Very interesting article by Rolling Stone on Obama

[911fever]

I'm a conservative and I found this article was interesting about Obama and his Presidency. Well worth reading.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=0

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by 911fever
I'm a conservative


Originally posted by 911fever
Hello, I'm 911fever, as a conservative I propose a tax that would raise the price of gas by at least 50%

So you say... again. :dunno:

[911fever]

Originally posted by broken_legs




So you say... again. :dunno:

It was just part of my thesis where I proposed increasing the tax on fuel so it can pay down the deficit. Taxing the ultra rich is also another good idea (i.e., listen to Warren Buffet).
The specter of rising interest rates is one major reason why, after a deficit-cutting health care reform package is passed, Congress must turn its attention to cutting the budget deficit -- including further spending cuts and a tax increase to counter a deficit of over 13 trillion now I believe.
The government at this point already has a budget deficit of over 10 percent of GDP, so the question you've got to ask is not: Is government spending and the deficit OK? It is how much is OK on top of where we already are, and I think that's what's scaring people.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000005/1

The US has to be more like the UK when it comes to cuts and reduced deficit spending.

As Alan Greenspan said:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/15/greenspan-u-s-national-debt-not-weak-dollar-is-the-concern/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1

[syeve]

Originally posted by 911fever


It was just part of my thesis where I proposed increasing the tax on fuel so it can pay down the deficit. Taxing the ultra rich is also another good idea (i.e., listen to Warren Buffet).
The specter of rising interest rates is one major reason why, after a deficit-cutting health care reform package is passed, Congress must turn its attention to cutting the budget deficit -- including further spending cuts and a tax increase to counter a deficit of over 13 trillion now I believe.
The government at this point already has a budget deficit of over 10 percent of GDP, so the question you've got to ask is not: Is government spending and the deficit OK? It is how much is OK on top of where we already are, and I think that's what's scaring people.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000005/1

The US has to be more like the UK when it comes to cuts and reduced deficit spending.

As Alan Greenspan said:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/15/greenspan-u-s-national-debt-not-weak-dollar-is-the-concern/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1

Not to be to negative on a fine Firday morning, but I think you are over-simplifying a super complex issue. Do you not think that some of the greatest fiscal minds in the world haven't considered simply raising fuel taxes? One of several reason that would never work, is the US is driven off of transportation, wether that be leisure or industrial. Their SUPER fragile economy would break at the knee's if you taxed fuel.

Not to be a dick, but you are defn a book smart person, I can tell you are in school. In uni problems in books seem simple and easy to fix. Eg. Inflation low? Print money. Problem Solved!

It is never that simple, and people much smarter than me or you are working tirelessly to figure out a path to a healthier economy.

In my humble opinion, a path OUT of Iraq and a much more conservative foreign policy would be a good start, but that's just me.

Also, good article. lol.

[Mar]

Originally posted by 911fever
It was just part of my thesis where I proposed increasing the tax on fuel so it can pay down the deficit. Taxing the ultra rich is also another good idea (i.e., listen to Warren Buffet).
You want to tax people based on their success?

[911fever]

Originally posted by Mar

You want to tax people based on their success?

yes. Because the top 1 or 2% pay as much tax as 'cleaning ladies' who clean their house.
"I pay a lower tax rate than probably the cleaning lady that comes in," thanks to the Bush-era tax cuts, said Warren Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway , a conglomerate holding company based in Omaha, Nebraska.

"We're going to need 20 per cent or thereabouts of GDP to fund the kinds of things that we all believe are right to have in this country, and we've got to get it from somebody," the world's third-richest man told a gathering of high-powered women at Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington. "If you're not going to get it from guys like me, why should you get it from the guy who serves lunch to them?"
Warren Buffett
8dePMo9MK30

Buffett, the billionaire investor who runs Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), said Tuesday at Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington that the nation's tax code "has gotten distorted to a huge extent," by levying higher taxes on secretaries and janitors than on CEOs and private equity whiners

He called, as he has in the past, for policymakers to redress that iniquity by raising taxes on the rich. Buffett said taxes will have to rise in general in coming years if we want to dig our way out of a giant budget deficit.

"We are not taking in enough money at the federal government level," he said. He said tax collections (see chart, below) will have to rise back into the 18-20% range from below 15% lately.

http://fortunewallstreet.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/chart_tax_collections.gif?w=340&h=242

But Buffett also added a new twist in an interview after his appearance with CNNMoney.com's Poppy Harlow: He said it's time to cut taxes on those outside the top tax brackets.

[syeve]

I believe Obama was on track to tax big salaries, but "the people" just tied his hands and voted repulicans (the people who initiated big salary tax breaks) back into the house.

[911fever]

Originally posted by syeve
I believe Obama was on track to tax big salaries, but "the people" just tied his hands and voted repulicans (the people who initiated big salary tax breaks) back into the house.

I know, it's because huge Republican dollars were funded into campaigns by rich Americans who don't want further taxes. It's a vicious cycle. But Obama is a poor leader as well and paints the Republicans as unwilling to help in any aspect while his spend like crazy policies are also incredibly unhealthy.
Best article I think that summarizes taxing the ultra wealthy.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/08/10/time-for-super-taxes-for-the-super-rich/

[syeve]

^^Yah, it does make sense, the ulta rich are just that.

"That's why I found James Surowiecki's column in this week's New Yorker timely and interesting. Surowiecki proposes not just reinstituting pre-Bush era tax rates on the rich, but going a step further and creating a super tax bracket for those making the mega bucks. Say 50% for those making $10 million or more. At a time when Washington and voters, if not the market, are growing increasingly worried about the deficit, I think the idea of a super tax rate for the super rich makes a lot of sense..."

These are the people that fund polical races. Some idiot senator just spend like $170 MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS on her campain, and lost lol. I can't begin to fathom how far down the rabbit hole US politics has gone with this type of shit. Think about that, she spent $170,000,000 to get elected.

In my opinion your would be signing your political death warrant if you ever proposed something like this.

[Mar]

Originally posted by 911fever
yes. Because the top 1 or 2% pay as much tax as 'cleaning ladies' who clean their house. But this nation's economy runs on capitalism so without the businesses that drive it, there would be no economy. So the people that are more successful and providing more financial transactions throughout the economy are providing enough that they shouldn't have to pay in taxes to fund that same system.

It's like the church not paying taxes. Taxes are paid to give back to the community.....which is what the church does as a full time job so why should it pay twice? Same thing.

[CUG]

Republicans are worse than AIDS.

[911fever]

Originally posted by Mar
But this nation's economy runs on capitalism so without the businesses that drive it, there would be no economy. So the people that are more successful and providing more financial transactions throughout the economy are providing enough that they shouldn't have to pay in taxes to fund that same system.

It's like the church not paying taxes. Taxes are paid to give back to the community.....which is what the church does as a full time job so why should it pay twice? Same thing.

the problem is unrestrained capitalism is dangerous. Capitalism needs some type of regulation or it can be exploitative - we need to reign in big corporations and those who have so much money that they can wield great power over large corporations and industries. Sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in unrestrained capitalism, but there has to be some accountability towards narrowing the deficit and taxing those who make a certain amount. The only issue I have with taxing the ultra wealthy is that it really doesn't give up a large amount of money in taxes ($700Billion), which compared to the deficits, isn't a whole lot.

[syeve]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/chinochang/communist.jpg

[broken_legs]

you certainly don't sound like a fiscal conservative. Raise taxes this. Tax success that.

you also rampaged on about the drop of census which a lot of 'conservative' people agreed with. I think you argued that the government can spend money on people better that way. Not a very conservative way of thinking. Usually conservatives like to take care of themselves.

you live in ontario.


You have post post up pro-obama fluff peices from left leaning magazines.


What exactly makes you think you are conservative? Just curious here, not trying to be a dick yet

[Mar]

Originally posted by 911fever


the problem is unrestrained capitalism is dangerous. Capitalism needs some type of regulation or it can be exploitative - we need to reign in big corporations and those who have so much money that they can wield great power over large corporations and industries. Sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in unrestrained capitalism, but there has to be some accountability towards narrowing the deficit and taxing those who make a certain amount. The only issue I have with taxing the ultra wealthy is that it really doesn't give up a large amount of money in taxes ($700Billion), which compared to the deficits, isn't a whole lot. I fail to see why capitalism needs regulations. I would like to start off by saying I have disagreements with capitalism and I think there are better ways to run an economy but as long as it's in place, I don't see why we should be using it as a tax system. Every person has the same right to go out and work hard and chase the same dollar. If some people on your favourite hockey team are more skilled, should we be giving them a handicap for some sort? No, everyone has the equal opportunity to develop their skills and get better.

Right now I run my own business and I get tax breaks by being able to write off certain things for that business. Once I become a more contributing member of the economy by providing more and more services in the years to come I will hopefully get more tax breaks by entering a lower taxable bracket. I don't see anything wrong with that. If I can get a single $10 bill to change hands 10 times by providing services, I've managed to create $100 worth of spending in the economy with a single $10 bill. And subsequently the government has made a percentage of all of those transactions. That should be rewarded, no?

[CUG]

Originally posted by broken_legs


What exactly makes you think you are conservative? Just curious here, not trying to be a dick yet In his defense, it seems like the Conservatives here are still left of center, and the dems down south are still on the right a little bit. I used to confuse myself often like that.

[Scuderia]

Originally posted by broken_legs
you certainly don't sound like a fiscal conservative. Raise taxes this. Tax success that.

you also rampaged on about the drop of census which a lot of 'conservative' people agreed with. I think you argued that the government can spend money on people better that way. Not a very conservative way of thinking. Usually conservatives like to take care of themselves.

you live in ontario.


You have post post up pro-obama fluff peices from left leaning magazines.


What exactly makes you think you are conservative? Just curious here, not trying to be a dick yet

That's all it is, he THINKS he's a conservative, because he proposes insane tax hikes on gas and grotesque tax biases against the successful. Why in the world would capitalism need regulation? I think you're confused in your political label, you sure don't sound very conservative. Just because you regurgitate what you read from your left wing sources and you have a hate for anything non-white, doesn't make you a conservative. There are other words for it, but I'm going to try and be civil this time around.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Mar
But this nation's economy runs on capitalism so without the businesses that drive it, there would be no economy. So the people that are more successful and providing more financial transactions throughout the economy are providing enough that they shouldn't have to pay in taxes to fund that same system.

What does that make the people who provide the labour that drives those businesses? At what point does the income:production ratio require tax breaks from the government? A worker buys food which pays the supermarket which pays their employees and suppliers who then pay their employees who then buy stuff.....blah blah blah. It's not a closed system.

That's why I hate the "higher taxes on the rich = punishment for being successful" concept. The reward for being successful is the really fucking high salary.

If you want to talk about fairness, look at the actual impact of taxation on the various levels of earners. The average worker makes ~30k a year. Once taxes of any kind are taken off, it actually impacts their spending power on things like food, housing and transportation. The necessities of life. The average CEO or large business owners tax burden cuts into their ability to buy a larger boat. The super riches' tax burden, even if it was 50 or 60%, would mean that they can only buy 7 solid gold planes this year instead of an even dozen. Boo fucking hoo cry me a river.

This is what confuses me about the stance of the average Conservative/Republican/Libertarian/whatever on taxation on wage earners. Most are not rich, or even much more successful than any other average Canadian/America. And yet they seem perfectly fine arguing that they are ok having to eat Kraft Dinner 3 times a week if it means that their idols don't have to give a small portion of their caviar, all in the name of "equality".

[syeve]

Starting to sound like a communist gathering in here! Wages are generally based off of replaceability. You work hard and become the best at what you do, you are rewarded. Inovation and competition is what our system is based on. The lower income folks in theory had every opportunity to better themselves but chose not to. They essentially decided to eat kraft dinner three times a week.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by syeve
Starting to sound like a communist gathering in here! Wages are generally based off of replaceability. You work hard and become the best at what you do, you are rewarded. Inovation and competition is what our system is based on. The lower income folks in theory had every opportunity to better themselves but chose not to. They essentially decided to eat kraft dinner three times a week.
It'd be communism if people were advocating that everyone make equal amounts of money, which is insane. By all means, someone who is succesful should make lots of money. That's the reward for hard work/innovation. What I have issues with is that the relative tax burden is nowhere close to being equal, and half of the population is advocating that it become even more unequal, because galdurnit, rich people are just better human beings.

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by Mar
But this nation's economy runs on capitalism so without the businesses that drive it, there would be no economy. So the people that are more successful and providing more financial transactions throughout the economy are providing enough that they shouldn't have to pay in taxes to fund that same system.

It's like the church not paying taxes. Taxes are paid to give back to the community.....which is what the church does as a full time job so why should it pay twice? Same thing.

did I just step back in time to 1982?