DFIB Posted December 29, 2011 Posted December 29, 2011 You know that entire birthing thing is pretty interesting. Recently the courts tossed out another birthing law suit on a technicality. They never even looked at the birth certificate. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/obama-birthers.html I have found it odd that the courts keep putting this thing off. I am not sure that It has ever been looked at in a serious manner by the courts. I think the implications scare them. What would happen if it was true that Obama is not a natural born citizen? I think it would be the destruction of the Democratic Party because they put forth a candidate that was not properly vetted. It would possibly change the political environment of America forever.
systemet Posted December 29, 2011 Posted December 29, 2011 Hang on a minute, if you like Obama that is fine, but let's stick with the facts; Obama had a democratic senate and congress for the first 2 years of his administration, he had the majority to do anything he wanted to do with the economy, but instead of working on jobs, he created policies that killed jobs. But didn't he inherit a massive economic mess? I mean there'd just been a global banking crisis, the effects of which are still being felt world-wide, he got the fall out from the sub-prime mess, and inherited two wars. Are you sure that a republican president would have done better? It seemed like whoever was going to be in office for this term was going to have some major challenges to face. I'm not saying he's perfect. He ballsed up closing down Guantanamo, but he managed to end the military part of the Iraq invasion. There's major budgetary issues --- but this is also a consequence of running a deficit for years. He focused on healthcare too much, and not enough on jobs. If you want to blame republicans for what he inherited that is fine, but he had the time and the votes to fix the problem, he now OWNS this economy. Where you say he's had the time to fix this economy, I'd disagree. I'll freely admit that I'm biased towards Obama and the left, but I think anyone would have had trouble running the US economy during this period of time. This wasn't going to be a good couple of years, no matter who was in power. If you feel the government's actions in recent years have made the situation worse, and that republican policies would have been better, than I understand the criticism. But I don't think it's fair to just point at the economy, and say "Look at this mess!", and then blame whoever's in power. It was always going to be a mess, it's just a question of whether it was going to be a bigger or smaller mess.
ERDoc Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Full disclosure: I voted for Obama. As for the economy, no matter who got the job, they were screwed. The wheels had been set in motion years ago and there was nothing that could be done to stop it at this point. The only thing that this administration (whether it was Obama or McCain) and the previous could have done was decide if we were going to take it up the rear with or without the KY. What I feel Obama did wrong was push his whole health care issue. I agree that something needs to be done but in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the early part of the last century is not the time to be huge, expensive budget items. I would have a lot more respect for him if he had said something like, "Look, I know during the campaigns I said I was going to do something about healthcare. Unfortunetly, things have changed and there are bigger, more pressing issues we need to work on right now. Healthcare is still important, so we'll come back to it." Flaming, as for your comment about balancing out the haves and have-nots, what exaclty do you mean by that? If you are talking about the redistribution of wealth, that is such bull crap. Everyone has the opportunity to succeed and advance in this country. Don't blame those who got themselves up the ladder for your failings/laziness or if your chosen profession doesn't give you all of the monetary rewards you want. Now, if you are saying everyone should pay their fair share, I absolutely agree. There is no reason Warren Buffet should be paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. Why should capital gains be taxed less than regular income? There is also no reason people should be EARNING money from taxes. We need to simplify the tax codes. Everyone should pay something, even if it is only a dollar a year. I'm all for a flat tax, or even better a fair tax.
JPINFV Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Why should capital gains be taxed less than regular income? There is also no reason people should be EARNING money from taxes. We need to simplify the tax codes. Everyone should pay something, even if it is only a dollar a year. I'm all for a flat tax, or even better a fair tax. In theroy because capital gains shouldn't be a primary source of income. In reality: Stock options. I wouldn't be against treqating stock options style of income different from investments that aren't made as a part of compensation for work performed. After all, non-stock options investments are being made with money that has already been taxed once.
chbare Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 This is a bit off topic; however, I would like to throw in my two pennies regarding retirement options since we've transitioned into talking about investments. A great option for people in the proper income category ( $107,000 single/$169,000 married: I assume many people in EMS, myself included are fine) will qualify for a Roth IRA. Basically, you put in post tax income and do not have withdraw penalties like a traditional IRA or 401 k. There are limitations and it may not work as a sole retirement plan, but if you are relatively young, I definitely recommend that you look at throwing something every month into a Roth.
systemet Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Everyone has the opportunity to succeed and advance in this country. I agree that this is true, but this is also true in other countries with dramatically different tax systems and economic realities. However, just because everyone has the opportunity to succeed and advance (like most -- all? -- first world countries), does everyone have an equal opportunity to succeed and advance? Obviously this is not the case, right? People are inherently unequal, and some of us are born with advantages that others lack. There's no question that in any country, being born a child of wealthy parents conveys a greater likelihood of "success" as measured by a high income. Is everyone wealthy in the US (or anywhere else), deserving of their success? How hard has Paris Hilton worked in her life? Is everyone poor lazy or a malingerer? Or have some people just had the bad luck to be born to crappy parents, in impoverished neighbourhoods with poor schools and little potential for upward social mobility? How is social mobility affected by regional disparities in the education system, employment opportunities, or cost barriers to university education? Clearly while everyone has the opportunity, not everyone has an equal opportunity. To what degree money should be spent to equalise the available opportunity, depends on your personal political bent. But I'd argue that a large percentage or poverty and a large percentage of wealth have more to do with a person's parents and upbringing than their personal work ethical or intellectual capacity. Don't blame those who got themselves up the ladder for your failings/laziness or if your chosen profession doesn't give you all of the monetary rewards you want. Now, if you are saying everyone should pay their fair share, I absolutely agree. There is no reason Warren Buffet should be paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. I agree wholeheartedly with this. The poor shouldn't blame the rich for being poor, nor should the lower middle class blame the upper middle class. What we should do is take a look at the system as a whole, in any country, and ask whether this is the society we want, and whether things can be done to improve the opportunity for people in general. Why should capital gains be taxed less than regular income? I'm not sure. I don't have any training in economics. I like this when it works out in my favour, but it seems like missed revenue. This seems to be continuously missed in all the fiscal responsibility debate -- that the decision to cut taxes is essentially a decision to spend. There's an opportunity cost associated with it. There is also no reason people should be EARNING money from taxes. We need to simplify the tax codes. Everyone should pay something, even if it is only a dollar a year. I'm all for a flat tax, or even better a fair tax. I think here we disagree again. I'd argue these two points: * I don't think there's a need for everyone to pay something. If someone's extremely poor, they're already paying taxes in other forms, and the best thing for them may be not to pay income tax. I would certainly agree that beyond a certain income level, there seems no reason why someone should pay a net zero tax rate. * Graduated taxes make sense. If someone makes $20,000 / year and you tax them 10%, and take away $2,000, this is a bigger difference than taking someone making $100,000 /year and taking $10,000. There's a basic level of income you need to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. Once you start getting beyond that point it's disposable income. An individual may choose to buy a bigger house, or a second house, or a fancier car, or a bunch of electronics, but this becomes money that's no longer necessary to their survival. Why shouldn't someone benefiting more from society pay a little greater share? All the best.
flamingemt2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) If I were king your first million would be tax free, everything over a million taxed at 100%, that is fair, no one needs more than that too live in the us. Edited December 30, 2011 by flamingemt2011
Asysin2leads Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) 2. By passing healthcare for all, he really helped the gay community, as many of us are employed in industries that do not provide health care: Florist, Designers, Writers, Actors, Musicians, Chefs, etc........... If you were a good enough Florist, Designer, Writer, Actor, or Musician, how come you need to have government assistance to pay your bills? Or are you only friends with the lousy ones? Edited December 30, 2011 by Asysin2leads
HERBIE1 Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 If I were king your first million would be tax free, everything over a million taxed at 100%, that is fair, no one needs more than that too live in the us. Spoken like a true socialist. Obama would be proud of you.
Recommended Posts