Obama pledges unity

[Galahad]

ETA: And to be fair, that is an incremental tax rate, so only after the the 200K/250K threshold is reached does that rate kick in.

It is incremental, but have the proposed brackets been published? I thought it kicked in lower than 250K.

 

[Geoff_M]

My point, which has been lost here, is that you seem to be chastising me (and anybody who disagrees with your statement about the gap between rich and poor for whatever reason) for not having the proper morals. Yet on the other hand, you vigorously object to Palin's alleged interjection of her morals upon you. I find this to be contradictory.

Look, you have to understand that to some people you can only be "open minded" or express a desire to have "unity" only when you agree with them.

You do know that the disparity between the richest and poorest is the highest it has been at any time in our nation's history, right? And also that the disparity between the richest and poorest in the United States is the highest of any nation in the world? These two factors govern how much of the total tax burden the rich should morally bear, in a compassionate conservative economy.

bicker, there's a couple ways you can slice that data. We also have the "richest" "poor" people in our country's history, but that's not an excuse to not try and help them within reason.

As for your desire to use confiscatory tax policy as an instrument of economic, social, and moral "justice", you can't ignore that actions have reactions. And some of those reactions are likely to run counter to your goals.

 

[Galahad]

I found that people move on. Move on and make the best with what your dealt.

Putting the word won in quotes is hardly moving on.

 

[Geoff_M]

Putting the word won in quotes is hardly moving on.

Apparently, our country has also been "destroyed".

 

[mirmartinez]

Apparently, our country has also been "destroyed".

No, it hasn't that was my point.
I feared that he as president would rip us apart.
He didn't .
People moved on.

 

[mirmartinez]

Putting the word won in quotes is hardly moving on.

I honestly do not know how to address his first term win.
I accepted it.

Kinda of like baseball and steriods.

 

[bicker]

Please show me where I said anything about supporting that specifically, or where I claimed I had scripture that supports that issue specifically.

That was the context of my message that was replied to. If you choose not to defend my objections to those replies, that is your prerogative.

My point, which has been lost here, is that you seem to be chastising me (and anybody who disagrees with your statement about the gap between rich and poor for whatever reason) for not having the proper morals.

My comments label political perspectives, and even then, with regard to how moral they are, vis a vis values shared by all significant groups in our society.

Yet on the other hand, you vigorously object to Palin's alleged interjection of her morals upon you.

Palin's intentions are to impose morals that only a percentage of Americans subscribe to onto all. Beyond that, since I'm not female, homosexual, nor afflicted by diseases for which embryonic stem-cell research holds hope of remediation, this has nothing to do with me. Unlike some, I recognize my responsibility to advocate in the interests of everyone, not just myself.

 

[Master Mason]

It is incremental, but have the proposed brackets been published? I thought it kicked in lower than 250K.

If it has, I have not seen it, so I don't know the answer to your question.

I am not in that bracket so in theory it will not directly effect me.

 

[Master Mason]

Unlike some, I recognize my responsibility to advocate in the interests of everyone, not just myself.

And yet you seam perfectly fine advocating against the 5%... Just saying.

 

[DawnCt1]

I am just wondering when we will get our "Little Red Book".

 

[bicker]

And as Obama pledges unity, the Republican Party remains saddled with its intolerant party platform, laced with their intention to continue to try to impose a specific set of religious beliefs on the laws of the land. They should have heeded these wise words:

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Oh, and this as well...

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

And...

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

~ Barry Goldwater

 

[Disney Doll]

I agree with everything but the first point. Unfortunately we have a very uneducated voting force, they get their information in 30 second sound bites and have somehow either not learned or have forgotten how to think for themselves. This goes for both sided and too large a proportion of the population.

This is probably the most concise, true, noteworthy post on the DIS this electoral season.

 

[Disney Doll]

He doesn't. It's a lie desperate members of the Republican campaign are spreading.

You do know that the disparity between the richest and poorest is the highest it has been at any time in our nation's history, right? And also that the disparity between the richest and poorest in the United States is the highest of any nation in the world? These two factors govern how much of the total tax burden the rich should morally bear, in a compassionate conservative economy.

"...how much of the total tax burden the rich should morally bear..."????????? Exactly whose "morals" would this determination be based on? A politician's??? Yes...a politician...well known as the foundation of morality in this country.

That's laughable.

 

[Disney Doll]

Oh, I cannot wait for you to quote the portions of your moral code that justifies such excessive disparities between rich and poor. I've never seen a single statement of any moral code that justifies such exploitation of one's power. As a matter of fact, I think Spinoza proved definitively that a moral code could not be internally consistent with principles that permitted any type of excess. That's not a religious belief, but rather a conclusion of logical reason.

Sorry bicker, but you have made too many posts to even reference arguing against morals being used as a compass in government and about morals not having anything to do with fact or reason and so forth.

It wasn't logical reason to you then, when the subject was something you didn't agree with. It shouldn't suddenly become logical reason now, just because it supports something you do agree with.

Government doesn't provide morals, it provides rules based on facts.

The best tax is the flat tax...everybody pays 10% of their total income. No exceptions for those more or less fortunate. Then it's fair. People can choose to keep their income at a level that makes their tax burden acceptable to them.

 

[Disney Doll]

No, no -- please: Tell me which scriptures advocate specifically an unrestrained, ever-increasing, gap between rich and poor?

Again, we're talking government, not religion bicker.

Your usual desire is to keep the 2 separate.

 

[Disney Doll]

Please show me where I said anything about supporting that specifically, or where I claimed I had scripture that supports that issue specifically. I said my moral code is based on scripture and that I could provide examples that back up my thoughts (on any number of subjects, not only taxes). However, this not being a religious discussion, I won't do that. It would make no difference anyway, and you know that.

My point, which has been lost here, is that you seem to be chastising me (and anybody who disagrees with your statement about the gap between rich and poor for whatever reason) for not having the proper morals. Yet on the other hand, you vigorously object to Palin's alleged interjection of her morals upon you. I find this to be contradictory.

Absolutely 100% contradictory.

 

[bicker]

Charging everyone the same tax, regardless of the fact that that imposes a different level of financial misery on different people, is not fair: Rather, it is a policy devoid of compassion. The elder Bush used to speak of compassionate conservatism, and it is indeed the type of conservatism that Barry Goldwater advocated. It is the true heart of the Republican Party, the heart it had before it body was tainted by the religious zealots. Focus on reducing spending first, instead of reducing taxes first; focus on lowering the deficit and making American worth more instead of putting America further into debt. When the Republican Party abandoned these ideals and adopted the Democratic Party's perspectives on deficit spending it abrogated its claim to supremacy with regard to fiscal responsibility. The Republicans just choose to spend the money differently; they're still tax and spenders just like the Democrats.

But in addition to the Republicans being tax and spenders just like the Democrats, they're also pushing to impose a specific set of religious beliefs on the laws of the land, violating still other conservative principles. They've betrayed just about every conservative principle there is. Meanwhile, the Democrats remain true to their ideals -- why wouldn't people more readily flock to the Democrats?

 

[minnie61650]

It is incremental, but have the proposed brackets been published? I thought it kicked in lower than 250K.

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

$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increasehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

Yep, DH and I are going to be spreading the wealth!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

 

[Galahad]

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

$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increasehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

Yep, DH and I are going to be spreading the wealth!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

Thanks. I've seen that but it's not clear from those ranges if they are intended to demark the acutal tax brackets. The ranges are pretty large. For example, the 2.87 million plus range presumably goes very high - meaning most people will not see a 500K increase. But it's not equally clear how that translates to the others.

 

[rayelias]

"In one week, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope."

If Mr. Obama becomes president, I promise I will do what he requested...
and I quote: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

I will do my best to be a good citizen and show that "dissent is patriotic" (remember that?)