Barack Obama

Bionca · #1 09-11-2008

Ogryn - While I respect what you have said, and I'm glad for you keeping a civil tone in all your posts. I must point out that maintaining the rights and privileges of the majority, and placing the needs of a majority in favor of and at the expense of a minority results in "Tyrrany of the Majority".

While you personally may be against treating different groups poorly, many who share your views do not. Or even worse, fail to see how not supporting issues like Gay marriage are harmful to actual people by making it difficult to access protections and services provided for hetro-married couples. Saying "what they do on their time doesn't bother me, but marriage is sacred".

Issues like restricting access to bathrooms by transwomen in Colorado and recently Maryland. Having an expensive and "cosmetic" surgery needed to change documentation for one's sex assignment. Not having sexual orientation or gender identity/expession protected on a national level. All of these directly impact the real lives of actual people, not nameless "minority groups". The majoity, by virtue of being the majotity gets all the cookies/perks/rights/privliges. When it comes down to an issue of someone's comfort level or emotional squick over an issue and someone losing their house because their 20 year lesbian partner died without a will, or a 20 y/o transwoman who needs to turn tricks to eat and get hormones because she can't get hired at Burger King...

I seriously think that social change in favor of improving the quality of life for people should always trump someone's inability or reluctance to "handle the issues". Even if that reluctance is shared by the overwhelming majority of people.

The comeback will likely be something along the lines of backlashes, and violence targeted against the minority. Well, as a person who has lived as a minority in a variety of forms; I can tell you that violence is happening now.

TracyCoxx · #2 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bionca

While you personally may be against treating different groups poorly, many who share your views do not. Or even worse, fail to see how not supporting issues like Gay marriage are harmful to actual people by making it difficult to access protections and services provided for hetro-married couples. Saying "what they do on their time doesn't bother me, but marriage is sacred".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vice Presidential Debate

Moderator: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor (Palin), I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

I'm confused. Why all the support for Obama on this issue?

jimnaseum · #3 10-04-2008

There is absolutely no question that Democrats are better for PEOPLE issues, but the truth is gay or transgender issues are a polititical hot potato. In the last election(?) the Republicans put a gay marriage proposal on the ballot just so the conservatives would come out and vote for their candidates while they were voting against "perversity"

TracyCoxx · #4 10-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

There is absolutely no question that Democrats are better for PEOPLE issues, but the truth is gay or transgender issues are a polititical hot potato. In the last election(?) the Republicans put a gay marriage proposal on the ballot just so the conservatives would come out and vote for their candidates while they were voting against "perversity"

No offense to anyone here, but right now I think we have far bigger concerns... like keeping this country out of another depression. If Obama is elected, he's going to raise taxes, which will be a recipe for disaster. You can't legislate a recovery. The market has to do it, and taxing them will only cripple them. McCain isn't the best guy for the economy either, but at least I trust him not to make it worse.

jimnaseum · #5 10-04-2008

Offend away,
You are right and wrong, the economy is ALWAYS job#1 after keeping us out of a nuclear war.
Obama will raise taxes on the rich only, and actually thats just a re-ajustment from Damn Bush's hijinx, the middle class is the motor of the economy and that's who needs tax relief. When you cut taxes for everyone, what you really do is end up having to borrow billions from the Chinese, and end up paying one trillion to Wall St. The rich people don't pay that back (with interest) the middle class pays it back for the next thirty years.
As far as the stock market goes, even the crooked damn politicians are afraid of the games that get played there. You have to stand in awe of those pricks.

TracyCoxx · #6 10-05-2008

I could argue with you, but I'm not. If it's not you, it's millions more begging for a socialist America. I though this was a country where people wanted to make their own destiny. Maybe we all want the government to come be our mommy now. The country is what it is. I guess we'll find out what that is in 30 days.

CreativeMind · #7 10-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Obama will raise taxes on the rich only, and actually that's just a re-adjustment from Damn Bush's hi jinx, the middle class is the motor of the economy and that's who needs tax relief. The rich people don't pay that back (with interest) the middle class pays it back for the next thirty years.

At best, the Obama tax plan is laughable.
At worst, it is an economic disaster just waiting to happen...

First, I love how Obama still claims that "95% of all Americans will get a tax break if I'm elected." That's rather interesting since 100% of the people DO NOT even participate in the tax-paying pool to begin with. Currently, a whopping 41% of the public get refunds every year OR they don't pay AT ALL due to their income level. So how Obama can give a tax break to 95% of all Americans when only 59% are paying taxes to begin with is something that should send a shiver up your spine. Because when someone starts off doing their math that shitty, that's when you should start getting nervous. In fact, let's look at who really pays the taxes in America. I know everyone loves to point fingers at the other guy, but this is how it actually breaks down...

The wealthiest 1% earn 19% of the income, but they also pay 37% of the taxes.
In short, percentage wise, for as much as they take in, they pay twice out...

The top 10% pay 60% of the tab....

The other 50% earn 13% of the income but pay only 3% of the taxes.

Hey, I'm certainly not rich, but looking at the numbers it's impossible to deny that they pay more than a fair share. Hell, look at that last figure again and think about that: 50% of the people -- that's right, HALF of the people living here -- only help to cover 3% of the government's expenses. No wonder things like social security are bankrupt! Talk about disproportions!

Look, here's the truth about Obama and his Robin Hood-like 95% tax break for all: If he gets elected, he wants to send you 500 bucks. Yes, that's what it boils down to. His brilliant tax plan is nothing more than a rerun of the Bush $300 "give back" stimulus check that we all received this past year, the only difference being Obama wants to toss in an extra 200 bucks. Unfortunately, there's a problem with that, and I'll use myself as an example...

I pay about $160 a month for my combined AT&T phone/cell phone/DSL bill, and I pay about $40 for my DirecTV service -- so let's just call it an even 200 bucks. That means if Obama sends me $500 as my "tax break" , I can apply it towards those two things and basically get free phone and TV for 2 months.

And that's it. That was the astounding financial break that was somehow supposed to help me out for an entire year. Meanwhile, every other cost that I have...rent, gas, food, electricity...are still going UP, costing me about $100 (or so) a month extra. So nice going, Barack: you gave me $500 back...I paid my phone/cable bill...but meanwhile at the exact same time I had to shell out an additional $250, thus instantly cutting the value of your tax relief in half. In short, I don't consider giving me $500 to deal with a $750 swing very helpful. Because as I said it only helps for 2 months, after which I'm screwed for the other 10 months of the year.

And just like a late night commercial that screams at you:
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!!!

Obama's brilliant plan also re-defines "income" by now adding small business assets into the tax pool. So, as an example, if you had your own private limousine company -- let's say you had 2 or 3 cars running around in service -- under current tax law your income would be defined as the money you made from renting them out, from making money by driving people around (businessmen, prom kids, whatever). And you could likewise deduct certain costs (like gas, the price of cleaning a driver's suit, etc). Well, that sounds right. After all, that's the way we've defined income for ages.

But under Obama's whacked-out plan he wants to ADD IN those things. To Obama, if you were running that same limousine company, then the worth of the cars should count as income TOO since technically (in his view) you could sell them and make money. So since they have a worth they should be taxable, right? And that's the utter insanity of the Obama tax plan. He actually wants to redefine assets as "income" -- which, trust me, will translate into tax hikes across the board. And that's how he's really planning to come up with the $350 BILLION he wants for all-new programs. So you can bank on this: a lot of small business owners who would normally laugh out loud over the assertion that they clear $200,000 a year (and thus cross the Obama tax hike line) are going to be in for a big shock when Obama comes knocking to say, "I added things up and technically (in my view) you cross the $200,000 line. So pay up. You owe me more money."

Look, I'm not saying Obama isn't a personable guy. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't vote for him. That's up to each and every person to choose for themselves. But if you think a dyed-in-the-wool ultra Liberal like Obama who loves big government social programs is ONLY going to raise taxes "on the rich" -- especially now when the country ALSO has to come up with $700 Billion to bail out Wall Street (and even that is a low estimate since most economists believe it will take at least double that to fix the market) -- then you're kidding yourself.

jimnaseum · #8 10-05-2008

There was a telling photograph of Obama standing with all of Clinton's Economic advisors. All the Republicans said Clinton's plan wouldn't work, remember? The final American consumer pays for EVERYTHING. When you buy a coke from a vending machine, you pay for Coca Cola's taxes, the tin can maker's taxes, and the truck driver's taxes.
The Rich people don't get their money from working 68 hours a day, they bleed it from the American consumer. If the average Joe Six-pack is broke, then everything gets broke. Big Business will get all your money anyway. A consumer with bucks is the key to a healthy Financial USA.