Jump to content

United States Presidential Election 2008


Great_Gig

US Election  

144 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for?

    • Barack Obama
      90
    • John McCain
      54


Recommended Posts

McCain wants to cut taxes as well as government spending.

 

Obama wants to cut some taxes while continuing to raise government spending.

 

The biggest drain on government spending is the Iraq debacle at $10 Billion a month. McCain wants to continue this whereas Obama wants to work toward getting rid of it. With McCain's hawkish tendencies, I wouldn't be surprised if he threw in a couple billion more per month to fight wars in Iran, North Korea, and who knows where else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i wanted to put my ideas down. i'm voting for McCain for the only reason i will be voting this election, gun laws. i know most people don't give a crap about guns or their owners (either that or they have watched way too many movies where guns are only portrayed as instruments of violence and murder, and think guns are evil.) i know that obama is one of these people and he truly believes that taking firearms away from law abiding citizens like myself will reduce crime. idiot. therefore my vote is cast in the direction of the GOP.

 

This is no longer an issue. The Supreme Court ruled back in June that the Second Amendment upholds individual gun ownership and that gun bans are unconstitutional. So the guns debate is essentially over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no longer an issue. The Supreme Court ruled back in June that the Second Amendment upholds individual gun ownership and that gun bans are unconstitutional. So the guns debate is essentially over.

 

Precisely why I am voting for McCain. Gun restrictions can go a LOT further than gun 'bans.' The Supreme Court decision passed by a mere 5-4 vote. The next president is likely to put two new judges on the bench. If Obama is president, the two judges will undoubtedly be far leftists, and if a debate similar to gun bans ever goes back to the highest court, the decision we saw a few months back will probably not happen again. it is very much an issue. It's an issue that's been alive and well for over 200 years. This Supreme Court decision didn't settle it by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you make more than $250,000? If not, then you'll actually be getting a tax CUT under Obama. McCain is simply going to continue the Bush tax cuts, which only benefit the extremely wealthy.

 

I thought we went over this already? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama is president, the two judges will undoubtedly be far leftists, and if a debate similar to gun bans ever goes back to the highest court, the decision we saw a few months back will probably not happen again.

 

Agreed.

 

and funny enough, I am going out tomorrow morning for the opening day of dove season with my dad. with any more Clintonian "assault weapon"(ha) bans, i won't be able to do it much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely why I am voting for McCain. Gun restrictions can go a LOT further than gun 'bans.' The Supreme Court decision passed by a mere 5-4 vote. The next president is likely to put two new judges on the bench. If Obama is president, the two judges will undoubtedly be far leftists, and if a debate similar to gun bans ever goes back to the highest court, the decision we saw a few months back will probably not happen again. it is very much an issue. It's an issue that's been alive and well for over 200 years. This Supreme Court decision didn't settle it by any means.

 

With cases coming up every 80 years, I doubt you have anything to worry about :P

 

But seriously, it's really not an issue. Municipalities are scrambling to tweak their gun ban laws, or getting rid of them altogether. While you're right that the issue could be brought up again, this was a pretty big decision and the precedent will be difficult to overturn. Also, what's wrong with reasonable gun control? You want assault weapons and armor piercing bullets on the streets?

 

Most Supreme Court decisions are 5-4 :P

 

I thought we went over this already? :rolleyes:

 

Please don't tell me you're going to bring up the trickle down theory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Supreme Court decisions are 5-4 :P

 

Most cases brought before them do not have the 220 year old answer already written out in black and white. It should have been a 9-0 decision. That's what scares me.

 

Please don't tell me you're going to bring up the trickle down theory...

 

No, I'm going to bring up the thread talking about this bogus 'tax cuts for the rich' argument that never seems to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please share.

 

Gladly.

 

I was never able to figure out what these "tax cuts 'for the rich'" were that the politicians kept blabbing about. Perhaps yall can help me out here. I know this talk is all in reference to the Tax Relief Act of 2004. What I can't seem to figure out is how anyone can think this was simply for the rich. It completely did away with the marriage penalty and made the standard deduction for Married Filing Joint twice the standard deduction of filing single, like it always should have been. This helps EVERYONE, and since it is a flat deduction (e.g. a poor couple gets to deduct $10,000 just like a rich couple gets to deduct $10,000) it could really be argued that it is a regressive tax benefitting the poor more than the rich. It also upped the Child Relief credit from $600 to $1000 per child. It's a refundable credit so even once your taxes paid for the year reaches $0, you still get the money back (effectively giving you money from someone else's pocket)... and for every $1000 over $100,000 a family earned, the tax credit begins to drop off until it hits 0, also making it a regressive tax benefitting lower income families. The Act also implemented a raised income 10% tax bracket for those making less than about $7150 per year (from the 15% bracket), benefitting the very, very poor. On top of that, it lowered all the other tax brackets (25% from 28%, 28 from 30, 33 from 35, and 35 from 38.6). In effect, some people got a 5% tax break, a vast, vast majority got a 2% break, and some got a 3.6% break. There are also a buttload of other tax credits for teachers and low income workers that I won't even begin to delve into.

 

The politicians, when they talk about these "tax cuts for the rich," I believe are referencing the 3.6% tax cut that those families making over $326,000 per year received. We have to keep in mind that this tax relief package was designed to stimulate a stagnant economy, and the best way to do that is to free money up with the big investors and small business owners (those making over $326,000), to encourage them to invest into new business ventures and hire more employees. Four years down the road we can see that the plan worked very well, almost too well... but I just don't see how anyone running for national office could stand up and with a straight face say Bush's taxcuts were "for the rich." Sure, the rich got more money back than the poor, but that's only because the rich paid in exponentially more than the poor. The top 25% paid 86% of the total income taxes collected by the government. In 2006, the top 1% paid 39% of the total income taxes. When Bush took office, the top 1% paid 37% of the income taxes. Thus, as a tax base, those in the highest tax bracket contributed 2% more to the federal coffers than they did before the tax cut. This is where it boils down to the science of tax cuts ("for the rich," if you will). The tax cuts given 'to the rich,' that increased investment and hiring succeeded in creating more "rich," who in turn also had to pay the evil reduced 3.6% tax rate - but the more rich people still produced from the 3.6% tax break increased the government's revenue on rich people that were created from the successful investments made from those tax cuts... summarily causing the rich to pay more of the federal income tax than they were before their evil tax cut...

 

...I'll wait for your heads to stop spinning...

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

OK, so that's my take on all this. Now what exactly did Bush and the evil Republicans do that benefitted the rich so darn much while hurting the poor? I just can't see it. :blink:

 

 

... 53% of federal expenditures for 2008 are expected to be transfer payments (Robin Hood stuff: welfare, SS, medicare, etc), while defense consumption is "only" expected to be 15%. I could think of some awesome ways to balance the budget whilestill funding the war, but it would probably mean my party would ever get elected to public office again :lol:

 

The lowered income tax rates were part of a stimulus package passed in 2001 that lowered the tax rate on all brackets 1ish% per year up through 2006 (most of the 2001 package was Dem contributed - yay for bipartisanship). In 2004, they went ahead and jumped the gun by

fully lowering the tax a full two years ahead of time to maintain the momentum the economy had been building up. And yes, we've all been spoiled on our tax

returns for the past few years. The big push now to help the correcting economy is to make those 2004 tax cuts permanent, something that certain politicians are opposed to. Their idea instead is to give out little $800 rebate checks to "qualifying" (lower-income) Americans to put back into the economy. One of the biggest reasons for the hiring freeze across the nation (aside from the sub-rpime fiasco), thus the stagnating economy and pending recession, is because employers (the rich) are not investing or hiring because they fear that their tax liability will skyrocket if the tax package isn't renewed and expires on its set date in 2010. If this happens, and an all-Dem government deems it necessary to raise their taxes back to the 70% pre-1980/Reagan levels, while also removing the Social Security liability cap, we will most definitely see a nasty recession. I think the best way to push more growth is to let all Americans know that the tax cuts they've had for the last 4-8 years WILL remain in place permanently. That will increase confidence in investors and I think we'd see an instant boost in the economy.

 

Oh and here's a little table I found talking about the indexed lowering of the tax brackets http://www.taxprophet.com/hot_topic/0106.shtml . A little bit about the tax backets was also discussed in the CPA Journal link Brewmeister posted.

 

On a personal note with respect to businesses afraid to grow because of impending tax hikes, I'll give a small world, small business example of what will happen if the tax cuts expire and the Social Security cap is lifted (a plan endorsed by many

politicians to save Social Security). As it stands, corporations (LLPs and LLCs) on the small business level are taxed an average of 38-39% depending on their net income. While the Dems may make concessions and not raise their tax brackets, what they will do is lift the cap on FICA witholding. As it stands today, you of course pay your 6.2% to Social Security and your 1.45% to medicare. Your employer witholds that 7.65%, and they also have to match that 7.65% themselves. While there is no cap on the 1.45% medicare witholding, right now Americans are only taxed on SS up to $102,000 of their income. Anything over that is exempt from SS tax. Some may say it's unfair, but when you consider the fact that by time these people making $100,000+ per year reach retirement age, they will not be eligible to withdraw from SS, which means they are knowingly hemmorhaging 6.2% of every dollar they earn for their entire working lives, and they will never see a penny of it again. If the cap is lifted from taxable SS income, this would make the immediate increase in tax liability for your average small business medical practice (7 Docs, 4 Med Asst's, 27 nurses, 10 office staff) by $125,000 (not including the $125,000 also withheld from the employees' paychecks). Just in SS taxes. Money they will never see again.

That money could pay the salaries of three nurses, office clerks, building expansions, a new Doctor, and so much more. Instead it's going into a black hole where 70% of every dollar is lost in translation/adminstration/bureaucracy, and only 30 cents per $1 put in actually makes it to the retiree.

 

I could go on but class is about to start , oh and sorry about the weird text wrapping, Opera has been doing that a lot lately. I'll repost this using Firefox later (EDIT: Fixed). And as a disclaimer, none of this is meant to be an intentional jab at the Democrats, it's just the cold hard facts of their philosophy in respect to taxation, and I just don't necessarily agree with all of it for the reasons above. I have my fair share of gripes with the Republican party, too. One of the major ones being what Verran and Kash have mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL POLITICIANS ARE RAT BASTARDS. I have no confidence in any current presidential candidate. I probably sound a-political, but I just do not trust any of em. Promise, promise, promise and nothing will come of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest drain on government spending is the Iraq debacle at $10 Billion a month. McCain wants to continue this whereas Obama wants to work toward getting rid of it. With McCain's hawkish tendencies, I wouldn't be surprised if he threw in a couple billion more per month to fight wars in Iran, North Korea, and who knows where else.
Sadly, this is one of the only reasons I'm leading towards McCain. I think complete withdrawal from Iraq is foolhardy, and I think Obama is going to rush it.

 

 

Most cases brought before them do not have the 220 year old answer already written out in black and white. It should have been a 9-0 decision. That's what scares me.
Not when many people believe the Constitution is a "living document" and thus must adapt over time. After all, there were no automatic weapons or silencers back then...there weren't computers or the Internet...there was wasn't TV, cellphones...I think you get the point.

 

I'm not arguing the ruling, I'm simply arguing your notion that it was cut-and-dry and "should have been a 9-0 decision." That's being biased, if not borderline naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they outlaw knives, baseball bats, axe handles, chains, tire irons, ninja throwing darts, nun-chucks, bowling balls, Chuck Norris and every other thing that can be used as a weapon, they can outlaw guns. Until then it's a moot point.

 

Can you really trust a government that won't allow you to defend yourself?

 

The US citizens should go back and make sure you understand what LoArmistead posted. As the owner of a small business myself, I can vouch for every point made.

 

Think about taxes and the redistribution of wealth from this point of view. If the government promises to provide for your every need without you having to be a productive member of the society, what is your motivation? This is why communist/socialist regimes fail at every try.

 

In my opinion, government should provide basic life support services such as infrastructure including fire and police protection as well as national defense. Additionally, government should represent the people as the people see fit in all international matters.

 

Every US citizen should be required to read and understand the Federalist Papers before being allowed to vote. This would surely result in dramatic changes in politics and government.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...