Obama Video?

[Malacite]

Re: Obama Video?

I meant for business specifically. But yes the housing crisis is a large part of the mess we're all in now.

[Susurrus]

Re: Obama Video?

There's no option for "What video?"

So I will put last option, because to me it doesn't matter, as I already voted via absentee vote.

[Feba]

Re: Obama Video?

As for Obama taxing small business, see FactCheck.org: McCain's Small-Business Bunk . It's just not true.

As for Obama raising taxes in general, see ObamaTaxCut.com - What's your Obama Tax Cut? (Non-Partisan, probably less accurate) and Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Change We Need | Obama Tax Calculator (Official Obama, probably more biased). As far as I can see, neither of those count McCain taxing health care.

These are sorta like the "Obama is a muslim!" rumours. They're completely untrue and based in exploiting fear, but even if that were the case, what's wrong with it? Sure, higher taxes might not be pleasant, but we can't constantly lower them while spending more and more without totally fucking over the country in the long run. There's also people overlooking the fact that, even if Obama wants to raise YOUR taxes personally (for the richer people out there), you could still potentially stand to benefit overall. When the economy is handled better, and does better, people tend to be better off in general. Even if the government takes more from you, you can end up making more money than you lose if you have more customers. Your investments can do better (see stockmarket) resulting in more money as well.


Not to mention the fact that it might just be worth eating the cost of higher taxes to have the better government.

[Caspian]

Re: Obama Video?

So we're certain giving the government more money will suddenly make it a better government?
And yes, they could invest more, and they could spend money to go out and get more customers, but its at a reduced reward. And thats the bottom line. It boils down to risk vs. gain for many companies. Its not worth putting the money into opening new jobs if the risk outweighs the potential reward.

[Feba]

Re: Obama Video?

So we're certain giving the government more money will suddenly make it a better government?

That isn't what I said. What I said was that government taxing more doesn't make it the worse choice. As in, even if Obama wanted to raise taxes (he doesn't), he'd still be a better choice than McCain.

[Malacite]

Re: Obama Video?

People have to realize that the free ride's over. To paraphrase Obama what said yesterday, America has been living very irresponsibly with it's money. People buying way too many things they really can't afford on credit, and the govt spending money it doesn't have.

This goes for taxes too. Someone has to pay for these services. I really don't think that you can just cut a bunch of programs to reduce spending. Infrastructure, education and other aren't cheap. I'd also like to point out that even Colin Powell himself said taxation is a form of spreading the wealth.

Everyone chips in for services that get used by all (or at least a majority) of Americans. And it creates jobs too, and guess what that means? IT'S GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!

>.> don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are some magical good thing (the taxes in Canada are almost obscene) just that it's a necessary element of society and to keep thinking that someone else should pay it is childish. All Obama is saying is that those who have benefited from the system and are doing well can afford to pay a little more, as it's only fair.


I can't help but wonder if what Huckabee wanted to do would work or not in a consumption based economy; abolishing the IRS and income tax altogether and then implementing a flat GST (like we have here and in Europe) where you pay taxes on items you buy and keep your entire pay check (though in Canada we get taxed on both...)

[Caspian]

Re: Obama Video?

I can't help but wonder if what Huckabee wanted to do would work or not in a consumption based economy; abolishing the IRS and income tax altogether and then implementing a flat GST (like we have here and in Europe) where you pay taxes on items you buy and keep your entire pay check (though in Canada we get taxed on both...)

I would love to go to this system. I think it would initially be met with resistance, suddenly you're paying ~25% more for an item, but then you get your paycheck and realize you have plenty to do it with. If you want to horde your money and live off bologna and water, more power to you, you'll hardly be paying taxes at all. If you want to live it up, and go out for every meal and buy a lot, then you pay more taxes. Its good for practically everyone, only really is worse for the super rich, but I've even read there are a lot of Fortune 500 CEO's who are all for it.

Feba, sorry, I misinterpreted that line of your post last night. I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I see where you're coming from.

[Feba]

Re: Obama Video?

If you want to horde your money and live off bologna and water, more power to you,

yep. I'd like to see the system, but not a flat system.

Preferably, have the system be set up so that the percentages are non-existent on 'the basics'; staple foods, water, medical supplies, housing land and shelter in general, basic transportation (Bikes under $1000, motor vehicles under $5000), books, computers under $500 and internet access (seriously, this can be hugely important nowadays, especially for kids) and so on-- and much higher on luxury goods (Motor vehicles over $30000, computers over $2000, aircraft, pretty much every gizmo in Skymall/Brookstone/Sharper image, etc. Things which you not only don't need, but which are somewhat over the top.)

Have it so the people buying the outrageously luxurious goods pay the most, the people who are struggling to get by pay little to nothing. Make it so that if you want to be completely self-sustainable-- living on your land, making your own food and other consumables (or living on nontaxed goods), you can. Make it so that if you want to go around putting LCD screens on your hummer's mudflaps, you can do that too, but it's going to be pricey. Of course, this would require taxing imported goods, to keep people from having things made overseas. it would also require taxing internet sales-- or more realistically, treating all internet sales as imports (from the MAGICAL LAND OF THE INTERNET!)


A tax policy along these lines replace the practically encyclopaedic size of the current tax code with something the side of a trade paperback; or even a pamphlet if you wanted. States would need to have money given back to them by the federal government. It would be best done as a constitutional amendment, if only to shut those annoying "THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO LEVY AN INCOME TAX!" conspiracy theorists up.


Primarily, I'm a fan of this because I hate paperwork, and the idea of filing taxes scares the shit out of me. It also has the benefit of making tax dodging practically impossible (you dodge the sales tax, you go out of business. The black market might be a problem, but that's easier to track than tax evasion as it is currently.), and taxing foreign residents, be they illegal aliens or tourists.

Of course, this would probably be a really bad thing for me, since I buy a lot of shit quite often. Quite possibly to the point where I'd pay much more on this system. But hey.

[Caspian]

Re: Obama Video?

Yeah, I live in Texas and we don't have a state income tax, but we do have a sales tax that I believe is currently at 8.125%. Basic stuff, like you said, is not taxed. If I recall correctly from working at a grocery store years ago, it worked out that basically if the item was an unprepared good (fruit, vegetables, bread, water, milk fell into this category) it was not subject to the sales tax. However, stuff like cokes, hamburger helper, ice cream, and the like were subject to it.
Also, non-profit organizations don't pay sales tax. Places like churches and the children's home were the ones I remember seeing the most often.
Its really good system, would absolutely love to see it implemented on a national scale.

[Feba]

Re: Obama Video?

yeah. When I lived in Georgia, they also had a sales tax holiday on lots of items for back to school; mostly stuff like notebooks (the paper kind), pencils, backpacks; but I think they also covered computers. Personally, I think they should just do these on a year round basis (if it's important for students in July, it's important for students in November)

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Obama Video?

Way to be easily pushed off-topic, guys.

Here's the deal with that video, folks.

If it has no relevance, then why withhold the footage? If there's nothing relevant in the video, then it will just be egg on the faces of those that were expecting something more to fufill thier supicions. And if you're going to maintain that McCain did something just as bad, as Omni does, don't you want to see Obama take some responsibility?

In fact, if you're maintaining that McCain did something equally as bad, why would you feel the video is irrelevant?

The more important matter of this isn't why the LA Times isn't giving up the information at all. See, when one of your chief sources of advertisint right now is Obama himself, its fair to call the LA Times on this little thing we call a "conflict of interest."

Conflict of interest reflects extremely poor journalism. I might be able to let something like this go if it were sports or entertainment jounalism, but this is hard news stuff we're talking here.

Not that I'm surprised by anything the media does this year, media ethics have practically diminished to nothing as it is.

[Feba]

Re: Obama Video?

Which is one of the reasons we're lucky that it lines up with the rise of independent media. if you don't like the media's reporting, you can report yourself nowadays. And it's not like the average person's credibility is any worse than Fox News.

Anyway, I googled it, it looks like they're withholding it by request of the source, possibly linked to their anonymity. It might not be a pleasant reason, but it would be far more damaging for them to betray a source (and in my opinion, damaging to their credibility as well as ability to do future snooping) than it does to not show a video. It might also be a breach of contract for them to do so.

Most of the complaining about this seems to be the McCain campaign abusing it as a source of rhetoric; another 'mysterious' and 'potentially dangerous' thing about Obama, another effort to attempt to make him look like an 'other'.


So, in a nutshell:
Mccain is abusing another non-issue to try to make a campaign of fear work. The LA Times is probably acting with responsible journalism and protecting their source and business.

[Susurrus]

Re: Obama Video?

All Obama is saying is that those who have benefited from the system and are doing well can afford to pay a little more, as it's only fair.

OK, maybe its just me, but I don't see how richer people pay a higher % of their tax. They ALREADY pay more taxes than anyone else just solely due to the fact they make more.

For example, let's say 10% tax since 10 is easy.

Someone makes $20,000, they get taxed $2000
Someone makes $50,000, they get taxed $5000
Someone makes $100,000, they get taxed $10,000
Someone makes $200,000, they get taxed $20,000
Someone makes $1,000,00, they get taxed $100,000

THIS is fair as it is based on flat % but look how much more the people with more income make - let me repeat HOW MUCH MORE. It is still taxed the same per penny, so wouldn't this be fair?

If you take away a higher % from people who make more money, where is the incentive to make more money and run this successful capitalist country? (Say what you want about the economy, it still beats the shit out of most countries out there.)

[Mystiqsoulchild]

Re: Obama Video?

OK, maybe its just me, but I don't see how richer people pay a higher % of their tax. They ALREADY pay more taxes than anyone else just solely due to the fact they make more.

For example, let's say 10% tax since 10 is easy.

Someone makes $20,000, they get taxed $2000
Someone makes $50,000, they get taxed $5000
Someone makes $100,000, they get taxed $10,000
Someone makes $200,000, they get taxed $20,000
Someone makes $1,000,00, they get taxed $100,000

THIS is fair as it is based on flat % but look how much more the people with more income make - let me repeat HOW MUCH MORE. It is still taxed the same per penny, so wouldn't this be fair?

If you take away a higher % from people who make more money, where is the incentive to make more money and run this successful capitalist country? (Say what you want about the economy, it still beats the shit out of most countries out there.)

Agreed charging higher percentage taxes cuts for anyone is a bad move and a down fall, that is one of the thing about the economy that probably doesn't need to by changed. Sure it sucks that we have taxes, but we all pretty much have to pay the same amount. If you make the rich pay more money they will lose profit, and have to higher more workers, because some would most likely quit work, or go out of business. Because, they wouldn't have enough money to pay there employees, I think this is a dumb move on Obamas part for wanting to make anyone pay more taxes.

[Durahansolo]

Re: Obama Video?

There's no option for "What video?"

So I will put last option, because to me it doesn't matter, as I already voted via absentee vote.

There should've been a option for "Man! I'll be glad when this election is all over..."

I decided to take a personal business day off of work on election day. I'll get up around 8ish, go to the voting booth around the corner, go back to bed, and then go to best buy early to pick up Get Smart.