Obama 30 minute television ad

[Dean]

Alright, I thought we could have at least a little discussion over this commercial.

I thought it was very big budget. The production quality was amazing. According to Keith Olbermann, he spent a combined estimate between $3.5 and $5 million to air it on the 7 networks.

The half hour was very well orchestrated. They had great representatives of a variety of people. It was really about policy and Obama's story tied in with the issues and everything.

I thought he pulled it off real well. I don't know if the live shot at the end was necessary, but it was a really well-crafted infomercial, and probably accomplished what it desired.

[Legendaryking6]

Mother f*cker delayed the world series.

[Dean]

And the Republican National Committee blasted the timing of the ad, which pushed back the start of a World Series baseball game.

"It's unfortunate that the World Series' first pitch is being delayed for Obama's political pitch. Not only is Obama putting politics before principle, he's putting it before our national pastime," spokesman Alex Conant said.

The Obama campaign did not ask that the game be delayed, said a spokesman for Fox, which broadcasts the World Series.

"They asked Fox to buy the air time," the spokesman said. "Fox went to our partner, Major League Baseball, and asked if it would be OK to delay the game to take this important political advertisement. They agreed."

MLB's willingness to delay the fall classic for a political ad shows how very unusual the Obama TV spot is.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.muscle/index.html

McCain's republican convention pushed back an NFL game by an hour and a half.

And really, all Obama did was push back the pre-show...

[Legendaryking6]

Yeah, well Bud Selig is a f*ckin moron to begin with. Him letting this happen doesn't surprise me at all.

[Chris!]

It was really nice. I don't know if it worked for swing voters or anything, but it certainly rallied the base...

[Legendaryking6]

And it also pissed off a lot of people, including myself. One, he had the gall to even ask to delay the world series in the 1st place, and two, it only made the people who support McCain even more pissed at him for pulling this crap. I get enough of him through other media outlets and his regular commercials, I don't need to be seeing him on all the major TV networks in a 30 MINUTE spot.

[Dean]

Yeah, well Bud Selig is a f*ckin moron to begin with. Him letting this happen doesn't surprise me at all.

The first pitch was delayed by a whole ten whopping minutes, lol. I really think you're upset over nothing. Everyone knew the Phillies would win anyway.

[Legendaryking6]

Over nothing? Dude, it's the World Series. What part of that don't you understand? The fact that Selig went ahead and had them play the game on monday in the first place was bad enough, then we had to wait another 2 days just for 3 innings.

I'm a Phillies fan anyway, that should be enough explaination why I'm pissed off about the whole situation.

[Dean]

The NFL Season Opener was delayed an hour and a half because of the Republican National Convention.

You're bitching because the World Series was delayed ten f*cking minutes.

And besides, they could've turned it down. CNN did.

[Legendaryking6]

That's because it's the WORLD F*CKING SERIES.

[Ryan!]

I'm more offended that they didn't push the game back further and give Obama more time to say more, considering it was only three f*cking innings. Also this series was useless without a team like the Sox in it.

[Legendaryking6]

I'm more offended they gave his socialist ass any time at all.

[Dean]

I'm more offended they gave his socialist ass any time at all.

Sen. John McCain's campaign has seized on Sen. Barack Obama's offhand remark that he wants to "spread the wealth around" to allege Obama is a socialist.

Even in the context of a heated presidential campaign, that's a remarkably incendiary accusation. It's become a standard part of the McCain campaign rhetoric, uttered by surrogates and candidates alike.

Gov. Sarah Palin's remarks in Springfiled, Mo., are a good example: "Senator Obama says that he wants to spread the wealth, which means — you know what that means," she said at a rally on Oct. 24, 2008. "It means that government takes your money, (handed) out however a politician sees fit. Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth, and Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic. And yet to Joe the Plumber, he said it sounded like socialism. And now is not the time to experiment with socialism."

She has repeated the line in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and most recently in Leesburg, Va., on Oct. 27, 2008. It consistently evokes boos and jeers from a crowd protective of the American system of government.

But is Palin stoking their anger honestly?

Socialism refers most commonly to a system in which the government owns the means of production and distribution of goods. That is, the state truly is responsible for creating and spreading the wealth. Let's look at the root of Palin's claim — Obama's Oct. 12, 2008, exchange with plumber Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, who has come to be known simply as Joe the Plumber — and see if that's what Obama was suggesting.

Wurzelbacher approached Obama on the street in his Holland, Ohio, neighborhood, and said he was close to buying a plumbing company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. He complained that Obama would tax him more, punishing his success.

Obama responded that he was raising the top tax rate so he could decrease taxes for those who make less than $250,000.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too."

"Seems like you would be welcome to a flat tax then," Wurzelbacher said.

"You know, I would be open to it except for here's the problem with a flat tax," Obama countered. "You'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who — things are slow, and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

So when Wurzelbacher brought up a flat tax, Obama responded by endorsing progressive taxation – the principle of taxing those with higher incomes at a higher percentage than those with lower incomes. And it is in that context that Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Progressive taxes do indeed spread the wealth a bit. But they do so much more modestly than government owning the means of production.

Few serious policy makers — including McCain — consider progressive taxation socialist. In fact, on the Oct. 26, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain stood by a comment he made in 2000 that "there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more" in taxes when you "reach a certain level of comfort."

"You put into different, different categories of wealthier people paying, paying higher taxes into different brackets," McCain told host Tom Brokaw, as if to say progressive taxes are a no-brainer.

Indeed, progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American tax policy since the federal government first collected an income tax in 1863. It was based on the Tax Act of 1862, which President Abraham Lincoln signed, and which imposed a "duty of three per centum" on all income over $600, and five percent on income over $10,000.

Obama's proposed top tax rate of 39.6 percent, (up from today's 36 percent) is considerably higher than that. But it's not particularly high in the context of modern times; as he pointed out to Wurzelbacher, it's about what top earners paid in the Clinton years. In 1987, the top tax rate was 38.5 percent. In 1944, it was 94 percent on the top portion of the highest incomes.

So no, Obama's tax increase on those making more than $250,000 would not represent a transformation of the U.S. system of government. His desire to "spread the wealth" through progressive taxation makes him no less a capitalist than McCain, or Lincoln. Palin's allegation that Obama wants to "experiment with socialism" seems designed less to inform than to inflame.

http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/27/playing-dirty-s-word/

Furthermore,

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189688/october-28-2008/socialist-candidate-for-president---brian-moore

Brian Moore [Socialist Candidate for President] says Barack Obama is the furthest thing from a socialist candidate.

[Legendaryking6]

This spread the wealth crap is only going to encourage people who get the handout to not get a job or work for their money. It is socialism, no matter how you look at it.

[Ryan!]

I don't remember reading about a handout. I remember reading about a progressive tax plan which has been endorsed by republicans and democrats alike. Handouts, however...

[Dean]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

There are the plans for both candidates, analyzed by the Tax Policy Center.

People who earn an income of less than $18,892 get the least amount of tax cuts out of the people who get tax cuts for both sides... They may get a higher percentage under Obama's plan, but from strictly a dollar value standpoint, they get far less.

McCain gives both higher percentages and higher dollar value tax cuts as the income brackets increase, all the way up to the top 0.1%, who would get a tax cut of ridiculous proportions under McCain's tax plan.

I still don't see how restoring the tax cuts to a beneficial level for the middle class is "socialist" or "a handout".

Progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American capitalism for 150 years, as documented in the article that I'm going to have to assume you didn't read.

[blitz]

Thank you, Dean. Helping the WORKING middle class is in no way, shape or form, socialism. If the socialist candidate is actually saying Obama is not a socialist, that should tell you something. If you can't see that he's not a socialist you're just a blind sheep choosing McCain. I'm not saying Obama doesn't have his fair share of blind sheep, but here's actual proof of a McCain blind follower.

[Dean]

Blitz, I understand your frustration with the points being made, but be sure not to troll. You're nearing the territory by calling him "a blind sheep". Just a fair caution. :)

For the record, McCain is actually proposing regressive taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_taxation), which simply serves to widen the gap between rich and poor, ensuring the rich get richer, the poor get poorer...

And we could go into pros/cons of each tax form... but I'd prefer to do that in a separate thread, and it might be better suited for whatever economics forum GW has or its equivalency.

EDIT: Okay, Politics is as good as any. If anybody wants to debate over the different forms of taxation, feel free to make a thread. I don't really feel the need unless someone actually wants to discuss them. I don't want this thread getting all clogged up with discussion about proportional, regressive, and progressive taxation.

[The_Mess]

That's because it's the WORLD F*CKING SERIES.
BAWWWWW.
Fixed.

Oh and grow some brains/maturity would you. It's only f*cking sport, plain old circus for the masses, in-f*cking-consequential to a myriad number of real and pressing issues that this coming US election is about.

This spread the wealth crap is only going to encourage people who get the handout to not get a job or work for their money. It is socialism, no matter how you look at it.
Sorry, where exactly are the gulags, re-education camps and gross over-centralisation of industry again?

[blitz]

I'm a pretty huge baseball fan, and I wasn't much bothered about the whole ten minutes that the game was delayed. I would rather have the country educated about who is going to lead their country, than have a game start on time.

[Dean]

I didn't even watch the game. I flipped it over to CNN around 9:30 to listen to McCain, who actually had one of his best performances regarding the economy with Larry King.

Unfortunately for McCain, it was sandwiched between Obama 30 minute television ad and first Barack Obama/Bill Clinton campaign rally, so he had no real shot of getting any meaningful message out tonight.

And there's no doubt the next 24 hours of the news cycle will be dominated by the two Obama-related pieces. Not even Fox News will bring up the McCain/Larry King interview since they hate CNN... or at least Charles Barkley.

[Suburban Reject]

Well, I'll swing it both ways and go in controversially:

1. The World Series actually is worth something. LK may not be sounding good, but I agree with him. Dean, you know little about sports, so knock off about the RNC delaying a REGULAR SEASON football game. Huge difference.

And Obama didn't need to buy out the Fox spot. He had NBC, CBS, and ABC, and baseball ratings were down.

I didn't watch the ad, but I'm sure I'll find it on youtube. But I was pretty skeptical of this idea; it has the ability of losing votes through saturation. And it makes Obama look every bit the corrupt politician he is (they all are).

2. On the other hand, people need to drop the idea that socialism is inherently evil. It isn't.

Yeah, I said it. Are you gonna fire off the usual government propaganda? Listen, capitalism is just as bad. It has been used on too many occasions to justify the divide between the rich and poor. It was never intended to help anyone but those who already had wealth. At least socialism had honorable intentions.

That said, Obama isn't socialist, and his plans would actually help the man who generated the "controversial" response...

[Dean]

1. Believe it or not, I watch sports occasionally. I'm not a big sports enthusiast besides MMA or pro wrestling (if you can consider the latter a sport), but I watch the SuperBowl every year, and it's not like I don't know the importance of the World Series. I'm saying, it's ridiculous to flip out because it was postponed a whole 10 minutes when it was only three innings of the game anyway. There are more pressing issues at hand here.

As far as saturation, I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think people are going to go "You know, I was going to vote for that Obama guy, but now that he's on my TV again, I'm going to say no." The only thing Obama did tonight was accomplish what he's needed to do for a while - sell his issues and his morals to America. It was a great TV spot, if not "too polished," and I don't see it having a backlash.

2. I agree that elements of Socialism can work, and I'm not a die hard Capitalist, and I don't think most people are - they've just been raised that if you aren't Capitalist, you're Un-American. It's a lot like the Muslim argument - people think of words like Muslim and Socialist as being inherently evil, when it's just the ethnocentric bullsh*t spewed on TV and in schools that leads them to believe that.

Joe Worzelbacher was a supporter of McCain all along, and now the guy is milking this to get a country music recording contract and other appearances. Dude even has his own publicist. He's a fraud, and I expect to see him on some reality show soon... Maybe he and William Hung can do duets and woo America.

[Suburban Reject]

I just wanna point out that nobody should feel socialism is perfect...

And socialism is NOT stalinism.

[Majin]

Stalinism killed the word socialism in America. It was big in the 1920s, especially in the midwest, then poof thank you Joseph McCarthy

[Suburban Reject]

I defer comments about the ad until I see it, so yeah. But I'm not impressed with the idea. It sets horrible precedent, and sounds like overkill.

At the same time, it is different and unique, and if it does work, I take back most of my sentiment.

[shortkut]

i think the world series being pushed back those 10 minutes is nothing compared to how selig dealt with the storm and the game. besides, when the deal was made, it would have been for game 7 i believe. if it never reached game 7, nothing would have been affected. they game him the day when it was least likely to occur. they could have also just given him the time before the game without pushing the game back. they offered to let the game start slightly later, so it is not obama's fault/doing.

[Suburban Reject]

Yeah, Majin got in the way...

[shortkut]

lots of people got in my way :(

[Ants!]

I was waiting for the next time somebody brought up the Obama/socialism bullsh*t line to hit them with...pretty much everything that's already been said by people who beat me to it. There's an economy based on socialism and then there's something called a progressive tax. Only uneducated people confuse the two.

But I just want to ask all the people out there who reacted to the "spread the wealth" line the way they did: why does that bother you so much? What's so bad about it? It should only bother you or affect you negatively if you're already rich, and if you aren't (which is the case with most of the people angered over that statement) then why are you so repulsed by the idea of getting more money? Why do you embrace the idea of helping the rich that don't care about helping you?whatever economics forum GW has or its equivalency.

Experimentals go go! :rock:


I don't actually have much to say on the television program though. I wasn't even aware it existed until it was mentioned on The Daily Show last night (shouldn't it be called "The Nightly Show"?) so I didn't watch it yet.

[Majin]

ce inherits all nonexistent forums.

[Schteve]

People who earn an income of less than $18,892 get the least amount of tax cuts out of the people who get tax cuts for both sides... They may get a higher percentage under Obama's plan, but from strictly a dollar value standpoint, they get far less. As long as taxes are based on how much you make, you shouldn't be considering flat dollar amounts at all. Proportional taxes mean analyzing the proportional tax cuts.

[soulcalibur2007]

Just the idea of Obama putting up a 30 min ad pisses me off. I already see his ugly mugg for 60 sec every 10 min (whether it be a McCain ad or an Obama ad). I don't need to see it again for 30 min. In fact, I hate all political ads at this point. They are f*cking annoying. BTW, I do believe I live in one of those "battleground" states.

As for the whole socialism thing, two points.

One, look at every nation so far that has tried socialism (China, Russia, various other smaller countries). It never works. It either fizzles out, or turns into Communism. Everyone CAN'T be in every way equal. Someone has to hold power or sh*t falls apart.

Two, say I'm an executive for a big company. I've spent 20-odd years clawing my way to the top. I've probably ruined relationships and lost sleep because of it, too. Every day I'm under the microscope as a model for how my employees act. Now comes along a Democrat f*ck who says that I make too much money and that I owe some lazy bum (who works as a burger-flipper at McDonalds) money and heath insurance. How would that make you feel?

I'd tell the guy at McDonalds to get a real job. Better yet, a career. McDonalds is not meant to supply you the money you need to live. It's meant for 16 year olds who need some spare cash. Stop under-achieving and do something with your life.

[Dean]

Two, say I'm an executive for a big company. I've spent 20-odd years clawing my way to the top. I've probably ruined relationships and lost sleep because of it, too. Every day I'm under the microscope as a model for how my employees act. Now comes along a Democrat f*ck who says that I make too much money and that I owe some lazy bum (who works as a burger-flipper at McDonalds) money and heath insurance. How would that make you feel?

Nice straw man. Obama isn't telling you that you owe them money and health insurance. He's bringing the tax levels back to what they were before Bush. You guys act like this is something new...

If you're rich, you can afford to give more. That's one of the principles of progressive taxation, which the US has been using for 150 years.

If anything, McCain is the f*cking radical because he wants to change to regressive tax cuts.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/10/30/will-obama-really-raise-taxes

[Two Angels And A Dream]

I liked it. I didn't care for anything in it as very little affects me but makes me wish more English politions would try and follow Obamas suit and get us interested in politics and try to touch base with the actual voters rather than the rich people who line thier pockets off of our government.

[Dean]

I'm disappointed in you, TAAAD. After I caution blitz for calling him a "blind sheep," you go and call him a "moron." I hardly know you anymore.

I don't want anybody trolling each other from now on, seriously. I'm going to start handing out warnings. You've all been cautioned... There's no need for it. We can have a policy debate, or even a debate about the importance of the World Series, without trolling or flaming one another. It just makes people look immature.

[~Mr. Indecisive~]

I'm going to give my 2 cents on this whole socialists ****, and the spread the wealth BS. One is a comment taken out of context. Also if you tax the lower income brackets more, whats their incentive to work hard. I mean if you are working your ****ing *** off at a job 40 hours a week, and you get taxed more then the person who owns the company then what is your incentive to stay. In all honesty McCains tax plan, where the lower your income the less of a tax break you get, is going to cause people to say **** this, I'm sick of working my *** off, and having to pay more in taxes then the guy who sits in an office all day, while I am working on the assembly line.

I'd tell the guy at McDonalds to get a real job. Better yet, a career. McDonalds is not meant to supply you the money you need to live. It's meant for 16 year olds who need some spare cash. Stop under-achieving and do something with your life.

Nice mentality there. Basically in smaller towns like mine where there are 3 factories, and the town relies on tourism, and the only jobs available are those kind of jobs, I'm suppose to make something of my life. Well I am going to college, but you know, I can only work part-time. You sound like an elitist. Basically your saying get a decent job or **** off, well I'll get right on that, as soon as I graduate from college, if the company hasn't already shipped those jobs overseas, otherwise I may get stuck in a job like that for awhile. You sound like you have no care for anyone less fortunate than you. I'm probably going to lost my chance at becoming a full fledged mod for this, but its worth it.

Besides isn't the American way to start from the bottom, and climb to the top. Thats going to be hard to do when you are getting taxed more than those above you. It would make it extremely difficult for you start a business, or raise your standard of living. The problem is McCain thinks America is built from the top down. Sorry it isn't, immigrants came here with nothing, and some worked their way up, and that is how America should be. You should be able to start at the bottom and work your way to the top. However like I said if you are being taxed heavier at the bottom, how can you expect to move up, most of your money is being taken by the government, while the person at the top enjoys his success at my expense. I would say to that person at the top, "who is doing all the dirty work so your company can make money, which in turn makes you money, me, the person working my *** off, while you sit in your office all day". If the middle class loses faith in the idea you can climb to the top, then they will quit, and the companies they worked for won't have a workforce, and then the CEOs at the top will start to lose money. I need that incentive that if I work hard, I can climb the ladder, otherwise whats the point.

[Dean]

Also, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411781_candidates_october.pdf

[Ants!]

Two, say I'm an executive for a big company. I've spent 20-odd years clawing my way to the top. I've probably ruined relationships and lost sleep because of it, too. Every day I'm under the microscope as a model for how my employees act. Now comes along a Democrat f*ck who says that I make too much money and that I owe some lazy bum (who works as a burger-flipper at McDonalds) money and heath insurance. How would that make you feel?

I'd tell the guy at McDonalds to get a real job. Better yet, a career. McDonalds is not meant to supply you the money you need to live. It's meant for 16 year olds who need some spare cash. Stop under-achieving and do something with your life.

The idea of the progressive tax is to help you get that wealth without so much of that 20 years of clawing and losing sleep and friends.

[The_Mess]

As for the whole socialism thing, two points.

One, look at every nation so far that has tried socialism (China, Russia, various other smaller countries). It never works. It either fizzles out, or turns into Communism. Everyone CAN'T be in every way equal. Someone has to hold power or sh*t falls apart.

Two points of epic fail. Or more precisely, a major case of ignorance about what communism, what Marx meant socialism to be and what it's changed into in much of Europe and other parts of the world to basically mean providing health care, education and the necessities of life to those in need. Dependent on the government in charge...

But I guess your utter ignorance about socialism and communism is just such a good position to argue from :rolleyes:

[soulcalibur2007]

The idea of the progressive tax is to help you get that wealth without so much of that 20 years of clawing and losing sleep and friends.

So you still work hard to get to the top. For what? To have the sh*t taxed out of you?

~Mr. Indecisive~. Two things.

One, I'm by no means "elitist". My parents are low-middle class (both hate Obama). I have a 6 year old brother and a 1 year old sister. I went through High School with my last two years being in Vo-Tech. I then went to trade school with $5,000 in scholarships and $27,000 in loans. I am now working two jobs (one is 40 hours a week at $9.00 an hour, the other is 6 hours a weekend at $7.25 an hour). The only reason I can't afford to live on my own is due to the massive loans I have to repay so thank God I don't have to pay my parents rent.

Two, McDonalds is a go-nowhere job. You go from burger-flipper to cashier...thats about it. The occasional person gets to be a manager, but managers get paid sh*t. I hate it when people making minimum wage complain that they can't afford to live. NO SH*T! Minimum wage is there to make you strive to do better and either A)get promoted or B)move on to a better paying, more complex job. You are not meant to live off of the minimum.

That person on the top deserves to have luxury and money. They worked hard to get it. So now you are going to tax them and give the money to under-achievers just because they are more successful?

BTW, I can understand working at McDonalds if you're going to college. Thats good. But to give up on a decent job just becase nothing close to you is good, thats lazy. I have to drive 40 miles one-way DAILY to get to both of my jobs. Thats 80 miles every day in my 21 mpg, 106,658 miles on the odometer, 1988 Buick.

[Ants!]

So you still work hard to get to the top. For what? To have the sh*t taxed out of you?

They're not taxed to the point where they're really hurting or aren't rich anymore after taxes.One, I'm by no means "elitist". My parents are low-middle class (both hate Obama). I have a 6 year old brother and a 1 year old sister. I went through High School with my last two years being in Vo-Tech. I then went to trade school with $5,000 in scholarships and $27,000 in loans. I am now working two jobs (one is 40 hours a week at $9.00 an hour, the other is 6 hours a weekend at $7.25 an hour). The only reason I can't afford to live on my own is due to the massive loans I have to repay so thank God I don't have to pay my parents rent.
In that case you should be wanting a bigger tax break NOW, rather than wait until after the point where you can afford not to have one. Which is something that isn't guaranteed to happen anyway.
Two, McDonalds is a go-nowhere job. You go from burger-flipper to cashier...thats about it. The occasional person gets to be a manager, but managers get paid sh*t. I hate it when people making minimum wage complain that they can't afford to live. NO SH*T! Minimum wage is there to make you strive to do better and either A)get promoted or B)move on to a better paying, more complex job. You are not meant to live off of the minimum.

That person on the top deserves to have luxury and money. They worked hard to get it. So now you are going to tax them and give the money to under-achievers just because they are more successful?

BTW, I can understand working at McDonalds if you're going to college. Thats good. But to give up on a decent job just becase nothing close to you is good, thats lazy. I have to drive 40 miles one-way DAILY to get to both of my jobs. Thats 80 miles every day in my 21 mpg, 106,658 miles on the odometer, 1988 Buick.

It's not like people at minimum wage are suddenly going to be rolling in money. In most cases when a tax break comes to an impoverished family it's going to be a big relief on their cost of living.

Seriously, it just makes more sense to tax the people who can afford to pay more, I don't see what is so hard for people to understand about this. Nor why some poor people defend being made to pay more taxes and letting richer people have it even easier.

[Ryan!]

Brainwashed by Reaganomics and the trickle down BS family values OMFG HE'S AN ACTOR garbage?

Or, you know, naivety might play a part. Seriously, they should teach beginners poli sci in high school, and probably some better economics classes as well. Get people ready for these kind of elections.

[Operative #19]

So you still work hard to get to the top. For what? To have the sh*t taxed out of you?

~Mr. Indecisive~. Two things.

One, I'm by no means "elitist". My parents are low-middle class (both hate Obama). I have a 6 year old brother and a 1 year old sister. I went through High School with my last two years being in Vo-Tech. I then went to trade school with $5,000 in scholarships and $27,000 in loans. I am now working two jobs (one is 40 hours a week at $9.00 an hour, the other is 6 hours a weekend at $7.25 an hour). The only reason I can't afford to live on my own is due to the massive loans I have to repay so thank God I don't have to pay my parents rent.

Two, McDonalds is a go-nowhere job. You go from burger-flipper to cashier...thats about it. The occasional person gets to be a manager, but managers get paid sh*t. I hate it when people making minimum wage complain that they can't afford to live. NO SH*T! Minimum wage is there to make you strive to do better and either A)get promoted or B)move on to a better paying, more complex job. You are not meant to live off of the minimum.

That person on the top deserves to have luxury and money. They worked hard to get it. So now you are going to tax them and give the money to under-achievers just because they are more successful?

BTW, I can understand working at McDonalds if you're going to college. Thats good. But to give up on a decent job just becase nothing close to you is good, thats lazy. I have to drive 40 miles one-way DAILY to get to both of my jobs. Thats 80 miles every day in my 21 mpg, 106,658 miles on the odometer, 1988 Buick.

No one is saying they don't deserve whatever they've gotten through their hard work, they're saying that other people who are lower on the totem pole deserve the chance, too. Your "taxed out of them" argument has little merit, as they still have plenty of money to do whatever it is they want with. Hell, when most of the wealthiest individuals in America were starting out, they had the same(or similar) progressive taxation policies that Obama is trying to restore. Hell, you're using McDonalds as if it's a good example. McDonalds is the lowest of the low, but they're not the only ones Obama is trying to help and restore. There are people who make $50-100k a year that can't make it because of the Bush tax policies. These are the people that work just as hard as any millionaire, but aren't lucky enough to have the same opportunities. Many doctors start out making less then 100k a year, are you saying because they haven't been around longer than they deserve to get taxed more than someone whose been around for 10-20 years and makes 500k a year, especially considering they had lower tax rates when they were first starting out then we have now? It's a balance that needs to be restored, it is unfair for the people who make the least get taxed more percentage wise then people who get paid more taxed less percentage wise.


Hell, let's look at the state of jobs at the moment, since you want to single out McDonalds. Many people can't find jobs in the current economic climate, it's not because they don't try hard enough, it's because few jobs are available. Many people are getting laid off, not just fresh meat, but people who have been around for years. It's an upsetting thing, and your blinding yourself to these issues by having such a one dimensional perspective. If McDonalds was every low-end job in the world, then maybe you'd have a point, but the people who work at McDonalds are probably apart of the lowest tax bracket. What about the people who make $25,000, $50,000, $75, 000, all the way up to about $200-250,000 a year. Are you going to tell them to stop being lazy and get a better job? Most people can live comfortable off of $50,000 - $100,000 a year, because they don't need all that luxury and such, but the problem is the rich people want more of their money so they get less of theirs. So instead of having money to do extra things on occasion, they have to live paycheck to paycheck to pay off their mortgages and "realize the American dream."

And just because you choose to live at your parents house your whole life, and work two full-time jobs and work your life away doesn't mean most of us want to live that same life.

[Ants!]

I'd also like to add that, I'm currently in college and majoring in business management, and hope to start my own business one day. I'd be very glad if I ended up successful enough to pull in 250k a year like Joe the Plumber's business does. I STILL would rather pay more taxes then than now.

[soulcalibur2007]

I'm not saying tax the lower classes more. I'm saying DON'T tax the upper classes more. Hell, don't tax anyone more. Find another way to pull in money.

If you are going to tax the "rich people", make it a flat tax. Not a "you pay a bigger percent the more you make" tax.

I'm also not disagreeing with the tax plan because it will hurt the rich peoples' wallets. I just don't like the idea of punishing people because they are successful and everyone else isn't (or at least not as successful).

Also, has anyone heard Obama or Biden lately? They lowered what they consider "rich". Its now 150k+.

[shortkut]

You are not meant to live off of the minimum.
:chuckle::rotfl::rolleyes::clap::shake:

" A wage sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions. Also called minimum wage." -- http://www.answers.com/topic/living-wage

you are expected to be able to live off of the minimum wage. you are not expected to have money to throw away for a PS3, xbox360, and a new hybrid, but you are expected to be able to live off of it

[Ryan!]

I'm not saying tax the lower classes more. I'm saying DON'T tax the upper classes more. Hell, don't tax anyone more. Find another way to pull in money.

If you are going to tax the "rich people", make it a flat tax. Not a "you pay a bigger percent the more you make" tax.

I'm also not disagreeing with the tax plan because it will hurt the rich peoples' wallets. I just don't like the idea of punishing people because they are successful and everyone else isn't (or at least not as successful).

Also, has anyone heard Obama or Biden lately? They lowered what they consider "rich". Its now 150k+.

You do realize that a 10% tax on a rich person's earnings and a 10% tax on a poorer person's earnings, while it may seem the "fair" thing, is hardly fair at all, right? A 10% tax on a rich person's earnings maybe be like .0001% of their net worth, whereas is may be like 1-5% of a poorer person's worth. I know, grossly inaccurate, I'm just trying to put the math into a way you'll get. Point is, that flat tax is more detrimental to the poorer person than it is to the richer person.

I'd assume with working two jobs and having an education from a vocational school, you'd understand that.

It's not punishing the rich for getting there. It's making it a more even playing field. Now it can be .001% of both person's net worth instead of more of the poorer person's net worth.

In other words

BAWWWWWWWWWW!

[Dean]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27460314/

Barack Obama's campaign "infomercial" drew 33.6 million viewers on seven networks last night, playing on CBS, NBC, Fox, BET, Univision, MSNBC and TV One, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The Democratic presidential candidate's 30-minute message Wednesday night garnered 2.1 million more viewers on CBS, NBC and Fox combined than those three networks drew in the same half-hour last Wednesday.

For NBC and CBS, the Obama ad marked an audience bump of 43 percent and 11 percent respectively over last week's action drama "Knight Rider" (7 million viewers) and the sitcom "The New Adventures of Old Christine" (7.8 million). (Msnbc.com is a joint venture between NBC Universal and Microsoft.)

[Ants!]

I'm not saying tax the lower classes more. I'm saying DON'T tax the upper classes more. Hell, don't tax anyone more. Find another way to pull in money.How do you expect them to do that? There are three ways for the government to get money: Taxes, borrowing, and increasing the money supply. Can you guess why the other two ways might be far worse?

[Dean]

Plus they've already done the other two.

[~Mr. Indecisive~]

If you are going to tax the "rich people", make it a flat tax. Not a "you pay a bigger percent the more you make" tax.

This is why I'm not completely sold on the flat tax idea. If someone is making $25,000 and someone is making $250,000, and you take 10% from each, so person one pays $2,500 a year, while person two pays $25,000 a year, leaving person one with $22,500 and person two with $225,000 sure both would feel it, but who do you think would feel it more, the person who still has $225,000, or the person who has $22,500.

Lets go to a different scenario, Person A makes $15,000/yr. and Person B makes $150,000/yr. with the same 10% tax rate. Person A pays $1,500 Person B pays $15,000. Leaving Person A with $13,500, and Person B with $135,000 who feels it more.

[Suburban Reject]

Besides, one more point: A lot of rich people haven't earned their wealth.

They either inherited it (Hilton, Bush, Kennedy), married into it (Kerry, McCain), or they're just corrupt CEOs who get golden parachutes for jacksh*ts. And it's not like they need your protection anyways... What is lobbying for.

And nobody's asking the country to undergo a revolution to install a socialist regime. It just wouldn't hurt to incorporate parts that would help citizens on occasion.

[soulcalibur2007]

This is why I'm not completely sold on the flat tax idea. If someone is making $25,000 and someone is making $250,000, and you take 10% from each, so person one pays $2,500 a year, while person two pays $25,000 a year, leaving person one with $22,500 and person two with $225,000 sure both would feel it, but who do you think would feel it more, the person who still has $225,000, or the person who has $22,500.

Lets go to a different scenario, Person A makes $15,000/yr. and Person B makes $150,000/yr. with the same 10% tax rate. Person A pays $1,500 Person B pays $15,000. Leaving Person A with $13,500, and Person B with $135,000 who feels it more.

I'm saying if you are going to tax the rich make it like 15% for people above 200K and something less for those below that. That type of flat tax. Not 15% across the board for all classes or 10% for 150k, and 15% for 200k, and 20% for 250k, and so on and so forth.

[Operative #19]

I'm saying if you are going to tax the rich make it like 15% for people above 200K and something less for those below that. That type of flat tax. Not 15% across the board for all classes or 10% for 150k, and 15% for 200k, and 20% for 250k, and so on and so forth.

Two things, first thing being that isn't a flat tax.

Second thing is you obviously don't know the kind of money the government spends for different projects(defense, highways and roads, education, and a host of useless programs.) We pay for that, hence why we are taxed. Currently the national debt is above a trillion dollars I believe, that cannot be fixed under your ideas. Your ideas truly are socialist, as well as stupid for the kind of government the United States have. I've yet to meet a McCain supporter who can give smart valid reasons as to why they are supporting McCain, especially in regards to things like economics.

Abortion and other civil issues is one thing, and, in my humble opinion, lame reasons to cling to a candidate as these issues do not directly effect any individual, these are things that you can choose on in your own personal lives without effecting another's. But issues of the wallet and the home are a completely different thing, these things effect individuals regardless of how they feel about them.

The fact is this: I'm supporting the candidate that will lower the amount of money I personally pay in taxes, the amount of money I pay for health care, has the better ideas for restoring the country's economy, makes me feel safer at home and gives me valid reasons and valid benefits for fighting for my country. Pride and honor doesn't pay the bills, and it doesn't guarantee me and my family a future worth living. I'm also voting for the candidate that has the greatest chance of restoring the country and moving it in a forward, progressive direction. I'm voting for the future.

[Dean]

I'm saying if you are going to tax the rich make it like 15% for people above 200K and something less for those below that. That type of flat tax. Not 15% across the board for all classes or 10% for 150k, and 15% for 200k, and 20% for 250k, and so on and so forth.

Like Operative #19 said, that isn't a flat tax. That's a progressive tax. And that's essentially what Barack Obama is doing, just with greater variance. Also, those tax rates really aren't high enough.

Sh*t, I seriously don't get why people prefer McCain's plans. He's doing regressive income tax cuts; that means he's going to give the higher tax cuts to the rich and the lowest tax cuts to the poor. You know what that does, right? It widens the gap between the rich and the poor even further, driving a wedge between America and further disadvantaging the lower and middle income classes.

Yet some people have bought into McCain's paranoia about "socialism", even though it's a bullsh*t charge perpetuated by the right wing. Every objective analysis, like the one I linked from Politifact, has said that Obama's proposals are not socialism, and that they would be better for the middle class. Furthermore, when the presidential candidate of the socialist party says the guy's no more or less socialist than John McCain - and you claim to believe Barack Obama is a so-called "socialist" or advocates "socialist policies" - then you should also be worried about John McCain.

I don't really see the issue here. The whole socialist charge is just like the terrorist charge, the Muslim charge, and the Un-American charge... they all amount to a big heaping pile of dung.

[Ants!]

Currently the national debt is above a trillion dollars I believeIt's closer to TEN trillion, actually.