lynks66

Plato, I agree that "choose" should be the operative word. However, there are probably more individual cases of charities that I could name who are underfunded, understaffed, and fewer and fewer donations and volunteers are coming in each year. What then? I agree that theoretically, churches and charity organizations should be the primary source of aid. But, in reality, given that there's already a continually declining level of charitable donations, (in a general sense), what options do you propose?

Do you feel if taxes weren't so high to help fund these public assistance programs, would people be able to give more to those charities and assistance organizations? And I do know that a smaller portion of our taxes go to welfare programs than other programs roads, military etc... Just a hypothetical question.

Norm Schwartzkopf. He is compassionate, yet firm. What he lacks in economic experience can be made up easily by his demonstrated ability to absorb and understand data used to formulate a strategy. He has a leader's "presence" about him that commands respect.

How old is he now?

Here is my question then: If they United States is a capitalist state (the most capitalist in the world, I might add) despite having massive agricultural subsidies, a public infrastructure system, military, a progressive tax system, social security, some forms of nationalized healthcare in medicare and medicaide, etc., then what is it that still makes us capitalist and what is it that Obama is reversing that will make us socialist? Is George Bush a socialist because of the exorbitant public spending seen under his watch, the steel cartel created under his watch, or his hallmark increases into the size of national industries (secondary education and Medicare)? Where is the line?

 

 

 

I agree. But, will private hospitals, private doctors, and private insurance companies be closing their doors and handing the keys over to the government under Obama's plan? Is an increase in government spending socialist? I contend that it is a liberal enterprise, but not a socialist one.

 

The meaning of the word has been so far diluted that it's used to describe anyone that isn't Adam Smith (and some on here would still call him a socialist). Is that really being honest? We already have a word to describe those who advocate a larger government - liberal. Socialism rejects the markets as the mechanism that moves the economy in favor of central planning through the ownership of industries, private property, and the termination of free enterprise. That is a fundamental difference in ideology, not a blurred line between parties, especially American parties.

I agree with much of your post and you make some excellent points, especially with President Bush. I think the argument that most are making is that while Senator Obama may not be a Hugo Chavez socialist, his policies will likely be more socialist leaning than many conservatives would prefer. No one on here wants the US to become a socialist state (or at least I would think so) some just fear that moves like national healthcare and larger government and possibly even NCLB are moves in that direction.

I may be way off base here, but that is my opinion in a nutshell.

Profits are not bad. But record profit amounts every single quarter at the expense of consumers by gouging prices is an absolute joke and borderline criminal.

I hear people make this argument all of the time with little to back it up with. How much of each gallon of gas sold do the oil companies make as a profit? $1.00? $2.00? or maybe $3.00? It would be interesting to see how much they are actually "gouging" the consumers, and also how much the government is profiting off each gallon of gas?

It feels like some on here really have a grudge against someone making huge profits. Do you really want to be a part of a company or own stock in a company that doesn't want to make a profit? When did making a profit become so bad?

Fact of the matter is, most people on welfare are working. However there is a myth that a lot of people choose to believe, and that is that being on welfare equals being lazy.

Do you have a link verifying that most people on welfare are working?

you are parially correct. I feel the legislature should be doing something since they are the "leaders". I do feel that we need to make some lifestyle changes as well.

Maybe the "leaders" should step in and tell us what we can and can't do in more aspects of our lives? After all they are our leaders?

The way I read the table, the numbers reported are the amount of change in federal tax bill as a function of gross income level. Note that there are + and - signs in front of each number, which correspond to whether it is a tax increase or a tax cut.

That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying. :thumb:

Let me ask this, in reading the article, I don't get the impression that the data supplied represents the % or $ amount of increase, rather that it represents the % or $ amount of the tax burden in the listed income brackets.

 

Am I missing something?

I thought it was saying how much in regard to dollars it would increase or decrease? Now I am confused.

If I have done my calculation correctly it equates to 24%, based upon 2.9 million

That sounds like a huge percentage of increase doesn't it? I mean if my tax burden were to go up 24% next year, I would not be too happy about it.

Agreed. Tax policy is complicated, so understanding how these numbers were developed and the underlying assumptions is important. However, since many take it as a given that Obama will raise their taxes (and I doubt many of these folks bring in >$227K/year), I thought this was worth posting.

I wonder what effect (or maybe affect not sure which is correct here?) Raising the tax burden on higher income individuals will have on our economy down the road. +$701,885 seems like a huge increase on an individual's tax burden. Or maybe I am reading the chart incorrectly?

IMO, the best way to convince yourself not to vote for Obama is not through verbal miscues, but by reading an economics textbook.

:laugh:

There is an existing, open thread on this subject already. GO CATS has even assigned odds to each potential candidate.

 

^McCain's Mate (not the pretty blonde)???

This link isn't working. It just takes me to the PR forum.

Hillary will support Obama ---- I will not.

This is interesting to me. How are they different from each other? To me they look very similar.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

 

According to the above link, he had the same amount of popular votes before and after Michigan is added in.

Because he wasn't on the ballot in Mich. correct? I think that is hardly fair to say she is deserving of being counted in the lead in the popular vote with this being the case. Do you agree?

With Michigan, she is ahead.

 

Democrats Obama Clinton

Total Delegates 2,072 1,915

Super Delegates 333 291

Pledged Delegates 1,739 1,624

Popular Vote Obama17,389,253 Clinton 17,364,667

Popular Vote (w/MI) Obama 17,389,253 Clinton 17,692,976

How many votes did Obama receive from MI?

I would agree. My father rails on Republicans voting and somehow says it is the Republicans fault that they are allowed to vote in Democrat elections.

 

If the Dems are that stupid to allow Republicans to vote in their election process, it just goes to show how the Dems have no clue on what is going on.

 

Hillary is the best candidate that the Dems could put forth in this election and she has received more votes than any candidate in the history of this country and she will not be the nominee.

 

I found it historically hilarious that the party that whined and cried about Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 and we needed to change the election process, will NOT NOMINATE the candidate that 1) will win the popular vote of their nominating process; 2) and is the strongest candidate in the states that will decided the general election race.

We she actually win the popular vote?

I said it when the Jeremiah Wright controversy came up. I've seen a lot worst in some of the church's I have attended. This won't change my mind one bit. I still will be voting for him in November.

Out of curiousity, what would have to happen to change you mind one bit?

The Energy Information Administration breaks your cost down this way:

 

	Apr-08	Apr-07	Apr-06
Retail Price	$3.46	$2.85	$1.80
Refining	10%	28.10%	22.00%
Dist & Mkt	5.80%	7.60%	9.90%
Taxes	11.50%	14.00%	23.40%
Crude oil	72.70%	50.30%	44.60%

Thanks again for the info. Do you know where they might have included the percentage of profits that the oil companies make?

The Energy Information Administration breaks your cost down this way:

 

	Apr-08	Apr-07	Apr-06
Retail Price	$3.46	$2.85	$1.80
Refining	10%	28.10%	22.00%
Dist & Mkt	5.80%	7.60%	9.90%
Taxes	11.50%	14.00%	23.40%
Crude oil	72.70%	50.30%	44.60%

Where does the percentage of profit come from?

No offense Hearsay... but people continue to associate Obama with Wright even after he denounced Wright, had he not denounced him it would be far worse.

 

QUOTE]

 

I thought he said he couldn't disown/denounce Rev. Wright?

Who makes more off a gallon of gasoline, big oil or the government?

Curious....why no cuts to the aid we give Israel?

Good question.

I am impressed by all the closet economists on here.

 

For those of you favoring the windfall tax, how did that do the last two times we had it?

Another question that will likely go unanswered.

Not at all. But race will be of help to John with some voters. I think it will play a big role.

Will race not only be of help to Obama?