Once and for all: Why you should vote for Obama

No, I'd only vote for him if HE said he was running. As far as I know, he has withdrawn from the race. Taking his name out of the running. I would absolutely write in the name of someone who said that they were running.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

---

You don't get it, do you?

In the Preamble (which I know the whole song thank you) We the People refers to the whole of the citizenry of the U.S. Why would the term "the People" in the second amendment not refer to the same? If they had meant the militia, they would have said militia or only the militia and not "the People". Do you think our Founders, who pondered over the wording of the whole document, somehow had a grammar error in the Second Amendment?

Too bad your arguement doesn't hold up in the Supreme Court....oh wait, you don't think the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge of laws in this land.

I would suggest you research that statement of yours. I think you will be suprised by what you find.

Let's see an example using the Clintons:


blog.washingtonpost.com... x_returns.html


You are only off by about 30 million in your estimate...........not bad.

Here's some figures from Obama's 2006 return $991,236 in Adjusted Gross Income and he paid .........$318,664 in taxes. He actually got a $40,000 refund, which he applied towards his 2007 return.

www.washingtonpost.com... ma_tax_returns_2000-06.pdf

[edit on 7-7-2008 by pavil]

Last month Obama and McCain's tax plans were compared and analyzed by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Everyone discussing the two tax plans should consider this required reading:

Candidate Tax Plans

Here are some highlights:








This is from the "behavioral economics" model that's all the rage with economists nowadays. In my opinion, it's exactly the kind of thing Government should focus on... Making the "right decision" the easiest course of action rather than the most bureaucratic. It changes virtually nothing, it just puts the emphasis on "opting out" of a private 401K rather than "opting in". How many of us when we were 20somethings "should have" signed up for a retirement plan but didn't bother with it until we had families to think about? I like this idea a lot.



This is another important distinction. In the next decades with China breathing down our necks economically, America will need to do more than shift the wealth around. We'll need to return to our tradition of being a "productive" society. Personally, I think this will be the alternative energy industry, but whatever it is, motivating corporations to be productive rather than just motivated through tax-loopholes would be a major step in the right direction. However, the analysis does go on to say how hard this would be in reality because the tax-loopholes are so hard to control. But it's certainly the right idea.

Bottom line:



The arguments that Obama's tax plan hurts the poor or middle class is wrong. It significantly favors the poor and middle class. Not just with tax cuts, but with tax incentives like the "Making Work Pay" credit or the "Universal Mortgage" credit. Simply using the argument of "trickle down" effect to say the poor are hurt by taxes on the rich isn't seeing the whole picture.

However, the argument that Obama's plan will significantly effect those that make over $250,000 a year is accurate. Personally, I think we're at a place where taxes must be raised on someone. We have an ungodly national debt that has demolished the value of the dollar and led directly to the increase in gas prices, food, etc... We have to climb out of a hole and we can't do that without raising taxes. Luckily we have a cash-cow on the horizon that will offset how much taxes need to be raised. Ending the Iraq War will free up billions, but even with that potential windfall, we need to do something now to free ourselves from the global debt swamp the Bush Admin so unwisely led us into. The earners that benefited most from the policies that led us to where we are today are the top 3% of earners and Corporations, so I have no problem arguing that they should shoulder the higher proportion of the hardship it will take to climb out of it.

reply to post by SKMDC1

---

Excellent post! I wish I could give you an applause!

Although I'm not in the habit of telling people what they "should" do, if people want to know why they should vote for Obama, there's a great reason right there. I'll add it to my growing list!

Of course, if a person makes over 250K, then it would probably go on another list.

Thank you for the information.

Thanks BH. Always good to hear a post is appreciated... typically we only hear the opposite.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

---

This has to be the most foolish post I have ever seen.

The second amendment is very well written, it is your reading comprehension skills that are sadly lacking.

Let's post the second amendment again.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What the 2nd amendment says, in other words, is that people need to be able to form military organizations in order to be able to secure a free state, SO the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This clearly means that people have the right to own whatever military hardware they desire to secure a free state. Which means that if I can afford an M1 tank, I should be able to buy one.

Obama's double talk on second amendment rights is typical of the muddled thinking he regularly puts out there.

Hey Andrew... good post...

I just want to say, I wouldn't vote for any of them cause, well, cause I am a Canadian.

LOL

Actually it's because I don't think the whole US govenment thing is working. I don't know what should be done with their politial system but it need a serious overhaul, and it better happen soon.

Oh, and a far as Obama is concerned, well I don't think, honestly if it is him or someone else, they (being the president) will fall for all the same crap in the system. Sure he sounds good right now, but then they all do before they really become President, don't they?

On taxes this is what I think. If I made lets say 100 million a year and I did it LEGALLY, then I should be able to keep the fruits of my labor, no one should take more money from me because I earned that money from hard work!! That's the thing, people in this country think that they are OWED something, just because they live below average, when in probably more than 75% of the cases, they are in that situation because of their own doing. And just so you know, I only make 35,000 a year.

But then again, if you really want to get into it, you need to realize that the "income tax" (which is tax on your labor) is ILLEGAL. The Supreme Court has ruled on that also, numerous times. The government is stealing from us everytime they tax the average American citizens paycheck.


[edit on 7-7-2008 by Slazer]

Obama's tax plan allows you to keep about $779 more of your own money than McCain's - I hope you make the right choice. There's also talk within the Obama camp of eliminating the income tax entirely for families who make $40,000 yearly or under, I don't know if that extends to folks with no dependents.

Excellent post by SKMDC1 - Do your research people!

I had a thread about this a while ago that went ignored all while the Obama haters cried "he'll raise your taxes!"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Slazer

---

The supreme court huh? care to offer us where you get your information? I can't wait to read it......because i've never heard of it, and surely can't find it.

Let me guess


All the proof is locked away in a dungeon somewhere, 12 miles beneath the surface of the planet, in steel reinforced doors where no human being will ever be able to find it?

Another point to think about when you're wondering who to vote for - Where do all your Federal tax dollars go, anyway?

The answer is roughly laid out in this chart:



MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

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"?

reply to post by evanmontegarde

---

Wow. I had never seen it laid out like that


No wonder the economy is headed south, schools cant keep up, and unemployment rates are soaring.


More than 1/2 of OUR money is going towards a war we shouldnt be involved in in the first place

Conservative values alright: "preserve the values of old" i think they take that a little too seriously. Cant preserve values from 1830 and still expect to progress as as society.

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

reply to post by LLoyd45

---

Who was it that said


bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?


and


"100 years, if thats what it takes"




even if it takes Obama 4 years to rid the war, its still 96 years soon than McCain.

You have to at least give McCain credit for being honest about his intentions. He never tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with a few Clintonesque phrases just to get their vote.

At least give the Devil his dues..

The 16th Amendment was never legally ratified and the Supreme Court ruled that it gave the Congress no new power to tax. And if the income tax is not a direct tax and if it is not apportioned, then it is unconstitutional. The famous case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. arose under the Income Tax Act of 1894. Undertaking to correct “a century of error,” the Court held, by a vote of five-to-four, that a tax on income from property was a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution and hence void because not apportioned according to the census.

The current income tax, or more rightly a tax on labor is unconstitutional, according to this Supreme Court ruling as labor is legally defined as your personal property and therefore is not subjected to a direct or excise tax.

and by the way, stop acting like a dickhead man, I can undestand if someone is being one first to you, but I've tried to have a debate, and I have listened to your views, I disagree with them, but I respect your opinions, and when anyone else disagrees with you, you come off VERY condescending.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Slazer]

reply to post by Slazer

---

I see

So...its illegal for the government to tax our income (via income tax) but the supreme court does nothing about it?


Hmm.

Well, do you think the GOVERNMENT is going to say, "hey you don't have to pay this." Of course not, and same with the Supreme Court. If we're all doing it without complaining then of course they're not going to tell us different.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Slazer]