Do Not Vote Obama.

dj I love ya but - you are wrong - its no wonder - look at where you live :S

bottom line is that obama is going to cost the nation jobs - small businesses will lay off workers cuz of his taxes -- he has no plan to make jobs except to fix roads???

obama is too hung up on handing out money to the lower class - look what he just said that people are selfish if they dont want to pay taxes - charity should come from the heart not from the government mandates - the governments job is to protect us not to provide for us. BTW the $$ for taxing has now dropped from $250k to $120k -- how low will it go when he is in office?

As for how big government fixed america in the past - look again - the depression drug out longer because of too much intervention!!!

The issue of fannie mae and freddie mac basically destorying the banking system were not a result of the past 8 years .It was infact a result of President Clinton as he has said himself, his request to them to lower their standards to make loans eisier to get.After years of making loans they normally wouldnt have made because people didnt meet the requirements it came back to bite them and the country in the butt.

As for Obama.to me it has nothing to do with his color,race or anything other than his ideas which will continue to change based on the question.his tax level has continued to drop from what began at 250k to just over 100k now in less than a month.We are still paying for big governments handouts .its called social security and was never meant to be a retirement fund but thats what it was turned into.

Either way it really doesnt matter. Anyone running for president will promise anything it takes to get into office then do nothing for the most part as Congress actually runs everything and the president is basically just a scapeegoat for congress and its free spending and pocket lining.That why they basically stay for life .

Was nice tho to see Obama actually start wearing the flag on his collar like every other person whos suppose to represent us.

Quote:

---

Was nice tho to see Obama actually start wearing the flag on his collar like every other person whos suppose to represent us.

---

Yes there's nothing better than political conformity, and there's nothing that beats some good old fashioned nationalism and flag-waving when it comes to deciding who makes the best leader.

As far as Obama's tax plan goes I'm very tempted to dismiss your statement as the result of propaganda originating from some biased organization. I haven't heard anything of that sort and I seriously doubt that the democrats would be interested in just handing the presidency to Mccain. I don't suppose you have some credible source that could confirm what you said?

just hang all rich guys! cause definitely you cannot hang all pover guys :)

a) retirements funds arent hand outs, they are "pre-paid" for by the beneficiary. (in reality, one doesnt pay for his own benefits but in turn is paid for by the next in line)

b) increased taxation doesnt remove incentive to increase profits, if they did profits by default cant be considered to be incentives in first place. The relevant issue is profit/time calculations and for one making +250k a year a taxation of the income exceeding that amount is very much so profit/time effective even if you ended up paying 50% tax on it. If we however assume that its NOT and that people will decrease production to "optimize" (has nothing to do with optimization really since yous till make more) the profit/time by staying below 250k the market by definition opens up for new players (at least if were going to use the same models that youre using). So, if company X chooses to stay below 250k to not pay taxes someone else will take over their surplus share of the market and guess what. Someone still has to do the job.

So in scenario a they keep going for more profits simply because its still worth the time and money invested because it makes sense to do so regardless of taxation.

In scenario b they choose not to do so which means someone else will step in and take over the demand that the company deemed unwanted.

I think its amusing how people are trying to spin it around like the 250k thingie is something disastrous for the average joe when the average joe would never dream of getting there in first place. The companys making large profits today will keep making large profits even if slightly smaller and the added costs of taxation are hardly that big to really tip the scale in the larger picture either. I personally think that incentives programs under the current economic system would be preferable though in terms of getting the world back on "course" again.. at least if we want to keep up with the same bs as before :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

a) retirements funds arent hand outs, they are "pre-paid" for by the beneficiary. (in reality, one doesnt pay for his own benefits but in turn is paid for by the next in line)

b) increased taxation doesnt remove incentive to increase profits, if they did profits by default cant be considered to be incentives in first place. The relevant issue is profit/time calculations and for one making +250k a year a taxation of the income exceeding that amount is very much so profit/time effective even if you ended up paying 50% tax on it. If we however assume that its NOT and that people will decrease production to "optimize" (has nothing to do with optimization really since yous till make more) the profit/time by staying below 250k the market by definition opens up for new players (at least if were going to use the same models that youre using). So, if company X chooses to stay below 250k to not pay taxes someone else will take over their surplus share of the market and guess what. Someone still has to do the job.

So in scenario a they keep going for more profits simply because its still worth the time and money invested because it makes sense to do so regardless of taxation.

In scenario b they choose not to do so which means someone else will step in and take over the demand that the company deemed unwanted.

I think its amusing how people are trying to spin it around like the 250k thingie is something disastrous for the average joe when the average joe would never dream of getting there in first place. The companys making large profits today will keep making large profits even if slightly smaller and the added costs of taxation are hardly that big to really tip the scale in the larger picture either. I personally think that incentives programs under the current economic system would be preferable though in terms of getting the world back on "course" again.. at least if we want to keep up with the same bs as before :)

---

Increased taxation does make it harder to make a profit, the higher the taxes the higher one has to raise the price on his product or he won't make a profit. At some point of raising the price due to taxes there will be less customers due to the service being less affordable.
Not to mention those who dodge the taxes, social security, and registration of workers. thus being able to provide the same service at a much lower price, cheats the honest employer out of his profit. Which can cause him to go bankrupt.

Which also means employee's will have less pay, and could lose they're jobs and will lose they're jobs in the event of bankruptcy.

Government does not care enough about the illegal contractors, it is a very big problem that makes it is very difficult for honest contractors to earn a living in today's world. By taxing them more it will probably make many of them bankrupt. This is communism at work, the gateway to socialism.

Bottom line: government mistreats honest contractors as it is, Obama's plan will make things even more unfair.

As for the average joe not earning that kind of income, why limit the American Dream? Limiting the American Dream like that is communist thinking. I know people who were poor that became very successful contractors.

As for section a) of your post. I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
My understanding from reading on the laws of social security, Is that there is a social security payroll in which the employer pays a part of the income tax of his employee(s) there is a lot more to it than that of course, I am still studying Social Security Law.

And why doesn't Obama instead increase the taxes on the top one percent of the USA,
As opposed to the struggling 250k range of the USA? Obama's lobby money is showing in his plan.

Quote:

---

Increased taxation does make it harder to make a profit, the higher the taxes the higher one has to raise the price on his product or he won't make a profit.

---

if that was the case he wouldnt make +250k a year. And if he doesnt, which he will, the profit will be made by someone else.

lets assume 10% tax
profit 300k -> 295k after tax. Wow, i bet hes gonna go out of business!

Quote:

---

At some point of raising the price due to taxes there will be less customers due to the service being less affordable.

---

If so someone else would take over, however its a false statement so no point taking it further

Quote:

---

Not to mention those who dodge the taxes, social security, and registration of workers. thus being able to provide the same service at a much lower price, cheats the honest employer out of his profit.

---

There are always people who cheat the system, its usually against the law to do so though. Or do you actually think that we should make all cheating legal omac style just so no one (everyone) cheats? =)

Quote:

---

Which also means employee's will have less pay, and could lose they're jobs and will lose they're jobs in the event of bankruptcy.

---

Que? You just said someone else took over his business, that someone usually has workers. Consistency please amigo.

Quote:

---

Government does not care enough about the illegal contractors, it is a very big problem that makes it is very difficult for honest contractors to earn a living in today's world. By taxing them more it will probably make many of them bankrupt.

---

Indeed, but theyre obviously making +250k a year, so they cant be that bad off can they? If anything by your logic this would help the small guys in the world (<250k is after all quite small business wise) And no, no one goes bankrupt over this. You cant go bankrupt by taxing profit.

Quote:

---

This is communism at work, the gateway to socialism.

---

Uhm, no. Hardly communism at work. Hardly even socialist.

Quote:

---

government mistreats honest contractors as it is, Obama's plan will make things even more unfair.

---

So government (you, the people) mistreats honest contractors because some people are cheating the system? I would say the cheaters mistreat the system, not the government. The government (you, the people) has no interest in people cheating the system for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

As for the average joe not earning that kind of income, why limit the American Dream?

---

How is it limiting the american dream? You can always get more money.. Youll never reach a point were making more money wont give you more money. And why cant those who are living the american dream help others get a shot at living the same dream? =)

Quote:

---

Limiting the American Dream like that is communist thinking. I know people who were poor that became very successful contractors.

---

I love how americans always call everything communist/socialist. And good for you, you know poor people that made it. So do i. But what about the millions of people that dont make it or even have a fair shot at making it? What about the people that are being held down to allow a small minority to soar in the skies?

As for a) retirement funds are usually "pre-paid" in the sense that current workers pay for past workers rather than people paying for their own future retirement. Wasnt really going in to exactly how its paid but in what way its done in the end. Either way you either pay for your own retirement or you paid for someone elses while you were working (and as such deserve having someone pay for yours when its your time to retire)

(only covering gov side of retirement funds obviously)

dka
your telling me the top 1% doesnt have +250k profit/income whatever? If so he is taxing them :)

How fortunate for leaders, that the masses do not think." - Hitler

Come on if you think they are any different Obama and Mccain
you need to Get Real.

duopolies goverments are designed so the Ultra rich oligarthy has less to do in controlling both parties.
Your gettin same spagetti different label
They both smell the same, they both look the same, they both feel the same and its what my dog leaves out on your front lawn

my vote is for you, Get Real !
though we have some evidences
at least one candidate is Cain (McCain) and he fights to defend the peace, lol !

And like a true Cainite he will suck you dry. Guess how he got so old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

if that was the case he wouldnt make +250k a year. And if he doesnt, which he will, the profit will be made by someone else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

lets assume 10% tax
profit 300k -> 295k after tax. Wow, i bet hes gonna go out of business!

---

I don't think you are taking into account maintenance of equipment.
The figure of 250k is a bit deceptive as to actual wealth. In various businesses much of that income goes to maintenance of equipment, payment on equipment, taxes on equipment, machinery breaking down every now and then etc.

"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists."

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

If so someone else would take over, however its a false statement so no point taking it further

---

What do you mean someone else would be taking over, Do you mean the illegal contractors who the government for the most part ignores thus undermining honest businesses? If you are referring to other stock holders of the business or some other entity taking over the business how is that good? One of The ultimate goals of communism is control of all business by the government.

"Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil
generally in accordance with a common plan."
Communist Manifesto 7th plank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

There are always people who cheat the system, its usually against the law to do so though. Or do you actually think that we should make all cheating legal omac style just so no one (everyone) cheats? =)

---

I never suggested legalizing it. I am saying it is often happening right under the government's nose and they don't do enough about it. Government is not concerned enough about the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

que? You just said someone else took over his business, that someone usually has workers. Consistency please amigo.

---

I didn't say that, I don't know where you got that impression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

Indeed, but theyre obviously making +250k a year, so they cant be that bad off can they? If anything by your logic this would help the small guys in the world (<250k is after all quite small business wise) And no, no one goes bankrupt over this. You cant go bankrupt by taxing profit.

---

I must emphasize that it is VERY difficult to stay in that range of income, without beginning to slide in profit towered bankruptcy in this day and age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

Uhm, no. Hardly communism at work. Hardly even socialist.

---

In the "Communist Manifesto" one of the stated goals of communism calls for an elimination of the middle class, thus creating a classless society with a ruling elite. This plan of Obama's, combined with the inflation of the Dollar. Which congress has no real control over will eliminate the middle class.
It could easily go into hyperinflation, the Federal Reserve has printed trillions of Dollars without congressional approval in the past few weeks.
Neither Obama, nor Mccain has any intention of getting rid of, or giving
more control of the Federal Reserve to congress Thus making it more under
the people's control.
what is going on is a transfer of wealth to the bankers, away from the peo-
ple.

"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
The Communist Manifesto

"Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
The Communist Manifesto 5th plank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

So government (you, the people) mistreats honest contractors because some people are cheating the system? I would say the cheaters mistreat the system, not the government. The government (you, the people) has no interest in people cheating the system for obvious reasons.

---

Government is mistreating the people by inflating the Dollar, overtaxing them, giving our hard earned money to bankers that caused they're own problems. also Sen. Feingold admitted that they were defying the wishes of the majority of they're constituents when they voted yes to the unconstitutional bailout. Both Mccain, and Obama voted yes to the bailout, both Mccain and Obama voted yes to the FISA Act, both Mccain and Obama support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, both Mccain and Obama voted yes to the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, because it violates the United States Constitution Fourth Amendment.
The Home Grown Terrorist Act is unconstitutional, because it violates the First Amendment.
The FISA Act is unconstitutional, because it violates the Fourth Amendment.
Therefore if either Mccain, or Obama were to become president. When they get to the part where they take the following oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It will be a lie, they have broken the oath before even becoming president, and plan to break the oath further.

For the record, one way the bailout violates the United States Constitution is in article 1 section 7 paragraph 1 .
As for the government representing the people, in modern times it does not
do a good job at all of representing the people obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

How is it limiting the american dream? You can always get more money.. Youll never reach a point were making more money wont give you more money. And why cant those who are living the american dream help others get a shot at living the same dream? =)

---

It is limiting the american dream. By heavily taxing the 250k range, and everyone else except the bankers by inflation. We will end up with a classless society of equally poor people, with a wealthy ruling elite.
I am still looking into it to confirm, but from what I have heard Obama will increase taxes on the below 250k income too. However there is always the chance he is lying about not taxing the below 250k income folk.
After all he has lied about us needing the bailout, not accepting lobby
money, the fact he is a communist socialist, and a marxist leninist.

Mccain is also a Marxist Lenninist, although more subtle than Obama.
This bank bailout can essentially be categorized as Nationalized Losses, and I believe also collectivized losses which are basically the same thing except collectivized losses can be a little more broad in meaning I think.

"The passing of state power from one class to another is the first, the principal, the basic sign of a revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of that term. To this extent, the bourgeois, or the bourgeois-democratic, revolution in Russia is completed."
(Lenin, Letters on Tactics)[1918]

"We will take them without firing a shot."
(Vladimir Lenin)

"They will sell or give us the rope with which we hang them."
(Vladimir Lenin)

In the two quotes above I believe he is referring to the bourgeois.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

I love how americans always call everything communist/socialist. And good for you, you know poor people that made it. So do i. But what about the millions of people that dont make it or even have a fair shot at making it? What about the people that are being held down to allow a small minority to soar in the skies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

As for a) retirement funds are usually "pre-paid" in the sense that current workers pay for past workers rather than people paying for their own future retirement. Wasnt really going in to exactly how its paid but in what way its done in the end. Either way you either pay for your own retirement or you paid for someone elses while you were working (and as such deserve having someone pay for yours when its your time to retire)
(only covering gov side of retirement funds obviously)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO

dka
your telling me the top 1% doesnt have +250k profit/income whatever? If so he is taxing them :)

---

Thank you for clarifying your statement on social security for me.
With that clarification however, it sounds like what the guy on the video I posted said on Obama's social security plan.

I know that inflation of the Dollar isn't technically a tax in itself, but it does raise the price of everything.
I believe there is a tax for every amount of Dollars the Federal Reserve prints though.
what does que stand for?

" I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power(of money) should be taken from the banks, and restored to Congress and to the people, to whom it belongs."

_Thomas Jefferson

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

_Thomas Jefferson

Some of the Sources for some of the Lenin, and Communist Manifesto quotes.(disclaimer if it is not clear already, I am saying it now I am NOT a communist, socialist, or marxist, or anything related. I just read on these subjects to be informed, and for history study.)

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/cl...manifesto.html

http://www.marxists.org/

Quote:

---

I don't think you are taking into account maintenance of equipment.

---

how is that relevant to taxation? the mere fact that you are making profits mean you have room for increased costs by default.. you wont stop making profits if you currently make if taxes are added on +250k profits, because the taxes never succeeds the profit it is based on.

Quote:

---

In various businesses much of that income goes to maintenance of equipment, payment on equipment, taxes on equipment, machinery breaking down every now and then etc.

---

Profit is calculated after expenses not before. If your income is 400k and you spend 350k on maintenance your profit is 50k not 400k. All these things are in the budget and not taxed for cause they are deducted from the earnings.

Quote:

---

The dictatorship of the proletariat..

---

the proletariat usually makes up the majority of the population, as such i have a hard time viewing it as dictatorship, if anything its more like democracy. For the people to regain power those currently in power (corporations etc) have to be stripped of some of it, makes perfect sense to me. (even though i might not agree with Lenin on how to achieve such change).

Quote:

---

What do you mean someone else would be taking over, Do you mean the illegal contractors who the government for the most part ignores thus undermining honest businesses?

---

People breaking laws arent grounds for legalizations. If some people dump toxic waste and therefore gains an unfair advantage on the market is the solution of the free market then to allow everyone to dump toxic waste or for state to control the market so that no one (as few as possible) dumps toxic waste?

You are the state, the state are you. If the government isnt doing their job properly blame the government, dont give in to those who dont follow the laws your society has created.

Quote:

---

If you are referring to other stock holders of the business or some other entity taking over the business how is that good? One of The ultimate goals of communism is control of all business by the government.

---

Indeed, since the government is the people and thus all is owned by the people and works only for the people. In your situation that wouldnt happen though since its the private sector that would step in and take over the market shares and not the government.

Quote:

---

Government is mistreating the people by inflating the Dollar, overtaxing them, giving our hard earned money to bankers that caused they're own problems.

---

if they didnt bail out the banks you would lose more. In my opinion however the state clearly failed to regulate the market properly and the banks failed to take proper responsibility for their actions. So you have the right to be pissed, but if youre pissed you should ask for a government that will ensure that companies will be controlled more, not less. Because without control corporations will roam free and **** people up no matter the overall cost.

Quote:

---

Feingold admitted that they were defying the wishes of the majority of they're constituents when they voted yes to the unconstitutional bailout.

---

Sometimes what people want isnt always what they need. Its semi-undemocratic, but they are elected to act for you, and you have the power not to vote for them if they mess up doing that. Without the bailout you wouldve been in greater problem. The bailout had to happen, what can be discussed is in what way it should happen and what state should do to a) get money back b) prevent it from happening again.

Quote:

---

It is limiting the american dream. By heavily taxing the 250k range, and everyone else except the bankers by inflation.

---

95% of the people never even come close to 250k range. And heavily tax is silly, unless youre making tons of money you aint gonna tax much, and if you are you can afford to pay the taxes and still have 5 cars and 3 houses.

Quote:

---

I am still looking into it to confirm, but from what I have heard Obama will increase taxes on the below 250k income too

---

No, he is decreasing income on everyone below 250k, and for those below ~115k he cuts taxes more than McCain does. Im a swede and youre an american, yet i know that and you dont? Geez.

Quote:

---

Mccain is also a Marxist Lenninist, although more subtle than Obama.

---

Marx and Lenin would probably laugh at you if they heard you say that. Theres nothing marxist-leninist about either of the two, or any other politic with any power for that matter.

Quote:

---

This bank bailout can essentially be categorized as Nationalized Losses, and I believe also collectivized losses which are basically the same thing except collectivized losses can be a little more broad in meaning I think.

---

Essentially it can be categorized as a) a loan that comes with interest b) investments that comes with control over the banks c) complete buy-outs d) complete handouts..

America dont really want B and definitely not C and the other ones are hardly socialist at all.

Quote:

---

With that clarification however, it sounds like what the guy on the video I posted said on Obama's social security plan.

---

Not quiet. Ofc he wasnt completely lying, but his agenda was quite obvious. Wouldnt watch such crap if i were you tbh. At least try to get some objective sources even if it might be hard.

Quote:

---

I know that inflation of the Dollar isn't technically a tax in itself, but it does raise the price of everything.

---

Well, indeed, but its hard to avoid in the current system. It has upsides and it has downsides and has to be held in check to avoid really bad situations. And i dont think they pay taxes on printed money, interest is more likely.

Que is spanish for "what"

As for the jefferson quotes. i agree with him, and if anything so far has been socalist that is. Power belongs to the people, not the capital.

Let's be reminded of these wise words:(see at ending)


* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

* You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

* You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves.

Do you recognize the author?

Abraham Lincoln. Very wise words written decades ago, and we still don't get it.....