Obama

[Blue Sonnet]

It's been mentioned before, but a few people the same age as my mother are feeling a little uncomfortable about Obama. Not because of him himself, they tend to really like him, but because the general atmosphere is really similar to the way things were when JFK was elected. It really hit them hard when he was assassinated.

I keep pointing out all the bullet-proof glass etc. to her to try to make her feel better, but obviously that sometimes can make things worse!

Anyone remember the Red Dwarf episode showing what things may have been like if JFK weren't assassinated?

 

[cobra_ky]

the "present" votes got completely blown out of proportion during the campaign because people don't understand the culture of illinois politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

If people understood anything about Illinois politics, Obama wouldn't be president elect, now would he?

...well played.

You do know that he is giving pretty significant tax cuts to small business right? Even against the protests of the other Democrats. And why would he not want the creation of wealth? Why do you assume that? His platform was lifting the middle class up. If you are talking about more wealth for the all ready wealthy, then yes, I doubt he will be fighting for that much.

Those with wealth create wealth. He is more focused on spreading wealth around than creating new wealth. He has proposed a few short term tax cuts for small businesses, but his definition of small business hasn't really been described yet. Larger corporations, those that can create the most jobs and who tend to create the wealth are the ones he wants to target for tax hikes and unsightly ones at that. His tax goals are as high as, if not higher, than those imposed by Carter.

I watched my dad struggle through one lay-off after another during Carter's time in office because DuPont was under such a heavy tax strain. It was a relief when he got out. Obama is no different in his stated beliefs. Spreading the wealth is never a good idea. Encouraging people to be creative, start new businesses, and be responsible for earning wealth is.

why would the wealthy be creative? creativity is risky. so are new businesses. why take unnecessary risks when you've gotten rich by doing what you're already doing? the people who bring the most creativity to new businesses are the people who've never owned a business before. Large corporations may create more wealth, but it doesn't do the economy much good if most of it goes into the company coffers or executive paychecks. Small businesses actually have to spend the money they make.

my mother struggled through layoff after layoff too. once she finally had to leave the company it took her two years to find a new job. meanwhile, the CEO of her old company got fired and became an economic advisor to mccain.

 

[TerraMGP]

Except that we did see success due to Reagans economic policies, it was called the 90's, one of the greatest economic booms in history, one thing which I am sick to death of hearing being attributed to Clinton.

But on the subject of Obama, I view this as a win win situation for the Conservatives in America. Either he is a fantastic success and we all benefit, or he totally flops and doesn't get re=elected

Except that with Regan and his administration only gave us a paper moon, false statistics backed by robbing and cutting the institutions that are designed to help us. He indiscriminately cut things that we needed and then made it look like things were booming.

In short he got us where we are now in order to make things better then. We have been borrowing on the future for too long and its caught up with us now. The only thing politicians can really do anymore is allocate resorces, Obama won't make things pretty-looking but we need real answers rather than smoke and mirrors. Reaganomics did not work for us then, and has hurt us now.

 

[Mythbhavd]

All I have to say is look at how the current rich people/corporations are treating the workers of today. Not very well all in all. Shipping jobs out of America, cutting pensions to nothing, and all the other crap they do. Cutting their taxes has done nothing except encourage them to spend the money on more bonuses for their executives and a few more Leer jets. So what is there to defend again? Not much as far as I can see. Let the executives take a major wage cut instead of the workers when they get a higher tax rate for their companies.

Actually, we have one of the corporate tax rates in the world. Why are people shipping their work out of country? Because it's cheaper to use out of country labor. Between tax rates and wage rates, we're being beaten in the markets. One of the lowest corporate tax rates we've ever had was during Regan's terms in office and we had HUGE economic growth during those times.

I'll agree that not all employers treat their employees well. However, those who do take care of their employees are having to cut back seriously to deal with the amount of money they're having to pay and are going to have to pay in taxes.

 

[Mythbhavd]

why would the wealthy be creative? creativity is risky. so are new businesses. why take unnecessary risks when you've gotten rich by doing what you're already doing? the people who bring the most creativity to new businesses are the people who've never owned a business before. Large corporations may create more wealth, but it doesn't do the economy much good if most of it goes into the company coffers or executive paychecks. Small businesses actually have to spend the money they make.

my mother struggled through layoff after layoff too. once she finally had to leave the company it took her two years to find a new job. meanwhile, the CEO of her old company got fired and became an economic advisor to mccain.

Often, the wealthy will be creative because they're interested in seeing new technologies and new areas in which to make money. However, don't you think that those who would love to start new businesses are a bit wary of doing so under the incoming administration? Let's face it, the ideals that were discussed by the incoming administration is more about punishing the successful than encouraging success.

As for the money going into corporate coffers, any business wants money to go into the coffers. That's one of the points of having a business: to make money. However, if money is in the coffers, then there is money to expand business, pay employees, offer health benefits, create new technologies, invest in new businesses, etc. When that money is being taken by the government, then the companies can do none of those things.

Let's take a look into the past. During Carter's administration, the tax rate on corporations was 70+%. That means that 70% of the income made by a company went to the government in tax. Now, that leaves the company 30% of its income. No problem right? Oh yeah. They have to pay wages, operating costs, upkeep on equipment, supplies, and so forth. So, where do they find the money to actually create new jobs, invent new items, and invest in new opportunities? They don't have it. So, they either go elsewhere to do business, and don't forget, business is about making money, or they cut back and wait until taxes are lowered enough that they can begin to prosper again.

I'm not sure I understand this prejudice against people who are wealthy. They've gone out and EARNED wealth. They great thing about them is that when they earn wealth, they often do it by investing in other businesses and are willing to do so to make more money. Why is that a problem? Why should they be punished because others are either unwilling to put in the effort and time or unable to do so? The idea itself is lunacy. The opportunity exists for anyone in the U.S., at least, to go out, create wealth, and become wealthy. What those who follow the ideals espoused by the incoming administration want to do is to either limit or take away those opportunities, thus forcing those in the country to rely on governmental oversight to make their way.

I'd prefer the government take care of its duties and stay out of the business sphere.

 

[axia777]

All I have to say is look at how the current rich people/corporations are treating the workers of today. Not very well all in all. Shipping jobs out of America, cutting pensions to nothing, and all the other crap they do. Cutting their taxes has done nothing except encourage them to spend the money on more bonuses for their executives and a few more Leer jets. So what is there to defend again? Not much as far as I can see. Let the executives take a major wage cut instead of the workers when they get a higher tax rate for their companies.

Actually, we have one of the corporate tax rates in the world. Why are people shipping their work out of country? Because it's cheaper to use out of country labor. Between tax rates and wage rates, we're being beaten in the markets. One of the lowest corporate tax rates we've ever had was during Regan's terms in office and we had HUGE economic growth during those times.

I'll agree that not all employers treat their employees well. However, those who do take care of their employees are having to cut back seriously to deal with the amount of money they're having to pay and are going to have to pay in taxes.

Like I said, if those corporations are having such issues why don't the billionaire executives take a major wage cut and give back those multimillion dollar bonuses? Like they need more cash? No, they DO NOT. If all the top execs of all the top companies were a little more humble and gave back those bonuses they would be having a lot less issues with money. But NO, greed always gets in the way. Greed is at the heart of the problems, not taxes.

You also must know that Obama wants to take taxes back to pre-Bush levels which they were at during the Clinton Administration. He just wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, that is all. What is wrong with that? Business did just fine at the tax levels that existed during the Clinton years.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Why not? Do people really need assault rifles and other military grade weaponry? I can understand shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols. But why do people need machine guns and crap like that? Come on now, really. Why?

Yeah I don't know what world you're living in but most people don't own military grade weaponry, even the "Assault" Rifles you speak of aren't proper assault rifles. I see nothing wrong with someone who legally owns an AR-15 or Civilian Legal AK. What a lot of people tend to forget is that the last they banned assault weapons they went ahead and banned any gun that had a bayonet lug on it, that includes bolt action weapons, they also tried to ban weapons that had a muzzle break on it, commonly known as a flash suppressor. Even if he bans guns do you think it will change the amount of crimes committed? Hell most murders firearms aren't even used, and when they are its normally with a hunting rifle or shotgun not with a pistol or "assault weapon".

Oh don't even try to mention cop killer bullets or armor piercing rounds, most hunting rifle rounds, like the .308 Winchester Round also known as the 7.62x51 NATO used in many hunting rifles and your assault weapons, will ignore most body armor used by cops.

Bravo, sir. I was about to jump on this guy with a "go actually read some current gun laws," but you ninja'd my thoughts. Kudos.

...Oh, and axia777? Civilian version of military weapons don't have automatic fire. You do know that, right? There's no reason at all to use a civvy AR-15 over, say, a Sig Sauer P226 (for committing a crime, I mean). Most real machineguns are already banned-it's all the guns that you said are "okay" that anti-gun people are going after now. Personally, I'd like to be able to keep a shotgun in the house for home defense, or a pistol on my person (with a CCW permit, of course) for when I walk down a dark alley in the middle of Gangtown.

I've tried walking through Gangtown with a rolled-up newspaper, but it just isn't the same.

 

[Mythbhavd]

Like I said, if those corporations are having such issues why don't the billionaire executives take a major wage cut and give back those multimillion dollar bonuses? Like they need more cash? No, they DO NOT. If all the top execs of all the top companies were a little more humble and gave back those bonuses they would be having a lot less issues with money. But NO, greed always gets in the way. Greed is at the heart of the problems, not taxes.

You also must know that Obama wants to take taxes back to pre-Bush levels which they were at during the Clinton Administration. He just wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, that is all. What is wrong with that? Business did just fine at the tax levels that existed during the Clinton years.

Actually, if you recall, businesses really started sending their business overseas during the Clinton administration. That is when outsourcing became VERY popular. Why not cut taxes across the board? Most of the tax income taken in by this country comes from the rich, even with the so-called tax cuts that they have. So, set everyone to the exact same tax level and make it low.

I'll agree that the problem is greed and the desire for power. However, I'd lay an equal share of that blame on those who are in the government. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the idea of raising taxes on the rich is to benefit the people. It is not. It is a matter of greed in governmental leaders. Lowering taxes and decreasing the size of government would be a major step toward beginning to decrease our deficit and increasing job growth and investment.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Why not? Do people really need assault rifles and other military grade weaponry? I can understand shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols. But why do people need machine guns and crap like that? Come on now, really. Why?

Yeah I don't know what world you're living in but most people don't own military grade weaponry, even the "Assault" Rifles you speak of aren't proper assault rifles. I see nothing wrong with someone who legally owns an AR-15 or Civilian Legal AK. What a lot of people tend to forget is that the last they banned assault weapons they went ahead and banned any gun that had a bayonet lug on it, that includes bolt action weapons, they also tried to ban weapons that had a muzzle break on it, commonly known as a flash suppressor. Even if he bans guns do you think it will change the amount of crimes committed? Hell most murders firearms aren't even used, and when they are its normally with a hunting rifle or shotgun not with a pistol or "assault weapon".

Oh don't even try to mention cop killer bullets or armor piercing rounds, most hunting rifle rounds, like the .308 Winchester Round also known as the 7.62x51 NATO used in many hunting rifles and your assault weapons, will ignore most body armor used by cops.

Bravo, sir. I was about to jump on this guy with a "go actually read some current gun laws," but you ninja'd my thoughts. Kudos.

...Oh, and axia? Civilian version of military weapons don't have automatic fire. You do know that, right? There's no reason at all to use a civvy AR-15 over, say, a Sig Sauer P226 (for committing a crime, I mean). Most real machineguns are already banned-it's all the guns that you said are "okay" that anti-gun people are going after now. Personally, I'd like to be able to keep a shotgun in the house for home defense, or a pistol on my person (with a CCW permit, of course) for when I walk down a dark alley in the middle of Gangtown.

I've tried walking through Gangtown with a rolled-up newspaper, but it just isn't the same.

Yes my good Sir, I am quite aware of the fact that Civilian variants of Military Weapons lack a fully automatic and even the burst feature of their military counter parts. I simply mentioned assault weapons and murder because the media and even the police, in order to get the public on their side, will commonly misconstrue the facts of the matter.

When I turn 21 I will defiantly be acquiring a CC permit, and currently I am looking for a nice home defense shotgun. I plan on moving out soon and want something that can do the job right.

Oh and thanks for the Kudos, I figured hitting him with it sooner rather than later was the best approach.

Whoops, sorry about that... See, I meant to address axia777 with that point you responded to. Yeah, I figured you would know, but he wouldn't (since he was using the mass media argument against firearms.) Again, sorry, that question wasn't meant for you. It's sometimes hard to figure out who you're trying to talk to when the quotes have been reduced to their HTML component bits.

I'm off to use the Edit button.

Edit: fix'd.

 

[cobra_ky]

why would the wealthy be creative? creativity is risky. so are new businesses. why take unnecessary risks when you've gotten rich by doing what you're already doing? the people who bring the most creativity to new businesses are the people who've never owned a business before. Large corporations may create more wealth, but it doesn't do the economy much good if most of it goes into the company coffers or executive paychecks. Small businesses actually have to spend the money they make.

my mother struggled through layoff after layoff too. once she finally had to leave the company it took her two years to find a new job. meanwhile, the CEO of her old company got fired and became an economic advisor to mccain.

Often, the wealthy will be creative because they're interested in seeing new technologies and new areas in which to make money. However, don't you think that those who would love to start new businesses are a bit wary of doing so under the incoming administration? Let's face it, the ideals that were discussed by the incoming administration is more about punishing the successful than encouraging success.

As for the money going into corporate coffers, any business wants money to go into the coffers. That's one of the points of having a business: to make money. However, if money is in the coffers, then there is money to expand business, pay employees, offer health benefits, create new technologies, invest in new businesses, etc. When that money is being taken by the government, then the companies can do none of those things.

Let's take a look into the past. During Carter's administration, the tax rate on corporations was 70+%. That means that 70% of the income made by a company went to the government in tax. Now, that leaves the company 30% of its income. No problem right? Oh yeah. They have to pay wages, operating costs, upkeep on equipment, supplies, and so forth. So, where do they find the money to actually create new jobs, invent new items, and invest in new opportunities? They don't have it. So, they either go elsewhere to do business, and don't forget, business is about making money, or they cut back and wait until taxes are lowered enough that they can begin to prosper again.

I'm not sure I understand this prejudice against people who are wealthy. They've gone out and EARNED wealth. They great thing about them is that when they earn wealth, they often do it by investing in other businesses and are willing to do so to make more money. Why is that a problem? Why should they be punished because others are either unwilling to put in the effort and time or unable to do so? The idea itself is lunacy. The opportunity exists for anyone in the U.S., at least, to go out, create wealth, and become wealthy. What those who follow the ideals espoused by the incoming administration want to do is to either limit or take away those opportunities, thus forcing those in the country to rely on governmental oversight to make their way.

I'd prefer the government take care of its duties and stay out of the business sphere.

I'm not sure why you perceive this as prejudice. If you have lots of money, you don't need MORE money, especially from the government. At least you don't need it as much as someone poorer than you. Give money to the rich, and maybe they'll reinvest it. Give it to the poor, and they'll definitely spend because there is shit they need to buy.

I'm also not sure why you're talking about punishment, since Obama was only going to raise taxes by repealing the Bush tax cuts and now he probably won't even do that. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4AM1F120081123)

Right now he has $300 billion in tax cuts on the table and the question is who it should go to. Keep in mind that we already gave Wall Street $350 billion and got dick all in return.

Actually, if you recall, businesses really started sending their business overseas during the Clinton administration. That is when outsourcing became VERY popular. Why not cut taxes across the board? Most of the tax income taken in by this country comes from the rich, even with the so-called tax cuts that they have. So, set everyone to the exact same tax level and make it low.

And did the Bush tax cuts effect outsourcing? And if you really think the U.S. corporate tax burden is so high...

http://www.cbpp.org/10-27-08tax.htm

or look at Figure 3.5 on page 30 of http://www.doingbusiness.org/documents/Paying_Taxes_2008.pdf

The U.S. is actually below the average for developed countries. And the U.S. can't compete with most undeveloped countries since we have things like safe working conditions and a minimum wage.

 

[DoW Lowen]

Hopefully Obama doesn't follow in J.F.K's footsteps and decide to drive down an open top motorcade through Texas.

 

[megapenguinx]

If I lived in america, I would have voted for obama

I would not be surprised if he did get assassinated though :/

All the good ones do.

Ya Garfield sure did a lot for this country

He gave us a fat lasagna eating cat

 

[Mythbhavd]

Hopefully Obama doesn't follow in J.F.K's footsteps and decide to drive down an open top motorcade through Texas.

I agree. As much as I dislike him and don't agree with him ideologically, I don't want to see him assassinated. He needs to have the chance in office that he rightfully won. As I said before, I hope he surprises me, although I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Nevins]

I hope Obama will do well being a die hard democrat myself

Yes, we all hope he will have a sex scandal, and have a MASSIVE failure in economics

Do you really want him to have a massive economic failure? Really?

BTW, Clinton had the best two terms economically than any President for around forty or so years before him.

Clinton had the best 2 terms by sheer luck, not by any actions of his own.

Yah, right. How can you prove that one at all? That is like some republican saying that the good economic years that Clinton presided over were really all Bush Sr.'s doing. Sure he did not do it all himself, but I am sure he did have a positive effect.

And on the flip side, does your logic also say that the bad economy that Bush Jr. presided over was just a dose of bad luck and that he had nothing to do with it?

No, I said it because he was the president during the tech boom, something which none of his policies had anything to do with. That is why it was sheer luck. He was able to get away with jumping up the tax rate because of the tech boom, not because it was sound economics.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

God I hope he doesn't get assassinated.