Vote!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

I'm going to try, very hard, to discuss your post without calling you a bigot.


You said: "...it is becoming harder and harder for Republicans to win giving changing demographics of the country. McCain carries white vote by 12% and still loses handily."


So what? As votes were being counted, there were no "white" votes or "black" ones. They were all American votes (and "real Americans" at that.) If the ideology of the GOP is out of step with what the electorate wants, they will continue to lose, handily. I don't think that will be the case. As a life-long Republican, I believe that they will adjust their views and their candidates to that of the voters. Right now, "mainstream Republicans" aren't mainstream.

In almost every national election, 45% of the people vote Republican every time. Another 45% vote Democratic. The whole fight is over the middle 10%. It's as simple as that. Those on both extremes (e.g.- the extreme part of the religious right, or the "socialist" wing of Democrats) will always be unhappy with every outcome, BECAUSE THEIR THINKING IS EXTREME!

You said: "What it all means is higher government spending, higher taxes, a decline for free enterprise and a moral decline for America."

For the last 8 years we have had all of those things except the higher taxes. We have the highest government spending ever. We have our government with their hands in the financial services industry, banking, real estate and mortgages, the auto industry, and the airlines are waiting in the wings. Why weren't you complaining then? Our tax system will revert to what it was under that great "socialist", Ronald Reagan. If we can get the government to stop spending/wasting money on stupid things (see- Iraq), then I'm all for lower taxes too. I agree that hopefully, the GOP minority can clog up the pipeline of government spending for a while, but I've been hoping that for years and am still waiting.

The stock market didn't "react" to his anticipated win with a downward move , the slide ensured his election. Your talk about a march to socialism is silly. Where did you draw that line? 36% income tax is OK, but 39% is socialism?

We've talked the gay marriage thing to death in this thread, so all I will say is that is a discussion that doesn't belong in the field of national politics (nor does abortion.) These are religious, moral, or ethical issues. These things should be addressed by our churches, and mostly by parents, not by some guys in Washington, DC.


Lastly, your stance on Palin continues to shock me. Everything you have ever written on this board shows you to be a pretty intelligent guy. Yet you espouse support for this, clearly, unprepared candidate. She couldn't name the countries in NAFTA (McCain's own aides said she couldn't name the major countries in North America.) She thought Africa was a country, not a continent. She thought South Africa was just the southern part of the country of Africa. This isn't coming from the dreaded "left-wing media." This is coming from the McCain campaign, through FOX.

I'm not sure any Republican could have won this election. McCain might have been the closest. Such was the damage that GWB did to the party. But had he nominated Ridge, or Romney, it would have been a fight right to the end. Instead he selected Palin, which pandered to the extreme right. Why? Was he afraid he would lose their votes? They were never going to vote for Obama. This pick guaranteed him a loss.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

No moving to the left is not what all the ethnicities want. Why if McCain carried the white vote by 12 percent do they want the country to lurch towqard socialism...and if you read the NY times today you will see how the change in voting electorate toward more hispanics helped Obama win Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Lastly I am shocked you can support a tax increase but also favor a flat tax which is a Reagan/Jack Kemp idea and certainly the fairest tax of all--each taxpayer pays the same percentage of his income to taxes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

"If a liberal republican who is a war hero cannot win it is hard to believe there is hope for mainstream republicans in this country. "

Jim,

I actually understand this sentence and it is a reasonable way for mainstream conservatives to feel. But I do think there is hope for mainstream conservatives and Republicans, because the person that lost this election was not a "liberal republican who is a war hero", which essentially does describe McCain.

I honestly don't feel this election was ever really about John McCain. It was about George Bush. And I am not conservative and probably can't speak for them, but in my view from over here it never seemed like George Bush did represent mainstream conservatives. He seemed much more geared to the interests of the furhter extremes of the party and a much smaller, more intolerant and more agressive group.

The vote was not just against McCain, there was a huge "against Bush" component as well. With that kind of disadvantage handed to him, it did not help that McCain did not run a good campaign.

They say that the extreme conservatives and far-right Republicans are livid with the results, but to me it seems like the mainstream conservatives should be far more p.o.'d about it. Bush denied them any true chance for their interests to be represented not only for the past 8 years, but maybe for the next 8 years as well.

When the spectre of George Bush has finally faded from voting memory, I don't have a doubt in the world that a liberal Republican who is a war hero could get elected in this country.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: John

"I've sort of resisted posting in this thread, mostly, but I've got to say at this point that I am thrilled with the outcome of this election. As a business owner, I'm happy to know my taxes will be going down, that I'll be receiving tax incentives for hiring more employees and paying their health insurance. As an employee of said business, I am happy to know that I won't be required to pay taxes on the money that's deducted from my paycheck each period for said health insurance (as John McCain was planning to do) and that I won't be "receiving" a $5000 tax refund that would be paid directly to the insurance companies. Instead, I'll be offered responsible incentives to grow my small business, and any tax incentives will go back into my own pocket, where they belong."

Yeah as long as your business isnt to successful or you dont earn more than 250k a year for all the years of hard work, its a great day for business..LOL

I agree with Jim on a lot of the above except the whole gay marriage thing I could care less, if they want to get married so be it.

After all in the end its all same sex marriages you get married and have the same sex over and over and over.



P.S. It's not a black or white thing for me either Jim looses me there, Obama just isn't good for my business model plain and simple.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

OK, I will say it. I am so glad that the Republicans lost this election because this hopefully drives a nail in the coffin of the Christian Coalition. Make no mistake about this, the Republicans had a great candidate in Romney, but the anti-Mormon bigotry of the Christian Coalition and their supporters left the party with a lightweight like Palin. The fringe of the party did them in, and I'm happy about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

A comedian.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Joann,

Whether we like it or not, this whole "war hero" thing isn't on the radar of voters.

1992 - Clinton over Bush
1996 - Clinton over Dole
2000 - Bush over Gore
2004 - Bush over Kerry
2008 - Obama over McCain

You have to go back 20 years to find an active war veteran who won a Presidential election. (Obviously, I'm discounting GWB's brave duty in the bars of Texas and Alabama.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

"Thank God for Sarah Palin and what she represents"



A little of what Sarah Palin represents:


edited URL length - 338 characters! That has to be close to the record for this forum.

http://tinyurl.com/6xw6da

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jim VB

Bush was a big disappointment as he did nothing to curtail the runaway social spending of the Democrats. To me Republicans should strand for low govt. spending and balanced budgets.

Recent elections have shown that blacks and hispanics vote heavily for democrats--it is not being a bigot to note that the racial and ethnic composition of the country are changing and that soon the we will be a country of less than half whites. Given how these groups have voted the Republicans will have to move to the left as well to tryt to capyture enough of these groups so they can win an election--I think any political strategist--republican or democrat -would say this.

Ideology trumps everything for me--I have core beliefs which drive the way I think. I belive in lower taxes, reduced government spending, aggressively protecting our borders, the sanctity of life--on every one of these measurements Palin agrees with me--on every one Obama disagrees. Pretty easy decision to me who to back. Surveys show over 80 percent of Republicans love Palin--higher than McCain.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Bob come on, take that stuff with a grain of salt ex-political advisors distancing themselves and throwing everyone under the bus after a horrible election campaignwhat a surprise. I dont believe half of that stuff just like I didnt put any thoughts into Obama knowing Ayers in the past etc.

These same political advisors if they had won would be telling and spinning a different set of lies etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

"Recent elections have shown that blacks and hispanics vote heavily for democrats--it is not being a bigot to note that the racial and ethnic composition of the country are changing and that soon the we will be a country of less than half whites. Given how these groups have voted the Republicans will have to move to the left as well to tryt to capyture enough of these groups so they can win an election--I think any political strategist--republican or democrat -would say this."


Jim is 100% correct, Wal-Mart and other major retailers study demographics and stock cetain ethnic goods and programs to retail markets to increase sales, does that make Target and other retailers bigots?

Jim may be a lot of things and we've had or disagreements in the past but to draw bigot from that is a bit of stretch IMO.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Joanne,

As usual excellent points. Obama succeeded in making it about Bush.

John --I have never heard another small bus owner try to claim that Obama would me good for them.

Have to run.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: John

"John --I have never heard another small bus owner try to claim that Obama would me good for them."

No kidding Jim 100% correct, I just came back from a meeting with about 200 successful business owners and suppliers all pretty much not Obama supporters...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

John,



I didn't call him a bigot. I tried hard not to. I don't believe he is in the truest sense of the word. But his post implied that it was a bad thing that the current demographics of the USA don't line up with his thinking. He implied that the fact that McCain carried the white vote should mean something more than it does.



If Obama is incompetent at what he tries to do, we will have a chance to vote him out in 4 years. If he succeeds, he gets another 4 years. Simple as that.

[Archive]

Posted By: David McDonald

For your consideration:

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

"Yeah as long as your business isnt to successful or you dont earn more than 250k a year for all the years of hard work, its a great day for business..LOL"

If I ever earn more than 250K per year, I'll be able to afford the slight increase in my taxes. Since I don't, I'm happy to know that at my current income levels, I'll be getting slightly more of a cut than I would have under McCain. Slightly.

I would imagine that if small business owners aren't fans of Obama, they're not real clear on what the differences are between the two candidates. To my knowledge, McCain offered no new incentives for me as a small business owner. Aside from the fact that he wanted to tax my health insurance money, and send the refund to the insurance companies.

Obama wants to offer me tax incentives for hiring employees, he wants to offer me cheaper small business loans, he wants to give me a tax break on the health insurance costs I cover for my employees, and he wants to lower my personal income tax without touching my corporate tax. Sounds like a good deal to me, and will certainly outweigh the increase from 36% to 39% that I'd theoretically have to pay if I ever let my income eclipse 250K.

So John, or Jim, can either of you give me a concrete reason - besides "socialism" or a three percentage point increase in my theoretical income tax - why Obama is bad for my business? A negative that will outweigh all the tax advantages he's proposing for adding employees and paying their healthcare?

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Al, not everyones business model is as simple as hiring more employees some small businesss dont need lots of employeesand health care..



Second Im not sure why in this country we are so comfortable with the he can afford it mentally. Folks who make over 250k a year arent millionaires they are people who worked hard to get to where they are doctors, lawyers and even risk takers and small business owners. These folks also employee other people.



Why should anyone have to pay more because of his or her success when this country is built on risk taking and being successful, not penalizing it and passing it on?



It cracks me up people will line up and protest about some guy who started a business and makes 250-700k a year and make him out to be a bad guy or vilan who can afford it. But those same folks idolize celebrities like Oprah and Paris Hilton and the thought never crosses their mind about those folks and the money they make and dont pay into taxes due to loop holes.LOL

Perfect example..the TV ad with Obama the one that said supported by Warren Buffet and Colin Powell how many millions upon millions of dollars does Warren Buffet get out of paying in taxes and creative loop holes. Its the really big guys that get to avoid the Obama issues its those middle of the road wealthy that foot the bill, but that never crosses anyones mind I think.

[Archive]

Posted By: hrbaker

I think Al said earlier that he actually favored the flat tax but that it wasn't going to happen. The fact of the matter is when you spend more than you have the bills come due. You have to get the money from those who have it and can spare it (that's the thinking anyway). Besides the political math works better; tell the 80 you'll take it from the other 20 or whatever the breakdown is.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Al I'd like to answer your question but I'd rather not get into all the reasons because my business is a bit more complex than your avg. small business owner. Perhaps over a beer and some cards sometime ok?

But Al there was many things that Obama hinted at during the race that would have direct impacts on my business and income.

And lastly I've busted my tail for 5yrs to get to where I'm going and it really bothered me to hear someone say you need to pay up and help others...nobody helped me during those 5yrs I did what anyone can do in this country. I took risks worked hard and made something happen.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

John:

In this discussion, we're both ignoring the distinction between advantages offered to me to help grow my business and increases in tax on my personal income. Those are two entirely different things. Somebody made a statement in this thread about Obama being a bad choice for me as a small business owner, and I'm not sure why. There are very concrete reasons why he's a GOOD choice for me as a small business owner. I was not aware of any concrete reasons why McCain was a better choice.

As for my personal income tax and the 250K break point, you asked: "Why should anyone have to pay more because of his or her success when this country is built on risk taking and being successful, not penalizing it and passing it on?"

That's the way it is NOW. We have a progressive tax system that is, theoretically, based on ability to pay. Right now, under Republican President George W Bush, someone making over $250K a year pays more tax than someone making $40K. Obama wants to take that tax level from 36% to 39% - an increase of three percentage points, which puts it back to the level it was at when Republican Icon and Definite Non-Socialist Ronald Reagan was president.

Now I can see how someone would be unhappy about that, for sure.

But I can't see how someone would tell me that for that reason, I should be unhappy about Obama's $250K tax increase as a small business owner. One has nothing to do with the other. First of all, in my case, Obama's tax advantages would outweigh the increase in taxes I'd have to pay if I allowed myself to make more than $250K a year. Second of all, as a small business owner, there are dozens of things I can do to keep my income levels under $250K and still reap the benefits of earning a lot of money.

More to the point, I don't see anyone lining up and protesting, or making a wealthy (or semi-wealthy) small business owner out to be a villain (your words). I believe that a successful business owner is what makes this country tick. I'm not demonizing small business owners, or even large business owners. I'm not demonizing anybody. I'm telling you that I feel that Obama's plan for small business appeared more advantageous to me than McCain's, and thus far, while plenty of people have told me I'm wrong, nobody has told me why.

I realize it's moot at this point, but I'm just sayin'.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, are you aware of the term "removal of income cap on Social Security taxes"? Is that part of your measly 3% hike you keep on mentioning?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Jim Crandall said,
"Blah, Blah Blah, Blah, Blah."



YAWN

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff:

Obama does not support removing the income cap on Social Security taxes, as far as I'm aware. He has discussed -but not committed to - asking for an additional 2-4% combined between the employer and the employee making over $250K, to begin ten years from now.

I did neglect to factor that in to the income tax increase I've been talking about. Forgot all about it. That extra 2%, though, that's a dealbreaker. I take back my vote.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: hrbaker

That's not extra taxes. Look at it as your government sponsored and administered 401K.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Aren't you on the radio right now?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, you would be unaware then -- you must have missed the 4000 times he mentioned this. But I understand that it's tough to keep your facts straight when you're counting other people's money. Oh and by the way, I pay 50% of my income towards taxes. How much do you pay?

Edited to add: why can't we just all admit that our positions on what we think is best for our country often dovetail with whatever is most beneifical for each of us individually?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff:



Right from Obama's website:

He Does Not Support Fully Uncapping the Payroll Tax for Social Security at the 12.4 Percent Rate. Barack Obama would like to work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound. Despite the smears of his opponents, Obama does not support uncapping the payroll tax at the full 12.4 percent rate. Instead, Obama and Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 0percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by McCains close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he could support.

If you could cite one or two of the 4,000 sources where he said otherwise, I'd appreciate it. I hate being wrong, but I'm more than happy to admit when I am.

As for what percentage of my income I pay toward taxes, I would imagine it's probably at a similar rate to what you pay. And I probably pay all the same corporate and payroll taxes you do, too. Not sure what you're implying in your statement about counting other people's money, so I'll just assume you weren't referring to me.

Edited to clean up the post and add a few points.



-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Jeff Amen...

"I pay 50% of my income towards taxes. How much do you pay?"

That makes two of us

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."

Change.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Seems like at some point after that article was written in September of 2007, Obama changed his position to reflect something closer to what Edwards discussed later in that article.

Either way I will give you that even on his website, he's not really offering a clear plan.

Edited to add: come on, Jeff, you're better than that. Taking out the link to the article and leaving in only the quote kinda distorts things a bit.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Changed.

Al, I took out the link only because it made my entire post underlined and weird looking. Stop looking for a conspiracy in every shadow.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am nomintating your last post for 1 of the top 5 in this thread. Well said....(even though I agree with Jim on much of what he says, certainly not all though)...

I watched Obama speak today, and although most of it was canned, he sounded pretty good. I still would have liked it had McCain won but we have Obama now and I wish him the best. I always said I thought he was a good guy....A good politician but still a good guy anyway....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

And we need to work on your reading comprehension skills as I did the shows this morning. Lucky for you you'll have another chance next Friday.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

"I pay 50% of my income towards taxes. How much do you pay?"

Jeff,

I hope you're counting Federal, State, Local, FICA, Local Property, and Local Sales Taxes.

If not, you gotta get you a new tax man!

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

That's right, my bad. I'll catch you next week on my way to work.

Just to clarify, the article Jeff posted was from September of 2007, where Obama "floated" the idea of uncapping the income limits, but did not make it a statement of policy. He said it, but didn't say he was going to do it.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim, I'm not counting sales or property taxes in that number. That's just life in the big city, I guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

"That's just life in the big city"


Psst! So's the part about State and Local Taxes!

By the way, even in the boonies, Property taxes are ridiculous.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"He said it, but didn't say he was going to do it."

Perhaps he just said it into a microphone just to see if it was working? Like a sound check?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Kinda. He was quoted in the article as saying it was "one possible option," and not a formal plan. So I guess that's sorta like a soundcheck. Perhaps if it had sounded good in the back of the room, he would have played it at the big concert. But, apparently, it didn't.

Aside from clearly stating on his campaign website that he was NOT going to do that, he never actually offered a formal plan.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, I know you can't possibly believe what you just wrote. We both know full well that eliminating the cap is exactly what he's going to do.

The election is over; there's no need to dissemble anymore.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff, all I can do is vote for a candidate based on what they say they're going to do, or not do.

Lots of people who I know that voted against Obama did so because they believe he's going to do something different from what he says he's going to do. I suppose that's a reason why not to vote for someone.

But to paraphrase the words of a great man, I prefer not to look for a conspiracy in every shadow. Instead, I look at a politician's platform, do my best to take it at face value, and cast my vote.

So, yes, I do believe what I wrote. And if he changes his position, as most presidents eventually do on one thing or another, I'll evaluate his reasons for doing it, and decide whether or not I'm pissed enough to vote the other way when the time comes.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, he actually already changed his position on this issue -- well after the sound check. Initially in the fall of 2007 he proposed eliminating the Social Security cap; when pressed during a debate with Hilary in the Spring of 2008 he proposed the 'doughnut hole' which would keep the free tax pass on those making between 102K (the current cap) and 250K -- and then uncap it completely.

Nuance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff, I posted his position above in this thread, which I took directly from his website two minutes before I posted it, and I think the only thing about it that's clear is that he does NOT intend to completely eliminate the cap. So unless he's changed his position in the time it's taken for this thread to evolve (which is possible, I guess, given his lack of clarity on the issue), that's his position.

Edited to add: Either way, we can go back and forth on this, but the only way we're going to know what he's going to do is when he does it. Or doesn't. Or whatever. So I guess we'll have to wait and see. And either way, that 2% is not going to be a dealbreaker for me, either.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Just curious -- what you took from his website was what existed before he got elected, right? When he was still trolling for votes, right? Do you believe what was written there? Or do you believe instead what he has said repeatedly over the past year -- considering that you know full well he will raise taxes?

Edited to add: Al, removing the Social Security tax cap would not imopse just a 2% increase in taxes. Keep going...

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff:

It seems I must have been mistaken about my analysis of the candidates because I was not using the correct sources to obtain information.

Assuming that his website, his speeches, and his presidential debate performances include nothing but lies designed to get him votes, can you please let me know where I can find out more information about John McCain, so I can re-evaluate my opinions on his positions?

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, nice try. We're not talking about McCain -- we're talking about the increase in taxes once the Social Security cap is removed -- whether it be after 102K as Obama said a year ago or after 250K that he said in the Spring. Or what is presently on his website.

The fact is, the reason this issue means nothing to you is because it does not affect you.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

My heart goes out to our poor, poor, Jeff, who will soon have to pay more in taxes.

If you really believe the increase will adversely impact your lifestyle, Jeff, maybe you'll have to raise your hourly rate.

I'm sure the Gotti family will spring for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff:

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I'll ask that you please refrain from making assumptions about my income and calling them "facts." The word "fact" implies some degree of accuracy.

Not that I need to drag my personal income into this discussion, but by suggesting that I am in support of a candidate because his financial plans do not impact me, you are entirely incorrect. However, you are proving - at least in your case - your aforementioned assertion that "our positions on what we think is best for our country often dovetail with whatever is most beneifical for each of us individually."

Thanks,

-Al

Edited to add: David, as usual, as soon as you enter the discussion, you're out of line. Don't wreck a good discussion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, don't you have some students to abuse? To wit:


"Terrible teacher, makes fun of students who ask legitimate questions. Arrogant. Uncaring advisor, acts like you're wasting his time. I expected to be a physics major. After this instructor, I changed my mind."

"worst teacher i've ever had. avoid at all costs, you won't learn a thing. i had my friend go into class for me wearing my clothes, went withough a hitch."

"worst teacher i can remember, dating back to kindergarten."

"One of the worst classes I ever took in my yrs at skidmore. He sucks big time."

"Stay away."


Keep up the good work, David!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, you were the one that mentioned that your income was below the 250K figure, not me.

And I was the one who stated above "why can't we just all admit that our positions on what we think is best for our country often dovetail with whatever is most beneifical for each of us individually?" I didn't exempt myself, did I?

My point is, we all like to think that we're totally altruistic but the truth is usually much different. Our altruism is usually affected by our bottom lines, agreed?