Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ZeBrownie

Obama

Recommended Posts

During the Clinton years I got my business off the ground and I prospered. The worst thing that happened to my business was when the Bush administration allowed individual stores of large chains to register as small businesses and bid against me on government contracts. Then, when Hurricane Charlie destroyed my home and business a YEAR before Katrina, Bush's brother allowed insurance companies in Florida to re-write contracts and limit payouts to lessen their burden. Shutting my business down for good (I eventually got my full insurance settlement, but my lawyers ended up with most of it). In the past two years I've been building up a new business and the government has been less than friendly in SBA loans and it's even harder to win government contracts meant for small businesses that are STILL going to large corporations via shell companies and affiliate relationships which used to be prohibited.

 

Had McCain kept his original campaign staff that got him the nomination and not hired half of Bush's former staff to run his campaign just before his convention, I would still be voting for him. Before the convention he had integrity and I believed that he truly was a maverick and willing to work with both parties to actually get something done.

 

When he visited Kansas and had a town hall meeting, I had an opportunity to bring up the issue of small business contracts and I liked his response and how much he seemed to know about it.

 

But he's been erratic lately and has been showing his age. He's outright lied about a lot of stuff in the past few weeks and Palin scares the bajeezus out of me.

 

I voted for Reagan twice, Bush Sr, Clinton twice, Bush Jr once (first term) and Kerry (because I was fed up with Bush). I was for McCain, but the "Bush years" have put a major hurt on me financially and there are too many Bush people in his campaign and I fear in his cabinet. I'll take my chances with Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a billboard in the XBox 360 game 'Burnout Paradise.'

 

Insert Republican joke that he should be advertising in 'Halo' considering his messiah-like status among followers. (Like me. :) )

 

Edit, wow, in the two minutes it took me to post this, two replies hit above me, including Firebetty! Weehaw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On taxes...yes, it's true that Obama will raise taxes (slightly) on small businesses. And he's going to raise my taxes too. But he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class. And taxes run this country...if you don't want to pay taxes for things like schools and roads and public safety then maybe you should move somewhere where you won't need those things. My husband is a small business owner, and he's for Obama. He thinks that the irresponsibility of the republican party over the last near decade is worse than higher taxes. And he's a fiscal conservative. The mentality of this country HAS to change.

 

I'd like to just point out that federal taxes, which is what we'd be talking about Obama raising, do not go towards things like schools, roads, and public safety. In fact at least a third of all federal income taxes slip the the cracks of government waste (regardless of which party is in control) and the rest goes to paying down the interest on our staggering national debt. Also, there are a lot of middle class small business owners and, given then scale and rate of inflation, the term middle class is ever expanding. So the middle class is far from insulated under either candidates' taxation plans.

I don't want to be misunderstood as simply picking on Obama (I do see him as the lesser of two evils), but I just can't see how a 2 party system can provide any really option or incentive for one party to step it up and really do anything other than maintain the status quo, if we're lucky.

Edited by SaintEfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to just point out that federal taxes, which is what we'd be talking about Obama raising, do not go towards things like schools, roads, and public safety. In fact at least a third of all federal income taxes slip the the cracks of government waste (regardless of which party is in control) and the rest goes to paying down the interest on our staggering national debt. Also, there are a lot of middle class small business owners and, given then scale and rate of inflation, the term middle class is ever expanding. So the middle class is far from insulated under either candidates' taxation plans.

I don't want to be misunderstood as simply picking on Obama (I do see him as the lesser of two evils), but I just can't see how a 2 party system can provide any really option or incentive for one party to step it up and really do anything other than maintain the status quo, if we're lucky.

 

Not to belabor the subject, but I have to respectfully disagree:

Tax dollars do go for schools...mostly for subsidized and unsubsidized federally funded college loans and Pell Grants. When I say "public safety" I'm speaking in terms of things like the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and the military being funded with federal taxpayer money. Money from the tax pool goes to those infamous "pork projects" that are asked for by states. Many of which help subsidize the infrastructure within those states, like maintenance on Interstate freeways, Bridges to Nowhere etc. Being from California, where we somehow have an inability to spend within our means (like most states), we are asking to borrow federal tax money to help pay for things in our budget...and uh we're like the 7th largest economy in the freakin' world. I do agree with you that there is corruption in Washington, and that a chunk (prolly NOT the 1/3 that you suggest) of tax money never sees the light of day except to pay for some nepotistic contractor's/lobbyist's bank account. But that's kinda like saying the sky is blue. All I'm saying is...no one WANTS to pay taxes, but it's sortof a necessity. Yes, in a perfect world, there would be no corruption, but that's not reality. I just can't sympathize with the ultra wealthy. I know what kind of tax breaks these people get. Corporations pay hardly any tax because tax shelters were designed specifically for the wealthy, while my lower-middle class, blue collar family pays the difference. Is it fair that some CEO gets to write off his trip to Scotland to go golfing? Or that a small business owner writes off his buffet lunch at the strip club because he took a "potential client/buddy" there? Is that a legitimate tax deduction? It sickens me, yet this is the truth.

I don't trust McCain at all, because frankly, I don't think he knows WHAT he believes anymore. He just desperately wants to get elected, that much is obvious. The man has betrayed every tenet he's ever had to get to this point. And it's a sad situation, because on election day he's going to realize that it was all for nothing.

 

Sorry, I went off on a bit of a rant there. Hopefully you get what I mean.

 

:H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean Firebetty and I'm thrilled that you, and many other folks on this forum, can engage in discussion, and even disagreement, in a respectful and intellectually responsible way.

I suppose I should clarify my point from earlier.

I totally understand what you mean about the states receiving money to subsidize projects intended to benefit the citizens. Furthermore I agree that this happens and that it's in the budget.

What I was alluding to was the fact that our taxes don't take a direct route to such things. According to independent tax researchers the tax money gets routed through the Federal Reserve (which has never been audited and is a private banking institution) and into International Bank accounts. From these accounts tax refunds are distributed. Whatever is left over (of the money that has actually been collected and not refunded) is then given to the IMF (International Monetary Fund) to be redistributed to countries, including back to the U.S.. It is this money that then gets treated as income and can be used for things like $1,000 staplers, and schools, and the military. The problem is that the way the IMF gives us our money back is through loans, which means interest. So in essence every dollar we give in taxes gets loaned back to our government with interest, meaning the more taxes we collect the more in debt we actually become to the IMF.

 

At the end of the day I truly feel bad for someone like Obama. I genuinely believe that he wants to do the right thing for America, but in order to get into that position he has to play the game just like everyone else and once he's there things are stacked against him in ways that he may not even know or certainly in ways almost anyone is powerless to change.

 

*The 1/3 being wasted, that I mentioned previously, comes from the Grace Commission report. Though it was published in 1984 nobody has any reason to believe that those numbers actually managed to go down in the intervening years. Talk about a waste =\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow man...you sound like a tax attorney or sumthin'. LOL. I will step down since your knowledge is clearly superior to mine (you're quoting stats from commissions from the 80s!). But I'm glad I got to spew a little today. It festers if I don't let it out.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the lesser of two evils...a three-party system, or more-party system has its own pitfalls. What ends up happening is that some minority party, which is typically more extremist, gets catered to so that one of the larger parties can form a ruling coalition with it. Then, should that party splinter off, you have snap elections required. That's no way to govern either. That's the rough sketch of the usual criticism against multi-party systems. European countries work it out, even if they're in the market for better ideas also. The fact that Le Pen (did I mention extremists being coddled a bit too much?) could get such a high percentage of the French vote means that whatever system France uses can't be a bed of roses either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught a PBS documentary style special on Obama and McCain detailing their past and their rise in the current campaign. Gives a glimpse into their motives and political maneuvers to gain support from various demographics.

 

Full streaming program at the PBS website:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/

 

(looks like starting Oct 15th it'll be available on youtube and iTunes too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of the lesser of two evils...a three-party system, or more-party system has its own pitfalls. What ends up happening is that some minority party, which is typically more extremist, gets catered to so that one of the larger parties can form a ruling coalition with it. Then, should that party splinter off, you have snap elections required. That's no way to govern either. That's the rough sketch of the usual criticism against multi-party systems. European countries work it out, even if they're in the market for better ideas also. The fact that Le Pen (did I mention extremists being coddled a bit too much?) could get such a high percentage of the French vote means that whatever system France uses can't be a bed of roses either.

 

Indeed. In some ways the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the two party system is inertia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of the lesser of two evils...a three-party system, or more-party system has its own pitfalls. What ends up happening is that some minority party, which is typically more extremist, gets catered to so that one of the larger parties can form a ruling coalition with it. Then, should that party splinter off, you have snap elections required. That's no way to govern either. That's the rough sketch of the usual criticism against multi-party systems. European countries work it out, even if they're in the market for better ideas also. The fact that Le Pen (did I mention extremists being coddled a bit too much?) could get such a high percentage of the French vote means that whatever system France uses can't be a bed of roses either.

 

that's kinda like saying you're scared of too much democracy. sure, people can make ignorant choices. but it's nice that in europe they *have* the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's kinda like saying you're scared of too much democracy. sure, people can make ignorant choices. but it's nice that in europe they *have* the choice.

 

I am scared of too much democracy. Pure democracy allows 51% of the people to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. It all seems fine and dandy until your neighbors vote that you can't wear blue shirts and you have to worship a goat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
Caught a PBS documentary style special on Obama and McCain detailing their past and their rise in the current campaign. Gives a glimpse into their motives and political maneuvers to gain support from various demographics.

 

Full streaming program at the PBS website:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/

 

(looks like starting Oct 15th it'll be available on youtube and iTunes too)

I saw that too. Pretty amazing in terms of the production value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It all seems fine and dandy until your neighbors vote that you can't wear blue shirts and you have to worship a goat.

 

Well, at least I already do 50% of that. Plus I never wear blue shirts anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am scared of too much democracy. Pure democracy allows 51% of the people to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. It all seems fine and dandy until your neighbors vote that you can't wear blue shirts and you have to worship a goat.

 

Works for most of europe. It's called doing consessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in the same boat as you on those 3 issues. I live in Texas, My biz partner collects Class 3 assault weapons, and our tax bracket would get über fucked if Obama is in the white house. That being said. From a rational viewpoint, I'm willing to take it in the ass tax wise for a person that I feel has judgment and decency (and who says he'll put science and technology ahead in importance. Big win in my book)). Nobody on any of the tickets is qualified to be an executive (no not Palin either). I have full confidence that Obama and McCain would learn the executive ropes in the first couple months. After that it's about judgment. Yes judgment comes from experience but that is only in some cases. McCain has shown handily that despite years of experience he still makes bad decisions. So we already know his results from experience. Obama could fuck it up too. But at least he hasn't completely proven himself wrong time and again.

 

Also we've been meeting with CPAs all week to see what tax shelters we can hang under when Obama takes the stage :) Okay so I may be mildly conservative when it comes to money. But everything else not even close. I wish Obama wasn't so financially liberal, but I'll take it in exchange for the other things.

 

And lastly, before Palin my thought was "If McCain is in office, that'll be a bummer, but fuck it". But now that Palin is on the ticket, that makes it a CLEAR case why it would be putting this country into the dark ages when she takes over for McCain after he croaks on week one. Talk about the height of changing the laws to suit your "morals".

 

Dammnit. This stupid thread reeled me in. <_<

 

But at least Chiz and Mamurphy demonstrated (and where's Clint?) that ZeBrownie may be incorrect in assuming that it's only lefties on mograph boards. I also predict there are many like myself who are not really either one.

 

oh snap. i was under the impression that there weren't many other gun-nut/animators

 

i think you just summed up most every angle tat i have been pondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's kinda like saying you're scared of too much democracy.

 

Can't have too much of that Democracy stuff, I say. ;)

 

I'm not saying that multiparty systems are bad, just that they have their own issues. There hasn't been any 'good government panacea' found, except by sheer dint of luck in Singapore from 1959 to 2004 under Lee Kwan Yew, the closest thing to Plato's Philosopher King since Marcus Aurelius (who wasn't so kind to Christians just as Lee wasn't so kind to dissenters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any kind of system is going to have problems, this much is quite true. But what I see in the current U.S. two-party system is a fundamental lack of choice on major issues in addition to a lack of exposure of alternative views. The debates, to me, are kind of a case in point. We have two candidates arguing whether we should 'talk' about invading Pakistan (though bombing border villages is cool to both of em). We have two candidates both supporting the dubious idea of clean coal. Neither admitting the obvious fact that Afghanistan is a lost cause. I don't even really feel like watching the debates tonight, I was so utterly bored by last weeks. To watch these elections you'd think there was no anti war movement in the US, and that we weren't close to bankrupt. All I want is the variety of US public opinion to be evident in a variety of options for president. It's ok if some conservative faces show up there, I'm not going to freak out. But I do feel that a true multi party system (with multi-party debates) would be closer to the democracy that our nationalist rhetoric claims to want to spread around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spence
Speaking of the lesser of two evils...a three-party system, or more-party system has its own pitfalls. What ends up happening is that some minority party, which is typically more extremist, gets catered to so that one of the larger parties can form a ruling coalition with it. Then, should that party splinter off, you have snap elections required. That's no way to govern either. That's the rough sketch of the usual criticism against multi-party systems. European countries work it out, even if they're in the market for better ideas also. The fact that Le Pen (did I mention extremists being coddled a bit too much?) could get such a high percentage of the French vote means that whatever system France uses can't be a bed of roses either.

 

Yeah, speaking of a minority government, Canada just had our elections last night! and we ended up with nearly the EXACT same minority government as last time, boy-o-boy that wasn't a waste of the taxpayers dollars by our prime minister calling another election after only a year and a half.

 

And I wouldn't say a minority government cant get anything done. The conservatives in Canada have already made a promise to stay in Afghanistan until 2012 (which Canada really had nothing to do with from day one), begin the steps of privatizing medical care/creating a 2 tiered medical system, cause more environmental damage than any other prime minister in history (oil sands), fire the head of the nuclear safety board for closing down a nuclear power plant that was unsafe, while cutting spending to the arts.

 

If this shit keeps up, and as it seems Obama's getting in, I think allot of Canadians are going to be threatening to move to America instead of the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...