Do Obama supporters really, truly

[Sk8Leigh]

End illegal immigration and wages would increase no matter what happened to the overseas bases. Illegal immigration hurts the poor. And it can be stopped very easily.

This I can agree with (except maybe for the "easily" part--but we should certainly do whatever it takes).

 

[momto2girls]

I know it sounds mean, but I really hope that people on the right stop giving money to charity, if Washington wants to keep getting into the business of being the United Way, then so be it.. In our house, we will reduce the amount we give to charities by the amount that Obama raises our taxes.. Then let the left, who believes in taking money from one group and giving it to another, can give away all their money if its what they CHOOSE...

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that our increase in taxes will just decrease our charitable giving. I don't think it is mean. It is just a fact. We only have so much to give. If a bigger portion of our pie is going to taxes, it simply means that a smaller piece of the pie goes to charity. Seems pretty evident to me.

 

[Charade]

the rate will just return to the one you were already paying under President Clinton.... which was far lower than previous taxes...

Ooo.... that's a new spin on it.

How about all the new workers that entered the workforce after the Bush tax cuts. Isn't going back to the Clinton era levels a tax increase for them?

 

[minnie61650]

With Obama's Plan there should be a surplus of 700 billion dollars.

By raising taxes from 35% to 39% on those families making more than $250,000 he should have a 700 billion surplus even after the tax breaks are given to the middle class.
----------------------------

According to the following website the Obama plan would add 700 billion dollars to the Federal budget.

With McCain's plan the Federal budget would have a 600 billion dollar deficit.

Obama, McCain tax plans
June 30, 2008

John McCain's tax plans would have everybody pay a little less in taxes with the wealthiest paying a lot less. Barack Obama's plan would have a the wealthy pay a lot more and would give middle- and lower-income people bigger breaks than McCain's plans. Obama would raise income and capital gains taxes on earners over $250,000. McCain would cut the estate tax. Obama would raise it on estates over $3.5 million.

The tax plans Obama McCain
$227,000 - a year - plus $23,000 more $15,000 less
$112,000 - $227,000 (15% of population) $2,300 less $3,200 less
$66,000 - $112,000 (20% of population) $1,290 less ($500 per worker tax credit for $0 to $150,000) $1,009 less
$38,000 - $66,000 (20% of population) $1,042 less $319 less
$19,000 - $38,000 (20% of population) $892 less $113 less
$0 - $19,000 (20% of population) $567 less $19 less
Tax breaks for all: College credit: $4,000 a year per student in college Double dependent credit: from $3,500 to $7,000
Impact of tax changes on federal budget: Returns $700 billion Costs $600 billion
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Numbers are estimates and averages.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031678,obamamccaintaxplans.article

---------------------------------------------
* Please note Numbers are estimates and averages.

That is why the top figure on the chart is $227,000 - a year ..... They are taking the average of individuals making over $200,000 and the number of families making over $250,000 a year to come with that figure.

Obama's was not to increase tax individuals making less than $200,000 or families making less than $250,000.

----------------------------------------

Again:

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut

$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase


$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax

$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

 

[Master Mason]

None of your business. It's called operations security and if you don't know, you don't need to know.

Okay, in all seriousness, I suppose if you're talking something as simplistic as flight times, then by all means, it's a shorter flight from Iraq to Germany than from NC to Iraq. But that's just talking about soldiers and nothing else. When you add the issue of readiness, number of deployments and equipment, then it's easier to deploy from someplace like NC than Germany. And that's just using Germany as an example. Further, when soldiers deploy from Germany, quite often the military is required to replace soldiers from those units with units from the states (usually reservists). So I would argue that sending a unit from Germany to Iraq has greater implications than sending one from the US.

Also, think about it from a training perspective. For soldiers in Germany, their main mission is to react to events in Europe. So they are set up both training-wise and equipment-wise to do that job. That job is different than deploying to Iraq and while getting up to speed isn't probably a huge issue, the fact is, in places like Camp LeJeune and Ft. Bragg, that's ALL they do.

I don't doubt that everything you say is completely true about the training etc. My point as you correctly surmised was the simple logistics of moving a group from somewhere to somewhere else, not the back fill requirements etc.

So, if for some reason we needed to drop a team in Isreal (that was a random place for example only), if it needed to be done immediately they could be transported from Germany much more quickly than from NC, just for the simple fact that they are about 10 hours closer already.

If we had time to build up forces, such as for either of the Gulf Wars before they started, then I am sure your 100% right that it would be better to pull them out of NC than Germany. So it all depends on what the need at hand requires.

 

[chrisw127]

I don't doubt that everything you say is completely true about the training etc. My point as you correctly surmised was the simple logistics of moving a group from somewhere to somewhere else, not the back fill requirements etc.

So, if for some reason we needed to drop a team in Isreal (that was a random place for example only), if it needed to be done immediately they could be transported from Germany much more quickly than from NC, just for the simple fact that they are about 10 hours closer already.

If we had time to build up forces, such as for either of the Gulf Wars before they started, then I am sure your 100% right that it would be better to pull them out of NC than Germany. So it all depends on what the need at hand requires.

Yes, but we've had to move soldiers twice to the Gulf. We haven't (that I know of, perhaps you want to tell me something? ) had to move soldiers into Israel.

And actually, I agree with keeping our bases open. I just think it's a slightly outdated way of thinking.

 

[simpilotswife]

They put themselves in a possition to be selected for the Job. They went to school, the worked their way up the ladder, usually working 80 hours a week or more on their way up the ladder.

Do they work any harder than the guy working 3 jobs, I don't know, but they certainly have a different skill set. You can't tell me that the janitor at the school, or the teacher, or the cop on the street has the same knowledge base as the President of GE, or any other major corporation.

And some people don't have the intellect to acquire that skill set, are they less deserving or are only the smart people allowed to have money?

I used to have to go to bi annual meetings with the president of Safeway, all the managers would meet in a room and he would start telling us about the state of the company and where it was going etc. Most of the time he was speaking in a completely foriegn language to what the rest of us understood. He was rattling of IBIDA numbers Market share numbers and a host of other things from memory. It's not that I couldn't understand those things, or that I couldn't have memorized them as well, but it is the fact that I had made a choice not to educate myself in that manner or to concern myself with them. He had choosen to do so, and there for was entitled to make what the board of directors was willing to pay him for that knowledge.

I can see that you made the choice not to educate yourself.

As I said, it is about making your life choices to get what's important to you.

And before you tell me that not everyone has those chances, to that I call BS and point you back to your pied piper, who was the mixed race son of a single mom on welfare, but yet here he is a graduate of Columbia, Harvard, and a hairs breath from being the President of the United States. The programs already exisit to to help those that wish to help themselves, we don't need any more of them.

It's not always about life choices. It also requires intellect and being in the right place at the right time. All the hard work in the world won't help someone who doesn't have the intellect. Again does that make them less worthy of having money?

 

[Master Mason]

Yes, but we've had to move soldiers twice to the Gulf. We haven't (that I know of, perhaps you want to tell me something? ) had to move soldiers into Israel.

And actually, I agree with keeping our bases open. I just think it's a slightly outdated way of thinking.

I just picked Isreal out of the air, it could have been anywhere on that side of the world.

 

[Master Mason]

And some people don't have the intellect to acquire that skill set, are they less deserving or are only the smart people allowed to have money?


I can see that you made the choice not to educate yourself.


It's not always about life choices. It also requires intellect and being in the right place at the right time. All the hard work in the world won't help someone who doesn't have the intellect. Again does that make them less worthy of having money?

First off, you have no idea what my education entails, so your comment is nothing more than an attempted personal attack on me.

As for intelect being a requirement to making money, I know a lot of folks that are dumber than bricks, that make a very good living by having learned a trade. It doesn't take a high degree of intelegence to swing a hamer, or weld a pipe, yet carpenters and plumbers make a good living.

But the point still remains that those that worked hard and put themselves in a possition to succed do not need to be punished for doing so, nor should they be expected to compensate those that chose not do do so themselves.

 

[joviroxx]

And some people don't have the intellect to acquire that skill set, are they less deserving or are only the smart people allowed to have money?


I can see that you made the choice not to educate yourself.


It's not always about life choices. It also requires intellect and being in the right place at the right time. All the hard work in the world won't help someone who doesn't have the intellect. Again does that make them less worthy of having money?

Are you saying poor people are stupid? They just aren't smart enough to "be successful"? That those that don't make it basically can't cause they don't have the mental ability?

 

[klofan]

Think it's okay to take money (increase taxes) from those more wealthy to give (decrease taxes or give tax credits) to people less wealthy?

This is just mind boggling to me, that anyone would agree with it.

Do these people really think it's okay?

What's the incentive to do better financially under the Obama plan, as your increase will be lessor so that others can "share your wealth"?

No, they don't.

 

[SplashMtnCrew]

I disagree with this. Unless you have a more precise definition of truely rich.

That teachers are underpaid (a solid fact) is not an argument in favor of confiscating money from people who are not underpaid.

The truely rich aren't making a meger 1 or even 5 million a year that's for sure and they don't use public school teachers to educate their children, they send them to elite, private schools for certainty. As for teachers being underpaid, that may true. But I've never really seen someone recieve a raise and then magically become good at their job either, meaning, a person should be paid based upon their ability and experience and nothing more

And yes having money and being able to buy nicer things WILL and DOES make me happier! For example, I just got a car a few weeks ago and am 100 times happier than I was before! But I fully admit I am materialistic and like nice things.
My point was, some dumb tax credit isn't going to enable me to live the high life, maybe pay rent for a month or two. Yet people act like they are being "robbed" so that people can go out and live like the rich and famous...um not happening!

And for what it's worth, I think EVERYONE's taxes should go up.

I can take you to many, many homes and neighborhoods where people are driving a Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, and etc. who are currently recieving welfare via food stamps and section 8. Does that not concern you? These people can't afford food or rent but drive BMW's. It's like saying, "don't worry about food, I've got that covered, you make the payments on the Lexus" (and I drive away in my Yugo because I don't have enough money left after taxes to drive a BMW) People do "go out and live like the rich and famous...um yeah, that is happening. So on that point we disagree, or at least we see the situation differently

 

[NVDisMom]

Are you saying poor people are stupid? They just aren't smart enough to "be successful"? That those that don't make it basically can't cause they don't have the mental ability?

Nobody is saying that and you know it. Mental ability has nothing to do with rich or poor. Drive has everything to do with where you are on the financial spectrum. If you are driven to do better than those around you, no matter what neighborhood or school, you are going to do better than them. Simple as that. Plumbers can and do make good money, if they are driven to work hard. I've seen some very "smart" people on welfare, because they lack the drive to provide for themselves. Its shameful. If everyone trully worked to their fullest potential then we would all have a higher standard of living because everybody would be contributing more. You know what sucks about that though? This discussion would still be taking place. There will always be those that have more in this world. LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

 

[Jennifer S]

Sadly, OP, I think many people do think that this concept is OK. I'm all for helping my fellow man. I just want to be the one who decides who gets it and how much they get. THAT'S the difference to me.

ITA

 

[joviroxx]

And some people don't have the intellect to acquire that skill set, are they less deserving or are only the smart people allowed to have money?

It's not always about life choices. It also requires intellect and being in the right place at the right time. All the hard work in the world won't help someone who doesn't have the intellect. Again does that make them less worthy of having money?

Nobody is saying that and you know it. Mental ability has nothing to do with rich or poor. Drive has everything to do with where you are on the financial spectrum. If you are driven to do better than those around you, no matter what neighborhood or school, you are going to do better than them. Simple as that. Plumbers can and do make good money, if they are driven to work hard. I've seen some very "smart" people on welfare, because they lack the drive to provide for themselves. Its shameful. If everyone trully worked to their fullest potential then we would all have a higher standard of living because everybody would be contributing more. You know what sucks about that though? This discussion would still be taking place. There will always be those that have more in this world. LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

Actually, the poster I quoted is saying that, at least that's what it sounds like to me and I found it a bit shocking. But I agree with your post. Drive and determination is what brings success.

 

[Free4Life11]

I can take you to many, many homes and neighborhoods where people are driving a Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, and etc. who are currently recieving welfare via food stamps and section 8. Does that not concern you? These people can't afford food or rent but drive BMW's. It's like saying, "don't worry about food, I've got that covered, you make the payments on the Lexus" (and I drive away in my Yugo because I don't have enough money left after taxes to drive a BMW) People do "go out and live like the rich and famous...um yeah, that is happening. So on that point we disagree, or at least we see the situation differently

I don't care what others do. Like I said ***I*** could not live like the rich and famous on a $1000! And I really don't know of anyone who could, so I don't believe all these crazy stories I hear.

And franky I don't get it; how in the hell do you people know so much about other peoples finances?? I mean I know my parents stuff, mainly because I am nosy and know all their passwords, but beyond them I couldn't tell you what my best friends or own siblings make in a year, how much debt they have, or how they pay for the things they buy!

And I thought one of the main things you have to list on your food stamps application is your vehicle!

All I know is *I* pay my taxes and don't b|tch and moan about it all day long or whine about how my money is being stolen! I mean get the **** over it and deal!

 

[HumanLegs]

I think if you make more money you should get taxed more money. *By you I don't mean anyone in particular*

 

[Alyssa88]

NVDisMom- First of all, I do not think you read my entire post. I said I didn't think the solution was to "throw money" at people who need it, but instead to invest it into the education system. I do think that giving people money who most need it would be beneifical but certainly not a solutiong ot the problems I have outlined. Funding of the education system needs to be centralized.

Second of all- I

I wasn't better, My parents made choices for their children so that we could have a better life. We moved from So California when I was young so that we wouldn't have to dodge condoms and needles. My parents sacrificed a thriving business so that their children could go to better schools and live in a safer neighborhood. I was taught that education is the key to success, so I worked my tail off to take advantage of everything that was offered to me. Too many kids don't even ty. Apathy cannot be cured with money. Apathy is prevented by parents that insist their children go to school, use their brains, read, not play video games or sit in front of the tv for hours on end. The opportunities to succeed are their, its a matter of someone CHOOSING to utilize those opportunities, even in the ghetto.

They can't affor to move. Trust me, if they could they would. Like myself, this is the LAST place I wanted to live in the city, unfortunately this is my only option.

Even if the kids go to school and try hard, it is a major struggle. They have WAY less resources. In fact, many children here don't even have the same teacher during the year because so many leave. The books are old and many kids have to share. They do poorly on tests because of the lack of resources and get punished for their performance by being given less resources. It is a cycle. I mean, I personally would have a hard time going to a school knowing I could be stabbed in class.

These kids are dealing with way more than they should. I see too many memorials for dead children struck by stray bullets, and too many kids crying at them. These kids become to desensitized to gunshots and dead bodies because they have to be.


Yes, your parents did well and theirs did not. Why are they punished and forced to repeat the same cycle?

I don't understand how we can expect somebody who may have been lucky enough to graduate from a philly high school (50% chance of graduating) to go to college or figure out a life plan when they have only recived an 8th grade education (that is what, on average, kids graduating from a philly school have).


I may be dirt poor right now but I had one advantage, my somewhat decent education (not a good district or good scores but good enough for somebody lookng to make it). Because of that I was able to go to college and I have a chance of making it. I didn't grow up in the ghetto, I just have to live here now.

Environment affects development. These kids grow up cold and hard, as a form of adaptationt o their environment. The characteristics so many look down upon are what actually benefit their survival.

I feel liek this should be something most can agree on. Take a little money from the wealthy and put into our education system.

 

[NotUrsula]

And before you tell me that not everyone has those chances, to that I call BS and point you back to your pied piper, who was the mixed race son of a single mom on welfare, but yet here he is a graduate of Columbia, Harvard, and a hairs breadth from being the President of the United States. The programs already exist to to help those that wish to help themselves, we don't need any more of them.

Barack Obama is 47 years old. He went to college during the Reagan administration, as did I. (I'm a year younger.) The education programs that you refer to exist, but are now very hard to get, and are getting more restrictive every year. The programs Obama used to fund his education would probably be outside his reach now. As it was I remember having to go into the student aid office and beg for reconsideration every year, because I was always initially denied, even with a disabled mother who was living on a $275/month federal employee death benefit, in a mobile home, and owning no car. They wanted her to pay my tuition -- in what, blood? (I actually was told that I needed to sell plasma to make up more of my share of the tuition.) Back then, my state school cost $875 for 18 credit hours; try to get that price now.

From an ERIC report on the history of the Pell Grant program:
"Applicants whose income and assets produced the highest eligibility for Pell Grants have seen the maximum Pell Grant increase by 50% since 1975-76. During this same time period, the college costs they faced increased about 150%. Pell Grants have lost purchasing power since 1975-76 for six of the eight Pell applicant cases examined in this study." http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1f/f3/88.pdf
That report was written in 1990 -- the situation has detiorated much further now.

Lyndon Johnson set a goal to eliminate poverty in America, and by the late 1970's (when Obama started college), educational grants were allowing people of all races to make real strides to escape it. That trend is now reversing. I don't want new programs for my childrens' generation; I just want the old ones restored to a degree that they can again work as well as they did for me twenty-five years ago. It wasn't easy back then, but it was possible, but now, for many kids it really isn't anymore.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

Why is it supposed to be easy? Things that are worth it, like an education, are things that are worth working to obtain. I worked all the way through college. As did my father and my sister. I earned enough to pay for school. I started at the community college and then a state school. Everyone can do it that way. It may take longer but it can be done.