Obama Gas Commercial

[DarkEL]

Man - this guy is one hell of a speaker.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/gasprices1

[helot2000]

I know the McCainites will lampoon me but this guy could have been an amazing President.  I listen to Bush speak and I want to poke pencils into my ears. I listen to McCain speak and I want to fall asleep.  I listen to Hillary and I tune out within minutes.  Obama is one of the few speakers I've heard in my lifetime who inspires me and could move me to action. 

Read/watch this speech and tell me, which of our candidates today could come close to what you see or read here. 

[DarkEL]

I know the McCainites will lampoon me but this guy could have been an amazing President. 

I still believe that he has the best chance to become president. He's certainly got my vote.

[CSL]

6 to 1 he's President come January when I and just about everyone else on the board is going to be stoked to hear his inaugural address.

[brettmcd]

Yes yes we all know that the most important quality in a president is that he can talk well.     

[Blackadar]

Yes yes we all know that the most important quality in a president is that he can talk well.     

I think you mean "speak well".

[Dan_Theman]

Yes yes we all know that the most important quality in a president is that he can talk well.     

I think you mean "speak well".

*giggles*

To be completely fair, while it may not be the most important quality, convincing people to align behind your plans and vision is integral to the office of the Presidency. 

[denoginizer]

I think he is a wonderful speaker and has some genuinely good ideas about how to change the government for the better. I will be voting for him and I think he is a heavy favorite to win in November.

That being said by the end of his first term his approval rating will be in the mid to upper 40's and not much about the government will have changed.
 

[brettmcd]

Lets see, whats more important, someone who can speak well, or someone who actually has good ideas that are in the best interests of the nation.   I think ill pick someone who has good ideas and doesnt give a good speech, over someone like Obama who speaks well and has horrible ideas.    I just feel like too many people are all in amazement over his pretty words and nice speeches, and arent paying much attention to what he is actually proposing.

[Brendan]

Lets see, whats more important, someone who can speak well, or someone who actually has good ideas that are in the best interests of the nation.   I think ill pick someone who has good ideas and doesnt give a good speech, over someone like Obama who speaks well and has horrible ideas.    I just feel like too many people are all in amazement over his pretty words and nice speeches, and arent paying much attention to what he is actually proposing.

Please enlighten us with specific examples, young brettmcd.

[Dan_Theman]

Lets see, whats more important, someone who can speak well, or someone who actually has good ideas that are in the best interests of the nation.   I think ill pick someone who has good ideas and doesnt give a good speech, over someone like Obama who speaks well and has horrible ideas.    I just feel like too many people are all in amazement over his pretty words and nice speeches, and arent paying much attention to what he is actually proposing.

Ah well, at least you got the *giggles* part of my response, right?  That's all that matters  

- Just messin' with ya, Brett.  I've missed you.

[brettmcd]

Lets see, whats more important, someone who can speak well, or someone who actually has good ideas that are in the best interests of the nation.   I think ill pick someone who has good ideas and doesnt give a good speech, over someone like Obama who speaks well and has horrible ideas.    I just feel like too many people are all in amazement over his pretty words and nice speeches, and arent paying much attention to what he is actually proposing.

Please enlighten us with specific examples, young brettmcd.

Im sure all ill get from you is more snarky bs, but I am weak today so ill attempt a discussion with you again.

Lets see first bad idea is national health care, we cant afford to give all americans the same benefits as members of congress, and the chances of the government running an efficient cost effective health care program for this country is pretty much zero.

He wants to give people who are already here illegally to become citizens, which ignores the rule of law in regards to immigration.

He wants to raise the minimum wage even more, setting wages is NOT something the federal government should be involved in.

He wants to raise taxes on the 'wealthy' to fund more government programs, by reversing previous tax cuts.

He doesnt seem to believe in increased oil drilling in the US as part of an energy plan.   We need to work on BOTH sides, supply and demand to have any chance of working through everything.

Basically all I see is that he thinks more money, and more government is what is needed to solve all of our problems, which is something I 100% disagree with.   This is just a small list of the things I think he is completely wrong on.l

[Blackadar]

Im sure all ill get from you is more snarky bs, but I am weak today so ill attempt a discussion with you again.

Lets see first bad idea is national health care, we cant afford to give all americans the same benefits as members of congress, and the chances of the government running an efficient cost effective health care program for this country is pretty much zero.

*cracks knuckles*

I guess you're weak today because you're ill?  What do you have?  Oh, that's supposed to be "I'll"? 

I've already shown that there's more than enough money for national health care in past threads.  All you have to do is look at our % of GDP spending for health care against other comparable countries.  You'd have a point if we were spending 8% while everyone else is spending 10%.  The problem is we're spending 16% while everyone is spending 10%, suggesting our system is already highly inefficient.  So your claims of "not enough money" are again shown as false.  However, since you didn't respond to this in the other thread, I can't imagine you'd bother responding here.  Those pesky facts are such a bother!

He wants to give people who are already here illegally to become citizens, which ignores the rule of law in regards to immigration.

Somewhat true.  Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.  Of course, McCain's own 2006 immigration proposal was far more lenient.  I'm not a huge fan of this policy either.  But it beats the "we need cheap labor" Bush/McCain plan.

He wants to raise the minimum wage even more, setting wages is NOT something the federal government should be involved in.

Fine, that's your opinion.  However, the minimum wage is in place in the vast majority of the western world, so it's likely here to stay.  I'd be all in favor of eliminating the minimum wage, provided that the laws/administrative rules regarding the right to unionize are no longer entirely slanted towards big business.  I imagine making it easier for unions to form and workers to collectively bargain would be far more expensive than eliminating the minimum wage. 

He wants to raise taxes on the 'wealthy' to fund more government programs, by reversing previous tax cuts.

There's a reason why the gap between the rich and everyone else keeps growing - between both the Bush tax breaks and the corporate welfare (which overwhelming favors the rich), it's time to bring things back in balance.  Unfortunately, those who have been led down the false conservative fiscal path continue to neglect that corporate welfare is another form of a wealth tax break.

The distribution of income is out of whack.  Across the country, average incomes fell 2.5 percent from 1998-2000 with 2004-06 for the bottom fifth of families, while edging up 1.3 percent for those in the middle. The top fifth registered a 9.1 percent gain.  That's pathetic and that trend needs to change.  The far-reaching social consequences of failing to act are scary...history shows what happens when wealth is overly concentrated. 

He doesnt seem to believe in increased oil drilling in the US as part of an energy plan.   We need to work on BOTH sides, supply and demand to have any chance of working through everything.

The problem really isn't oil supply, it's refinery capacity.  And no one is moving to build a new one because refineries are enjoying getting rich with $3.75 gas.  Plus, where do you plan on drilling?  Hell, if you're so gung-ho on helping Americans, can't we just take some of the Iraqi oil with our 160,000 troops (and over 100,000 contractors/mercenaries)?  Again, I'll let the oil companies start drilling when they start paying a fair price for the rights to the oil (and minerals, and lumber, and so forth).  As it is, the taxpayer ends up shouldering the burden to allow these companies to take resources from our land.  But when we're paying for logging roads and mineral rights are being given away for pennies on the dollar, I have little incentive to open up any more public lands to be raped at our expense. 

Basically all I see is that he thinks more money, and more government is what is needed to solve all of our problems, which is something I 100% disagree with.   This is just a small list of the things I think he is completely wrong on.

I certainly don't agree with all of his positions.  But they are far superior to the shortsighted policies of the Republicans, which has gotten us nothing but debt, runaway military spending, corporate welfare, the erosion of civil rights and the hatred of the rest of the world.  That isn't progress...

[Brendan]

Basically all I see is that he thinks more money, and more government is what is needed to solve all of our problems, which is something I 100% disagree with.

Mr. brettmcd, if fiscal responsibility is what you're looking for, you won't be voting McCain this November.

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s economic plan is a series of tax cuts that would largely benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is calling for cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was created to apply to wealthy taxpayers but now also affects some in the middle class, would reduce revenues by $60 billion annually. He also would double the exemption that can be claimed for dependents, which would cost the government $65 billion.

So, we really can't afford health care for the fifteen million uninsured children, huh?  Oh, but we can afford to give away 100 billions to corporations?  That's pretty ingenious.

[brettmcd]

Basically all I see is that he thinks more money, and more government is what is needed to solve all of our problems, which is something I 100% disagree with.

Mr. brettmcd, if fiscal responsibility is what you're looking for, you won't be voting McCain this November.

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s economic plan is a series of tax cuts that would largely benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is calling for cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was created to apply to wealthy taxpayers but now also affects some in the middle class, would reduce revenues by $60 billion annually. He also would double the exemption that can be claimed for dependents, which would cost the government $65 billion.

So, we really can't afford health care for the fifteen million uninsured children, huh?  Oh, but we can afford to give away 100 billions to corporations?  That's pretty ingenious.

You are making the mistake of thinking that I am somehow a republican who would be voting for McCain, you would be wrong, as usual.

[Canuck]

Who should be responsible for setting the minimum wage if not the government?  If the government doesn't do it then I can only imagine that there would be NO minimum wage which would only lead to bad things.  Do you think it's wrong for poor people to make at least 7 bucks an hour?

[brettmcd]

Who should be responsible for setting the minimum wage if not the government?  If the government doesn't do it then I can only imagine that there would be NO minimum wage which would only lead to bad things.  Do you think it's wrong for poor people to make at least 7 bucks an hour?

I dont think the federal government should be setting wages for the entire country.   If a specific state wants to do that for their own state, I would still disagree with it, but at least the state has the actual authority to do so.

[Brendan]

Basically all I see is that he thinks more money, and more government is what is needed to solve all of our problems, which is something I 100% disagree with.

Mr. brettmcd, if fiscal responsibility is what you're looking for, you won't be voting McCain this November.

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s economic plan is a series of tax cuts that would largely benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is calling for cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was created to apply to wealthy taxpayers but now also affects some in the middle class, would reduce revenues by $60 billion annually. He also would double the exemption that can be claimed for dependents, which would cost the government $65 billion.

So, we really can't afford health care for the fifteen million uninsured children, huh?  Oh, but we can afford to give away 100 billions to corporations?  That's pretty ingenious.

You are making the mistake of thinking that I am somehow a republican who would be voting for McCain, you would be wrong, as usual.

I don't care what party you belong to (or not), but your usual modus operandii here is to complain about democrats and agitate for no taxes.  Unless you're one of those people who actually votes for the Constitution Party candidate (which, to be clear, would be awesome and explanatory), I would be very surprised if you didn't vote for a republican.  Regardless, I'm glad you're now aware that the fiscally irresponsible party continues to be the Rs, as hopefully that will inform future rants.

[brettmcd]

Basically all I see is that he thinks more money, and more government is what is needed to solve all of our problems, which is something I 100% disagree with.

Mr. brettmcd, if fiscal responsibility is what you're looking for, you won't be voting McCain this November.

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s economic plan is a series of tax cuts that would largely benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is calling for cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was created to apply to wealthy taxpayers but now also affects some in the middle class, would reduce revenues by $60 billion annually. He also would double the exemption that can be claimed for dependents, which would cost the government $65 billion.

So, we really can't afford health care for the fifteen million uninsured children, huh?  Oh, but we can afford to give away 100 billions to corporations?  That's pretty ingenious.

You are making the mistake of thinking that I am somehow a republican who would be voting for McCain, you would be wrong, as usual.

I don't care what party you belong to (or not), but your usual modus operandii here is to complain about democrats and agitate for no taxes.  Unless you're one of those people who actually votes for the Constitution Party candidate (which, to be clear, would be awesome and explanatory), I would be very surprised if you didn't vote for a republican.  Regardless, I'm glad you're now aware that the fiscally irresponsible party continues to be the Rs, as hopefully that will inform future rants.

I do vote 3rd party in each election, as I cannot stand either major party.  I do hope that you dont somehow think that the repubs are the only fiscally irresponsible party, as that is most certainly not the case, as BOTH major parties can equally claim that title.

[Hamsterball_Z]

Who should be responsible for setting the minimum wage if not the government?  If the government doesn't do it then I can only imagine that there would be NO minimum wage which would only lead to bad things.  Do you think it's wrong for poor people to make at least 7 bucks an hour?

I dont think the federal government should be setting wages for the entire country.   If a specific state wants to do that for their own state, I would still disagree with it, but at least the state has the actual authority to do so.

Well then this map should make you happy.  It shows that the states are free to set their own minimum wage laws.  There are 3 that have lower than federal and 5 that have no minimum wage at all.  Only 10 follow federal, the remaining 32 have theirs higher.

[Ironrod]

Who should be responsible for setting the minimum wage if not the government?  If the government doesn't do it then I can only imagine that there would be NO minimum wage which would only lead to bad things.  Do you think it's wrong for poor people to make at least 7 bucks an hour?

I dont think the federal government should be setting wages for the entire country.   If a specific state wants to do that for their own state, I would still disagree with it, but at least the state has the actual authority to do so.

Well then this map should make you happy.  It shows that the states are free to set their own minimum wage laws.  There are 3 that have lower than federal and 5 that have no minimum wage at all.  Only 10 follow federal, the remaining 32 have theirs higher.

Nice theory except for this: "Note: Where Federal and state law have different minimum wage rates, the higher standard applies." So much for lower/no minimum wage.

[ATB]

I love that commercial and if Obama gets the nom, I'm going to think long and hard about voting for him.

That said, if Hilary gets the nom, I'll have to vote against her.


BTW- I'm an independent.

[Blackadar]

I do vote 3rd party in each election, as I cannot stand either major party.  I do hope that you dont somehow think that the repubs are the only fiscally irresponsible party, as that is most certainly not the case, as BOTH major parties can equally claim that title.

Not for the last 30-odd years.  We've already seen that graph in another thread.   http://www.gamingtrend.com/forums/index.php/topic,25629.0.html

8 years of Reagan (R)- split Congress - record debs.
4 years of Bush (R) - Democratic Congress - record debs.
8 years of Clinton (D) - Democratic/Republican Congress - dramatically reduced debts.
8 years of Bush (R) - Republican/Democratic Congress - record debts.

There's not but one commonality there...

I think the Dems have a bad rap from the FDR/Truman/JFK/LBJ years.  There was a lot of spending back then.  And I believe that, left to their own devices, they're not fiscally responsible.  However, the Republicans spend just as much but they want to have their cake and eat it too - so they reduce taxes (especially on corporations and the rich) but continue to spend.  Hence the reason their debts are so out of line.  As such, the more fiscally responsible party is now the Democrats.  But both of them show the same fiscal responsibility as a drunken sailor on shore leave...

[Ironrod]

8 years of Reagan (R)- split Congress - record debs.
4 years of Bush (R) - Democratic Congress - record debs.
8 years of Clinton (D) - Democratic/Republican Congress - dramatically reduced debts.
8 years of Bush (R) - Republican/Democratic Congress - record debts.

Maybe this says more about undertaxing than overspending. A graph of federal spending in constant dollars rises at a pretty steady pace throughout the 20th century, with a couple of war-related blips. Deficits show that there is a party of tax-and-spend, and a party of undertax-and-spend. 

[Blackadar]

Maybe this says more about undertaxing than overspending. A graph of federal spending in constant dollars rises at a pretty steady pace throughout the 20th century, with a couple of war-related blips. Deficits show that there is a party of tax-and-spend, and a party of undertax-and-spend. 

I don't disagree, hence the statement about "having their cake and eating it too". 

That's why I see the Dems as being more fiscally responsible, even though neither side does much to reduce spending.  The problem with the Republicans is that deficit spending adds to the national debt, which requires ever-increasing interest payments.  It's a nasty feedback cycle.  If the Republicans want to claim any stake in being fiscally responsible, they'll either need to dramatically reduce spending across the board - including education, military and foreign aid - or raise taxes.  Right now, their economic policies have been shown to be bankrupt - much like the country itself.

It's too bad that some people still are fooled by the Reaganomics ("voodoo economics") of the 80s.  While it has its applications, it's too incomplete and unsound of a theory to be the primary driver of economic policy.  But since politicans get to claim they "reduced taxes", I suppose that's enough for the shortsighted masses who can't/don't want to understand the ramifications.

[Eightball]

I've already shown that there's more than enough money for national health care in past threads.  All you have to do is look at our % of GDP spending for health care against other comparable countries.  You'd have a point if we were spending 8% while everyone else is spending 10%.  The problem is we're spending 16% while everyone is spending 10%, suggesting our system is already highly inefficient. 

I haven't seen your other threads, so excuse me.  On a side note, I'd hazard a small guess that the unhealthy status of Americans, relative to other countries, is a large cause for our increased spending.  Our obesity epidemic has lead to a drastic increase in chronic diseases (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.), which accounts for 75% of our health care spending.  This cute chart shows GDP against Obesity, you'll notice that 32.2% of Americans are obese, whereas most of Western Europe is clustered between 9 and 14% of the population as obese.

We spend more because our people are inherently unhealthy.  Until that's somehow fixed, we'll continue to spend more on health care.

[Freezer-TPF-]

I've already shown that there's more than enough money for national health care in past threads.  All you have to do is look at our % of GDP spending for health care against other comparable countries.  You'd have a point if we were spending 8% while everyone else is spending 10%.  The problem is we're spending 16% while everyone is spending 10%, suggesting our system is already highly inefficient. 

I haven't seen your other threads, so excuse me.  On a side note, I'd hazard a small guess that the unhealthy status of Americans, relative to other countries, is a large cause for our increased spending.  Our obesity epidemic has lead to a drastic increase in chronic diseases (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.), which accounts for 75% of our health care spending.  This cute chart shows GDP against Obesity, you'll notice that 32.2% of Americans are obese, whereas most of Western Europe is clustered between 9 and 14% of the population as obese.

We spend more because our people are inherently unhealthy.  Until that's somehow fixed, we'll continue to spend more on health care.

So, junk food tax anyone?  It's time to take on Big Saturated Fat.

[gellar]

I've already shown that there's more than enough money for national health care in past threads.  All you have to do is look at our % of GDP spending for health care against other comparable countries.  You'd have a point if we were spending 8% while everyone else is spending 10%.  The problem is we're spending 16% while everyone is spending 10%, suggesting our system is already highly inefficient. 

I haven't seen your other threads, so excuse me.  On a side note, I'd hazard a small guess that the unhealthy status of Americans, relative to other countries, is a large cause for our increased spending.  Our obesity epidemic has lead to a drastic increase in chronic diseases (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.), which accounts for 75% of our health care spending.  This cute chart shows GDP against Obesity, you'll notice that 32.2% of Americans are obese, whereas most of Western Europe is clustered between 9 and 14% of the population as obese.

We spend more because our people are inherently unhealthy.  Until that's somehow fixed, we'll continue to spend more on health care.

So, junk food tax anyone?  It's time to take on Big Saturated Fat.

Absolutely for it.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that.

gellar

[helot2000]

On a side note, I'd hazard a small guess that the unhealthy status of Americans, relative to other countries, is a large cause for our increased spending. 

We spend more because our people are inherently unhealthy.  Until that's somehow fixed, we'll continue to spend more on health care. 

In addition to the problems associated with supersizing ourselves, we don't let people die a natural death.  End of life costs seem to be out of hand.  From the New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 339:  167-172.

There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.

[Eightball]

On a side note, I'd hazard a small guess that the unhealthy status of Americans, relative to other countries, is a large cause for our increased spending. 

We spend more because our people are inherently unhealthy.  Until that's somehow fixed, we'll continue to spend more on health care. 

In addition to the problems associated with supersizing ourselves, we don't let people die a natural death.  End of life costs seem to be out of hand.  From the New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 339:  167-172.

There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.

Yeah I've heard that as well, but I don't know how much other industrialized nations spend on end-of-life care.  If countries like England spend equitable amounts on end-of-life care, then that's just the way things work...

[Knightshade Dragon]

I can't get into the long discussions about this, but there is one thing that is absolutely 100% true regarding this statement:

He wants to raise taxes on the 'wealthy' to fund more government programs, by reversing previous tax cuts.

The truth is simply this - Rich people stay rich by NOT paying taxes.  Raising taxes on them will simply cause them to find more ways to shrug off that tax debt.  (And where do you imagine it falls then?  It ain't rollin uphill, I can tell you that)  Why are we giving tax cuts to people that can afford it anyway?  It is akin to giving celebutards big gift bags full of stuff they could otherwise afford on their own.  It makes no sense.

[Knightshade Dragon]

So, junk food tax anyone?  It's time to take on Big Saturated Fat.

Absolutely for it.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that.

gellar

Add another one to the list.   I'd vote for that.

[denoginizer]

It seems that all 3 candidates' economic plans face alot of questions.

Here is a pretty good article that looks at all 3.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/06/news/economy/pay_for_plans/index.htm

[Victoria Raverna]

I can't get into the long discussions about this, but there is one thing that is absolutely 100% true regarding this statement:

He wants to raise taxes on the 'wealthy' to fund more government programs, by reversing previous tax cuts.

The truth is simply this - Rich people stay rich by NOT paying taxes.  Raising taxes on them will simply cause them to find more ways to shrug off that tax debt.  (And where do you imagine it falls then?  It ain't rollin uphill, I can tell you that)  Why are we giving tax cuts to people that can afford it anyway?  It is akin to giving celebutards big gift bags full of stuff they could otherwise afford on their own.  It makes no sense.

Because helping the poor is too socialist.

[Eightball]

I can't get into the long discussions about this, but there is one thing that is absolutely 100% The truth is simply this - Rich people stay rich by NOT paying taxes.  Raising taxes on them will simply cause them to find more ways to shrug off that tax debt.  (And where do you imagine it falls then?  It ain't rollin uphill, I can tell you that)  Why are we giving tax cuts to people that can afford it anyway?  It is akin to giving celebutards big gift bags full of stuff they could otherwise afford on their own.  It makes no sense.

That's not exactly true.  Yes, there are a lot of loopholes that the super-rich can exploit, but according to this article (representative of many, using publicly-available IRS data), the top 25% of wage earners (that's earning 62k a year or more) paid 86% of the US income tax.

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

Now if you're advocating reducing the loopholes that allow Hedge-fund managers (who are taxed at capital gains rates, 15%, NOT income tax rates), or Corporations, to avoid paying their fair share...I'm all with that.  But the "rich" (as defined above), certainly pay their fair share of taxes.

[Brendan]

Now if you're advocating reducing the loopholes that allow Hedge-fund managers (who are taxed at capital gains rates, 15%, NOT income tax rates), or Corporations, to avoid paying their fair share...I'm all with that.  But the "rich" (as defined above), certainly pay their fair share of taxes.

No, they don't pay their share.  We had this argument last year.  Just because they pay a large amount in dollar value does not mean they pay a reasonable percentage of their incomes.  I'll dig up the old thread later.

[Moliere]

Who should be responsible for setting the minimum wage if not the government?

The employer and employee come to an agreement about how much the job is worth. If the employer sets the rate too low he will get worse service and will risk losing customers. This is a private contract between consenting adults.

If the government doesn't do it then I can only imagine that there would be NO minimum wage which would only lead to bad things. 

If by bad things you mean higher employment for unskilled labor you would be correct.

Hiking the minimum wage hurts the very people it is supposed to help--those low- skilled workers whose labor is worth only $4.25, not $5.15. Businesses have choices. They'll replace these workers with machines or with fewer but more skilled employees (whose wages aren't controlled by the government), or they'll buy their labor abroad.

Do you think it's wrong for poor people to make at least 7 bucks an hour?

No. I think its wrong for you to arbitrarily pull $7 out of the air like that is the magic number that will satisfy everyone in every industry and every part of the country. Why not $8. Hell, I think everyone should make $100,000 a year. And if dirt were dollars we'd all be in the black.

[kronovan]

Going by what my 11 year old son and his friends say about Obama, he'd certainly win their demographic if he was running for election in Canada. According to my son he's the greatest thing since sliced bread and will stop war, poverty, heel the sick and resolve just about every problem facing humanity.
Whether you agree with his policies or not you can't deny he has a JFK like effect amongst young people.

[brettmcd]

Who should be responsible for setting the minimum wage if not the government?

The employer and employee come to an agreement about how much the job is worth. If the employer sets the rate too low he will get worse service and will risk losing customers. This is a private contract between consenting adults.

If the government doesn't do it then I can only imagine that there would be NO minimum wage which would only lead to bad things.

If by bad things you mean higher employment for unskilled labor you would be correct.

Hiking the minimum wage hurts the very people it is supposed to help--those low- skilled workers whose labor is worth only $4.25, not $5.15. Businesses have choices. They'll replace these workers with machines or with fewer but more skilled employees (whose wages aren't controlled by the government), or they'll buy their labor abroad.

Do you think it's wrong for poor people to make at least 7 bucks an hour?

No. I think its wrong for you to arbitrarily pull $7 out of the air like that is the magic number that will satisfy everyone in every industry and every part of the country. Why not $8. Hell, I think everyone should make $100,000 a year. And if dirt were dollars we'd all be in the black.

Please please, making sense like that on an issue like this isnt allowed here, someone might have to actually think, and that would be horrible.

[Ironrod]

Going by what my 11 year old son and his friends say about Obama, he'd certainly win their demographic if he was running for election in Canada. According to my son he's the greatest thing since sliced bread and will stop war, poverty, heel the sick and resolve just about every problem facing humanity.
Whether you agree with his policies or not you can't deny he has a JFK like effect amongst young people.

Their ideals will be crushed in due time. It's always a little sad to watch that happen.