I'd argue the biggest reason you don't hear anything about what Obama actually stands for is that it's really nothing new, just the same old long-discredited socialist ideals that have brought untold misery to millions of people. Obama just wraps it up in a nice shiny box, not unlike gift-wrapping a turd.
I've gotta say: I'm sick of the "Change!" garbage.
What I want to hear IMMEDIATELY after the word "change" is from what (this gives us a clue as to their interpretation of reality) and to what (for obvious reasons). Please go into DETAIL during the "to what" portion of your answer.
All the socialists in history have brought about change: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, etc. etc. The change usually involves changing live people into dead people. It's about the only way to bring your non-socialist neighbor into line.
I'm seeing flashbacks to Gary Hart, whose campaign theme appeared to be that we all needed some "new ideas". When pressed to articulate some "new ideas", he allowed as how he didn't really have any. Of course, as is SOP with a politician, he used a garbage truck load of words to do so, but such was the content.
Actually, that's really not true. Take a look at what a conservative friend of mine just posted on my blog:
Boy, I have to admit, I’m starting to warm into this guy, Barak Obama.
“There has been a lot of talk in this campaign about the politics of hope,” Obama said in Iowa the other day. “But, understand this: the politics of hope doesn’t mean hoping that things come easy.”
Being a Conservative, I used to think the key issues facing the nation were national security, the economy, education, etc. But now I wonder if perhaps it isn’t “change” or “hope”. Now, don’t yawn... Sure, it’s hard to wrap your hands around something as ambiguous as change or hope, but he has a way of making it sound so appealing. So fresh.
Hillary Clinton may be running around New Hampshire on her “Ready For Change” tour, but that kind of superficial focus-group change is just the same-old-same-old change. “Change can’t just be a slogan,” says Senator Obama, who’s committed to a Democratic Party “that doesn’t just offer change as a slogan but real, meaningful change; change that America can believe in. That’s why I’m in this race, that’s why I’m running for the Presidency of the United States, to offer change that we can believe in,” says Obama.
Of course, any cynical hack politico can offer “Change” as a slogan, but Senator Obama’s offering “Change You Can Believe In” as a slogan. It’s on the side of his “Change You Can Believe In” campaign bus. “I don’t want to settle,” he declared in Bettendorf, Iowa, “for anything less than real change, fundamental change, change we need, change we can believe in.” Obama is a maverick. He’s reshaping the debate: he’s changing the way we think about change. Every election cycle, “change” is tossed about like a Frisbee but as Obama’s chief strategist, James Axelrod, told Politico, the Senator is arguing for “real and authentic change, not synthetic change”. He’s passionately opposed to “synthetic change.” If you’re looking for a synthetic-change candidate, sorry, he’s not your guy. Include him out. He’ll change his hair, he’ll change his tie, but he won’t change his fierce righteous opposition to synthetic change. In the stirring words that conclude his TV ad in New Hampshire: “This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe - not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours.” I was so enthused I tore off my old “I’m Pro-Hope and I Vote” bumper sticker and replaced it with “I’m Pro-Change and I Believe”. Ask not what you can change for your country; ask what your country can change for you. “I am here,” Obama told the crowd at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, “because I feel a fierce urgency that the time for change is now.”
Real change (for those with an understanding of Webster’s) is a tough sell and I’d hate to be a skeptic and think his change is that very complacent kind of “change” we see every election season. He’s so young and fresh, like Booby and Jack (because I was on a first name basis w/ the dead Kennedys.) that I’m certain we can trust this career politician. Can’t we??
If anyone is curious as to what an Obama administration would look like you need look no further than Venezuela. Obamas rhetoric is identical to that of Hugo Chavez. Anti-free market and pro-socialist.
Why I oppose Obama: 1) He's rabidly anti-gun 2) He's pro-abortion 3) He's pro-gay marriage 4) He's for increasing taxes drastically 5) He's anti-business 6) He's been rated as the most liberal member of the US Senate (which is pretty hard considering the competition) 7) He's too sophisticated to wear one of those American flags on his lapel. Those are just a few of the reasons I oppose him. I would never go to ANY politicans website in order to be informed as to their positions.
>7) He's too sophisticated to wear
>one of those American flags on his
>lapel.
This is the sort of vacuous trivial symbolism that's made me want to stick a screwdriver in my ears everytime I hear a Republican politician talking for the last five years.
Well, Stormy took the words right out of my mouth regarding point #7.
As to the rest
1. Well, we'll see won't we? I say it's up to the gun lobby to change his mind. Of course....what if he changes yours? :)
2. Actually, he puts it best when he says that we can all agree that everyone is against unwanted pregnancy. We need to drastically reduce them. I have posted my thoughts on how to do this which will probably never happen due to the stubborness of both sides in the abortion debate.
3. Yeah, and? What business is it of yours what consenting adults do? If you consider yourself a conservative, you might want to re-think this issue.
4. No, he's for ceasing the tax breaks for the wealthy in this country.
Are you guys conservative? I guess I'm speaking to a younger generation that has a completely different viewpoint as to what a conservative is. I'm 58 years old and the points that you are defending would not have even been considered liberal 30 years ago! They would have been off the charts.
Dennis, Mark is a self-confessed liberal. Most everyone else who comments here is more libertarian than conservative.
Mark:
No, he's for ceasing the tax breaks for the wealthy in this country.
Now, is that income taxes for people with high incomes, or other taxes for people with high levels of accumulated wealth? Because, as others have repeatedly demonstrated to you, those with high incomes already pay a severely disproportionate amount of the income taxes collected by the IRS. (That's a spreadsheet from the IRS in XLS format.) As of 2004, the top 5% of income earners payed 57% of all income taxes collected, and the top 1% payed almost 37%. Those of us who make the median income or higher pay 96.7% of all income taxes.
So, how much do you think we ought to pay? Why does half the working population pay 3.3% of all income tax collected? Essentially, why do they get all the government services we provide, and why do they get to VOTE FOR MORE?
Kevin: I have no problem with libertarians with the exception of the 'war' issue. My conservative social values are mine but I do not impose them on others. Second Ammendment issues are of a different color though. This is paramount to our freedom and cannot be compromised. I'm old-fashioned I guess because I still believe in the outward expressions of patriotism. I was one of those guys who had the misfortune of having to catch a plane home at LAX, after arriving from RVN at El Toro in 1969, and being subject to intense ridicule and hatred from the leftists who seemed to live at LAX airport. I believe in Freedom, not socialism!
Al Sharpton was once asked what percent of income taxes were paid by the one percent with the highest income, and what percent he thought they oughta pay. He responded that they pay less than five percent and they oughta pay fifteen percent.
I have no problem with libertarians with the exception of the 'war' issue.
Dennis:
Most of the commenters here split from the Big "L" Libertarian Party on the subject of the war in Iraq. We're little "L" libertarians - for more individual freedom, less .gov interference, lower taxes, and NATIONAL SECURITY. (One of the jobs that, you know, the Constitution actually lists as being a responsibility of the Federal Government.) I part ways with the Libertarian Party over open borders as well.
"I don’t want to settle,” he declared in Bettendorf, Iowa, “for anything less than real change, fundamental change, change we need, change we can believe in.” Obama is a maverick."
Look, I don't want to bust your chops, there's a long line of people here with lower numbered tickets than mine for that task.
You want to be all moon-eyed over Barak, fine. AFAIC, go be a lemming migration of one.
But even one as "sophisticated" as you can see either the breathtaking naivete or the utter duplicitousness of this kind of rhetoric.
Who does the junior senator from Illinois think he is?
Do you really believe that President Obama is going to make Senator Ted Kennedy dance to a new tune?
Is he going to correct Supreme Court decisions?
Is he going to strong-arm a mid-level bureaucrat on how a Federal contract is administered or not administered.
You really think that this guy has that kind of juice?
Have you nay idea what egos in DC are like?
He's from the Chicago machine, fella.
Obama and his backers are the LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH to want "change", (other than new business cards and free rides on Air Force One).
So, chappie, the good photogenic candidate is flim-flamming you.
And ask yourself this:
The Congress returned to Democratic control two years ago also on the platform of "Change".
Um, you mean politicians don't do, once elected, what they said they would do when they were candidates? And, and, um, they can't just do what they want, once they are elected? Then what's it all FOR?
Kevin, I can't find the link in my folder but if you go back into the debate DJ and I had about taxes you will see that your stats tell only part of the story. I also feel as though I have thoroughly answered these questions during that debate.
"Who does the junior senator from Illinois think he is?"
Well, I think that he thinks he is someone who can improve this country but we have to help him. It's not a free lunch.
"Do you really believe that President Obama is going to make Senator Ted Kennedy dance to a new tune?"
Yes. I think the old school Dems are going to have the toughest time with President Obama. They are out of touch. Look at Hillary's sob fest.
"Is he going to correct Supreme Court decisions?"
If he was smart, he would overturn Roe V Wade. What ones should he overturn?
"Is he going to strong-arm a mid-level bureaucrat on how a Federal contract is administered or not administered.
You really think that this guy has that kind of juice?"
Yes.
"Have you nay idea what egos in DC are like?"
Yes. And the American people are about to send them a wake up call.
"So...how much has REALLY changed?
And why hasn't it?"
Well, this is true. But I contend it is because the Democratic Party has leadership like Harry Reid (total loser) and Nancy Pelosi (really ineffective and wimpy) I blame the Democrats for not doing what the American people elected them to do: stop the most criminal administration in US History.
If Hillary goes down in NH, I think you're going to see a lot of Democrats falling all over themselves to change their tune.
Kevin, I can't find the link in my folder but if you go back into the debate DJ and I had about taxes you will see that your stats tell only part of the story. I also feel as though I have thoroughly answered these questions during that debate.
I can't find it either, but you are saying that 57% of all income taxes isn't enough, so the "rich" need to pay more, right?
Kevin, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure the figure is correct. It's just part of the story.
But you will be happy to know that I thought of a solution to the tax issue in the shower today. Ah, inspiration. Here's the deal: I would have no problem if the rich paid the same amount of taxes next year that they did this year. In fact, how about if they pay less? No problem....only it has to be a law that every taxpayer...and I mean EVERY FUCKING TAXPAYER...regardless of how much money they make gets the exact same level of legal and financial advice that the top 5 percent get.
So, Joe Smith, annual salary of 20k a year gets the same legal team and financial team that Warren Buffet gets as a buffer between anyone or any institution trying to take their money. Now, I know that you are thinking that I am thinking that the government should be pay for it...but no sir, not at all. All of the white collar criminals (lawyers, accountants etc) serving time in our prisons will be put to work, for time off their sentence, to help these people for free. It's a win-win. And here's the best part...
Joe Smith will be able to rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks that rich folk get. Well, what do you think? :) :) :)
Juris, not a troll. I really believe it. Watch what happens tonight. Watch what happens in the next few weeks. Watch what happens if Obama wins the presidency (this is all assuming that he doesn't get killed first). It's going to be a tough row to hoe for a lot of people and the major players in the Democratic party are going to have it the worst.
"They are out of touch. Look at Hillary's sob fest."
I looked at it. It nauseated me.
She never blubbed publicly when it was proven that Bilbo did the cigar bit with Monica Lewinsky, but she turns on the waterworks when she contemplates not getting the Big Chair and then doing the cigar bit on all of us.
This is either a woman with badly skewed priorities or a very poor actress working under a stoned director.
"Yes. I think the old school Dems are going to have the toughest time with President Obama."
Mark, if he hasn't already kissed their asses and sold them his soul, he'll never BE "President Obama".
In fact, I suspect that he has already done so...a Harvard educated telegenic media darling who comes up through Chicago politics?
The pedigree of a neo-Kennedy Kreature if ever I've seen one.
"Is he going to correct Supreme Court decisions?"-me
"If he was smart, he would overturn Roe V Wade. What ones should he overturn?"-your reply
The correct answer is:
NONE of them.
Mark, we're trying to elect a President here.
YOU seem to be trying to crown a King.
There IS a difference. You should know this, how in the world did you ever pass High School Civics?
Fellas, I am not a troll. My point is that people that have a great deal of wealth have the privilege of arming themselves with lawyers and accountants who will always make sure they will stay that way. In some cases, politicians too. Your everyday person does not have this luxury
I think Bilgeman said it best with his writings on serfdom a while back and how we all get there.
That being said, I am thoroughly ill right now that Hillary won New Hampshire. I really don't think I can take four more years of this shit.
I love how Mark there just avoids replying to the people who mention the glaring factual and Constitutional errors he makes.
But remember! He is no troll.
Oh and Mark, if you actually feel like responding to what people say, and not what you feel they said, answer this:
Exactly when did wealthy people give up the right to protect their property from the government and other absolute strangers?
And if you feel that the government's warchest for prosecutions in the criminal and civil courts give them an unfair advantage over the "everyday people", try reducung the amount the government is consuming in taxes, rather than increasing it. A lower percentage of our GDP going in the government would leave more for "everyday people" to spend on healthcare, finacial advice, legal assistance, etc.
I say increasing it since I assume that your plan for universal "If the Glove Don't Fit, You Must Acquit" legal coverage will be carried out by the Federal government, which will need billions in tax dollars, right?
Don't be ill Mark and don't base your happiness on what happens in Washington DC because Washington DC is not the center of the universe. There is still a long way to go until Feb 5 and a lot of back and forth will be forthcoming on both sides of the aisle.
"Did you hear my interview of Kucinich yesterday? Amazing, absolutely amazing. Kucinich started rambling about getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, so I decided it might be time to see if this 10th District Congressman from Ohio actually knew what he was talking about.
He didn't.
Kucinich has a long history in congress of trying to shift the tax burden away from low and middle income Americans onto the backs of the high-achievers. In 2003 he sponsored a law that would give a "refundable" tax credit to protect low and middle income people from having to pay Social Security or Payroll taxes. Kucinich, who is chairman of the "Progressive" (that means liberal) Caucus also proposed something he called a "tax dividend" for every man, woman and child. Well, almost every man, woman and child. He wanted to limit the dividends paid to the top 1% of income earners to only 1% of the total tax cut.
Well, there's our clue. Kucinich doesn't have any idea in the world how much of the total taxes are paid by the top one percent of income earners ... so I asked him two questions:
1. What percentage of total income is earned by the top 1% of income earners?
2. What percentage of total federal income taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.
The answers were astounding. Congressman Dennis Kucinich thinks that the top 1% of income earners earns about 60% of all income, and he thinks that they pay about 15% of all income taxes. The fact is that the top 1% of all income earners pull in about 18% of all income and pay 38.8% of all income taxes.
This is an astounding level of ignorance on such an important statistic. You can excuse a mother of three loading up on Happy Meals for her porky little kids at a McDonalds for not knowing this .. .but a member of the Congress? Remember .. the Clinton tax increase passed the House of Representatives by only one vote ... and Kucinich was there ... there without a clue ... there voting for a tax increase on people he thought earned 60% of all the income but were only paying 15% of all income taxes. Inexcusable."
It's amazing what people just know that just ain't so, ain't it?
It's long past time all the other candidates were asked the same two questions. It might turn out that Al Sharpton is The Smart One.
Mark said: "So, Joe Smith, annual salary of 20k a year gets the same legal team and financial team that Warren Buffet gets as a buffer between anyone or any institution trying to take their money."
I'm not sure how serious you are, Mark, but it's an intriguing concept. Unfortunately, (having worked part-time as a tax preparer for years) I'm thinking that there just isn't very much that Warren Buffet's all-star legal and financial team could do for Joe Smith and his 20K.
Outright cheaters (who should be found and punished) aside, we are up against a simple truth: Nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to.
I *could* file a 1040EZ and greatly simplfy my own tax prep, but I would pay significantly more in taxes. It's worth it to me to put the time and effort into filing 52 pages (in 2006) of itemized deductions, charitable contributions, Schedule C, etc., instead.
Likewise, it's worth it to Buffett and others to annually pay lawyers and accountants a hell of a lot more than Joe Smith will make in his lifetime to find all those deductions and credits and loopholes - put there by *politicians* to reward friends and punish enemies; to encourage this behavior and punish that one - to which Buffett is *legally* entitled.
OTOH, the tax system we have now pretty much lets anyone in the 20K range off the hook. Through various incentives and tax credits, it's quite easy for Joe Smith to get all the tax he's had withheld back and, if he has kids, the EITC will "refund" to him money that someone else paid into the system. (Sorry, Joe - we can't help you with that FICA.)
Other than that, the current system doesn't present the 20K earner with very many opportunities to "rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks". Oh, well.
What would you say to scrapping the income tax entirely and letting everyone from Joe Smith to Warren Buffett keep their entire paycheck, freeing up the bazillions of dollars and hours spent each year on "compliance", bringing all those outsourced jobs back home, luring foreign companies to relocate to the U.S. (bringing jobs with them!) and - best of all - depriving politicians of every stripe of the tax code as a tool to reward their friends and punish their enemies?
"Other than that, the current system doesn't present the 20K earner with very many opportunities to 'rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks'".
I forgot about the seven million (that's right) American children who disappeared in the 80's - the first year that the IRS required taxpayers provide an SSN for dependent children as well as a name...
A troll is someone who is "debating" with other people to see their own drivel on screen and amuse themselves.
You are not hear to have your views challenged. You do not admit when you make errors, or when you are called out on them.
Bilgeman's last couple of posts are just the latest example: You stated that Obama would do something Unconstitutional, and worthy of impeachment - overturn a Supreme Court decision as President. When this was pointed out, you did not say, "Whoops, I meant to say X", or "I forgot that the President cannot overrule the Supreme Court."
You simply pretended it did not happen. Just like you pretend that Obama did not support the ban the sale or transfer of ALL semi-automatic weapons - http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
You spew out drivel about how Obama is going to stick it to the old school Democrat party, but fail to actually explain how he can get elected without them. Unless you mean to say that he is going to pander to them and then lie. If that is the case, how can you know he is not pandering to you?
By the way, Mark, how exactly were you going to provide "the exact same level of legal and financial advice that the top 5 percent get" without the government collecting huge sums in taxes, or "fees"? I assume that you have had another shower since yesterday, so your next stroke of genius should have arrived.
Answer some questions, explain your mistypings to be generous, or be revealed as a troll.
For the uber rich, it makes sense to pay a good accountant or tax attorney $10,000 if they are able to save them $100,000 in taxes. People who make $40,000 per year could hire that same tax attorney but they aren't going to because it wouldn't make much sense to...not as big of a Return on Investment unless they are the kind of people who are stupid enough to pay for a hooker during a vagina storm.
That Joe Smith making $20k per year is more than likely not paying federal income taxes at all. Rocinantes paragraph starting with OTOH is correct.
I'm all for people keeping more of what they earn even if it is defined as "ripping off the government" (barf! oh please...) or "fucking people over".
The golden rule nowadays is that those who have the gold make the rules. Rather than fight against it, I do what I can to minimize my tax burden with my mortgage deduction, IRA, 401K and so forth. I'm going to be paying an assload of taxes this year because I sold some stock in my etrade account to pay for my brand new furnace and air conditioner that I got last year. Yeah, that was money put in that account after taxes from my paycheck. Now it will count as income for me this year and I will also pay capital gains taxes on it because the stock went up pretty well while I had my money invested in it. I love being taxed 2 or 3 times on the same money...gives me a warm feeling in my swimsuit area.
"Yeah, that was money put in that account after taxes from my paycheck. Now it will count as income for me this year and I will also pay capital gains taxes on it because the stock went up pretty well while I had my money invested in it."
Pardon my French, but this does not compute.
If you invested funds "after taxes" from your paycheck, then you have already paid income taxes on those funds. If you invested them by purchasing stock, then the stock is a capital investment.
When you sell the stock, the return of the capital you invested in it is not "income", and so is not taxed. The amount by which the investment increased is a "capital gain", and is so taxed.
"I love being taxed 2 or 3 times on the same money..."
I suggest you visit http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/formspubs/index.html, click on "Publication number", and follow the instructions to download Publication 550 - Investment Income and Expenses. In particular, see Chapter 4.
The (ahem) bottom line is that you likely don't owe as much taxes due to the sale of that stock as you think you do.
Remember, too, the statement by Judge Learned Hand:
"There is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible."
I cashed out a little bit of stock a few years ago and I'm pretty sure the amount I cashed out was tacked onto my income. I don't remember for sure as I just brought everything into H&R block and had the guy do them up and didn't pay much attention. I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're right DJ. I hope to be able to rip off the government even more this year.
Not to worry. You will receive a Form 1099 from the investment company concerning the sale of the stock, and they have to send it to you by the end of the month. It will clearly show the "basis", meaning the amount of money that you put into the stock, and the sale price, and the difference of the two being a capital gain. If this stock is NOT an IRA, i.e. you simply bought it from your checking account, as it were, then then only the gain that you realized, i.e. the selling price minus the basis, is income, and it is classified as a capital gain.
Incidentally, I suggest you browse that IRA web site thoroughly. If you have to fuck with taxes, it is a gold mine of information, and it is always available. I have used the bejabbers out of it over the years and saved a bundle by doing so.
"A troll is someone who is "debating" with other people to see their own drivel on screen and amuse themselves."
That is most assuredly not why I am here. I am here because the few conservatives that post on my blog, amongst all the lefties, said that I should see what's it's like to be in the minority. Since I consider myself to be a reflective practioner, I thought (and still do) it would open my mind. It certainly has. And I am here because it's time that people started listening to one another...like Obama will if given the chance.
"You do not admit when you make errors, or when you are called out on them."
Not true. I have admitted being wrong several times on here. Just because it is your opinion I am wrong, doesn't mean I actually am wrong.
"Just like you pretend that Obama did not support the ban the sale or transfer of ALL semi-automatic weapons"
I'm sure he did. Does that make him "rabidly anti gun." To me, being rabidly anti gun would be outlawing all guns period. What does rabidly anti gun mean to you? And I still think, since he is reflective person, you could change his mind. You will never change Hillary's mind.
"how Obama is going to stick it to the old school Democrat party"
He is going to stick it to them by listening to the other side. He is going to find ways to come together. The Dems want "payback" for the last eight years. I don't. I want progress towards solving problems. Both sides what this country divided. He doesn't. Take some time and go through his web site. He can answer this question much more than I can.
"By the way, Mark, how exactly were you going to provide..."
I don't the exact number but there are plenty of people serving time in prison for white collar crimes. They would provide the service and, in turn, get out of prison earlier and thus, save the taxpayers money. At this point, I just have a general idea about how your average joe could protect his money the way the top 5 percent do. If it could happen, don't you think there would be less cries of inequality and more of what you want?
"Answer some questions, explain your mistypings to be generous, or be revealed as a troll."
So you are going to entrust the finacial and legal welfare of American citizens to convicted felons?
That is your plan?
So Obama is just plain "anti-gun" for wanting to ban more than half the firearms in the United States? Ok, why would I want to vote for someone so "anti-gun" he wants to ban half the guns in the united States?
And Mark, it is not that I think you are incorrect for saying Obama would overturn Roe v. Wade as President, it is the entirety of American Jurisprudence since 1803 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison - that says you are incorrect.
Did you not ever take any courses on our government or legal system?
At this point, it is just an idea. Obviously, there needs to be much more thought put into it. My point was that if you want to have true equality in this country AND have people pay less in tax, then everyone should have the right to "financial defense," right?
You lament the "poor" rich man who pays all that money in tax and therefore how could anyone think this country isn't equal? It won't be as long as my Joe Smith is continually kept in serfdom (thanks Bilgemen, btw, for setting me straight)
"why would I want to vote for someone so "anti-gun" he wants to ban half the guns in the united States?"
If the gun issue is your central focal point, then obviously you shouldn't. But I would hope that other issues trump that one because if Obama is elected, I highly doubt ATF agents will be showing up at your door and confiscating your weapons.
On Roe V Wade, yes I did write incorrectly there. If he was smart, he would appoint judges that would turn the power over to the states again and negate Roe V Wade. He probably will attack the abortion issue from the other way, though, and step up education and birth control efforts. I also think that he would create a culture of responsibility with an emphasis on nurturing individual effort and achievement which would hopefully lead to less people behaving like imbeciles (those who use abortion as birth control)
if you want to have true equality in this country...
I'd rather have true freedom. If you have "true equality" you can't have freedom.
Take the entire population. Put all their money into one pot, then divvy it up equally. Give those people freedom, and within a couple of years, most of the people who were "rich" will be rich again, and most of the people who were "poor" will be poor again.
That's because we're born equal, but we don't stay that way.
Your problem, Mark, and that of just about all the Left, is that you think equality is good. An end unto itself.
It is not. Philosophers understood that long ago. Recall the fable of the Procrustean bed.
Marx never learned that, though Orwell figured it out. If you want to keep everybody equal, someone has to be more equal to enforce the redistribution of wealth. Human nature being what it is, some of that wealth sticks to the fingers of the redistributors. Always.
Freedom is a good, and given freedom the entire society benefits. Our poor people are OBESE, Mark.
As others have said, "poverty" used to mean "unable to acquire enough food." Here "poverty" means "eating off the McDonald's Dollar Menu while watching your 32" color TV."
Sorry, I don't want to be "equal." I want to be FREE.
Mark, how is Obama going to create a culture of responsibility? Magic? Those mind control satellites that Kucinich fears?
He is going to "step up" birth control efforts? Does that mean putting birth control drugs in the water or what? http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Look at the numbers in that study on birth control usage. 42% of the women survey did not use birth control AT ALL the month they got pregnant. of the remainder, 3/4 of the pill users, and half of the condom users say that they used the birth control incorrectly. So more than half of the women in the survey getting abortions CHOSE to have sex when they were doing so in a manner that had a full probability of resulting in pregnancy.
They KNEW about birth control, Mark. They had ACCESS to it. Both the men and the women. So what magic wand is Obama going to wave to make those people responsible?
You seem to constantly ascribe to Obama mystical powers - that last post with its drivel about Obama creating "a culture of responsibility with an emphasis on nurturing individual effort and achievement".
More important to me, Mark, than how the Obama would use his Jedi powers to create such a culture, is where exactly the Constitution says that doing so is his FUCKING JOB as President?
Is there some part of the Constitution written in ink that only liberals can see? Is that it?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/dr.html (60 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Unfortunatley, bright visions with vague language do work.
Where's the link?
Isn't that the very definition of modern liberalism???
Where's the link?
Broken. Fixed now. Sorry.
I'd argue the biggest reason you don't hear anything about what Obama actually stands for is that it's really nothing new, just the same old long-discredited socialist ideals that have brought untold misery to millions of people. Obama just wraps it up in a nice shiny box, not unlike gift-wrapping a turd.
Obama: agent of adjectives?
M
OK, nouns, but that's not as funny.
M
He is vague, but I don't see any of the other front runners (Democrat or Republican) as being any less vague.
I've gotta say: I'm sick of the "Change!" garbage.
What I want to hear IMMEDIATELY after the word "change" is from what (this gives us a clue as to their interpretation of reality) and to what (for obvious reasons). Please go into DETAIL during the "to what" portion of your answer.
Thanks...
All the socialists in history have brought about change: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, etc. etc. The change usually involves changing live people into dead people. It's about the only way to bring your non-socialist neighbor into line.
Wasn't that one of the complaints about Bush in '99 and early 2000, leading up to the nomination - no one really could pin him down to specifics?
Sheesh, you'd think the country would learn.
juris:
Good observation. Actually, I can't fault Obama for not articulating anything more than "Change".
It's not like he's got fingerprints all over any heavy legislation during his Senate tenure of four years, right?
And a lot of the race is getting the electorate comfortable with you.
As you observed, it worked for Bush.
It'd take a stretch for me personally to get comfortable with anyone who came out of the Chicago political machine, but hey...that's why it's a race.
I can see where Dems might feel a similar gut-level aversion to anyone served up through Texas politics.
I'm seeing flashbacks to Gary Hart, whose campaign theme appeared to be that we all needed some "new ideas". When pressed to articulate some "new ideas", he allowed as how he didn't really have any. Of course, as is SOP with a politician, he used a garbage truck load of words to do so, but such was the content.
Actually, that's really not true. Take a look at what a conservative friend of mine just posted on my blog:
Boy, I have to admit, I’m starting to warm into this guy, Barak Obama.
“There has been a lot of talk in this campaign about the politics of hope,” Obama said in Iowa the other day. “But, understand this: the politics of hope doesn’t mean hoping that things come easy.”
Being a Conservative, I used to think the key issues facing the nation were national security, the economy, education, etc. But now I wonder if perhaps it isn’t “change” or “hope”. Now, don’t yawn... Sure, it’s hard to wrap your hands around something as ambiguous as change or hope, but he has a way of making it sound so appealing. So fresh.
Hillary Clinton may be running around New Hampshire on her “Ready For Change” tour, but that kind of superficial focus-group change is just the same-old-same-old change. “Change can’t just be a slogan,” says Senator Obama, who’s committed to a Democratic Party “that doesn’t just offer change as a slogan but real, meaningful change; change that America can believe in. That’s why I’m in this race, that’s why I’m running for the Presidency of the United States, to offer change that we can believe in,” says Obama.
Of course, any cynical hack politico can offer “Change” as a slogan, but Senator Obama’s offering “Change You Can Believe In” as a slogan. It’s on the side of his “Change You Can Believe In” campaign bus. “I don’t want to settle,” he declared in Bettendorf, Iowa, “for anything less than real change, fundamental change, change we need, change we can believe in.” Obama is a maverick. He’s reshaping the debate: he’s changing the way we think about change. Every election cycle, “change” is tossed about like a Frisbee but as Obama’s chief strategist, James Axelrod, told Politico, the Senator is arguing for “real and authentic change, not synthetic change”. He’s passionately opposed to “synthetic change.” If you’re looking for a synthetic-change candidate, sorry, he’s not your guy. Include him out. He’ll change his hair, he’ll change his tie, but he won’t change his fierce righteous opposition to synthetic change. In the stirring words that conclude his TV ad in New Hampshire: “This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe - not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours.” I was so enthused I tore off my old “I’m Pro-Hope and I Vote” bumper sticker and replaced it with “I’m Pro-Change and I Believe”. Ask not what you can change for your country; ask what your country can change for you. “I am here,” Obama told the crowd at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, “because I feel a fierce urgency that the time for change is now.”
Real change (for those with an understanding of Webster’s) is a tough sell and I’d hate to be a skeptic and think his change is that very complacent kind of “change” we see every election season. He’s so young and fresh, like Booby and Jack (because I was on a first name basis w/ the dead Kennedys.) that I’m certain we can trust this career politician. Can’t we??
If anyone is curious as to what an Obama administration would look like you need look no further than Venezuela. Obamas rhetoric is identical to that of Hugo Chavez. Anti-free market and pro-socialist.
Dennis, that's simply not true. Spend some time on his site and read some article about him. He is not a fan of Chavez at all.
Why I oppose Obama: 1) He's rabidly anti-gun 2) He's pro-abortion 3) He's pro-gay marriage 4) He's for increasing taxes drastically 5) He's anti-business 6) He's been rated as the most liberal member of the US Senate (which is pretty hard considering the competition) 7) He's too sophisticated to wear one of those American flags on his lapel. Those are just a few of the reasons I oppose him. I would never go to ANY politicans website in order to be informed as to their positions.
>7) He's too sophisticated to wear
>one of those American flags on his
>lapel.
This is the sort of vacuous trivial symbolism that's made me want to stick a screwdriver in my ears everytime I hear a Republican politician talking for the last five years.
Well, Stormy took the words right out of my mouth regarding point #7.
As to the rest
1. Well, we'll see won't we? I say it's up to the gun lobby to change his mind. Of course....what if he changes yours? :)
2. Actually, he puts it best when he says that we can all agree that everyone is against unwanted pregnancy. We need to drastically reduce them. I have posted my thoughts on how to do this which will probably never happen due to the stubborness of both sides in the abortion debate.
3. Yeah, and? What business is it of yours what consenting adults do? If you consider yourself a conservative, you might want to re-think this issue.
4. No, he's for ceasing the tax breaks for the wealthy in this country.
5. This is just plain silly.
6. By whom?
Are you guys conservative? I guess I'm speaking to a younger generation that has a completely different viewpoint as to what a conservative is. I'm 58 years old and the points that you are defending would not have even been considered liberal 30 years ago! They would have been off the charts.
Dennis, Mark is a self-confessed liberal. Most everyone else who comments here is more libertarian than conservative.
Mark:
No, he's for ceasing the tax breaks for the wealthy in this country.
Now, is that income taxes for people with high incomes, or other taxes for people with high levels of accumulated wealth? Because, as others have repeatedly demonstrated to you, those with high incomes already pay a severely disproportionate amount of the income taxes collected by the IRS. (That's a spreadsheet from the IRS in XLS format.) As of 2004, the top 5% of income earners payed 57% of all income taxes collected, and the top 1% payed almost 37%. Those of us who make the median income or higher pay 96.7% of all income taxes.
So, how much do you think we ought to pay? Why does half the working population pay 3.3% of all income tax collected? Essentially, why do they get all the government services we provide, and why do they get to VOTE FOR MORE?
Kevin: I have no problem with libertarians with the exception of the 'war' issue. My conservative social values are mine but I do not impose them on others. Second Ammendment issues are of a different color though. This is paramount to our freedom and cannot be compromised. I'm old-fashioned I guess because I still believe in the outward expressions of patriotism. I was one of those guys who had the misfortune of having to catch a plane home at LAX, after arriving from RVN at El Toro in 1969, and being subject to intense ridicule and hatred from the leftists who seemed to live at LAX airport. I believe in Freedom, not socialism!
Dennis:
This is paramount to our freedom and cannot be compromised.
You're singing to the choir, but it's a lovely melody and a catchy tune, feel free to continue. :)
"So, how much do you think we ought to pay?"
Al Sharpton was once asked what percent of income taxes were paid by the one percent with the highest income, and what percent he thought they oughta pay. He responded that they pay less than five percent and they oughta pay fifteen percent.
Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?
I have no problem with libertarians with the exception of the 'war' issue.
Dennis:
Most of the commenters here split from the Big "L" Libertarian Party on the subject of the war in Iraq. We're little "L" libertarians - for more individual freedom, less .gov interference, lower taxes, and NATIONAL SECURITY. (One of the jobs that, you know, the Constitution actually lists as being a responsibility of the Federal Government.) I part ways with the Libertarian Party over open borders as well.
DJ, I think I saw that interview.
Funny as hell, wasn't it?
And, I think you described us nicely. Well, most of us, anyway.
Mark:
"I don’t want to settle,” he declared in Bettendorf, Iowa, “for anything less than real change, fundamental change, change we need, change we can believe in.” Obama is a maverick."
Look, I don't want to bust your chops, there's a long line of people here with lower numbered tickets than mine for that task.
You want to be all moon-eyed over Barak, fine. AFAIC, go be a lemming migration of one.
But even one as "sophisticated" as you can see either the breathtaking naivete or the utter duplicitousness of this kind of rhetoric.
Who does the junior senator from Illinois think he is?
Do you really believe that President Obama is going to make Senator Ted Kennedy dance to a new tune?
Is he going to correct Supreme Court decisions?
Is he going to strong-arm a mid-level bureaucrat on how a Federal contract is administered or not administered.
You really think that this guy has that kind of juice?
Have you nay idea what egos in DC are like?
He's from the Chicago machine, fella.
Obama and his backers are the LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH to want "change", (other than new business cards and free rides on Air Force One).
So, chappie, the good photogenic candidate is flim-flamming you.
And ask yourself this:
The Congress returned to Democratic control two years ago also on the platform of "Change".
So...how much has REALLY changed?
And why hasn't it?
Um, you mean politicians don't do, once elected, what they said they would do when they were candidates? And, and, um, they can't just do what they want, once they are elected? Then what's it all FOR?
Kevin, I can't find the link in my folder but if you go back into the debate DJ and I had about taxes you will see that your stats tell only part of the story. I also feel as though I have thoroughly answered these questions during that debate.
"Who does the junior senator from Illinois think he is?"
Well, I think that he thinks he is someone who can improve this country but we have to help him. It's not a free lunch.
"Do you really believe that President Obama is going to make Senator Ted Kennedy dance to a new tune?"
Yes. I think the old school Dems are going to have the toughest time with President Obama. They are out of touch. Look at Hillary's sob fest.
"Is he going to correct Supreme Court decisions?"
If he was smart, he would overturn Roe V Wade. What ones should he overturn?
"Is he going to strong-arm a mid-level bureaucrat on how a Federal contract is administered or not administered.
You really think that this guy has that kind of juice?"
Yes.
"Have you nay idea what egos in DC are like?"
Yes. And the American people are about to send them a wake up call.
"So...how much has REALLY changed?
And why hasn't it?"
Well, this is true. But I contend it is because the Democratic Party has leadership like Harry Reid (total loser) and Nancy Pelosi (really ineffective and wimpy) I blame the Democrats for not doing what the American people elected them to do: stop the most criminal administration in US History.
If Hillary goes down in NH, I think you're going to see a lot of Democrats falling all over themselves to change their tune.
DJ:
Al Sharpton was once asked
You're being very unfair again.
You don't have to know what the facts are, or how things work, all that's important is that you care enough.
Then what's it all FOR?
[Lovejoy, in his office, works a change sorting machine]
Lovejoy: I don't hear scrubbing!
Kevin, I can't find the link in my folder but if you go back into the debate DJ and I had about taxes you will see that your stats tell only part of the story. I also feel as though I have thoroughly answered these questions during that debate.
I can't find it either, but you are saying that 57% of all income taxes isn't enough, so the "rich" need to pay more, right?
Yes. I think the old school Dems are going to have the toughest time with President Obama.
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
he-he-he, oh my...
That sure worked with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, didn't it?
Ya know Mark, you really had me fooled for a while - I thought you seriously believed the things you say. But I'm convinced now - you're a troll.
Kevin, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure the figure is correct. It's just part of the story.
But you will be happy to know that I thought of a solution to the tax issue in the shower today. Ah, inspiration. Here's the deal: I would have no problem if the rich paid the same amount of taxes next year that they did this year. In fact, how about if they pay less? No problem....only it has to be a law that every taxpayer...and I mean EVERY FUCKING TAXPAYER...regardless of how much money they make gets the exact same level of legal and financial advice that the top 5 percent get.
So, Joe Smith, annual salary of 20k a year gets the same legal team and financial team that Warren Buffet gets as a buffer between anyone or any institution trying to take their money. Now, I know that you are thinking that I am thinking that the government should be pay for it...but no sir, not at all. All of the white collar criminals (lawyers, accountants etc) serving time in our prisons will be put to work, for time off their sentence, to help these people for free. It's a win-win. And here's the best part...
Joe Smith will be able to rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks that rich folk get. Well, what do you think? :) :) :)
Juris, not a troll. I really believe it. Watch what happens tonight. Watch what happens in the next few weeks. Watch what happens if Obama wins the presidency (this is all assuming that he doesn't get killed first). It's going to be a tough row to hoe for a lot of people and the major players in the Democratic party are going to have it the worst.
Joe Smith will be able to rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks that rich folk get.
A better stereotype of the politics of envy you will never witness.
Juris is right. Mark is a troll.
Here's a thought - how about people get to keep most of the money they make?
Answer me this, Mark: Up until what year was a tax on personal income UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Maybe we are a school project?
"Maybe we are a school project?"
We oughta be. There are wonderful lessons taught here that aren't taught in schools.
And, the subtleties of that observation are positively delightful, aren't they?
Juris, not a troll. I really believe it.
"More's the pity, youngster. More the pity." -- Manny Manheim
Mark:
"They are out of touch. Look at Hillary's sob fest."
I looked at it. It nauseated me.
She never blubbed publicly when it was proven that Bilbo did the cigar bit with Monica Lewinsky, but she turns on the waterworks when she contemplates not getting the Big Chair and then doing the cigar bit on all of us.
This is either a woman with badly skewed priorities or a very poor actress working under a stoned director.
"Yes. I think the old school Dems are going to have the toughest time with President Obama."
Mark, if he hasn't already kissed their asses and sold them his soul, he'll never BE "President Obama".
In fact, I suspect that he has already done so...a Harvard educated telegenic media darling who comes up through Chicago politics?
The pedigree of a neo-Kennedy Kreature if ever I've seen one.
"Is he going to correct Supreme Court decisions?"-me
"If he was smart, he would overturn Roe V Wade. What ones should he overturn?"-your reply
The correct answer is:
NONE of them.
Mark, we're trying to elect a President here.
YOU seem to be trying to crown a King.
There IS a difference. You should know this, how in the world did you ever pass High School Civics?
Fellas, I am not a troll. My point is that people that have a great deal of wealth have the privilege of arming themselves with lawyers and accountants who will always make sure they will stay that way. In some cases, politicians too. Your everyday person does not have this luxury
I think Bilgeman said it best with his writings on serfdom a while back and how we all get there.
That being said, I am thoroughly ill right now that Hillary won New Hampshire. I really don't think I can take four more years of this shit.
I love how Mark there just avoids replying to the people who mention the glaring factual and Constitutional errors he makes.
But remember! He is no troll.
Oh and Mark, if you actually feel like responding to what people say, and not what you feel they said, answer this:
Exactly when did wealthy people give up the right to protect their property from the government and other absolute strangers?
And if you feel that the government's warchest for prosecutions in the criminal and civil courts give them an unfair advantage over the "everyday people", try reducung the amount the government is consuming in taxes, rather than increasing it. A lower percentage of our GDP going in the government would leave more for "everyday people" to spend on healthcare, finacial advice, legal assistance, etc.
I say increasing it since I assume that your plan for universal "If the Glove Don't Fit, You Must Acquit" legal coverage will be carried out by the Federal government, which will need billions in tax dollars, right?
Don't be ill Mark and don't base your happiness on what happens in Washington DC because Washington DC is not the center of the universe. There is still a long way to go until Feb 5 and a lot of back and forth will be forthcoming on both sides of the aisle.
Gotta love it:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200801/01092008.html#kucinich
Here it is, just for the record:
"Did you hear my interview of Kucinich yesterday? Amazing, absolutely amazing. Kucinich started rambling about getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, so I decided it might be time to see if this 10th District Congressman from Ohio actually knew what he was talking about.
He didn't.
Kucinich has a long history in congress of trying to shift the tax burden away from low and middle income Americans onto the backs of the high-achievers. In 2003 he sponsored a law that would give a "refundable" tax credit to protect low and middle income people from having to pay Social Security or Payroll taxes. Kucinich, who is chairman of the "Progressive" (that means liberal) Caucus also proposed something he called a "tax dividend" for every man, woman and child. Well, almost every man, woman and child. He wanted to limit the dividends paid to the top 1% of income earners to only 1% of the total tax cut.
Well, there's our clue. Kucinich doesn't have any idea in the world how much of the total taxes are paid by the top one percent of income earners ... so I asked him two questions:
1. What percentage of total income is earned by the top 1% of income earners?
2. What percentage of total federal income taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.
The answers were astounding. Congressman Dennis Kucinich thinks that the top 1% of income earners earns about 60% of all income, and he thinks that they pay about 15% of all income taxes. The fact is that the top 1% of all income earners pull in about 18% of all income and pay 38.8% of all income taxes.
This is an astounding level of ignorance on such an important statistic. You can excuse a mother of three loading up on Happy Meals for her porky little kids at a McDonalds for not knowing this .. .but a member of the Congress? Remember .. the Clinton tax increase passed the House of Representatives by only one vote ... and Kucinich was there ... there without a clue ... there voting for a tax increase on people he thought earned 60% of all the income but were only paying 15% of all income taxes. Inexcusable."
It's amazing what people just know that just ain't so, ain't it?
It's long past time all the other candidates were asked the same two questions. It might turn out that Al Sharpton is The Smart One.
Mark said: "So, Joe Smith, annual salary of 20k a year gets the same legal team and financial team that Warren Buffet gets as a buffer between anyone or any institution trying to take their money."
I'm not sure how serious you are, Mark, but it's an intriguing concept. Unfortunately, (having worked part-time as a tax preparer for years) I'm thinking that there just isn't very much that Warren Buffet's all-star legal and financial team could do for Joe Smith and his 20K.
Outright cheaters (who should be found and punished) aside, we are up against a simple truth: Nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to.
I *could* file a 1040EZ and greatly simplfy my own tax prep, but I would pay significantly more in taxes. It's worth it to me to put the time and effort into filing 52 pages (in 2006) of itemized deductions, charitable contributions, Schedule C, etc., instead.
Likewise, it's worth it to Buffett and others to annually pay lawyers and accountants a hell of a lot more than Joe Smith will make in his lifetime to find all those deductions and credits and loopholes - put there by *politicians* to reward friends and punish enemies; to encourage this behavior and punish that one - to which Buffett is *legally* entitled.
OTOH, the tax system we have now pretty much lets anyone in the 20K range off the hook. Through various incentives and tax credits, it's quite easy for Joe Smith to get all the tax he's had withheld back and, if he has kids, the EITC will "refund" to him money that someone else paid into the system. (Sorry, Joe - we can't help you with that FICA.)
Other than that, the current system doesn't present the 20K earner with very many opportunities to "rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks". Oh, well.
What would you say to scrapping the income tax entirely and letting everyone from Joe Smith to Warren Buffett keep their entire paycheck, freeing up the bazillions of dollars and hours spent each year on "compliance", bringing all those outsourced jobs back home, luring foreign companies to relocate to the U.S. (bringing jobs with them!) and - best of all - depriving politicians of every stripe of the tax code as a tool to reward their friends and punish their enemies?
"Other than that, the current system doesn't present the 20K earner with very many opportunities to 'rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks'".
I forgot about the seven million (that's right) American children who disappeared in the 80's - the first year that the IRS required taxpayers provide an SSN for dependent children as well as a name...
Wait, is a troll defined as someone who doesn't respond to every single question asked of him?
No Mark,
A troll is someone who is "debating" with other people to see their own drivel on screen and amuse themselves.
You are not hear to have your views challenged. You do not admit when you make errors, or when you are called out on them.
Bilgeman's last couple of posts are just the latest example: You stated that Obama would do something Unconstitutional, and worthy of impeachment - overturn a Supreme Court decision as President. When this was pointed out, you did not say, "Whoops, I meant to say X", or "I forgot that the President cannot overrule the Supreme Court."
You simply pretended it did not happen. Just like you pretend that Obama did not support the ban the sale or transfer of ALL semi-automatic weapons - http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
You spew out drivel about how Obama is going to stick it to the old school Democrat party, but fail to actually explain how he can get elected without them. Unless you mean to say that he is going to pander to them and then lie. If that is the case, how can you know he is not pandering to you?
By the way, Mark, how exactly were you going to provide "the exact same level of legal and financial advice that the top 5 percent get" without the government collecting huge sums in taxes, or "fees"? I assume that you have had another shower since yesterday, so your next stroke of genius should have arrived.
Answer some questions, explain your mistypings to be generous, or be revealed as a troll.
... your next stroke of genius...
I'm not sure you should use that particular phrase wrt Markadelphia.
For the uber rich, it makes sense to pay a good accountant or tax attorney $10,000 if they are able to save them $100,000 in taxes. People who make $40,000 per year could hire that same tax attorney but they aren't going to because it wouldn't make much sense to...not as big of a Return on Investment unless they are the kind of people who are stupid enough to pay for a hooker during a vagina storm.
That Joe Smith making $20k per year is more than likely not paying federal income taxes at all. Rocinantes paragraph starting with OTOH is correct.
I'm all for people keeping more of what they earn even if it is defined as "ripping off the government" (barf! oh please...) or "fucking people over".
The golden rule nowadays is that those who have the gold make the rules. Rather than fight against it, I do what I can to minimize my tax burden with my mortgage deduction, IRA, 401K and so forth. I'm going to be paying an assload of taxes this year because I sold some stock in my etrade account to pay for my brand new furnace and air conditioner that I got last year. Yeah, that was money put in that account after taxes from my paycheck. Now it will count as income for me this year and I will also pay capital gains taxes on it because the stock went up pretty well while I had my money invested in it. I love being taxed 2 or 3 times on the same money...gives me a warm feeling in my swimsuit area.
...stupid enough to pay for a hooker during a vagina storm.
That one I've got to remember! ;)
"Yeah, that was money put in that account after taxes from my paycheck. Now it will count as income for me this year and I will also pay capital gains taxes on it because the stock went up pretty well while I had my money invested in it."
Pardon my French, but this does not compute.
If you invested funds "after taxes" from your paycheck, then you have already paid income taxes on those funds. If you invested them by purchasing stock, then the stock is a capital investment.
When you sell the stock, the return of the capital you invested in it is not "income", and so is not taxed. The amount by which the investment increased is a "capital gain", and is so taxed.
"I love being taxed 2 or 3 times on the same money..."
I suggest you visit http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/formspubs/index.html, click on "Publication number", and follow the instructions to download Publication 550 - Investment Income and Expenses. In particular, see Chapter 4.
The (ahem) bottom line is that you likely don't owe as much taxes due to the sale of that stock as you think you do.
Remember, too, the statement by Judge Learned Hand:
"There is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible."
Remember, too, the statement by Judge Learned Hand:
"There is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible."
There is to the political Left. In fact, I believe many of them would reword Judge Hand's statement thus:
There is nothing AS sinister as arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
At least where "the rich" (term left intentionally ambiguous) are involved.
I cashed out a little bit of stock a few years ago and I'm pretty sure the amount I cashed out was tacked onto my income. I don't remember for sure as I just brought everything into H&R block and had the guy do them up and didn't pay much attention. I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're right DJ. I hope to be able to rip off the government even more this year.
Not to worry. You will receive a Form 1099 from the investment company concerning the sale of the stock, and they have to send it to you by the end of the month. It will clearly show the "basis", meaning the amount of money that you put into the stock, and the sale price, and the difference of the two being a capital gain. If this stock is NOT an IRA, i.e. you simply bought it from your checking account, as it were, then then only the gain that you realized, i.e. the selling price minus the basis, is income, and it is classified as a capital gain.
Incidentally, I suggest you browse that IRA web site thoroughly. If you have to fuck with taxes, it is a gold mine of information, and it is always available. I have used the bejabbers out of it over the years and saved a bundle by doing so.
"A troll is someone who is "debating" with other people to see their own drivel on screen and amuse themselves."
That is most assuredly not why I am here. I am here because the few conservatives that post on my blog, amongst all the lefties, said that I should see what's it's like to be in the minority. Since I consider myself to be a reflective practioner, I thought (and still do) it would open my mind. It certainly has. And I am here because it's time that people started listening to one another...like Obama will if given the chance.
"You do not admit when you make errors, or when you are called out on them."
Not true. I have admitted being wrong several times on here. Just because it is your opinion I am wrong, doesn't mean I actually am wrong.
"Just like you pretend that Obama did not support the ban the sale or transfer of ALL semi-automatic weapons"
I'm sure he did. Does that make him "rabidly anti gun." To me, being rabidly anti gun would be outlawing all guns period. What does rabidly anti gun mean to you? And I still think, since he is reflective person, you could change his mind. You will never change Hillary's mind.
"how Obama is going to stick it to the old school Democrat party"
He is going to stick it to them by listening to the other side. He is going to find ways to come together. The Dems want "payback" for the last eight years. I don't. I want progress towards solving problems. Both sides what this country divided. He doesn't. Take some time and go through his web site. He can answer this question much more than I can.
"By the way, Mark, how exactly were you going to provide..."
I don't the exact number but there are plenty of people serving time in prison for white collar crimes. They would provide the service and, in turn, get out of prison earlier and thus, save the taxpayers money. At this point, I just have a general idea about how your average joe could protect his money the way the top 5 percent do. If it could happen, don't you think there would be less cries of inequality and more of what you want?
"Answer some questions, explain your mistypings to be generous, or be revealed as a troll."
Well, I hope I have.
So you are going to entrust the finacial and legal welfare of American citizens to convicted felons?
That is your plan?
So Obama is just plain "anti-gun" for wanting to ban more than half the firearms in the United States? Ok, why would I want to vote for someone so "anti-gun" he wants to ban half the guns in the united States?
And Mark, it is not that I think you are incorrect for saying Obama would overturn Roe v. Wade as President, it is the entirety of American Jurisprudence since 1803 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison - that says you are incorrect.
Did you not ever take any courses on our government or legal system?
"That is your plan?"
At this point, it is just an idea. Obviously, there needs to be much more thought put into it. My point was that if you want to have true equality in this country AND have people pay less in tax, then everyone should have the right to "financial defense," right?
You lament the "poor" rich man who pays all that money in tax and therefore how could anyone think this country isn't equal? It won't be as long as my Joe Smith is continually kept in serfdom (thanks Bilgemen, btw, for setting me straight)
"why would I want to vote for someone so "anti-gun" he wants to ban half the guns in the united States?"
If the gun issue is your central focal point, then obviously you shouldn't. But I would hope that other issues trump that one because if Obama is elected, I highly doubt ATF agents will be showing up at your door and confiscating your weapons.
On Roe V Wade, yes I did write incorrectly there. If he was smart, he would appoint judges that would turn the power over to the states again and negate Roe V Wade. He probably will attack the abortion issue from the other way, though, and step up education and birth control efforts. I also think that he would create a culture of responsibility with an emphasis on nurturing individual effort and achievement which would hopefully lead to less people behaving like imbeciles (those who use abortion as birth control)
if you want to have true equality in this country...
I'd rather have true freedom. If you have "true equality" you can't have freedom.
Take the entire population. Put all their money into one pot, then divvy it up equally. Give those people freedom, and within a couple of years, most of the people who were "rich" will be rich again, and most of the people who were "poor" will be poor again.
That's because we're born equal, but we don't stay that way.
Your problem, Mark, and that of just about all the Left, is that you think equality is good. An end unto itself.
It is not. Philosophers understood that long ago. Recall the fable of the Procrustean bed.
Marx never learned that, though Orwell figured it out. If you want to keep everybody equal, someone has to be more equal to enforce the redistribution of wealth. Human nature being what it is, some of that wealth sticks to the fingers of the redistributors. Always.
Freedom is a good, and given freedom the entire society benefits. Our poor people are OBESE, Mark.
As others have said, "poverty" used to mean "unable to acquire enough food." Here "poverty" means "eating off the McDonald's Dollar Menu while watching your 32" color TV."
Sorry, I don't want to be "equal." I want to be FREE.
Mark, how is Obama going to create a culture of responsibility? Magic? Those mind control satellites that Kucinich fears?
He is going to "step up" birth control efforts? Does that mean putting birth control drugs in the water or what? http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Look at the numbers in that study on birth control usage. 42% of the women survey did not use birth control AT ALL the month they got pregnant. of the remainder, 3/4 of the pill users, and half of the condom users say that they used the birth control incorrectly. So more than half of the women in the survey getting abortions CHOSE to have sex when they were doing so in a manner that had a full probability of resulting in pregnancy.
They KNEW about birth control, Mark. They had ACCESS to it. Both the men and the women. So what magic wand is Obama going to wave to make those people responsible?
You seem to constantly ascribe to Obama mystical powers - that last post with its drivel about Obama creating "a culture of responsibility with an emphasis on nurturing individual effort and achievement".
More important to me, Mark, than how the Obama would use his Jedi powers to create such a culture, is where exactly the Constitution says that doing so is his FUCKING JOB as President?
Is there some part of the Constitution written in ink that only liberals can see? Is that it?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>