Is Obama really proposing anything new?

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, what part of the last eight years has gone right? Very little. We're going to get a President from the other party this time, for a change. Someone who is clearly intelligent, who will attack a problem by thinking with his head rather than acting with his gut. That's change enough for me to vote for him.

Let the Democrats go on their wild spending spree of new social programs and run up a 20 trillion dollar deficit by 2012.

Except last time the Democrats were in the White House we had a budget surplus. The Republicans have had plenty of chances to prove they're the party of fiscal responsibility, they've failed over and over.

I feel confident that Obama's progressive tax plan is going to stimulate the economy. Instead of "spreading the wealth" to the wealthy and hoping it trickles down, he's giving us a tax cut while raising taxes on the rich by just 3%. I did his tax calculator, my family of three (soon to be four) will pay $1800 less in taxes. That's $1800 we'll spend on home improvement, on a camping trip, on stuff our kids need. And that is going to stimulate the economy.

That is where the important part is. Well said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Change without foresight, careful estimation of the consequences, common sense...etc. ? Details?

It'd be a lot easier to enter an argument with you if you gave specifics as to what you are talking about. Do I want a socialist nation? LOL...seriously, articulate what exactly your argument is and then we'll talk"

o.k. taxing the rich evil corporations to redistribute to the poor = socialism in most places. I understand so far that Obama wants to increace taxes on corporations so that he can fund welfare and social programs as well as a type of universalized health care.

What do you do when the companies don't want to play anymore, who's going to fund everything then.

You need to look back at past Republican presidents to really understand what you think you are talking about. Taxation is straight up, redistribution of money...regardless of how it's packaged. That doesn't, however, equate to Socialism. This is silly argument and for someone who is Canadian, it's a bit strange that you've bought into the rhetoric without looking into it further.

But let's take the last 8 years for example, under Bush, we had the biggest tax cuts for the rich. The argument was/is that if you cut the taxes on the rich, they will create jobs - commonly referred to as Trickle Down Economics. While Reagan also championed that ideology, he never went as far as Bush did, and in fact increased taxes to stave off a recession. So, even if you believe in that ideology - where are the jobs? The positive economic consequences? In case you haven't noticed, our economy is in the sh!tter...the worst condition since before the Depression and while there are many factors that play into our economy, you have to at least own up to the fact that Trickle Down Economics hasn't worked...at least not in this case and this time in history.

Now getting back to Obama - he's not some lone ranger on his tax policy views. He upholding the Democtratic Party's platform...and that is...to focus a tax policy that most benefits the Middle Class and poor.

[Gigli2008 70]

Well, what part of the last eight years has gone right? Very little. We're going to get a President from the other party this time, for a change. Someone who is clearly intelligent, who will attack a problem by thinking with his head rather than acting with his gut. That's change enough for me to vote for him.

Let the Democrats go on their wild spending spree of new social programs and run up a 20 trillion dollar deficit by 2012.

Except last time the Democrats were in the White House we had a budget surplus. The Republicans have had plenty of chances to prove they're the party of fiscal responsibility, they've failed over and over.

I feel confident that Obama's progressive tax plan is going to stimulate the economy. Instead of "spreading the wealth" to the wealthy and hoping it trickles down, he's giving us a tax cut while raising taxes on the rich by just 3%. I did his tax calculator, my family of three (soon to be four) will pay $1800 less in taxes. That's $1800 we'll spend on home improvement, on a camping trip, on stuff our kids need. And that is going to stimulate the economy.

That is where the important part is. Well said.

I agree. It all comes down to pocket issues. I used the Obama calculator and I will save $1219. Unfortunately not everyone falls in the middle class. Rupa (the OP) paid $27,000 in taxes (see previous post - this thread). How much does one have to make to pay that much in taxes? $27K would give me heart-burn.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Gigli2008

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What do you do when the companies don't want to play anymore, who's going to fund everything then.

This deserves to be addressed all by itself. U.S. companies enjoy many benefits of being here in this country and their success is a result from a country that supports their business...transportation (airports and all that it entails, roads, railways). A company cannot survive without an infrastructure that exists. Their wealth is not created in a vacuum. Oil companies, for example - do they own the land that they drill on? No offense, but I find it odd that you are a product of a Canadian school system and you don't understand these basics. Did you not raise your hand with these kinds of questions back in your High School Civics Class?

Edited October 28, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Gigli2008 70]

What do you do when the companies don't want to play anymore, who's going to fund everything then.

This deserves to be addressed all by itself. U.S. companies enjoy many benefits of being here in this country and their success is a result from a country that supports their business...transportation (airports and all that it entails, roads, railways). A company cannot survive without an infrastructure that exists. Their wealth is not created in a vacuum. Oil companies, for example - do they own the land that they drill on? No offense, but I find it odd that you are a product of a Canadian school system and you don't understand these basics. Did you not raise your hand with these kinds of questions back in your High School Civics Class?

I agree with you. Everyone should know by now how Government is maintained. That Government = public service and for that to work, taxes have to be paid. The ability to dial 911 for Ambulance, Fire Marshall or Police (and expect a speedy response)is an example of your tax dollars at work. No tax = poor public service = substandard living.

[Niels Bohr 72]

As posted earlier regarding Obama's tax plan, there's a market system for which sales thrive on. If a company is unwilling to push growth due to the increase tax which they think may burden their sales revenue. Think Again.

In a basic economics course in college, they teach several markets and the drive on each market based on competition. Now, let us suppose that the tax is increased by a small margin. We can start to see that the demand for high growth starts to decline. This declining of growth in terms create less competition. Therefore, it will create more profit for a company. This profit will be re-invested onto the operational cost of a business. Which implies more jobs.

If the tax on business was not to be implemented, there's a high drive for competition that leads to a decrease in sales. It will turn business into high volume, low profit similar to Wal-Mart. The chances of a business to achieve sales success of high volume, low profit is slim because we need to take into account the infrastructure of the business. Infrastructure includes human resources, information systems, etc...These infrastructure are covered by the profit that is used on operational cost. Since the small business are sufferring from too much competition, we can conclude that they're not making much money. This is compounded by the fact that the infrastructure cost also needs some attention as well. With declining profits, it's a struggle to keep infrastructure cost (operational) at the minimum. Hence, increase tax on business will do alot to alleviate competition. Therefore, increasing profit onto a business.

There's also a long term effect and short term effect. We already know the the government just bailed out the financial systems with 700 billion dollars. This is a short term fix that will prevent a complete meltdown. The long term effect is to reverse the declining growth. To do that, the US needs to strengthen it's infrastructure. By taxing more on business not only it will increase profits for businesses, it will also increase more revenue for the US. This will in turn reduce the budget deficit.

Also, as we know, many of McCain's advisors also contributed to the fall of Freddie Mae as well. That is not a good record to use when trying to fix the declining growth of the US market system. We need a fresh change in ideas such a Obama have suggested by increasing tax on businesses over 250k. This may or may not work, but, it's better than nothing. This will change something, either for the worse or not. It'll change.

There are other reasons, personal ones, that I like to share on my perception of Obama. Throughout his campaign, I haven't heard him overstep his bounds. McCain have associated Obama with being a socialist. However, Obama is not a socialist. First of all, he didn't quite fit the socialist definition as defined in Encyclopedias, or dictionary. And, he's not in the Socialist Party that is already active in the USA. The media blinded their audience by making people believe that the media is trustworthy source for information. As it turned, it is not trustworthy. It's like the comparison I like to make with non-scientist regarding organic versus inorganic foods. A scientist views the food as always organic whether it's genetically modified or not. Whereas marketers and the public perceive organic as grown without any contamination due to growth assistance. My point is we need to clearly put everything in context before we let the media take our attention away from factual information.

[Gigli2008 70]

Well said 'consolemaster' The problem with most people is that they lack the intellectual curiosity to go dig for information themselves and rely on talking points.

As posted earlier regarding Obama's tax plan, there's a market system for which sales thrive on. If a company is unwilling to push growth due to the increase tax which they think may burden their sales revenue. Think Again.

In a basic economics course in college, they teach several markets and the drive on each market based on competition. Now, let us suppose that the tax is increased by a small margin. We can start to see that the demand for high growth starts to decline. This declining of growth in terms create less competition. Therefore, it will create more profit for a company. This profit will be re-invested onto the operational cost of a business. Which implies more jobs.

If the tax on business was not to be implemented, there's a high drive for competition that leads to a decrease in sales. It will turn business into high volume, low profit similar to Wal-Mart. The chances of a business to achieve sales success of high volume, low profit is slim because we need to take into account the infrastructure of the business. Infrastructure includes human resources, information systems, etc...These infrastructure are covered by the profit that is used on operational cost. Since the small business are sufferring from too much competition, we can conclude that they're not making much money. This is compounded by the fact that the infrastructure cost also needs some attention as well. With declining profits, it's a struggle to keep infrastructure cost (operational) at the minimum. Hence, increase tax on business will do alot to alleviate competition. Therefore, increasing profit onto a business.

There's also a long term effect and short term effect. We already know the the government just bailed out the financial systems with 700 billion dollars. This is a short term fix that will prevent a complete meltdown. The long term effect is to reverse the declining growth. To do that, the US needs to strengthen it's infrastructure. By taxing more on business not only it will increase profits for businesses, it will also increase more revenue for the US. This will in turn reduce the budget deficit.

Also, as we know, many of McCain's advisors also contributed to the fall of Freddie Mae as well. That is not a good record to use when trying to fix the declining growth of the US market system. We need a fresh change in ideas such a Obama have suggested by increasing tax on businesses over 250k. This may or may not work, but, it's better than nothing. This will change something, either for the worse or not. It'll change.

There are other reasons, personal ones, that I like to share on my perception of Obama. Throughout his campaign, I haven't heard him overstep his bounds. McCain have associated Obama with being a socialist. However, Obama is not a socialist. First of all, he didn't quite fit the socialist definition as defined in Encyclopedias, or dictionary. And, he's not in the Socialist Party that is already active in the USA. The media blinded their audience by making people believe that the media is trustworthy source for information. As it turned, it is not trustworthy. It's like the comparison I like to make with non-scientist regarding organic versus inorganic foods. A scientist views the food as always organic whether it's genetically modified or not. Whereas marketers and the public perceive organic as grown without any contamination due to growth assistance. My point is we need to clearly put everything in context before we let the media take our attention away from factual information.