Obama based his campaign on not being an insider, hence the comment about his running mate.David, I think you need to support this with some source. He has been in the US Senate two years so... I would be surprised if he based his campaign on this.
Cheers
For the record, Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004. So four years. (It was two years when he started running for president, though, since the election cycle has completely taken over actually getting anything done.)
|
I think we got off topic pretty early. As for my comments, I'm not running for Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world, am I? She has a damn sight more influence and reach then I do.
Ah well. I already see that the likes of Rush and Buchanan have declared that Powell's endorsement was purely a racial thing. Source 1, Source 2.
No matter. I'm sure that Powell's endorsement has sealed the deal for Obama, which is a fantastic thing.
|
Obama based his campaign on not being an insider, hence the comment about his running mate.David, I think you need to support this with some source. He has been in the US Senate two years so... I would be surprised if he based his campaign on this.
Cheers
Well here is a letter to the editer from an Obama supporter describing Obama as a Washington outsider. Also here is CNN describing how Obama "rode the change/outsider horse" during the primaries. And the Washington Post also makes mention of "the fresh, Washington outsider, change message he(Obama) has been touting since the Democratic primaries and caucuses. "
For the record, Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004. So four years. (It was two years when he started running for president, though, since the election cycle has completely taken over actually getting anything done.)Obama based his campaign on not being an insider, hence the comment about his running mate.David, I think you need to support this with some source. He has been in the US Senate two years so... I would be surprised if he based his campaign on this.
Cheers
Will this be a good enough source?
Obama says only an outsider can bring changeThere isn't a specific quote, but it is on his website, so I would assume that means that he does not think the characterization is incorrect. It does say:
but that isn't a direct quote from Obama either.
I think we got off topic pretty early. As for my comments, I'm not running for Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world, am I? She has a damn sight more influence and reach then I do.
Ah well. I already see that the likes of Rush and Buchanan have declared that Powell's endorsement was purely a racial thing. Source 1, Source 2.
No matter. I'm sure that Powell's endorsement has sealed the deal for Obama, which is a fantastic thing.
Which is why I said that I wished Powell actually went into some issues that decided it for him. Instead he made cult of personality comments which just left such a door open.
@pres man and @David Fryer
Your sources are AP articles, but I don't see Obama shying away from the characterization. Fair enough.
|
|
So we should hold the public sector to a lower ethical standard than the private one?
No. I did not say that there should be no standard. I disagreed with your "any public controversy whatsoever should disqualify a person" standard, which is based on the emotional outbursts of groups of people rather than any kind of factual analysis. I would much prefer a standard that involves, say, looking at what the person has actually said.
Hysterical? A term almost exclusively used to describe women.
[/QUOTE}
Are you actually trying to call me a misogynist because I used the word "hysterical?" I disagree that it is a term used almost exclusively to describe women, and I take offense with your implication.
It is just a little silly to say, "I take your concerns seriously. Oh by the way I have this guy that got in trouble for making comments." I mean that is pretty much thumbing his nose at those people that took the concern of sexism seriously.There is a difference between thumbing one's nose at people and disagreeing with their opinions. A politician choosing to accept advice from a person does not mean that the politician personally vouches for everything that person has said in the past, especially in this case where Summers' comments were made in one isolated speech and had nothing to do with his field of expertise.
For the record, Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004. So four years. (It was two years when he started running for president, though, since the election cycle has completely taken over actually getting anything done.)Obama based his campaign on not being an insider, hence the comment about his running mate.David, I think you need to support this with some source. He has been in the US Senate two years so... I would be surprised if he based his campaign on this.
Cheers
He was sworn in January 2005.
http://obama.senate.gov/about/EDIT: Not trying to discredit you. You are correct saying that he hasn't done much legislating since running for office, but then again, neither has McCain.
I would have voted for Powell as president in a heartbeat. Obama? Meh, although this does carry weight with me.
|
|
@pres man and @David Fryer
Your sources are AP articles, but I don't see Obama shying away from the characterization. Fair enough.
True, and maybe saying Obama based his campaign on being an outsider was the wrong choice of words. But it would still be fair to say that he has cultivated that image, since that is how his supporters see him. Since pres man's article was on Obama's website, I would say he is embracing the image rather then simply not shying away from it.
Though the endorsement won't change my vote it will for some. This kinda says that Obama is more moderate than his record shows. Not sure if I really believe that though.
I've had a lot of respect over the years for Powell and would have voted for him as well.
I usually lean towards the more middle of the road candidate. I hate the extremes, left and right.
I also worry about the Executive and Legislative branches being monopolized by one party. I like the checks and balances.
I wonder if this helped Gen. Powell to decide to endorse Sen. Obama.
I don't think so. This announcement was made after the endorsement. If anything, I'd say the relation is the other way around: Obama wanted to capitalize on the endorsement by making sure people who like Powell will see benefit in his election.
|
|
[threadjack]The Economist did a study to find out who the most long winded candidate is since 2000. Here are the results. Apparently Obama is, followed by Sarah Palin, Al Gore, and John Kerry.[/threadjack]
No. I did not say that there should be no standard.
I said lower than the private sector, I did not say no standard.
I disagreed with your "any public controversy whatsoever should disqualify a person" standard,
If you are already being critized for a percieved bias it is not usually a good idea to choose individuals to work with, when you don't have to, that has a history of controversy about that type of bias.
which is based on the emotional outbursts of groups of people rather than any kind of factual analysis. I would much prefer a standard that involves, say, looking at what the person has actually said.
So all those women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members that a problem with him were just making "emotional outbursts"? Wow, it is not like women have ever been dismissed as being "too emotional". Also some of the women describe what he had said then and even that his printed version that he let out was had differences in it. So I guess, what?, they are lying?
Are you actually trying to call me a misogynist because I used the word "hysterical?" I disagree that it is a term used almost exclusively to describe women, and I take offense with your implication.
Well let's see.
[quote=]HysteriaThis referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek.
Nope, couldn't see how that term might come across as sexists at all. What was I thinking. And no, I am not saying you are conscious that the use of the term can be seen as sexists. I guess Tarren might say you are just unaware of society's "maleness" bias. Similar to how when women complain about something, they are describe as having "emotional outbursts".
There is a difference between thumbing one's nose at people and disagreeing with their opinions. A politician choosing to accept advice from a person does not mean that the politician personally vouches for everything that person has said in the past, especially in this case where Summers' comments were made in one isolated speech and had nothing to do with his field of expertise.
Cool. Of course someone (such as the head of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, Marcia Pappas) else might disagree that it is all innocent and see it as a continuation of a possible bias.
|
I also worry about the Executive and Legislative branches being monopolized by one party. I like the checks and balances.
Then you may want to start worrying. It seems very likely that the Democratic Party will expand their control of Congress after this election cycle. If Obama wins the Presidency, then there could be a filibuster proof monopoly. From that point it doesn't seem unreasonable that they could appoint enough people into the judiciary to give them a comfortable majority there as well.
Well let's see.
[quote=]Hysteria
This referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek.Nope, couldn't see how that term might come across as sexists at all. What was I thinking. And no, I am not saying you are conscious that the use of the term can be seen as sexists. I guess Tarren might say you are just unaware of society's "maleness" bias. Similar to how when women complain about something, they are describe as having "emotional outbursts".
Ha ha! That zinger was hysterical... :)
Now the real question, considering the thread, is whether or not Colin Powel was thinking with his uterus when he endorsed Obama.
|
|
I said lower than the private sector, I did not say no standard.
I think we can agree that there should be some standard by which people who advise politicians can be judged. My point is that choosing that standard based on public controversy doesn't make sense, because public controvery does not need to be based on fact. If a quote or an opinion is taken out of context, it can lead to controversy regardless of the underlying idea. Sometimes the controversy is justified, other times it is not. The facts should be the true guide.
If you are already being critized for a percieved bias it is not usually a good idea to choose individuals to work with, when you don't have to, that has a history of controversy about that type of bias.
I agree, from a political standpoint, in that it can make people who were upset the first time upset again. Though if the history of controversy is based on inaccuracy, it would be better to discuss the ideas in the public rather than bury everyone involved. I haven't heard many people calling Obama a sexist, though.
|
|
Nope, couldn't see how that term might come across as sexists at all. What was I thinking. And no, I am not saying you are conscious that the use of the term can be seen as sexists. I guess Tarren might say you are just unaware of society's "maleness" bias. Similar to how when women complain about something, they are describe as having "emotional outbursts".
So all those women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members that a problem with him were just making "emotional outbursts"? Wow, it is not like women have ever been dismissed as being "too emotional". Also some of the women describe what he had said then and even that his printed version that he let out was had differences in it. So I guess, what?, they are lying?Well let's see.
[quote=]Hysteria
This referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek.
You're conflating what I said about your standard with the Summers controversy specifically.
You said that any time a person has a history of controversy, that person should be avoided for the purposes of political advice. I said that this standard in general should not be utilized, since it is based on emotional outbursts by groups of people rather than facts. Many times, both men and women get offended without knowing the specifics of the underlying issue, and it would be a shame to let these incidents sully the reputation of valuable people where the controversy is ultimately based on a mistake.
This does not mean that every time a group of people gets offended, they are simply having an emotional outburst and are out of line. Many times, the offense is completely justified. But the standard should not be whether people were offended, it should be based on the facts of what was said and what the person in question believes.
With respect to the Summers controversy, I never said that the women's groups or the Harvard faculty who got offended by Summers' speech were being hysterical or having an emotional outburst with no basis in fact or logic. I don't think they were, and I agree that Summers spoke regarding biological differences between the sexes without knowing what he was talking about. Some of the criticism he received was surely justified.
Also, just because a word has an ancient Greek etymology that refers to women does not mean that the word only applies to women in the present. Webster's defines "hysteria" as:
1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess.
This is not gender specific. How recently have you heard anyone talk about hysteria while referring to a disease of the uterus?
|
|
Personally as an outside observer I'd think that this endorsement would be huge. Naturally I suspect that Republicans will downplay this . . . or make comments like "of course he's supporting Obama, Powell's black"
Sadly, I think you are correct in that some people will go the "only because he's black" route. Unfortunately, this election has been tainted by the race issue for quote some time now. Of course, it doesen't help when an irresponsible journalist such as Slate editor Jacob Wiesberg writes an article with the Title "If Obama Loses" and the subtitle “Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”, or when Jack Murtha publicly refers to people in Western Pennsylvannia as racist. And the people trying to get you to believe that Obama was a Mulsim aren't much better.
Frankly, the behavior on both sides has been reprehensible. I'll be glad to see this election over. I only hope that most people actually do make their decisions based on issues and policies, not skin color.
Personally as an outside observer I'd think that this endorsement would be huge. Naturally I suspect that Republicans will downplay this . . . or make comments like "of course he's supporting Obama, Powell's black"Sadly, I think you are correct in that some people will go the "only because he's black" route. Unfortunately, this election has been tainted by the race issue for quote some time now. Of course, it doesen't help when an irresponsible journalist such as Slate editor Jacob Wiesberg writes an article with the Title "If Obama Loses" and the subtitle “Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”, or when Jack Murtha publicly refers to people in Western Pennsylvannia as racist. And the people trying to get you to believe that Obama was a Mulsim aren't much better.
Frankly, the behavior on both sides has been reprehensible. I'll be glad to see this election over. I only hope that most people actually do make their decisions based on issues and policies, not skin color.
Well it is hard to dismiss the possibility that someone might vote based on the choice of race. In some primaries some african-american voters went for Obama in percentages in the 90s. It is hard to justify that number without at least a significant portion doing so totally based on race. Not that white voters are entirely innocent themselves.
I'm not convinced that if Powell did choose to endorse Obama based solely on race that it would necessarily be a bad thing anyway. As one black conservative voter said, "When my kids ask me who I voted for when the first african-american had a real chance of becoming president, what I am going to tell them? That I voted against him?"
|
|
Did anyone else see Joe Biden's creepy speech? I know it is almost Halloween but I think he should save the scares for the haunted houses.
In case you missed it, here is what he said as reported by ABC News
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
|
|
Did anyone else see Joe Biden's creepy speech? I know it is almost Halloween but I think he should save the scares for the haunted houses.
In case you missed it, here is what he said as reported by ABC News
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
I don't know that I would call it creepy. He is just pointing out that if Obama is elected the country will be led by a younger man who hasn't been on the national stage. So it completely stands to reason that the enemies of this country will test his resolve to see if he will stand strong. I certainly hope it doesn't happen, but there are enemies of this nation.
As to Biden's "scenarios", I don't know if that is based of legitimate intelligence or just his own belief on what will happen. Either way though, his advice is sound. If this country is tested and a crisis happens, the American people need to stand behind Obama just as they did Bush after 9/11. The safety and strength of our nation is not a partisan issue. I would hope that McCain's camp feels similarly if such an event were to happen.
|
|
I don't know that I would call it creepy.
You're right, creepy might be the wrong word for it. I do think it a little odd though that he would think that saying essentially if Obama gets elected this country is going to be attacked is an attractive selling point. It might very well be true, but it still isn't something that would win votes in my mind.
Personally as an outside observer I'd think that this endorsement would be huge. Naturally I suspect that Republicans will downplay this . . . or make comments like "of course he's supporting Obama, Powell's black"Sadly, I think you are correct in that some people will go the "only because he's black" route. Unfortunately, this election has been tainted by the race issue for quote some time now. Of course, it doesen't help when an irresponsible journalist such as Slate editor Jacob Wiesberg writes an article with the Title "If Obama Loses" and the subtitle “Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”, or when Jack Murtha publicly refers to people in Western Pennsylvannia as racist. And the people trying to get you to believe that Obama was a Mulsim aren't much better.
Frankly, the behavior on both sides has been reprehensible. I'll be glad to see this election over. I only hope that most people actually do make their decisions based on issues and policies, not skin color.
Well it is hard to dismiss the possibility that someone might vote based on the choice of race. In some primaries some african-american voters went for Obama in percentages in the 90s. It is hard to justify that number without at least a significant portion doing so totally based on race. Not that white voters are entirely innocent themselves.
I'm not convinced that if Powell did choose to endorse Obama based solely on race that it would necessarily be a bad thing anyway. As one black conservative voter said, "When my kids ask me who I voted for when the first african-american had a real chance of becoming president, what I am going to tell them? That I voted against him?"
Did anyone hear the Howard Stern segment where one of his team went to Harlem to see why people supported Obama? They reversed Obama's name and McCain's policies and asked if people agreed with them. Those responding supported pro-life, staying in Irag, and Palin as 'Obama's' VP. Funny, offensive as usual, certainly non-scientific, but also scary.
I heard this morning that Sarah Silverman is endorsing Obama as well, so it all balances out again.
|
|
You're right, creepy might be the wrong word for it. I do think it a little odd though that he would think that saying essentially if Obama gets elected this country is going to be attacked is an attractive selling point. It might very well be true, but it still isn't something that would win votes in my mind.
I don't know that I would call it creepy.
He's not saying it is a selling point. He is just asking the American people to back the president when the going gets tough. There will be those who are so vitriolic about Obama that they will see a national crisis as a perfect opportunity to try to tear into him instead of trying to support him. Biden is asking Obama's followers to set an example in their communities for standing behind the president instead of trying to use our first crisis as a platform to attack the president.
Again, I hope that the republicans feel the same way. At the end of the day we are all on the same side here. If we face a true crisis or challenge to our nation I want both sides trying to work with the president, not taking it as an opportunity to stab him in the back. Partisanship in this country is too extreme. Biden's comment has no negative implication whatsoever yet here we are trying to talk about some sort of spin about a bizarre selling strategy. I mean come on. Is every word out of a politicians mouth just about swaying voters?
I heard this morning that Sarah Silverman is endorsing Obama as well, so it all balances out again.
Well she is "F*#!ing Matt Damon" after all.
I don't know that I would call it creepy. He is just pointing out that if Obama is elected the country will be led by a younger man who hasn't been on the national stage. So it completely stands to reason that the enemies of this country will test his resolve to see if he will stand strong. I certainly hope it doesn't happen, but there are enemies of this nation.
So basically Biden is saying that by voting for Obama, our enemies will be emboldened? Why should I choose to vote for him, when it is likely to make our enemies more likely to challenge us? Why not go with McCain and not have them feel like they have to "test" us?
As to Biden's "scenarios", I don't know if that is based of legitimate intelligence or just his own belief on what will happen. Either way though, his advice is sound. If this country is tested and a crisis happens, the American people need to stand behind Obama just as they did Bush after 9/11. The safety and strength of our nation is not a partisan issue. I would hope that McCain's camp feels similarly if such an event were to happen.
Oh sure, no matter who is in office, I think we should support them. Heck I feel that way even in times of non-emergency. You can either be part of the solution or part of the precipitate, I mean problem. And there are ways of being critical without undermining the authority of the president. Sadly very few people any longer even attempt it.
This impressed me, from an early voter in Florida kfm1964:
"I'm a middle-class white guy living in Jacksonville, Florida. I've got a wife and two kids. Because the kids had no school today, I took a vacation day from work, and took the kids downtown to vote early. Fifty-nine minutes later, two smiling children and I proudly sported "I Voted" stickers.
But I didn't vote for Obama.
I voted for my ancestors, who believed in the promise of this country and came with with nothing as immigrants.
I voted for my parents, who taught in the public schools for decades.
I voted for Steve, an acquaintance of mine from Kentucky. (Killed by an IED two years ago in Iraq).
I voted for Shawn, another who's been to Iraq twice, and Afghanistan once, and who'll be going back to Afghanistan again soon -- and whose family earned eleven bucks a month too much to qualify for food stamps when the war started.
I voted for April, the only African-American girl in my high school -- it was years before it occurred to me how different her experience of our school must have been.
I voted for my college friends who are Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and yes -- Muslim.
I voted for my grandfathers, who worked hard in factories and died too young.
I voted for the plumber who worked on my house, because I want him to get a REAL tax break.
I voted for four little angels from Birmingham.
I voted for a bunch of dead white men who, although personally flawed, were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, and used a time of great crisis to expand freedom rather than suspend it.
I voted for all those people and more, and I voted for all of you, too. But mostly, I voted selfishly. I vote for two little kids, one who has ballet in an hour, and once who has baseball practice at the same time. I voted for a world where they can be confident that their government will represent the best that is in this country, and that will in turn demand the best of them. I voted for a government that will be respected in the world. I voted for an economy that will reward work above guile. I voted for everything I believe in.
Sure, I filled in the circle next to the name Obama, but it wasn't him I was voting for -- it was every single one of us, and those I love most of all.
Who else is there to vote for?"
A little smaltzy, but I don't see Colin Powell's name anywhere in there.
|
|
I voted for the plumber who worked on my house, because I want him to get a REAL tax break.
I find this statement interesting in light of what Obama told Joe the Plumber.
It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
So the writer wants his plumber to get a tax break so they vote for Obama, who wants to spread the plumber's wealth around.
I voted for the plumber who worked on my house, because I want him to get a REAL tax break.I find this statement interesting in light of what Obama told Joe the Plumber.
It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.So the writer wants his plumber to get a tax break so they vote for Obama, who wants to spread the plumber's wealth around.
Obama wants to give a tax break to individuals that make less than $200,000 or families that make less than $250,000. So if you have a husband and wife that each make $150,000, they aren't going to get a tax break, but an increase. Is this what they mean by the marriage penalty?
Do many households have the husband and wife each earning $150,000 in America? Cause that'd be impressive.
So punishing small groups of people to benefit larger groups is fine? We used to call that discrimination when I was growing up, times change I guess.
|
|
Do many households have the husband and wife each earning $150,000 in America? Cause that'd be impressive.So punishing small groups of people to benefit larger groups is fine? We used to call that discrimination when I was growing up, times change I guess.
So varying tax rates are discriminatory then?
|
|
The line that anyone under $250,000 will not see a tax increase is often bandied about, and is also misleading. While he may not actually propose a tax increase on anyone under that amount, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, it results in a defacto tax increase on anyone making over about $42,000 a year, according to Factcheck.org. Interestingly enough they establish this fact while trying to defend Obama's tax plan from ads being run by John McCain.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So varying tax rates are discriminatory then?Do many households have the husband and wife each earning $150,000 in America? Cause that'd be impressive.So punishing small groups of people to benefit larger groups is fine? We used to call that discrimination when I was growing up, times change I guess.
Technically, yes. You are discriminating between two groups of people, in the general sense of that word. Discrimination such as this occurs all the time, is a normal part of life, and isn't typically what people mean when they talk about Discrimination with a capital D, which usually refers to unfair racial/gender/etc discrimination.
The idea that discrimination based on things such as income level, height, number of nose hairs, or any other random category other than race/gender/etc is inherently a bad thing isn't something I've ever come across before. Or, to the extent I have, it's normally in the context of showing that not all discrimination is bad and that discriminating between classes is a normal element of human reasoning. I'm not entirely sure how one would operate without discriminating between persons in some manner, it's just that some types of discrimination are considered unacceptable (and with good reason).
In order for someone to be rich lots of others need to be poor. Does this mean that the rich now have an obligation to the poor?
In order for the rich to get rich, they need the poor. The more money the poor have, the more money the rich will obtain.
I'm not a fan of the Bush tax cuts anyway, so I'm happy to see them go.
So punishing small groups of people to benefit larger groups is fine? We used to call that discrimination when I was growing up, times change I guess.
That's not what we called discrimination. Discrimination, used in a disapproving fashion, is the term we use for behaving unfairly toward people because of some particularly characteristic. Not hiring someone because they're Irish Catholic or African-American rather than because of their likely job performance. Paying less for the same work because they're women rather than because of the quality of their work.
Appropriate discrimination means treating people appropriately, using criteria based on the relevant topic. And as I see it, when it comes to laying out the tax bill to fund a government at least trying to run a balanced budget, setting the rates so that people who need larger proportions of their income to cover the necessities of life pay a lower tax rate is fair and appropriate.
|
|
The line that anyone under $250,000 will not see a tax increase is often bandied about, and is also misleading. While he may not actually propose a tax increase on anyone under that amount, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, it results in a defacto tax increase on anyone making over about $42,000 a year, according to Factcheck.org. Interestingly enough they establish this fact while trying to defend Obama's tax plan from ads being run by John McCain.
This is not true under Obama's proposed tax plan. What you're referring to is a tax bill that Obama voted for, which would have allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire. Here is Factcheck's analysis of the consequences of Obama's tax plan, which does not raise taxes on everyone making over $42K per year.
It also bears no relation to Obama's proposed economic plan. In fact, Obama has stated repeatedly that his plan would increase taxes only for those making more than $250,000 per year:
Obama (June 12, 2008): If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period. Not income tax, not payroll tax, not capital gains tax, not any of your taxes. And chances are you will get a tax cut.
The most comprehensive nonpartisan analysis of Obama's tax proposal available is the Tax Policy Center's comparison of McCain's and Obama's economic plans. That analysis mostly supports Obama's claim that his plan won't raise taxes, though it says that families earning between $169,480 and $237,040 would see an average tax increase of $486 under Obama's plan. All those earning less than $169,480 would see tax cuts. In fact, that hypothetical taxpayer with the $32,000 in taxable income would get a $502 tax cut under Obama's plan. McCain's plan, by contrast, would leave that person's taxes unchanged.
|
|
In order for someone to be rich lots of others need to be poor. Does this mean that the rich now have an obligation to the poor?
It depends on what sense you are talking about. We all have a moral obligation to help those around us, it is the whole point of the social contract. However, the two questions that have been long debated are what form does that obligation take and when does it come into play?
The answer to the first is the one that is most often debated, but in fact the second question is the one which is much more relevant. I believe that the answer is that we have a responsibility to help the poor when they are no longer capable of helping themselves. Bill Clinton had it right when he reformed the welfare system so that if you were able, you must be looking fopr work to get benefits. To me the best way to fulfill the oblogation is to step in and give a hand up when you can't do it for yourself, but it does no one any good if we shield people from struggles.
|
|
This is not true under Obama's proposed tax plan. What you're referring to is a tax bill that Obama voted for, which would have allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire.
Which is exactly what I said. I never said that Obama's tax plan would raise the taxes on people making $42,000 a year, I said allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would. I simply pointed out that the satements were misleading.
The line that anyone under $250,000 will not see a tax increase is often bandied about, and is also misleading. While he may not actually propose a tax increase on anyone under that amount, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, it results in a defacto tax increase on anyone making over about $42,000 a year...
|
|
I was wondering what exactly in that link supported the point made by David. Everything I've seen says that Obama's plan will lower taxes for the majority of people.
And yes, technically a tax policy that means people with a higher income pay more is discriminatory, but that's as useful as saying water's wet. Further, actually making the point would seem to suggest that the person making said point would prefer a proportional or regressive tax policy, as opposed to the progressive tax policy most of the world enjoys.
|
|
I was wondering what exactly in that link supported the point made by David. Everything I've seen says that Obama's plan will lower taxes for the majority of people.
And yes, technically a tax policy that means people with a higher income pay more is discriminatory, but that's as useful as saying water's wet. Further, actually making the point would seem to suggest that the person making said point would prefer a proportional or regressive tax policy, as opposed to the progressive tax policy most of the world enjoys.
Right here:
And here:What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. (The McCain campaign relies on an AP article which puts the cutoff at $31,850, but that figure is from 2007, not this year.) So the McCain campaign claims that anyone making "as little as $32,000" would be affected by the rate increase.
But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our "taxable income." The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that "people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that." In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.
The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000.
Again note, that I said that allowing the tax cuts to expire would be a defacto tax increase. I never said it was part of Obama's tax plan.