OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

We don't need someone to capture imagination, that's what Obama is trying to do, we need someone who actually has some basis for believing them when they say what they are going to do, and how they are going to do it...

I didn't say "someone who can lead us off to fantasyland". Too many people look on politics with a dull, glazed-over, and disenchanted eye. They need someone whom they can BELIEVE will truly change the way that things work, for the betterment of all. Obviously, they need some kind of substance, they need something to offer us that we can believe in - both the vision and the inspiration are necessary.

Originally Posted by licker

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil. Man up, and don't buy the line that your vote doesn't count, because if you vote for democrat or republican, truly, your vote was wasted.

Nonsense. That's like saying that when you're imprisoned, and they feed you, that eating that food is accepting a life of imprisonment. If I let my principles allow McCain to win (say the vote went 40% Mccain, 30% Obama, 30% Nader), then I will have failed as a citizen, because people like McCain are the greatest threat that this nation faces.


We're in a sinking ship. You have 3 choices for votes this election - continue sinking, with McCain - a little bucket, with Obama, - or a brand new ship which isn't going to come in our stocking this year.

I'll take the bucket while more people figure out that we need the new ship.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I didn't say "someone who can lead us off to fantasyland". Too many people look on politics with a dull, glazed-over, and disenchanted eye. They need someone whom they can BELIEVE will truly change the way that things work, for the betterment of all. Obviously, they need some kind of substance, they need something to offer us that we can believe in - both the vision and the inspiration are necessary.

I don't have any faith Obama has what it takes to be president. I'm not happy about McCain either, but at least he has stronger experience in the military and businesses.

Any speeches about raising taxes for those of high income have never worked because there's way too many loop holes... so many the wealthy pay multi-certified accountants to find them otherwise the wealthy would just use H&R Block or equivalent. I'm sure many high income employees are provided types of payments which are overseas and non-taxable as well. The wealthy actually fuel each others income via charities(tax right off), investments(losses are tax right offs), advertising(tax right offs), etc., .

The only real way to effectively tax the wealthy would be a flat tax rate. Yet this will never happen because too many government employees rely on the complex tax system for jobs.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

I don't have any faith Obama has what it takes to be president. I'm not happy about McCain either, but at least he has stronger experience in the military and businesses.

At what cost does this "experience" come? I honestly don't believe that anyone over 60 is going to be effectual at meeting the challenges of this rapidly changing modern world. We need someone with flexibility and ingenuity far more than we need someone with some tremendous depth of experience in running the country into the ground. Oddly enough, looking back at history, most of the presidents who did the best things for the country, were those who were younger when they took the office.

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Any speeches about raising taxes for those of high income have never worked because there's way too many loop holes... so many the wealthy pay multi-certified accountants to find them otherwise the wealthy would just use H&R Block or equivalent.

I am totally mystified by this argument. Since it will be difficult to try to tax the (exorbitantly) wealthy, you would prefer to vote someone in who has already pledged to reduce taxes on those whom we seem to have trouble getting money out of in the first place? Yes, it will be an uphill struggle to make massive multi-national conglomerate corporations, and their fabulously wealthy kings contribute fairly to the governance of the nation. However, to accomplish this goal, one must try. Only one of the two candidates who stands a chance to be elected is willing to try to fill loopholes, and raise the effectiveness of the system. The other candidate has stated quite clearly, time and time again, that he is in favor of reducing stated taxes on those who can afford them, and in creating more loopholes and deductions for them.

"Tax the poor and feed the rich - and you can be quite sure that eventually the rich will be so wealthy, they will take pity on the poor, and take better care of them."


Trickle down failed so miserably, I am quite amazed that anyone with an income below 100k/year actually believes we can continue in this way.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I honestly don't believe that anyone over 60 is going to be effectual at meeting the challenges of this rapidly changing modern world..

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Any speeches about raising taxes for those of high income have never worked because there's way too many loop holes... so many the wealthy pay multi-certified accountants to find them otherwise the wealthy would just use H&R Block or equivalent.

Top 5% of earners pay 50% of the taxes in the U.S.

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Trickle down failed so miserably, I am quite amazed that anyone with an income below 100k/year actually believes we can continue in this way.

Up until 1904 or so we had no income tax, as such were directly prohibited in the constitution. We seemed to last fairly well without confiscatory tax policies.

Under Obamas tax plan, the top marginal rate including the change to social security goes to about .. 43.1%.

If you add the 16% average local tax burden - and more for those unlucky enough to pay state income taxes... the top marginal tax rate is over 65%.

And in what world is this *fair*? The US govt spends 2 trillion dollars a year - and this is not enough? In what world is adding 1 trillion dollars a year of new government spending a good idea?

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

At what cost does this "experience" come? I honestly don't believe that anyone over 60 is going to be effectual at meeting the challenges of this rapidly changing modern world.

With age the body and mind slow down, but not to the degree you're thinking. Experience in taking a stand is important... not standing by and only voting "present" to pursue a career.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

We need someone with flexibility and ingenuity far more than we need someone with some tremendous depth of experience

Flexibility... you mean by not voting for or against during tough issues. Yeah that's flexible... sit back and just vote present. Good career move not to upset anyone.
Ingenunity... you mean by sticking next to religious figures until those individuals start making him look bad and thus he distances himself from them. Both good career moves, but nothing which shows the nation strong character and strong experience.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I am totally mystified by this argument. Since it will be difficult to try to tax the (exorbitantly) wealthy, you would prefer to vote someone in who has already pledged to reduce taxes on those whom we seem to have trouble getting money out of in the first place?

As I wrote earlier I'm not pleased with McCain, but he knows trying to raise their taxes will not work. Myself or McCain doesn't have 3 hours to explain every little detail. There's too many loop holes in the tax system for the wealthy. If Obama, McCain or anyone was serious about fair taxes they'd either attack these loop holes OR introduce a flat tax.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Yes, it will be an uphill struggle to make massive multi-national conglomerate corporations, and their fabulously wealthy kings contribute fairly to the governance of the nation. However, to accomplish this goal, one must try.

An inexperienced career focused politician won't provide any benefit as president. I see him as a risk where other politicians from his party will try controlling him. Having a president who sits by and votes "present" on every issue is obviously a sign of bad news. At least McCain has a background of being self-sacrificing and doing stuff even his own party disliked which he felt was for the better good.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Only one of the two candidates who stands a chance to be elected is willing to try to fill loopholes, and raise the effectiveness of the system. The other candidate has stated quite clearly, time and time again, that he is in favor of reducing stated taxes on those who can afford them, and in creating more loopholes and deductions for them.

You haven't looked clearly at Obama's track record and don't wish to recognize Obama raising taxes won't change anything. Bill Gates paid ZERO in taxes during 1999, raising taxes is not the answer and if Obama doesn't know this he would be wasting our time/money, but at least he'd let us know he was "present".

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

"Tax the poor and feed the rich - and you can be quite sure that eventually the rich will be so wealthy, they will take pity on the poor, and take better care of them."


Trickle down failed so miserably, I am quite amazed that anyone with an income below 100k/year actually believes we can continue in this way.

Taxing the wealthy is not the answer, neither of the candidates are any good, but McCain has experience and takes a stand. Unlike Obama who sits back voting "present" while we pay him.