The Obama Tax plan -- Gross or Net

[FoxyWench]

caliterp your entirely right, it doesnt

everyone takes what they WANT to out of plans like that, if someone HATES one politician of course all their plans will be "this means doom and gloom and if this happens this is the end of the world...

its part of the "joy" of polotics everyone reads it as what they want to see to better support their argument.

 

[Lilavati]

From what I understand it will be a corporation...and I guess the best way to describe the boys will be that they will all be the board members and own a certain percentage of it / (or shareholders)

~Cate

Ok, then they are probably a corporation, or one of its little cousins, like an LLC. So, see my limited answer above. Unfortunately, most of the detailed stuff that's been put out by both parties has to do with personal income tax, not corporate, and when they do discuss corporate, its usually in reference to really BIG corporations, not small ones.

Edit: On the topic of people taking away what they want to believe, well, of course. But I've been pretty appalled at the degree of distortion that has been applied to many of the things Obama has proposed. He is, himself, not innocent of distorting McCain's ideas, but its just not on the same scale. I end up scratching my head a lot, and going . . . but, where did they find THAT?

 

[FoxyWench]

i agree 100% with you lilavati.

 

[MelissaCato]

Umm, okay. I just poured over NFIB's site, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't say any of that.

http://nfibelection2008.illumen.org/positions_taxes.jsf

I posted about NFIB not an Obama splinter ...

http://www.nfib.com/page/researchFoundation

 

[Puckstop31]

It's net. and the only business it will discourage are the people too scared or lazy to start one anyway. Nobody in this country is denied opportunity if they want to work hard

Until you start making REAL money. THEN you are a bad guy.

 

[Puckstop31]

Edit: On the topic of people taking away what they want to believe, well, of course. But I've been pretty appalled at the degree of distortion that has been applied to many of the things Obama has proposed. He is, himself, not innocent of distorting McCain's ideas, but its just not on the same scale. I end up scratching my head a lot, and going . . . but, where did they find THAT?

I hope and pray that you are right. Everything this guy says and does just sets my "Communist/Facist" alarm off.

When he called the Constitution "fundamentally flawed"....
:yikes:

 

[CaliTerp07]

I posted about NFIB not an Obama splinter ...

http://www.nfib.com/page/researchFoundation

This is just a link to a dozen other articles and trends. I don't know what you're saying or what information you're using to back it up.

 

[Lilavati]

I hope and pray that you are right. Everything this guy says and does just sets my "Communist/Facist" alarm off.

When he called the Constitution "fundamentally flawed"....
:yikes:

I think I explained the context of the fundmentally flawed comment in another thread. In the context in which he was speaking, he was absolutely correct. He was speaking of slavery. In that sense, the Constitution was fundamentally flawed. There are other deep flaws in the document. It doesn't mean he wants to throw it out, or even do anything to it (good luck with that), but its a political document, if a brilliant one, and not holy writ. I suggest you go look up what the man actually said, and then make your judgement. Search through the political threads, I have links and such.

 

[Puckstop31]

You did explain, very well I might add, YOUR take on what context he was using. I don't see how this...

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

So the 13th Amendment is not enough?

I don't care what context you are talking about, redistribution of wealth, in any form, is not the American way. Sadly, it IS the way of Washington DC.

But I will give BO one thing... At least he is actually saying it. He is saying he thinks it is a good thing.

I really, really hope I am wrong... But if this guy wins and tries to seriously do some of this stuff... It will be time to vote from the rooftops.

 

[release the hounds]

We almost make that and probably will sometime during the term of the next president. I'm not concerned if I have to pay more, i'd certainly take that over "living off the gov't" any day because my own self worth tells me to. I don't mind paying more because I can. I do not think all the programs are perfect, but most of them are necessary and could use some reworking, but nothing will be perfect. To think people use that as an excuse to "not" work hard and try and better themselves is a cop out and pure chicken crap IMO and used only by people as an excuse.

 

[release the hounds]

if america didn't "redistribute wealth" i can tell you that most of you would have very little opportunity as most of our wealth would have been consolidated within a few powerful families in this country by now and they would be controlling everything. People can't be so short sighted. Just take a look back and the railroad families and how powerful they got to be and "why" some of this change came about.

There must be a balance between the two ideologies and history and the present has shown me that.

 

[Lilavati]

You did explain, very well I might add, YOUR take on what context he was using. I don't see how this...



So the 13th Amendment is not enough?

I don't care what context you are talking about, redistribution of wealth, in any form, is not the American way. Sadly, it IS the way of Washington DC.

But I will give BO one thing... At least he is actually saying it. He is saying he thinks it is a good thing.

I really, really hope I am wrong... But if this guy wins and tries to seriously do some of this stuff... It will be time to vote from the rooftops.

One, that's a different conversation. Its not the same interview. He's talking about something else, in this case, the history of the Court, and the history of the democratic party. Two, what he's saying . . . and this is really obvious to a lawyer, though perhaps not to others, if you read the entire segment (which that is not), is that the Warren Court was not radical, BECAUSE it stayed within the bounds of the Constitution, which is fine, because that is the "essential" nature of the Constitution. The tradegy of the civil rights movement was that it wasted so much time on the courts, trying to get them to find economic rights in the Constitution, when no such rights exist in the Constitution. Instead of going to the courts, which could not help them, they should have gone to the legistlatures, which could. He's not critizing the Constitution . . .he's stating a fact about it . . . he's critizing the civil rights movement for trying to use the Constitution in a way it is not meant to be used. (I know I explained this in another thread)

As for redistribution of wealth, he does mention it, but he mentions it as soemthing you take to the legistlature, not something you change the Constitution to get. And although we can argue about that, and what he means about "redistributive" I'll point out that EVERY change in tax policy, agency policy, in spending policy, is redistributive. It just depends on who is the beneficary. There are many very serious people, not just wild-eyed liberals, who will argue that policy changes over the last 20 years have been redistributive, in the sense that that wealth has all been pulled up to the rich. Now, I have no dobut that Obama means giving to the poor, but that doesn't necessiarly mean taking your money and giving it to welfare recipients to spend on crack. It could mean more funding for schools, or tax breaks to help the working poor buy houses or medical care. It could mean, err . . . anything.