McCain and Obama
- Thread starter tsmooth
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
TomDac
former MLO owner/operator
tonepub
Senior Member
agreed,
not when we have roads and schools that need repair...
not when we have roads and schools that need repair...
Tube60
Well-known member
Or when bridges are falling into the rivers or are about to.
Kenscollick
Well-known member
Tom, Do you need another reason to hate watch your wallet
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=72225
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=72225
Statman
Well-known member
They never learn do they?
Okay I'm fed up with this crap these politicians are dreaming up. Maybe 40 years ago we could help the rest of the World at times when they needed it. Stop spending money we don't have you idiots! I'd love to see the countries that owe us billions pay back some of that money? People are losing jobs and their homes here and we want to send a country we aren't even involved with more money? Rant over thank you.
Okay I'm fed up with this crap these politicians are dreaming up. Maybe 40 years ago we could help the rest of the World at times when they needed it. Stop spending money we don't have you idiots! I'd love to see the countries that owe us billions pay back some of that money? People are losing jobs and their homes here and we want to send a country we aren't even involved with more money? Rant over thank you.
Diamonds
Well-known member
Another republican propaganda website. Keep'em coming!
Diamonds
Well-known member
Agreed we should not be giving money away in this instance, however I believe the major problem that plauges this society is it's lack to want to help others, especially those in need.
Diamonds
Well-known member
Here in Arizona the tax payers bought 3 new pro sports stadiums. Our schools are some of the worst in the nation. Priorites?
I love sports and I love the Dbacks, Suns and Cardinals, maybe not as much as the Brewers, Bucks or Packers.
fubar1764
Active member
**SIGH** They're all lying thieves!
The Democrats tax and spend; the Republicans borrow and spend. Either way, they want a piece of me. And for what? So they can promise freebies to others.
Wouldn't it be great if we could overthrow the government and start over a la 1776? Oh wait, we can't do that anymore - they took away our guns.
Nevermind. So if I don't pay, I go to jail, right? How much should I write the check for?
The Democrats tax and spend; the Republicans borrow and spend. Either way, they want a piece of me. And for what? So they can promise freebies to others.
Wouldn't it be great if we could overthrow the government and start over a la 1776? Oh wait, we can't do that anymore - they took away our guns.
Nevermind. So if I don't pay, I go to jail, right? How much should I write the check for?
District of Columbia, et al V Heller U. S. Supreme Court Opinion No 07-290
I agree with the first part of your statement.
However, gun ownership rights were just recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. It established a personal right to self defense and that you could own a gun to perfect that right. The right to maintain a militia was already established.
However if you think any weapon you could purchase could stand up to the military you are kidding yourself. :devil::devil:
I agree with the first part of your statement.
However, gun ownership rights were just recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. It established a personal right to self defense and that you could own a gun to perfect that right. The right to maintain a militia was already established.
However if you think any weapon you could purchase could stand up to the military you are kidding yourself. :devil::devil:
IWalker
Well-known member
Don't you think that is (and should remain) a personal decision, though? This strikes me as more of a social issue akin to the "decline in family values" as opposed to an issue requiring legislation.
Charitable donations in the US in 2007 were over $300 billion. Not a huge amount compared to GDP maybe...but far from the "major problem that plagues this society" in my opinion. Looking at wikipedia...in 2006 there were 116B households. So that assumes $2600 or so for each household in the country. Also from wikipedia, the mean household income was $48,201. Meaning that people on average are giving around 5.4% of their pretax income to charity. Add in taxes and this percentage goes up significantly (even for those who don't pay much federal tax, there are still social security and medicare taxes). I don't know, but for someone making less than $50k a year pretax to give $2600 in charity seems like a pretty remarkably POSITIVE thing. Also remember that charity isn't necessarily relegated to financial donations that can be counted. People help out others every day, through programs like Habitat for Humanity (and countless others) through donating blood, and all sorts of other ways that aren't counted as part of this number...and that's not even counting the numerous ways friends and family help each other out.
Another hypothesis on top of what I've already stated...the more people are forced to give (taxed) the less they have to freely give (donate). It might not be a 1 for 1 increase in donations...but I bet you'd see a correlation. Given this...I think you almost have to count some of that forced giving into the donation number in order for it to be realistic.
Diamonds
Well-known member
You guys should get policed trained Shepherds to protect your homes. I have 2 and nobody is coming in my house.
The reason why is I had a vicous murder happen down the street from me. Basically someone was brought out to the desert killed and then put in a car and the car was set on fire.
Needless to say my wife was a little freeked out and I spoke to some clients who happen to be police officers and I said what should I get to protect my house?
1. Guns
2. Gate at the end of my driveway
3. Dogs
4. Lasers
Ok well not lasers but anyhow for good home protection that is recommended by the police.
Way of subject but...what the heck
The reason why is I had a vicous murder happen down the street from me. Basically someone was brought out to the desert killed and then put in a car and the car was set on fire.
Needless to say my wife was a little freeked out and I spoke to some clients who happen to be police officers and I said what should I get to protect my house?
1. Guns
2. Gate at the end of my driveway
3. Dogs
4. Lasers
Ok well not lasers but anyhow for good home protection that is recommended by the police.
Way of subject but...what the heck
Last edited:
IWalker
Well-known member
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_nancy_pelosi_heavily_invested_in_t.html
This paints a more reasonable picture. Obviously the investment isn't going to make or break her.
At the same time, don't you agree that it'd be a little more comforting if they (congressmen/women) didn't have investments in companies who stand to directly benefit from legislation that they have a hand in passing. It seems akin to an athlete gambling on his own team....it's illegal an unethical for obvious reasons...and also certainly raises suspicious of/comparisons to trading on inside information (consider if you're going to propose legislation...you know that before it's public knowledge...and can thus capitalize on it).
I don't say that so much in direct response to this situation...but make it as more of a sweeping comment regarding similar situations.
Last edited:
Diamonds
Well-known member
I disagree with what you are saying in the fact that I am sure 50k sub families are not giving away 2600 of their income away. It is the large donations that skew the numbers.
There are some very generous people out there who give back. People who are much more generous than myself. I could be doing more and there is no question about that.
I don't agree with raising taxes on the the couple that makes 50k or even 100k. I say raise taxes back to where they were pre King Bush for anyone above 250k.
250k per year is a lot of money. Exactly what Sentor Obama wants to do. When you are making 5k the national average you are rich. You don't have to make 5 million a year like McCain recently said to be rich.
Raise takes on the people above and start paying off some of our huge debt and work on the economy. We can't be in war time and have our taxes be lower than they were pre war time. That is just insane!
IWalker
Well-known member
You're exactly right...but we're dealing with averages. So if the average donation is 5% of income...and people at lower incomes are donating less than that...then people with more money are donating significantly more than that, correct?
When you say you think that the rich should pay more taxes...you do realize that the poor pay NO TAX at all, right? The top 50% of earners pay something like 97% of the tax burden. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of taxes. So, how is it that you could really have tax cuts on anyone BUT the rich? Noone else really pays very much tax.
If somehow the rich weren't paying an equal share of the tax burden...then this argument might hold some water...but as it stands they're paying WAY more than their fair share....but you want to keep bumping that up more and more?
These attitudes regarding taxation and the rich that I normally see espoused by liberals generally don't recognize the gross inequality in treatment that exists with the tax system of this country. Imagine you told rich people they had to pay $100 for a gallon of gas because "they can afford it" while poor people get it for free. Does that make sense? Not to me...but that's exactly what our tax system does.
As a slight aside, I wonder....under the idea of "no taxation without representation...if you don't vote...then you aren't represented...shouldn't you be exempt from paying tax? I wonder how that argument would hold up....hmmmmm.
Edit: I don't have the numbers in front of me...but that 40% of income tax number is far higher than the % of total income that the top 1% earn...so it's not just a % game - also the % of taxes paid by that top 1% is higher now than it's ever been...even with the lower tax rates.
Last edited:
IWalker
Well-known member
250k for a family living in NYC isn't rich. For a single person living in a small town in the midwest it probably is. It's hard to make blanket statements that are even relatively accurate. But it comes down to...why is it ok to take a pound of flesh from people who have become successful...most likely from their own hard work and good decisions? It's like rich people (the people who are most responsible for the growth of this economy) are somehow the bad guys...and deserve to be punished.
I just don't know why people have the idea that it's ok to essentially steal money from rich people, just cause they have it. Cause that's what progressive taxation is...it's the government stealing from its most productive citizens.
Tube60
Well-known member
I would like to see the actual, un-doctored numbers published as to who pays what both in hard dollar figures and percentages as far as taxes are concerned. And make sure every citizen reads those numbers.
Many in Washington and on the state level who are self-described "liberals" IMO are not in actuality. Liberals stand for plurality, justice for all, compassion. Who was the Democratic Senator who yelled out "We could socialize your industry!" during the Congressional hearings on the rising cost of fuel, directed at the oil co. execs who were called on the carpet....? I don't remember her name now..... but her outburst of hard-left dogma illustrates very well how hard-core they're getting. I wouldn't say that's liberal at all. Thats a hard-core socialist talking, and they're getting more and more powerful IMO. And that's not liberal at all.
Back to topic. The whole thing about taxing the rich harder "because they can afford it" is, pure and simple, divisive, finger pointing, hateful politicking. Case in point: It's been pointed out, in McCain's own words, that he doesn't remember how many houses he owns. Who should care in the first place? Sen. Obama pointed out in rebuttal that McCain is "out of touch and WEALTHY". The hypocrisy of what Obama said comes into play when one realizes that Obama's own house is worth +/- $4.0m. Now, even if Sen. Obama's house dropped into his lap through inheritance, that makes him WEALTHY! Not too long ago in human history one could remove "wealthy" and replace it with a certain race or political view du jour shouted by a hard-line dictator. It's more of the same B.S. in a way. Point out a certain group and punish them for whatever.
Diamonds pointed out in one of his replies that cutting taxes in the face of needing to pay for a war, well, I'd say he's right on that. However paying off that war could also be expedited by making massive cuts in the wildly bloated federal and state governments, and agencies therein, could also do that, and probably more effectively. Increasing the burden on one group who "can afford it" only punishes. Trying to create something more fair for every citizen in this country, IMO, is beyond us. Both side's power brokers are too entrenched for "us" to be able to do anything about it. I don't think a Boston Tea Party would be possible again.
Remember, remember, the Fifth of November.......
kwr
Well-known member
I find there is less and less correlation between wealth and productivity. The debacle that has engulfed the financial services sector has only served to highlight this point.
Kevin
