U.S. Elections

[nykfan845]

How about healthcare and taxes? Certainly nothing remotely socialistic about his approach to those...

I don't see slashing defense spending as inconsistent with socialism at all...

You DO know that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US military, right? It's in the Constitution.

That means every single US president has been a socialist for controlling military spending, lol. Lord knows what some Republicans are spewing today.

And what about taxes?

[Athensfan]

Of course the president is commander-in-chief. There's a massive debt and cutting spending makes sense. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a socialist bent though...

I didn't bring up the millitary. Somebody else did.

Given his druthers, I get the sense Obama would be totally supportive of redistribution of wealth. He and his party make suggestions about tax hikes that support this.

[Faster]

Taxes are an ethical obligation an individual has to society. Without the collective, a single person could not afford anything that they currently have. Think about this, with the advent and stabilization of the tax system around income, there has been a shift to the middle-class on orders of magnitude. The tax system creating the means to a baseline in society has allowed progression for millions of people.

Taxes provide the means for a government to achieve things that an individual cannot achieve on their own. Could an individual go to the moon? Build the Hoover Dam? or the extensive road system within the US?

Obama can be most associated with classical liberalism. A centerist approach that recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of both the state and the individual.

As for defense spending, there has been an 83% increase in defence spending since 2000, there needs to be reduction and there should in just through the reduction of costs directly associated with forward operating. Japan, Germany, Korea, Israel, Canada and a few others need to take the initiative on their own defense. These countries rely too much on US spending and subsidizing through NATO and other bilateral defense treaties. The US cannot afford to defend the 'free world' and shouldn't have to. The US should have an active and deployed military, but they shouldn't have hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women on foreign land as a stop-gap for a local unwillingness to deal with questions of military and defense. Most defense pundits I read are of the belief that we are entering a period where open war in Central Asia and the Subcontinent is not just possible, but likely. The US will not get away so easily, but plans to make the pentagon effecient will not be lost.

[Athensfan]

He's pro-big government and pro-taxation of job creators. That's not what the country needs and there is a socialist tinge to it.

[Faster]

You cannot balance the deficit without a modernization of the US tax system. The US needs to address spending, but they also need to address the short-falls within their own tax system. Obviously my prefered solution would be the introduction of a federal sales tax, but that wouldn't go over too well.

[Soaring]

I find it comical that conservatives call Obama a socialist when the guy hasn't raised taxes, but Reagan raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office, including four times in just two years, and he is their idol and emulation.

Taxes were higher under Bill Clinton, and we prospered greatly as an economy, and guess what? We had a balanced budget. Republicans want to cut funds from the poor, and give it to the rich (oh, I mean job creators). Isn't that class warfare nonetheless? Obama is just fighting for the most helpless in our society, and asking millionaires to pay the same tax rate as I do.

Oh, that sounds pretty socialistic to me...

[deawebo]

That's what i've say during Obama's period (ok that sounds funny) a lot of ilegal imigrats where deported, it was really come to see in the news latis being deported. A reform wirh imigration will be really serious... Yeap, maybe a lot of Americans will want to deport all the latins, guess what... Without latin imigrants, Who will clean your house? Who will take care of your children? Where will you eat tacos? (not taco bell ) Who will be fixing your garden? Its a bit to cruel that... Think about it But unles we see a latin assendant president everything will still the same... Listen to a song called "Mojado - Ricardo Arjona" it reflects the reality in the US with most of Latin countries....

[krow]

I find it comical that conservatives call Obama a socialist when the guy hasn't raised taxes, but Reagan raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office, including four times in just two years, and he is their idol and emulation.

i find it funny that anyone could call him a socialist when all he's done is coddle wall street at the expense of the middle and working classes. jeez, sounds just like what they do in sweden...

[Faster]

No matter what Obama did he was going to be harshly critisized from pretty much every angel. Either he was too close to big business, or too close to this, too soft on terrorism, too militaristic. No matter what he was going to disappoint. There was not a hope in hell he would have been able to be everything to everybody.

Obama has been a stable President. He has been President during a time when people oppose for the sake of opposing. Bush polarized politics in a way rarely seen before. Is the opposition tinged with racism, probably, but it just shows that people are so entrenched in their 'isms' that they cannot keep an open mind.

I had an argument here with someone, he said that an informed voter had a set of views that they voted for consistently and that their vote did not change with changing policy/candidates. I argued that an informed voter would vote based on best candidate and best policy with only minor regard for party. I still believe I am right. But in a world were politics is as divisive as it is today I find people more often vote against something instead of voting for.

I have looked through past elections in the United States and Canada. My vote would have shifted often because of the times, the platform and the policy. Now it seems that people just vote for a banner. And idea that cannot be reasonably statisfied.

[Soaring]

^ Yep, I agree. I am not just a one party guy. I look at all the issues, and candidates, then make up my mind. I purposely don't vote in primaries, because you have to be registered Dem or Repub in Illinois to do that.

Regarding immigration... I am pro immigration. Our country was built on it, and we have a lot of space still . But obviously, it's best for us to have immigrants who want to stay here and positively contribute to our society and not drain resources or government programs. If they come out of the shadows, and pay taxes, it will help the government too.

I am sympathetic to illegals, because I know many are just looking for a better life, and they are not "law breakers" for the sake of it. What I would like to see is the U.S. reform its policy to make it easier for illegals to become full citizens, and also create legislation that allows any immigrants who get a masters or graduate degree to have priority to become U.S. citizens. We need to keep those folks here, instead of having them just go home and compete with us.

There is no way we can deport 15 million people, so it is certainly time to find a solution to the problem, and stop demonizing illegals. I also think it is worthless to build up the fence on the border. People will continue to find ways into this country because they are desperate, so it is fruitless. The best way to limit border crossings is to make Mexico one of our strongest partners. A strong economy in Mexico will keep people home. That's easier said than done.

[Athensfan]

Please. I'm not a conservative. I'm an independent. I wouldn't advocate taking money from the poor to give to the rich. Come on now, Soaring.

I agree the tax code needs overhauling. I'm not opposed to tax increases but I think they need to be evenly distributed. Heavily taxing big business is not the way to go. "Stimulus" packages, aka throwing money we dont have at problems and hoping things get better isnt the answer either. Reagan raised taxes, but primarily income taxes.

We have to raise taxes AND cut spending and nobody's got the guts to do it.

Sorry guys, just not loving Obama. He seems lost. Unfortunately the Republicans are all turkeys. Grim choice.

[deawebo]

Regarding immigration... I am pro immigration. Our country was built on it, and we have a lot of space still . But obviously, it's best for us to have immigrants who want to stay here and positively contribute to our society and not drain resources or government programs. If they come out of the shadows, and pay taxes, it will help the government too.

I am sympathetic to illegals, because I know many are just looking for a better life, and they are not "law breakers" for the sake of it. What I would like to see is the U.S. reform its policy to make it easier for illegals to become full citizens, and also create legislation that allows any immigrants who get a masters or graduate degree to have priority to become U.S. citizens. We need to keep those folks here, instead of having them just go home and compete with us.

There is no way we can deport 15 million people, so it is certainly time to find a solution to the problem, and stop demonizing illegals. I also think it is worthless to build up the fence on the border. People will continue to find ways into this country because they are desperate, so it is fruitless. The best way to limit border crossings is to make Mexico one of our strongest partners. A strong economy in Mexico will keep people home. That's easier said than done.

Agree!!!! If the US goverment would give a chance for having studies or make a special tax, just for ilegal imigrants cuz make the citizens would difficukt but at least treat them better so they would do things better, maybe get in a country ilegal is something really serious but as you said, they are seaching the "american dream" (el sueño americano) for a better life so, the goverment should stop deporting and better treat or talk to make a legislation. Cuz if they still deporting even we (normal latins) are considered "law breakers" for many, when i was at houston airport i heard two kids being afraid cuz i was talking spanish -.- So better make a legislation for a special "immigrant tax" would be a great idea.

[Faster]

I wish Hilary had won.

[Soaring]

Please. I'm not a conservative. I'm an independent. I wouldn't advocate taking money from the poor to give to the rich. Come on now, Soaring.

I agree the tax code needs overhauling. I'm not opposed to tax increases but I think they need to be evenly distributed. Heavily taxing big business is not the way to go. "Stimulus" packages, aka throwing money we dont have at problems and hoping things get better isnt the answer either. Reagan raised taxes, but primarily income taxes.

We have to raise taxes AND cut spending and nobody's got the guts to do it.

Sorry guys, just not loving Obama. He seems lost. Unfortunately the Republicans are all turkeys. Grim choice.

Wasn't calling you a conservative, and I don't believe corporations should be taxed much more, just some loop holes need to be closed, and the elimination of tax breakers to corporations who don't need them (e.g. oil companies). I actually thought it was a very bad decision when Illinois increased the tax on corporations last year to 7%. It will prove to be a blow to new businesses moving to Illinois. I also think spending needs to be put in line, but priorities should be given to not eliminate services to the more vulnerable people in society.

The main issue I have with the stimulus package in 2009, was that some 60% didn't actually go to stimulus projects. It was used for a bunch of Congressional pet projects, and to close government budget shortfalls on the state and local levels. Based on that, it is hard to see the full effect it could have had, but it more less was used to "stop the bleeding" since government budgets were so out of whack due to the drop in tax revenue and overspending.

My main point is rich people should be paying the same income tax rate as the middle income bracket. Also, capital gains taxes should certainly be increased. I don't care if Bill O'Reilly threatens to leave his 10 million dollar a year job because he is too "burdened".

[baron-pierreIV]

Just waiting for your word, Sarah!!

[Kenadian]

#1 reason Mitt is unelectable to most Americans: MORMON.

Seriously, if your religion has to run tons of tv ads to show people that adherents of your faith are 'normal' then your religion is NOT normal... if it was, there would not be any commercials... And the Mormon church is only running these ads to try and improve the public perception of Mitt Romney to get one of their own in the White House... But no, Jesus and Lucifer were NOT brothers. The Garden of Eden is NOT in Jackson County, Missouri. Black people are NOT black because they sided with Lucifer against Jesus in the celestial battle for control of Earth and God punished them for picking the losing side. Native Americans are NOT really Israelites who sailed to America long, long ago... The Native Americans did not get turned from blond-haired blue-eyed caucasians to 'red-skinned' devils because they rejected Jesus's message when he came to America after being crucified in the middle east 2000 years ago. For that matter Jesus did NOT come to America after being crucified 2000 years ago.

I am not a particularly religious person, but I can accept that regardless of the spiritual or supernatural interpretation of events in the bible, the people, places, and general course of events in the Bible were real... There are written records and physical archaeological evidence of biblical events spread across 4 continents... But there is not one single piece of physical evidence of any of the events of the Book of Mormon... not ONE...

If I feel this way and i'm not a part of any organized religion or church, imagine what all of the ultra-conservaitve evangelical weekly church-going Christians are going to have to say.... There is a genuine hatred of the Mormons teeming in evangelical rural corners of America and Mitt will never be elected without their support... and when their preachers, pastors, and priests tell them to vote only for a 'christian' it wont be Mitt... Thus all of the Mormon church's PR efforts... but the problem is a PR campaign cannot undo the simple facts of the core beliefs that make them Mormons and not Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc... Ok, my rant is over for the moment...

A virgin also can't have a baby.

[Faster]

Its called parthenogenesis, though completely impossible in humans.

[Athensfan]

Soaring, the more money you make the larger a percentage the government takes.

And what about estate taxes and inheritance taxes? They're going through the roof.

[krow]

Soaring, the more money you make the larger a percentage the government takes.

yes, but that's only half the story.

the rich are too smart to classify their massive earnings as straight income. let's take an example, shall we? from billionaire warren buffet?

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot. —NYT

and that's who we're talking about - the people wealthy enough to make money on money. Obviously the wealthy pay taxes - and sometimes at a higher rate. But, in essence, this is exactly what we're talking about, and again I'll let the NYT say it a bit more eloquently:

"There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut." —NYT

[Rob2012]

You're right krow, and like the Robin Hood tax (which would harm an economy if introduced without other nations doing the same), it'd be great if tax loopholes, offshore accounting etc. are targetted multilaterally. One country won't do it because of fear of other countries not and business going there instead. It needs a joint effort to sort this.

[Athensfan]

You have to be very careful with taxing unearned income. Who's to decide how much is too much? Who's to say the individuals won't accomplish more with their money than the government ever would? (witness the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) I know several people who are audited almost annually because the IRS doesn't believe they're giving away as much money as they say they are. These people have to go through the expense and stress of an annual audit anyway -- and the audits cost the government too -- our tax dollars at work. The deductions are often nowhere near sufficient to offset the amount of the gifts.

Taxing unearned income is a very tricky proposition that absolutely could lead to a socialistic redistribution of wealth. I do not trust the government to handle the funds responsibly and would much prefer to see them get their house in order by making some tough cuts before coming to the wealthiest Americans for a handout. If the government had demonstrated fiscal responsibility and judicious spending, it might be another story, but they haven't.

[krow]

You have to be very careful with taxing unearned income. Who's to decide how much is too much? Who's to say the individuals won't accomplish more with their money than the government ever would? (witness the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) I know several people who are audited almost annually because the IRS doesn't believe they're giving away as much money as they say they are. These people have to go through the expense and stress of an annual audit anyway -- and the audits cost the government too -- our tax dollars at work. The deductions are often nowhere near sufficient to offset the amount of the gifts.

Taxing unearned income is a very tricky proposition that absolutely could lead to a socialistic redistribution of wealth. I do not trust the government to handle the funds responsibly and would much prefer to see them get their house in order by making some tough cuts before coming to the wealthiest Americans for a handout. If the government had demonstrated fiscal responsibility and judicious spending, it might be another story, but they haven't.

so because taxing unearned income may be "a very tricky proposition," we should just let greedy rich people game the system? oh right, they may - or may not - use that money more productively than the government. well, i don't know about you, but obviously when i think of people i trust more than the government greedy rich people, wall street millionaires, wealthy congressmen and lobbyists, cable talk show hosts, and other assorted 1 percents come instantly to mind.

give me a break. this is the biggest cop out i've ever seen, and not just because it's littered with conservative buzz words but because it breaks things down into such black and white, overly simplistic terms. as if the only two options are either the socialist redistribution of wealth or barely taxing unearned income. no one is asking for a handout - only that their overall tax rates match the rest of the country's. at a time when their overall income is soaring.

rich people do not deserve special privileges just because they feel themselves more capable of spending their money than the government. not when we have lackluster education and health care in this country, sorry.

and about your anecdote - those poor rich people! on the verge of emotional collapse from the stresses of an audit! why can't they get 100 percent of the money they donate back? it's just not fair. it's almost like when you donate you're just, like, giving it away. how socialist! well, it's now obvious to me that charities should be outlawed, but rich people should be able to keep their deductions. oh and deductions should be doubled. someone push that through congress.

[Athensfan]

Please, krow. Youre obviously vert clever and I love reading your posts, but you've conveniently picked and chose which pieces to pounce on and which ones to ignore.

I'm not saying poor rich people. Nor am I offering two polarized options. Believe it or not, it IS possible to have money and a social conscience. Yes there are plenty of greedy money-grubbing types out there, but it's not fair to paint them all with the same brush.

It's a scary day when the government says "we can spend your money better than you can. You must hand it over because we don't trust you with it." Well, guess what? I don't trust the government with it. As I said in my last post, if they had earned that trust it would be a different matter. Why should they be given more money to waste? They clearly don't know how to manage what they have.

I think obscene wealth is obscene, I live a very modest lifestyle. I would still prefer to see a grassroots effort to prompt more people to service, volunteerism, charitable giving and other forms of philanthropy rather than blindly trusting a government that has repeatedly proven itself fiscally irresponsible and hoping things work out for the best.

Those who have ought to give to those who do not, but they should not be compelled to do so by legislation. Yes, we must care for the disadvantaged and marginalized. We must. It's a moral imperative. I do not trust the government to do that effectively. Until they earn our trust, they should not be given any more money to play with.

[Athensfan]

As for your lecture on giving, you have no idea how many people out there give away huge sums of money at great personal cost. There are people who actually choose to live frugally and give the majority of their income away and the current tax code does make things harder for them. Sure there are plenty who hoard for themselves, but your simplistic view of people with means is grossly unfair. The holier-than-thou routine falls very flat and reeks of self-interest and ignorance.

[krow]

Please, krow. Youre obviously vert clever and I love reading your posts, but you've conveniently picked and chose which pieces to pounce on and which ones to ignore.

well i just didn't want you to feel so alone.