Thread: Vetting Obama-Your Right To Know

I'm not saying that someone necessarily needs to get the tar whaled out of them for contact lens solution, but why do people act, or pretend to act, surprised when they disobey an order from a cop or security representative and then end up eating gravel?

That said I hate the current screening process and want it killed. We should just do what the Israelis do and keep questionable people off the flights or closely watched. Leave the 99.9% of the rest of us alone - flying already sucks enough as it is.

And yeah, DHS has got to go. Even the name is creepy.

-dale

herodotus,

gee, a hard liberal calling obama "not right wing but not progressive," what a surprise- especially after he summarized the republican position as "war, drilling, surveillance, and depression".

obama is just that: a middling progressive, with very little actual practice in the realm of bipartisanship. i agree that talk of socialism/communism is overblown rhetoric, but his positions and advocated policies are very clearly to the left.

hillary was slightly to the right (mostly in terms of defense-issues), while bill was right to both of them on both economic and defense issues. if you want centrism, look at the DLC, and compare its positions to that of obama's- especially on matters on free trade. obama is NOT a free-trader, he talks about FAIR trade (whatever that means). as for social security...

Obama Turns FDR Upside Down - WSJ.com

to his credit he's not as economically left as say, john edwards, but now the talk is that edwards may be on obama's VP list...

Originally Posted by dalem

And yeah, DHS has got to go. Even the name is creepy.

LOL....me too :P...it sounds like the husband of PMS. :P

dale,

That said I hate the current screening process and want it killed. We should just do what the Israelis do and keep questionable people off the flights or closely watched. Leave the 99.9% of the rest of us alone - flying already sucks enough as it is.

doesn't work: al-qaeda has stated that one of its goals is to recruit caucasians and more generally "westerners" into its ranks. some of the recent european cases have shown that they've increasingly placed converted europeans towards its front lines, as well as given general instructions in telling its operatives to fit as much into western society as possible.

Originally Posted by astralis

dale,



doesn't work: al-qaeda has stated that one of its goals is to recruit caucasians and more generally "westerners" into its ranks. some of the recent european cases have shown that they've increasingly placed converted europeans towards its front lines, as well as given general instructions in telling its operatives to fit as much into western society as possible.

Bah. I've stated that one of my goals is to lick Cherry Garcia ice cream off of Salma Hayek's b00bs. Goals and reality are two differnt things.

That said, behavior is just as important as looks, you know that.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Bah. I've stated that one of my goals is to lick Cherry Garcia ice cream off of Salma Hayek's b00bs. Goals and reality are two differnt things.

That said, behavior is just as important as looks, you know that.

-dale

Isn't she a bit on the older side? I would have tried Julie Banderas.

Can somebody tell me what's so bad about a 'weak' American dollar? In other words one within a 5% range of where it is now?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Can somebody tell me what's so bad about a 'weak' American dollar? In other words one within a 5% range of where it is now?

Too many Americans would whine about it?

Originally Posted by Julie

The Tax Policy Center and the Barack Obama campaign used some sleight of hand this week in Politico. To quote Eric Tolder of the TPC, “Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income.” While this is true, it completely and totally misses the point.

Let’s start with the definition of a “small business.” Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.

The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what’s important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

What’s the alternative? One place to look is the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points. Small businesses haven’t faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the creation of new businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

The McCain small business tax plan doesn’t end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment — which now must be slowly “depreciated” over many years — would be immediately expensed in year one.

Stepping back, voters and policymakers should ask themselves whether they want two-thirds of small business income taxed at a 50 percent tax rate or if they want nearly all small-business income taxed at a 25 percent tax rate. They should ask themselves whether it’s healthier for small businesses to write off a computer over six calendar years or to simply write it off in year one. To America’s small business sector, the answer is obvious.

An argument against Obama's tax plan - Grover G. Norquist - Politico.com

I don't want to go off on a tangent about the arcane ins and outs of taxes on quote-unquote small business, but this article has some serious faults. For example, Type S corporation earnings are not directly taxed. S corps cannot retain earnings. All its expenses and earnings are pass throughs directly from and back to its shareholders, typically a small handful of people. It's essentially a partnership with corporate protections.

Class C Corporations, which cover your GMs and IBMs and most corporations, including my wee piss ant company are subject to income taxes, but when they gets down to the $250,000 size there are no retained earnings or profit to tax because the majority shareholder, you, makes sure there aren't any. In 19 years of business my company hasn't paid one cent of income tax. All the profit goes to me and I pay income tax. That's almost the same thing, but my rate is lower than 35%.

Small unicorporated businesses like partnerships and sole proprietors can likewise operate at breakeven, and often do. Usually, the owners are paying themselves down to breakeven, but their $250,000 income or whatever is still personal income, and taxing it would be the same as taxing anyone with an income of $250,000. So, I don't see what the author is getting at, saying a tax on people with incomes of $250,000 is a really a tax on small businesses.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Can somebody tell me what's so bad about a 'weak' American dollar? In other words one within a 5% range of where it is now?

I'm not the economics professor Shek is so he could explain it better. I do know though that the price of oil has been tied to the dollar since 1972 or '73 whenever the gold standard was removed. As the dollar weakens, the price of oil goes up as well as the price of gold and other commodities. Probably no short-term negative effects, but long-term there may be problems; tourism, trade, investments, prices, etc.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I'm not the economics professor Shek is so he could explain it better. I do know though that the price of oil has been tied to the dollar since 1972 or '73 whenever the gold standard was removed. As the dollar weakens, the price of oil goes up as well as the price of gold and other commodities. Probably no short-term negative effects, but long-term there may be problems; tourism, trade, investments, prices, etc.

Yeah I understand the problems of fiat currency since Nixon ended Breton Woods etc, but increased prices for imports are offset by greater exports as your goods become more competitive, more jobs, more income. It also means your population buys locally as imports are more expensive, again more jobs, and local economy growth.
It also has the positive effect of pissing off those who've been stockpiling your currency, namely China and Saudi Arabia.)

Originally Posted by astralis

herodotus,

gee, a hard liberal calling obama "not right wing but not progressive," what a surprise- especially after he summarized the republican position as "war, drilling, surveillance, and depression".

obama is just that: a middling progressive, with very little actual practice in the realm of bipartisanship. i agree that talk of socialism/communism is overblown rhetoric, but his positions and advocated policies are very clearly to the left.

hillary was slightly to the right (mostly in terms of defense-issues), while bill was right to both of them on both economic and defense issues. if you want centrism, look at the DLC, and compare its positions to that of obama's- especially on matters on free trade. obama is NOT a free-trader, he talks about FAIR trade (whatever that means). as for social security...

Obama Turns FDR Upside Down - WSJ.com

to his credit he's not as economically left as say, john edwards, but now the talk is that edwards may be on obama's VP list...

So is it not legitimate to air grievances left-liberals have with Obama? Much hay has been made about McCain's disagreements with conservatives, I don't think they are manufactured at all, and he touts his credentials as a moderate. So why can't the same be true of Obama?

Ideological purity may serve a Senator well, with little to do but make speeches, hold hearings, and vote. But it doesn't really serve a President well, so Obama will shift positions, and shift again in the future. McCain voted against Bush tax cuts, and has a record of opposing tax cuts, yet he is now hailed by conservatives as some kind of tax-cutting hero; same on immigration. So if McCain's position shifts are seen as legitimate then turnabout is fair for Obama.

We'll see on free trade, yes his rhetoric in the primary was for "fair trade", but then Hillary was critical of NAFTA, which her husband supported and signed. He had to outflank her on the Left, so I wouldn't be surprised if Obama soon has a suddenly more "nuanced" position on trade similar to the DLC.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Yeah I understand the problems of fiat currency since Nixon ended Breton Woods etc, but increased prices for imports are offset by greater exports as your goods become more competitive, more jobs, more income. It also means your population buys locally as imports are more expensive, again more jobs, and local economy growth.
It also has the positive effect of pissing off those who've been stockpiling your currency, namely China and Saudi Arabia.)

Well if we had exports that would in theory work, but umm well our trade imbalances are huge... Who buys American goods overseas? Maybe Coca-cola, and cigarettes, but durable goods we're way behind in exporting. I would love nothing more than to get back China's stockpiled US treasury securities but China has its own purposes for the dollar. Japan though actually holds the most, followed by China. http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Well if we had exports that would in theory work, but umm well our trade imbalances are huge... Who buys American goods overseas? Maybe Coca-cola, and cigarettes, but durable goods we're way behind in exporting.

Because your goods have been so uncompetitive for so long. You'll be pleased to know John Deere tractors were the top sellers at Mystery Creek this year.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I would love nothing more than to get back China's stockpiled US treasury securities but China has its own purposes for the dollar. Japan though actually holds the most, followed by China. http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Personally I think if the US Dollar can come down to some sort of relativity to the AusD and NZD (the NZD would need to move up a bit) you'd be pretty damned competitive with the rest of the world, and way more competitive that either Japan or Europe. China's the only fly in the ointment but they're going to have to float soon or later...