Once and for all: Why you should vote for Obama

Maybe this will help explain Obama's tax policy. Hopefully they put up McCain's as well in the near future.

www.taxfoundation.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Hope this helps

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by WhatTheory
How much is enough??

Again... The ONLY fair tax is a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who earn more aren't penalized for being industrious and those who earn less aren't rewarded for not earning as much.

Yeah, I agree. The flat tax or the fair tax system would be great. This current tax code should be flushed down the toilet.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

This policy is also called


"the rich get richer, the poor get poorer"

Because you dont take into consideration the rising cost of everything

How is it 'the rich get richer, the poor get poorer' when everyone is paying the same percentage?
If the flat tax or fair tax was implemented, the poor would have more money in their pockets to pay for the 'cost of everything'.

It baffles my mind why you think you have the right to take other people's hard earned money and give it to others. That is very selfish of you to want what you did not earn.

reply to post by WhatTheory


I must concur that I too am tired of paying taxes left and right so that it can be redistributed to other people. We have become a hand-out society where everybody expects something for nothing. Don't get me wrong I think we should help Americans who are down on their luck, but it seems that a lot of people get hooked on welfare and begin to feel that the government owes them something. The government cannot solve all of our problems unless we get involved. We have to start demanding and holding our elected officials accountable for their decisions. We complain about gas but continue to buy. Seems like all we do is complain and offer very little solution.

Then we bicker about which candidate to vote for when in reality neither one has a plan. The only thing they have is a best case scenario. By the time they become President a lot of things will have change as well as the candidate's so called plan. And when they do become President, Congress will dictate what the real plan will be and business will continue as usual. Tax, spend, tax, spend. Don't just count the payroll taxes, add up all the other taxes we get hit on from Federal, State, county, and to the city we live in. What percentage of taxes do we really pay once it is all said and done?

I have said this before and will say it again, why do these candidates wait to become president before revealing their so called plans to save America? This is the reason I don't put much faith in what they propose. If you notice both candidates have started to change their views on a lot of issues and that should trouble everybody no matter which side your voting for.

OBAMA Now I agree with Mr. Keyes that the death penalty and abortion are separate cases. Its unfortunate that with the death penalty Mr. Keyes respects that people may have a different point of view but with the issue of abortion he has labeled people everything as terrorists to slaveholders to being consistent with Nazism for holding an opposing point of view. That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in resolving a deeply emotional subject.

This crap is exactly why you should NOT vote for Obama. This man refused to vote against a ban of partial birth abortions (where live babies are removed from the womb, and left in a storage area, ALIVE, to die) because he didn't want people to think he was against a womans' right to choose (more like a womans right to murder another living thing because she was too weak or stupid not to get pregnant in the first place.). He will allow murder just so people won't think badly of him. Hell with that, and any of you that will or would defend such a position.

There is no excuse for that stuff. NONE. It's wrong. End of story.


Stop with the IDIOTIC, ASININE, POLITICIAN WORSHIP. It's disgusting, and why this country is in such deep trouble. Obama is just another lying, slick, say anything to get elected snake that NONE OF US EVEN HEARD OF UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. Please stop with the superstar crap. It's pathetic.

And, in case you're wondering, I'm not advocating McCain or anyone else.

Originally posted by LLoyd45

Originally posted by evanmontegarde

Hmmm...Who was it that started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the first major military conflicts the United States has been involved in since Vietnam (Cold War not counted as a whole)? Who wants to continue those wars and have a permanent occupation of Iraq for "100 years"?

Who was it who said they'd pull the troops out of Iraq in 16 months, and is now hedging on that pledge with the lame excuse of needing to check on ground conditions before making a final decision?

Why didn't he check on the ground conditions and speak to the military commanders first, before he made such a bold pledge to the Democratic voters?

Flip-Flop

Another case of putting words in Obama's mouth. Obama has not changed his position on Iraq at all, you're just believing the lies of the McCain campaign.

Watch:
www.youtube.com...

Notice the date - September 26, 2007. Obama's always held the position he does now, he just offered that 16 month timetable based on estimates and what he hopes to be done.

Deny ignorance

Originally posted by LLoyd45
Why didn't he check on the ground conditions and speak to the military commanders first, before he made such a bold pledge to the Democratic voters?

Flip-Flop

How many times do we have to ask for proof of this alleged "flip flop"? You're falling for the Republican swift-boating tactic, Lloyd. Come on, You're smarter than that!

Watch at 2:08:



Yeah. Deny ignorance

Russert: "Will you pledge that by Jan 2013, the end of your first term, more than 5 years from now, there will be NO US troops in Iraq"?

Obama: "What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq, when I take office, which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind, and cut off funding without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there, to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we are carrying out counter-terrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be 3 or 4 years out."

What more do you need to see that this flip flop charge is a bogus one? Lloyd? What's missing here? Come on. At least admit when you're mistaken!



[edit on 7-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Hmm
i am curious

and this is a real question, so please dont flame

I remember (and its been a long time) hearing something about Washginton DC has a different set of "laws" or something like that when the constitution is brougth up?

Basically - they're not a state, so different things can happen in DC

?

you may want to check this out..
ties it all together.. DC, corp USA, Federal reserve..
Kennedy tried to go against the Federal reserve, and was killed..
Ron Paul understands as well, but he was so marginalized during the campain as to become irrelevent..
Obama will never tackle this issue, he is already sold out to Aipac..

long page, here is a relevent snip..

Corp. USA
Under The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 a private corporation named, ”The District of Columbia”, was formed. It trademarked the names ”THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, ”United States”, ”U.S.”, ”U.S.A.”, ”USA”, and ”America”. It should be noted that this corporation was not simply a reformation of the municipality as its Organic Act was chartered in 1808. Without amending that municipality’s charter, this 1871 Act marked the creation of a new private corporation known as, ”The District of Columbia” (hereinafter ”Corp. U.S.”) owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia. In said, Act Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution the (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national Constitution’s 13th Article of Amendment and the national Constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th Articles of Amendment are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in their constitution.


Corp. U.S. was not well received by the people so Congress revised the Act in 1874 and finalized it in 1878.

Corp. U.S. began issuing bonds to cover the expenses of running government. By 1912 there was more bond debt due than there was money in the Treasury to pay and the debt was called.

Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn’t come up with the money due, its owner (the actual government) was obligated to pay. The Treasury of the United States of America did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either but the seven families accepted all of the assets of the nation’s Treasury along with all of the assets of Corp. U.S.’ Treasury as a settlement of the debt saving the nation from bankruptcy.

By 1913 there was still no money for operating the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn’t do something the people would revolt against them, so Corp. U.S. went to those seven very powerful families and asked if they could borrow money from them.

The Federal Reserve Bank
The heads of those families refused to loan Corp. U.S. any money because Corp. U.S. had already proven that it would not pay its debts back in full. They did however make arrangements and provisions to issue notes (Federal Reserve Notes) like letters of credit while they secured the notes for redemption with real money. On Jekyll Island in 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank privately agreed to so fund Corp. U.S. in their endeavors. Such an action would have been a gigantic violation of law if the government tried such a thing, but there is no law against private corporations making such arrangements.

The real problem is in the name. How does one tell the difference between a corporation going by the name, ”THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, and the government of the Unites States of America?

What’s worse, how do you tell the difference between the ”United States” [a Trust and the body of government that represents the Trust, as Trustees], and the ”United States” a trademark name for, ”The District of Columbia” [a private corporation]?

The answer is simple, you can’t unless you can tell by the context of what’s being done.

The problem gets even larger when you take into consideration the fact that the officers of government are also the officers of the corporation. They were simultaneously appointed or elected into their offices, both in the corporation and in the government at the same time. In virtually every way the name of their offices and their responsibilities as corporate officials and as government officers were coincidental between 1871 and 1913.

There was no conflict in interest because the Corp. U.S.’ purpose was to fulfill the business needs of the actual government.

I’m not going to here go into all of the details and ramifications of the arrangements between Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank. The simple fact is: Where the government couldn’t lawfully be involved with the Federal Reserve Bank, the corporation can be.
www.teamlaw.org...

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

But I know for a fact I'm not wrong. I understand where the Founding Fathers came from. You do not. You are trying to apply redefined words of today to words written 200 years ago. The words meant something different back then, and they are purposely trying to be redefined today to give the appearance the Founding Fathers said something they didn't. It's all an attempt to take away more and more of our freedoms given to us by the Constitution.

You refuse to admit that the 2nd Amendment is a preamble to the 3rd Amendment. You, therefore, do not understand the 2nd or 3rd Amendment, making your opinion useless. You just don't get it, and I'm obviously not going to be able to get to you to take off the liberal blinders and embrace reality, so why bother talking to a brick wall?

Again, there is a reason why conservative Originalists - the people that preserve the original meaning of the Constitution - agree with me, and liberal activists - those attempting to redefine words to strip individuals of individual rights and cause us to rely solely on the government - side with you.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


I can't take this anymore.
Slazer spoke the truth and you refused to consider it.
You clearly do not understand how money works, which is unsurprising - very few people do. See the quote at the end of this post.

Inflation is caused by expansion of the money supply.
Period.
End of sentence.
Aaa, aaa, aaa...
No argument.

You seem to know a lot, yet not enough. You live right by the University of Illinois. Go use the library. Talk to economics professors, but make sure to get balanced and opposing viewpoints. Make sure to talk to other econ professors who are schooled in more than solely just the Keynesian theories and methods.

When Ron Paul lambasted Ben Bernanke during a House banking committee meeting, the traders on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange went nuts with cheering and applause. Why? Because the man spoke the truth. Here is a primer:
www.youtube.com...

Go check out Lew Rockwell's website. What are his ideas about economics and the role government?
Go check out who Ludwig von Mises was. What were his ideas about economics and the role government?
Why was Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve? What were his ideas about economics and the role government?

You've got analytical skills, no doubt.
Just take the time to add some balance to your data, and analyze a completely different point of view.

Inflation is a monetary policy phenomenon. Period.
Phuck central planning - let free markets work. And without crony capitalism and monopoly capitalism, which is what we currently practice.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


"We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets."

So I guess what he's saying is these guns are already illegal so lets make a law to make them MORE illegal? How does that work? Aren't the police already taking illegal guns off the street, or has some evil consevative placed a moratorium on enforcing the laws on the books?

Originally posted by slicobacon
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

 

"We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets."

So I guess what he's saying is these guns are already illegal so lets make a law to make them MORE illegal? How does that work? Aren't the police already taking illegal guns off the street, or has some evil consevative placed a moratorium on enforcing the laws on the books?

Not that I agree with it, but I think his point is obvious. Less handguns on the street in general means less illegal handguns on the street. There are plenty of arguments against gun control, the Constitution being the best, but this isn't one of them. Less legal guns = less illegal guns.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
Not that I agree with it, but I think his point is obvious...
Less legal guns = less illegal guns.

The point is obvious on the face of it. But if you delve beneath the surface, you (generic "you") will realize that the logic doesn't follow.

If the law could be used to reduce the number of handguns, then the current laws would work. Because the law would reduce the criminals' handguns to zero.

Right now, there are some number of illegally owned (illegally bought, illegally transported and perhaps illegally manufactured) guns on the streets. So the current laws ARE NOT affecting them. More laws WILL NOT affect them, they will just take the guns away from the law abiding citizens.

And the illegal guns will still be on the streets, and citizens will be left with no means of immediate protection.

When it comes to tax policy, people should pay for the services they receive from government, which means the super rich who benefit the most from our huge military should be paying for most of government.

What does the average working guy get from the federal government? Not much, if you look into it. The average income earner is getting far less from the fed than they are getting back. That is the bottom line.

Anyone, who is seriously considering mobama or maccain


arrived at a gunfight with a pencil.


In other words, they have no idea what "WE the People" are truly up against


and they won't understand it either...[ and that's not arrogance talking, it's simply experience ]




wiggins is cheering for the enemy and don't even know it...and what is sadder than that is, he has plenty of company...

Originally posted by toasted
In other words, they have no idea what "WE the People" are truly up against

Is 'they' Obama and McCain, or those who are seriously considering one or the other?

wiggins is cheering for the enemy and don't even know it...and what is sadder than that is, he has plenty of company...

I'm not sure it is accurate to describe either Obama or McCain as "the enemy". They are both members of the established order to one degree or another, so therefore they are both suspect at some level. But I'm thinking that "enemy" might be a bit overstating it.

There's a wreck a comin'. Nothing anyone is willing or able to do at this point is going to stop it. The US has decades of mis-behavior that are coming home, and pretty soon, I believe.

Massive deficit spending and using imaginative accounting practices to hide it.

Decades of military adventurism, not related to real defense of the US, but rather projection of power.

Worship of short term profit above all else. And no awareness of anything wrong with that.

Corruption, in both the corporate and government arenas reaching ever more impressive heights.

This has been going on, as mentioned, for decades. The Bush Administration is merely the latest, and in terms of corruption, the most, but by far not the only.

No entity can behave this way indefinitely with no consequence. Not even the US.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

What more do you need to see that this flip flop charge is a bogus one? Lloyd? What's missing here? Come on. At least admit when you're mistaken! [edit on 7-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

I concede the point to you with one exception.. He needs to change his remarks on his web site to reflect what's said in the video.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

It's been one of those red letter days for me.. sigh

Here is the number One reason NOT to vote for Obama

www.cfiflistmanager.org...



"I am writing in strong opposition to the Global Poverty Act. That’s the bill that could put the entire world on the road to United States-funded welfare."

"It is not humane to burden the American taxpayer with billions in additional foreign aid. It is more than unacceptable. And moreover, if history is to be our guide, these monies often wind up lining the pockets of third-world tyrants and bureaucrats who hate America and do very little to help those who are truly in need -- remember the Oil for Food scandal!"

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

You are so ignorant, it's disgusting. First off, quarts of oil have risen in the recent. Castrol had a rather large price increase within the past year, for instance.

Oil isn't the only reason why companies raise prices, you know. Oil isn't a lube place's only expense. What about the increased transportation fees it takes to deliver the oil? It costs more money per shipment of oil because diesel prices are through the roof. Did you conveniently forget to leave that out? What about the increased cost of electricity? You need the lights on inside the garage, you know. What about the increases in minimum wage? I'm sure plenty of lube places pay their workers around minimum wage. Those guys just got a big forced pay increase.

Inflation and government regulations cause the vast majority of price increases. Salaries increase along with inflation. Inflation is only supposed to be 1-2% a year in a healthy economy. It's a lot higher than that now because too much money is bring printed. You don't know what you're talking about, sir.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is the number One reason NOT to vote for Obama

MYTH: The Global Poverty Act would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid. This would require a new tax on all Americans.

TRUTH: The legislation neither authorizes nor obligates the federal government to spend more money. Rather, it seeks to put our current foreign aid programs into a comprehensive strategy involving trade policy, debt cancellation, and private sector efforts to ensure that existing U.S. programs are more effective and efficient. The legislation calls for a strategy to determine the right mix of aid, trade and debt policies and investment. The strategy also includes the private sector, civil society organizations, and the developing countries themselves as critical components in global development.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill would cost less than $1 million to implement.

Source