Tonight's Debate 10/15/2008

[Drew Dowdell]

It really could happen. the rightwing nutjobs are not going to go away if and when Obama gets elected. If Obama is elected and things go poorly for him, Palin could run again in 2012 and get the white house.

I'd FAR rather have Hillary than Sarah, but that just ain't gonna happen.

Chris

I'm no Hillary fan but Hillary would kick Sarah's ass all the way back to Alaska.

[A Horse With No Name]

I am more of an Obama fan myself. Actually met Hillary when she came to speak at Columbus State Community College. I was the only male out of about 350-400 people that was not escourted by a female.

Personally I don't think she would have had the appeal in a genral election that Obama has had.

(enter stupid sarcasm mode)

Someone needs to kick Sarah's ass. Perhaps we could have a Hillary vs Sarah mud wrestling competition?

(exit stupid sarcasm mode)

Chris

[The O.C.]

And then consider the consequences of either scenario. Does anyone really think Palin could handle the presidency? Does anyone really want her to be president? Can you imagine her giving the State of the Union??

I'd rather have her than Obama.......<ugh>

[A Horse With No Name]

Really? Why, an all seriousness.

Chris

[Robert Hall]

It really could happen. the rightwing nutjobs are not going to go away if and when Obama gets elected. If Obama is elected and things go poorly for him, Palin could run again in 2012 and get the white house.

I'd FAR rather have Hillary than Sarah, but that just ain't gonna happen.

Chris

A Palin presidency is something that has potential to be far worse than a Bush presidency. She's a scary, far-right evangelical nut job. If she were elected, I'd give up any hope for the future of US....an election of Palin would prove that the American people are fundamentally stupid.

Edited October 28, 2008 by moltar

[siegen]

I'd rather have her than Obama.......<ugh>

Because she's a Republican? Or because you think she would actually be a good president?

Palin has done nothing but erode McCain's shot for the white house. She brings little skill/experience to the ticket, and was only chosen seemingly for the look-how-down-to-earth-I-am-you-betcha factor. It worked for a week or so, everyone was excited about her, but then reality set back in.

Obama and Biden together bring a total of 44 years of senate experience, two juris-doctor degrees, history and political science educations, and a wealth of other relevant skills to the white house. Obama also taught constitutional law for 12 years.

What do McCain and Palin bring? 20 years of senate experience, navy experience, a communications-journalism degree, and 2 years as governor of the 3rd lowest-population state in the US (oops, did I forgot that she was mayor of Wasilla?). McCain had a shot at the white house, his experience and life is respectable, but he threw it out the window when he chose Palin.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Its all okay, once the nation sees what a socialist Obama is the makeup of the government will quickly change again.

Plus Obama has no means of changing the supreme courts composition really... except to replace two liberal judges with younger ones... which i guess is sorta a significant change... but more of maintaining a status quo into the future.

however, considering that Obama has said that he feels essentially that the constitution is a drag on America (i'm assuming hes referring to minorities or something) I don't feel good about the type of judges he would replace them with.

But uh, i don't think i would want Palin running in 2012... i dont believe i would vote for her during the primaries anywho. We need an old fashion progressive conservative for 2012... its an old breed of republican.... but i believe it still exists out there... and would probably pretty easily win over most independents even if the far right are not terribly fond of said candidate.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Its all okay, once the nation sees what a socialist Obama is the makeup of the government will quickly change again.

Please. I'm asking in the nicest way possible, explain your reasoning behind this belief. Just justify the statement.

I really need to know how 36.5% tax under Bush isn't socialism, but the 39.5% we had under Clinton will have people singing the Soviet National anthem.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Please. I'm asking in the nicest way possible, explain your reasoning behind this belief. Just justify the statement.

I really need to know how 36.5% tax under Bush isn't socialism, but the 39.5% we had under Clinton will have people singing the Soviet National anthem.

Ok 1 quick thing first, im not saying he is communistic, im saying he is socialistic... there is a difference.

well 1) there's the redistribution thing, but that's already been covered... Its not about raising taxes... its about raising taxes on some and GIVING that money to others who don't pay taxes in the first place (and don't try to argue that he is not GIVING money to people who nominally do not pay taxes). The other implications is that it increases the marginal rates by a LOT on the lower brackets. By that logic i should not tip my waiter, i should go outside and give that tip money to some homeless person... because he is more needing of it. Given that Marx himself has said this is a key tenant of his philosophy (to each to his ability, to each his needs), this is quite socialistic. As one could argue, this policy does little to encourage creating new wealth, while merely spreading around existing wealth.

2) his interpretation of the constitution as a "living document" and aptitude to appoint judges who "understand what its like to come from a disadvantaged viewpoint" undermines the entire point of the constitution... The entire point of America is that the law is supreme in America, all people are to be treated the same and the supreme law is the constitution... it is not something to change willy nilly (which, lets face it, you can "interpret" anything anyway you want to). This may not necessarily be socialistic, but it does go against what the vast majority of Americans believe in.

3) With bush already pushing us down the path of socialization it seems rather scary that Obama could build upon it (think Hoovers last ditch effort before FDR took office)

4) Universal health care is also a socialistic policy. There is really no difference between Obama's policy than another countries health care plans, except that the $$ will be paid directly into the state system instead of through taxes. And of course since this is also known as socialized medicine i would say that is socialistic.

I'm sure i could come up with other reason why, but these are the main ones.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Ok 1 quick thing first, im not saying he is communistic, im saying he is socialistic... there is a difference.

U.S.S.R. - The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991.

well 1) there's the redistribution thing, but that's already been covered... Its not about raising taxes... its about raising taxes on some and GIVING that money to others who don't pay taxes in the first place (and don't try to argue that he is not GIVING money to people who nominally do not pay taxes). The other implications is that it increases the marginal rates by a LOT on the lower brackets. By that logic i should not tip my waiter, i should go outside and give that tip money to some homeless person... because he is more needing of it. Given that Marx himself has said this is a key tenant of his philosophy (to each to his ability, to each his needs), this is quite socialistic. As one could argue, this policy does little to encourage creating new wealth, while merely spreading around existing wealth.

This doesn't answer my question. If we are returning to Clinton era tax rates, does that mean we were socialist for 8 years and didn't know it?

2) his interpretation of the constitution as a "living document"

Has nothing to do with what I asked.

3) With bush already pushing us down the path of socialization it seems rather scary that Obama could build upon it (think Hoovers last ditch effort before FDR took office)

One: I don't understand the fear of socialism. Sweden isn't exactly a bad place.

Two: Clinton era tax rates + healthcare + middle class tax cuts != socialism it just doesn't add up.

4) Universal health care is also a socialistic policy. There is really no difference between Obama's policy than another countries health care plans, except that the $$ will be paid directly into the state system instead of through taxes. And of course since this is also known as socialized medicine i would say that is socialistic.

Perhaps a name change from "Universal Healthcare" to something like POLR Healthcare would ease your mind a bit. Obama's plan is NOT universal healthcare. POLR is a term we use in the energy industry that stands for Provider Of Last Resort. If you currently have healthcare, nothing will change for you. You keep your plan. If you lose your job, you default back to a basic plan that will cover you in emergencies. Keep in mind that we have a backdoor version of this today. If someone poor gets very sick and is admitted to the ER, you pay the cost in higher hospital bills and insurance rates.

Obama's plan is not socialized medicine. It's a provider of last resort insurance plan when you can't get insurance any other way.

Edit: The Germans have a similar setup to Obama's plan. In Germany, health insurance is mandatory. Employers offer coverage, but you're free to choose any plan you like. There is also a basic federal plan that you can default to. The complaint the Germans have is that healthcare is NOT universal. If you're rich, you can afford more insurance and thus more expensive procedures.

Edit II: If that doesn't ease your mind. Here is the link to the Soviet national anthem so you can practice for January 20th.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

This doesn't answer my question. If we are returning to Clinton era tax rates, does that mean we were socialist for 8 years and didn't know it?

No because Clinton era tax rates were higher for everyone, they did not really redistribute much wealth.

Has nothing to do with what I asked.

Sure it does, the constitution... well it used... to provide safeguards to private property, as that safeguard has fallen by the wayside so that government can seize your land and sell it to some business to build a mall... what makes you think putting judges with little regard for the intent of the constitution will do to the rest of society?

One: I don't understand the fear of socialism. Sweden isn't exactly a bad place.

Two: Clinton era tax rates + healthcare + middle class tax cuts != socialism it just doesn't add up.

America has been the post WW2 power because of our economy. Our economy was capitalistic, the socialized economies of Europe have traditionally always lagged behind us.

Higher tax rates for EVERYONE (and don't forget that the bottom 1/3 or so didnt pay tax under Clinton either) is a democratic policy.... but its not socialism. Middle class tax cutes are OKAY so long as they aren't receiving money for essentially nothing (and considering a lot of money is phased out by that point in obama's plan its not really a big deal) HOWEVER it does give a lot of money to the people under the middle class which is classic redistribution. And of course healthcare is part of it, every socialized country in the world has it... and Canada.

Perhaps a name change from "Universal Healthcare" to something like POLR Healthcare would ease your mind a bit. Obama's plan is NOT universal healthcare. POLR is a term we use in the energy industry that stands for Provider Of Last Resort. If you currently have healthcare, nothing will change for you. You keep your plan. If you lose your job, you default back to a basic plan that will cover you in emergencies. Keep in mind that we have a backdoor version of this today. If someone poor gets very sick and is admitted to the ER, you pay the cost in higher hospital bills and insurance rates.

Obama's plan is not socialized medicine. It's a provider of last resort insurance plan when you can't get insurance any other way.

Edit: The Germans have a similar setup to Obama's plan. In Germany, health insurance is mandatory. Employers offer coverage, but you're free to choose any plan you like. There is also a basic federal plan that you can default to. The complaint the Germans have is that healthcare is NOT universal. If you're rich, you can afford more insurance and thus more expensive procedures.

The point of the matter is that any government sponsored ANYTHING is bound to be inefficient. At least McCains policy would still encourage private firms to compete. Trust me, i have seen how inefficient government ran companies are (even if they are not directly taxpayer funded). As a result this will be less efficient than if private companies were to do it... and the best healthcare at the best price will never come from the government unless you get a real doozie of a guy running a ship shape operation... but come on that will never happen in government.

That being said, private practices also have their downsides, such as denying people with previous health issues etc etc, although that is a matter of staying alive as a company of course. In this particular case i suppose a lender of last resort would be okay up to the point that no taxpayer dollars are used for it (well except for the after-tax dollars that go to fund it).

[Drew Dowdell]

No because Clinton era tax rates were higher for everyone, they did not really redistribute much wealth.

Or not..... All of the hubbub around Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy was about the wealthy getting a larger percentage tax cut than every one else.

Sure it does, the constitution... well it used... to provide safeguards to private property, as that safeguard has fallen by the wayside so that government can seize your land and sell it to some business to build a mall... what makes you think putting judges with little regard for the intent of the constitution will do to the rest of society?

1. Obama will not be able to change the make up of the court at all. He'll replace liberal justices with liberal justices.

2. Those protections to privacy and equality.... does that cover abortions and gay marriage... or is it just privacy for conservative causes?

America has been the post WW2 power because of our economy. Our economy was capitalistic, the socialized economies of Europe have traditionally always lagged behind us.

Europeans on the whole, have better transportation infrastructure, better telecommunications, better/cheaper healthcare, better education, healthier populations, while at the same time having equal productivity and a healthier work life balance.

We have.... richer CEOs.

The point of the matter is that any government sponsored ANYTHING is bound to be inefficient. At least McCains policy would still encourage private firms to compete. Trust me, i have seen how inefficient government ran companies are (even if they are not directly taxpayer funded). As a result this will be less efficient than if private companies were to do it... and the best healthcare at the best price will never come from the government unless you get a real doozie of a guy running a ship shape operation... but come on that will never happen in government.

That being said, private practices also have their downsides, such as denying people with previous health issues etc etc, although that is a matter of staying alive as a company of course. In this particular case i suppose a lender of last resort would be okay up to the point that no taxpayer dollars are used for it (well except for the after-tax dollars that go to fund it).

I suggest you look into the German healthcare system. It isn't perfect, but it's pretty good and costs a lot less than ours.

"Although the government regulates the process, it is administered by myriad health insurance providers and is financed chiefly by a combination of employer and employee contributions.[citation needed] The government also subsidizes the cost of Statutory Health Insurance for the unemployed.[citation needed] It partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for private insurance, which is generally more expensive, but whose price may vary based on the individual's health status."

Consider that this could also replace medicare/medicaid. It would fall right in line with Obama's "Do more, more efficiently, with less" mantra.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

1. Obama will not be able to change the make up of the court at all. He'll replace liberal justices with liberal justices.

2. Those protections to privacy and equality.... does that cover abortions and gay marriage... or is it just privacy for conservative causes?

True, but by the 2nd term 2 more judges may retire opening the way for a left dominated supreme court. ADDITIONALLY, Bush was never able to fill all of the lower courts with judges because the democrates did an excellent job blocking him. Obama would be able to fill those with a democrat dominated government. heres a good read on it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

Europeans on the whole, have better transportation infrastructure, better telecommunications, better/cheaper healthcare, better education, healthier populations, while at the same time having equal productivity and a healthier work life balance.

We have.... richer CEOs.

It is true that Americans have the amongst the least time off. However aside from the Nordic states, Switzerland, and Germany which are all pretty close to the US in productivity most of the rest of Europe is not as productive, especially France where the legal work limit for a week is 35 hours. And... im sorry... but you cannot compare infrastructure of countries the size of New York + Pennsylvania to all of the US. Those are on completely different scales.

I suggest you look into the German healthcare system. It isn't perfect, but it's pretty good and costs a lot less than ours.

"Although the government regulates the process, it is administered by myriad health insurance providers and is financed chiefly by a combination of employer and employee contributions.[citation needed] The government also subsidizes the cost of Statutory Health Insurance for the unemployed.[citation needed] It partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for private insurance, which is generally more expensive, but whose price may vary based on the individual's health status."

Consider that this could also replace medicare/medicaid. It would fall right in line with Obama's "Do more, more efficiently, with less" mantra.

That may be, but considering i have some first hand knowledge of your "provider of last result," even that does not look good to me.

[Robert Hall]

True, but by the 2nd term 2 more judges may retire opening the way for a left dominated supreme court. ADDITIONALLY, Bush was never able to fill all of the lower courts with judges because the democrats did an excellent job blocking him. Obama would be able to fill those with a democrat dominated government. heres a good read on it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

Nothing wrong with that. A left dominated supreme court would be infinitely better than a right dominated supreme court, IMHO. Way too many conservatives in the court now.

It is true that Americans have the amongst the least time off. However aside from the Nordic states, Switzerland, and Germany which are all pretty close to the US in productivity most of the rest of Europe is not as productive, especially France where the legal work limit for a week is 35 hours. And... im sorry... but you cannot compare infrastructure of countries the size of New York + Pennsylvania to all of the US. Those are on completely different scales.

Yes, the amount of vacation provided in most jobs in the US is absurdly low.. I've been at places with only 2 weeks vacation, though 3 to start is the norm in my industry... I had 4 weeks at one place after a few years. 6 weeks is common in Europe.

[Drew Dowdell]

True, but by the 2nd term 2 more judges may retire opening the way for a left dominated supreme court. ADDITIONALLY, Bush was never able to fill all of the lower courts with judges because the democrates did an excellent job blocking him. Obama would be able to fill those with a democrat dominated government. heres a good read on it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

and it was a good thing too.... George Bush was submitting people like his cleaning lady Harriet Miers and other politically motivated appointees. I think that Obama will rate an appointee on terms of competence and ability rather than loyalty to himself. Considering John McCain's "mavericky" pick of Palin.... I'd shudder to see whom he'd pick for the courts.

It is true that Americans have the amongst the least time off. However aside from the Nordic states, Switzerland, and Germany which are all pretty close to the US in productivity most of the rest of Europe is not as productive, especially France where the legal work limit for a week is 35 hours.

Fact check first, post second.

"When productivity was measured by the hour rather than by the total number of hours worked, however, Norway, an oil nation, was the most productive, followed by the United States and France, the organization said in a report released over the weekend and published every two years. It mostly used 2006 data."

And... im sorry... but you cannot compare infrastructure of countries the size of New York + Pennsylvania to all of the US. Those are on completely different scales.

I most certainly can. If the point is about taxes and "socialism". Look at what the higher taxes the Europeans have pay for. Deutche bahn is PROFITABLE! I can link you to death on the high speed rail thing if you want, but suffice it to say that any medium haul flight could be replaced with high speed rail and will have lower costs, better efficiency, better environmental impact, and sometimes even faster trips. I'm happy to start a new thread with you on this one if you want. Just know what you'll be getting into.

That may be, but considering i have some first hand knowledge of your "provider of last result," even that does not look good to me.

A healthier population costs less and is more productive. There will be an initial spike in costs, but then things would settle down.

[SoCalCTS]

This whole "Redistribution of Wealth" and Socialism allegation against Obama is a bunch of bull.

Here are the facts:

Under the Republican presidency and administration the wealth in this country has been redistributed from the working class and middle class to the wealthiest 1% of the people. The wealthiest people in this country often pay less in taxes than solidly middle class people because the wealthy have been given tax loopholes by the Republicans.

Under John McCain money will continue to flow from the poor and middle classes to the rich. This is Redistribution of Wealth. Republicans rig the system to take money from the poor and then claim that they earned it! That's not earning anything... that's called stealing.

Having people pay a fair share of the nations expenses is not Socialism. Taxes are not socialism.

Edited October 29, 2008 by SoCalCTS

[A Horse With No Name]

A Palin presidency is something that has potential to be far worse than a Bush presidency. She's a scary, far-right evangelical nut job. If she were elected, I'd give up any hope for the future of US....an election of Palin would prove that the American people are fundamentally stupid.

...and you need what sort of evidence to show that Americans are fundamentally stupid? We elected Reagan and Bush... what more evidence do you need, son?

Chris

[Robert Hall]

...and you need what sort of evidence to show that Americans are fundamentally stupid? We elected Reagan and Bush... what more evidence do you need, son?

Chris

True....I suppose I thought people were smarter now than then.. I'm too optimistic, I suppose.

[A Horse With No Name]

This whole "Redistribution of Wealth" and Socialism allegation against Obama is a bunch of bull.

Here are the facts:

Under the Republican presidency and administration the wealth in this country has been redistributed from the working class and middle class to the wealthiest 1% of the people. The wealthiest people in this country often pay less in taxes than solidly middle class people because the wealthy have been given tax loopholes by the Republicans.

Under John McCain money will continue to flow from the poor and middle classes to the rich. This is Redistribution of Wealth. Republicans rig the system to take money from the poor and then claim that they earned it! That's not earning anything... that's called stealing.

Having people pay a fair share of the nations expenses is not Socialism. Taxes are not socialism.

+1 Bigtime. Put Warren Buffet in Botswanna and he would still be poor. The Rich are Rich in this nation largely because we have a stable, educated working/middle class.

Hell, if I was rich the last thing I would want is for the general population to be poor. In the middle ages kidnapping of the wwealthy for ransom was common, and it still is common in Central America.

It is in the intrest of the wealthy to ahve a stable working and middle class.

Just more evidence that McCain, Bush,m Reagan, Rush, Ann Coulter, and the Neocons are dead wrong.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

True....I suppose I thought people were smarter now than then.. I'm too optimistic, I suppose.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic. Being visionary and believing in the future is part of being liberal/progressive.

Being reactionary and fearing the future is part of being Neocon.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

and it was a good thing too.... George Bush was submitting people like his cleaning lady Harriet Miers and other politically motivated appointees. I think that Obama will rate an appointee on terms of competence and ability rather than loyalty to himself. Considering John McCain's "mavericky" pick of Palin.... I'd shudder to see whom he'd pick for the courts.

Agreed 100%.

Given the Court and the 2000 election, I don't want any more republican choices appointed to Supreme Court Justice.

Chris

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

This whole "Redistribution of Wealth" and Socialism allegation against Obama is a bunch of bull.

Here are the facts:

Under the Republican presidency and administration the wealth in this country has been redistributed from the working class and middle class to the wealthiest 1% of the people. The wealthiest people in this country often pay less in taxes than solidly middle class people because the wealthy have been given tax loopholes by the Republicans.

Under John McCain money will continue to flow from the poor and middle classes to the rich. This is Redistribution of Wealth. Republicans rig the system to take money from the poor and then claim that they earned it! That's not earning anything... that's called stealing.

Having people pay a fair share of the nations expenses is not Socialism. Taxes are not socialism.

Im sorry your right. We should not have to work to make money. We should penalize those who succeed... because they are not submitting to the leftist agenda of giving all their money to homeless people.

And as far as the courts go.

do ALL OF YOU disregard our constitution? Do you realize that under a "living document" style of interpretation that our CONSTITUTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WORTHLESS PIECE OF PAPER? if you don't like something then under the living document style it is meaningless. Sure it may not be prefect, but it has gotten us a long way... It has already been eroded seriously in recent years, but under Obama it will be damn near irrelevant.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[mustang84]

This whole "Redistribution of Wealth" and Socialism allegation against Obama is a bunch of bull.

Here are the facts:

Under the Republican presidency and administration the wealth in this country has been redistributed from the working class and middle class to the wealthiest 1% of the people. The wealthiest people in this country often pay less in taxes than solidly middle class people because the wealthy have been given tax loopholes by the Republicans.

Under John McCain money will continue to flow from the poor and middle classes to the rich. This is Redistribution of Wealth. Republicans rig the system to take money from the poor and then claim that they earned it! That's not earning anything... that's called stealing.

Having people pay a fair share of the nations expenses is not Socialism. Taxes are not socialism.

Great post, I totally agree.

My view is this: if I had to pay $1000 extra in taxes each year to ensure that my future children and their future children would have better education, better infrastructure, better health care, and a better quality of life...I would not be against it at all. I believe in working hard and being rewarded proportionally for your work (and my whole life I have worked hard to get where I'm at), but I also believe in giving back to my community and making life better for future generations. One thing that always pisses me off is when a small local tax that would benefit schools, jobs, recreation, etc. fails because a bunch of old people whine about "no more taxes." Meanwhile, this area has been in decline for three decades and people aren't moving here because there is no opportunity or amenities. This type of mindset is why Rust Belt communities are dying, and on a macro scale, this type of mindset is why the US is falling into decline.

Nothing about the above paragraph is "socialism"...it's called investing in our future. Instead of great men like Andrew Carnagie making millions and generously giving back to the community, we have execs like those of AIG and Bear Stearns that drive the country into ruin and leave with $400 million severance packages.

[Drew Dowdell]

Im sorry your right. We should not have to work to make money. We should penalize those who succeed... because they are not submitting to the leftist agenda of giving all their money to homeless people.

DUDE!!! PLEASE!?!?!

Please Please Please! We are just going back to Clinton era tax rates!

Please just acknowledge this!!!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

DUDE!!! PLEASE!?!?!

Please Please Please! We are just going back to Clinton era tax rates!

Please just acknowledge this!!!

I would if there were not the myriad of refundable tax credits that makes Obama's plan redistributionist.

I would have very little problem (other than objecting to questionable policies during a recession) with an across the board tax hike... or even just restoring the top brackets to clinton era rates... But when you start to throw in a ton of credits that are REFUNDABLE for the lower brackets (if they weren't refundable i wouldn't really care).

That, my friends, is income redistribution. Hiking takes back up to clinton era without any new REFUNDABLE tax credits would be OK if the vast majority of that money went to eliminating our debt.

So why wont you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE acknowledge that these are redistrubtionist due to the LOTS of credits for the lower brackets.

And you all make the argument that somehow earning money is income redistribution, which just confounds me as that makes no sense. The simple fact is that the majority of NEW WEALTH has gone towards the top 1% of the nation. It has not really redistributed any current wealth as many of you purport.

[SoCalCTS]

A tax is a tax. It is not redistribution. When people pay taxes, the money goes to pay for services such as the military, interest on the national debt, social security, etc. No matter which rate you pay... that is where the money goes. The money does not go to individuals. This isn't Robin Hood. No one is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Corporations, small businesses, welfare moms, and the middle class all share in the benefits of government spending.

[SoCalCTS]

And you all make the argument that somehow earning money is income redistribution, which just confounds me as that makes no sense. The simple fact is that the majority of NEW WEALTH has gone towards the top 1% of the nation. It has not really redistributed any current wealth as many of you purport.

Republicans have used the political advantage that they had to keep the minimum wage down, deregulate industry to the benefit of the corporations over the consumer, loan money to banks at 2% interest while the banks charge others up to 21%. All of these things are ways that the Republican government has helped take money from the working class while making the rich even richer. They use lobbyists to change the rules of the game to stack the chips in the favor of the wealthy. They allow golden parachutes for executives while allowing companies to steal money out of pension funds.

The middle class is smaller now than it was 8 years ago. The number of poor has increased. To this John McCain proudly proclaims, " Michigan the Jobs are NOT coming back "

Gosh! How Presidential you sound Mr McCain.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

A tax is a tax. It is not redistribution. When people pay taxes, the money goes to pay for services such as the military, interest on the national debt, social security, etc. No matter which rate you pay... that is where the money goes. The money does not go to individuals. This isn't Robin Hood. No one is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Corporations, small businesses, welfare moms, and the middle class all share in the benefits of government spending.

You obviously lack understanding of Obama's plan or how refundable tax credits work. I would recommend you read up on it. And arguably you must also include rich people and large corporations that share in the benefit of government spending... depending on the spending of course, Iraq for example (unless of course it turns out that Iraq actually served a purpose).

Republicans have used the political advantage that they had to keep the minimum wage down, deregulate industry to the benefit of the corporations over the consumer, loan money to banks at 2% interest while the banks charge others up to 21%. All of these things are ways that the Republican government has helped take money from the working class while making the rich even richer. They use lobbyists to change the rules of the game to stack the chips in the favor of the wealthy. They allow golden parachutes for executives while allowing companies to steal money out of pension funds.

The middle class is smaller now than it was 8 years ago. The number of poor has increased. To this John McCain proudly proclaims, " Michigan the Jobs are NOT coming back "

Gosh! How Presidential you sound Mr McCain.

21%?? WHO? Credit card guys? You do not realize how low interest rates are these days compared to the late 70s/early 80s. If nothing else it was this ease of credit that got us into this whole financial mess... if banks were charging 21% do you really think many of these subprime mortgages woulda gone through? Probably not... but that would also mean that inflation was running around 16-18% for a 21% interest rate.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[SoCalCTS]

Some interest rates are over 100% annually. Think "check cashing"... The government should step in and shut that kind of lending down. In your view... that is a fair way to earn money. If you made a private loan with that kind of interest, you would be arrested for loan sharking and yet the Republicans have rigged the laws to allow banks to do it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Some interest rates are over 100% annually. Think "check cashing"... The government should step in and shut that kind of lending down. In your view... that is a fair way to earn money. If you made a private loan with that kind of interest, you would be arrested for loan sharking and yet the Republicans have rigged the laws to allow banks to do it.

usury laws were repealed long ago.

[SoCalCTS]

usury laws were repealed long ago.

Maybe where you live. BTW which state might that be? In California the amount is 10% annual interest but there are exemptions for Credit Card Companies, Banks, Real Estate Brokers, pawn brokers and finance companies. In essence, Corporations have been given special rights (over individuals) to exempt themselves from usury laws. This is probably the case where you live as well althought the interest rates vary from state to state. These laws need to be changed at a Federal level and I hope Obama and the Democrats will start to cap interest rates.

[Drew Dowdell]

Maybe where you live. BTW which state might that be? In California the amount is 10% annual interest but there are exemptions for Credit Card Companies, Banks, Real Estate Brokers, pawn brokers and finance companies. In essence, Corporations have been given special rights (over individuals) to exempt themselves from usury laws. This is probably the case where you live as well althought the interest rates vary from state to state. These laws need to be changed at a Federal level and I hope Obama and the Democrats will start to cap interest rates.

Pennsylvania.

usury laws don't mean much when all you have to do is incorporate to get around them.

so yes... usury laws have been repealed.

[SoCalCTS]

Pennsylvania.

usury laws don't mean much when all you have to do is incorporate to get around them.

so yes... usury laws have been repealed.

Thats my point. "All you have to do is incorporate to get around them"

"Oooh. I'm a small business - I make my money legally. Don't tax me cause I EARNED my money!"

[Drew Dowdell]