sir! And bias can distort reality! Your turn!

what makes you think Obama is any better than McCain? you've not offered any reason why I should vote for him instead.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Anyone that is anything close to neutral in this campaign will admit that the McCain of 2008 has very little to do with the McCain of 2000.

Then please explain why because I can give examples against your assumption. Criticizing his own party in his acceptance speech? Can you EVER tell me what candidate has done that? Calling for the firing of the head of the SEC which is Bush appointed? Pushing for regulation in 2003 and 2005 against Bush? Pissing off the majority of Republicans with his stance on immigration? Pissing off the majority of Republicans with h stance on global warming?

The principles for which he was known and respected have now given way to opportunism:

You mean pushing for the surge which was almost political suicide? Yeah, he really pounced on that opportunity!

Unbelievable switches in opinion and character!

Me thinks you didn't watch the primary of 2000 very much. They both were NASTY. This idea that McCain sat there and "took it" is a complete myth.

Not even to talk of the nauseating tone (and content) of his ad attacks aimed at Mr. Obama.

The first negative ad in this campaign was saying McCain wanted to fight in Iraq for 100 years....something that is completely and utterly a lie. As you have stated in another thread...are you supposed to sit back and take it?

Somethings else. I am always clueless when some Republicans painfully struggle to cast Mr. Obama as an "elite". Perhaps, they should look up the meaning of the word.

Maybe you should when it comes to the poltical meaning. Elitist in terms of poltiics does not refer to wealth, it refers to attitude as being smarter and better than everyone else. There is a reason its associated with professors and journalists who by my account, aren't rolling in it. The simple phrase "those people who cling to their religion and guns" is a prime example.

You ever see Back To School?

Thorton Mellon - rich...not an elitist.

Dr. Bombay - Professor - not rich - elitist.

Get the picture?

:lol:

Then, they should examine Mr. McCain's circumstances and see who fits that description better.

By all means examine him and his history.

I am sure you will find a way to spin all this in McCain's favour. Feel free! One last thing. Except you are super-rich yourself, you can only speculate how the super-rich react to Mr. Obama's (economic) plans.

250,000/year when it comes to small business is not super rich...its actually super small. Living in Kansas at 250,000 is rich. Living in New York and San Fan making 250,000 is upper middle class.

If they really thought he regarded them as "criminals for making money", as you suggested, I doubt they would have turned up in such numbers during the week in Hollywood to help him raise several millions in one evening alone. Perceptions are not always true, Sir! And bias can distort reality! Your turn!

Forming any type of statement based on the logic and reasoning of Hollywood isn't the wisest of decisions. It often brings up the word "hypocrisy" pretty quick.

 

[slow-mun]

You ever see Back To School?

Thorton Mellon - rich...not an elitist.

Dr. Bombay - Professor - not rich - elitist.

Get the picture?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

That is the best characterization that I have ever read. Reps to you sir.

 

[aristo3369]

Then please explain why because I can give examples against your assumption. Criticizing his own party in his acceptance speech? Can you EVER tell me what candidate has done that? Calling for the firing of the head of the SEC which is Bush appointed? Pushing for regulation in 2003 and 2005 against Bush? Pissing off the majority of Republicans with his stance on immigration? Pissing off the majority of Republicans with h stance on global warming?




You mean pushing for the surge which was almost political suicide? Yeah, he really pounced on that opportunity!


Me thinks you didn't watch the primary of 2000 very much. They both were NASTY. This idea that McCain sat there and "took it" is a complete myth.



The first negative ad in this campaign was saying McCain wanted to fight in Iraq for 100 years....something that is completely and utterly a lie. As you have stated in another thread...are you supposed to sit back and take it?


Maybe you should when it comes to the poltical meaning. Elitist in terms of poltiics does not refer to wealth, it refers to attitude as being smarter and better than everyone else. There is a reason its associated with professors and journalists who by my account, aren't rolling in it. The simple phrase "those people who cling to their religion and guns" is a prime example.

You ever see Back To School?

Thorton Mellon - rich...not an elitist.

Dr. Bombay - Professor - not rich - elitist.

Get the picture?

:lol:




By all means examine him and his history.



250,000/year when it comes to small business is not super rich...its actually super small. Living in Kansas at 250,000 is rich. Living in New York and San Fan making 250,000 is upper middle class.




Forming any type of statement based on the logic and reasoning of Hollywood isn't the wisest of decisions. It often brings up the word "hypocrisy" pretty quick.

:yawn: All of the above.........Political driven!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

:yawn: All of the above.........Political driven!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please put down the pipe.

 

[DAdams91982]

:yawn: All of the above.........Political driven!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Phenominal post my friend... I shall give you 1 Beeeiiiiillllllllllliiiiooonnnn REPS!!!

Adams

 

[strategicmove]

what makes you think Obama is any better than McCain? you've not offered any reason why I should vote for him instead.

I personally have no stake in your voting choice. You should vote for whoever you please. I am simply irritated by the a prori assumption that Mr. McCain would make a better President than Mr. Obama.

 

[strategicmove]

...Criticizing his own party in his acceptance speech? Can you EVER tell me what candidate has done that?

It is interesting that people failed to see the strategy in this. If he wanted to paint himself a maverick, and if he wanted to distance himself from Mr. Bush, then he had little choice. That simple!

Calling for the firing of the head of the SEC which is Bush appointed?

Everyone, except the most die-hard Republicans, admits he misfired there! I am sure you have seen the link I provided in a different thread with the editorial of the Wall Street Journal on this. An effective president is expected to take a balanced decision after considering available facts. Spontaneous comments based on emotion are hardly desirable, except of course, one is a staunch McCain supporter.

Pushing for regulation in 2003 and 2005 against Bush? Pissing off the majority of Republicans with his stance on immigration? Pissing off the majority of Republicans with h stance on global warming?

He has since mellowed his tone on some of these things. We all know that!

...
Me thinks you didn't watch the primary of 2000 very much. They both were NASTY. This idea that McCain sat there and "took it" is a complete myth.

Apparently, you deliberately misunderstood me. I prefer the McCain of 2000 to the one of 2008. Miles apart!

The first negative ad in this campaign was saying McCain wanted to fight in Iraq for 100 years....something that is completely and utterly a lie....

This is open for debate. You may have a solitary opinion there. McCain wanted to do an honourable campaign. I am sure you have followed his ad in the last few weeks. Mud-slinging at his best. Mr. Obama only retaliated when McCain first hit. Again, Republicans will see this differently.

Maybe you should when it comes to the poltical meaning. Elitist in terms of poltiics does not refer to wealth, it refers to attitude as being smarter and better than everyone else. There is a reason its associated with professors and journalists who by my account, aren't rolling in it...

The intended rendition depends on whom you ask. I see it differently. You too. And that's fine! Depending on political leaning, people will use the interpretation they are most comfortable with; or that would do the biggest damage to the opposing campaign. This discussion can never be objective!

The simple phrase "those people who cling to their religion and guns" is a prime example...

I struggle to see how this paraphrase proves anything!

By all means examine him and his history.

I used the word, "circumstances", on purpose.

250,000/year when it comes to small business is not super rich...its actually super small. Living in Kansas at 250,000 is rich. Living in New York and San Fan making 250,000 is upper middle class...

First, of all, I do not recall having quoted, or implied, 250 000. In fact, when I used the word "super-rich", I was looking at a significantly higher end of the wealth spectrum!

Forming any type of statement based on the logic and reasoning of Hollywood isn't the wisest of decisions. It often brings up the word "hypocrisy" pretty quick.

I fail to get the connection. Hollywood was used to represent the so-called super-rich. I have not seen these so-called super-rich collectively or individually saying they would not vote for Mr. Obama because his proposed tax policy would supposedly impoverish them. That was my point.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It is interesting that people failed to see the strategy in this. If he wanted to paint himself a maverick, and if he wanted to distance himself from Mr. Bush, then he had little choice. That simple!

Yes, the strategy. I'm sure McCain did it all over strategy. Take a chance by lecturing against those who just voted you in, even when the majority of those people are still in favor of Bush.

He was already painted a "maverick" over the last 20 years. He didn't need to lecture his own party.

By your logic, its smart to pander to a 10-15% independent vote while lecturing/crticizing the 30% that still agree with Bush. What great strategy!!!

Everyone, except the most die-hard Republicans, admits he misfired there! I am sure you have seen the link I provided in a different thread with the editorial of the Wall Street Journal on this. An effective president is expected to take a balanced decision after considering available facts. Spontaneous comments based on emotion are hardly desirable, except of course, one is a staunch McCain supporter.

Everyone? Who? DO you watch CNBC and the majority of people who want Cox fired? 90% of Wall Street want him gone. The other 10% are in bed with the SEC including the majority of staff writers on the Wall Street Jr.

You seriously need to get a clue on this subject because its amazing just how wrong you are.

This is like you arguing to keep Rumsfeld. That's how wrong you are.

He has since mellowed his tone on some of these things. We all know that!

Really? Where?

Apparently, you deliberately misunderstood me. I prefer the McCain of 2000 to the one of 2008. Miles apart!

Prove it. Its obvious you didn't watch the primary of 2000 that closely.

This is open for debate. You may have a solitary opinion there. McCain wanted to do an honourable campaign. I am sure you have followed his ad in the last few weeks. Mud-slinging at his best. Mr. Obama only retaliated when McCain first hit. Again, Republicans will see this differently.

The blinders are on. So Obama started the negative ads, has produced 76% of his ads negative, while McCain is at 53%, and its McCain.

Looks like the one applying a different standard is you.

The intended rendition depends on whom you ask. I see it differently. You too. And that's fine! Depending on political leaning, people will use the interpretation they are most comfortable with; or that would do the biggest damage to the opposing campaign. This discussion can never be objective!

No, its an actual fact on how its used in politics. If you didn't know that, maybe you need to follow politics a bit more.

I struggle to see how this paraphrase proves anything!

Of course you don't.

First, of all, I do not recall having quoted, or implied, 250 000. In fact, when I used the word "super-rich", I was looking at a significantly higher end of the wealth spectrum!

Why would you use super rich as last time I check they don't have a special tax bracket when it comes to either campaign's economic plans. Either you meant the top tax bracket, or you made a mistake in using super rich.

I fail to get the connection. Hollywood was used to represent the so-called super-rich. I have not seen these so-called super-rich collectively or individually saying they would not vote for Mr. Obama because his proposed tax policy would supposedly impoverish them. That was my point.

Where did anyone state either tax plan would impoverish the "super rich"? The argument is about small business in which 250,000 is the the figure used by his campaign.

 

[strategicmove]

I watched the Wolf-Blitzer-moderated CNN Late Night Edition yesterday, and it was fairly dramatic to see how Mr. Obama's and Mr. McCain's economic advisers tried to show that their candidate was the better choice for America. Many threads here share some similarities with that discussion. They can run forever. This is exactly why I avoided, unfortunately unsuccessfully, to get into those discussions here. As it turns out, responding to J. Peterman's comments on my post would perpetuate the endless loop. So, I would rather pull the breaks here. Let the American voters decide! Several years down the road, unbiased historians will add the necessary footnotes to the annals of American (political) history...

 

[RobInKuwait]

Several years down the road, unbiased historians will add the necessary footnotes to the annals of American (political) history...

If you find an unbiased historian let me know....

As a history major, I can tell you that every historian has their own paradigm they conveniently build their thesis around.

For a quick look at this, read the Politically Incorrect Guide to US History. You'll see how much what we learn in school is based upon a political viewpoint.

Sorry for the tangent...couldn't resist when you mentioned unbiased historians.