Article About Obama's Attacks On Mccain

[e-bone ver2.awesome]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/obama

I really haven't been paying attention to the election and all the ads and everything, but I hope I don't see the ad this article is talking about. Apparently, it just blasts McCain for being old. It takes shots at McCain for being computer illiterate and the clothes he wore when he took office in the early 80s. I couldn't care less if the man can send an email, the president probably has 10+ aides to do that kind of thing for him. I guess I'm happy that one of our candidates has actually been around since the 80s, or heck, even the 90s. It is just kind of upsetting that Obama can get away with blasting McCain because of his age. If this was against a Democratic candidate, there would be a national uproar.

[untbowler]

careful I believe the one of the Great Mods banned politics until the 15th

[KingDL1]

careful I believe the one of the Great Mods banned politics until the 15th

No he shut it down until

NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS ON GOMEANGREEN.COM UNTIL FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12th, 2008 AT 1700 ZULU TIME.

Which is Noon Dallas time.

Edited September 12, 2008 by KingDL1

[Guest JohnDenver]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/obama

I really haven't been paying attention to the election and all the ads and everything, but I hope I don't see the ad this article is talking about. Apparently, it just blasts McCain for being old. It takes shots at McCain for being computer illiterate and the clothes he wore when he took office in the early 80s. I couldn't care less if the man can send an email, the president probably has 10+ aides to do that kind of thing for him. I guess I'm happy that one of our candidates has actually been around since the 80s, or heck, even the 90s. It is just kind of upsetting that Obama can get away with blasting McCain because of his age. If this was against a Democratic candidate, there would be a national uproar.

I don't read it as attacking him because of his age... It is saying that he does not understand (nor care?) about one of the fundamentals of the modern world. If he were 72 and all teched out, this ad would mean nothing.

bQ2I0t_Twk0

Hell, my grandmother is 82 and every other Christmas gets a new computer from her children...

BTW, go to factcheck.org and see how McCain's camp is getting away with blasting with erroneous "facts"... and then go look for the national uproar.

[chrisfisher]

I am VERY fearful for my family and career if Obama wins. I am not exaggerating. As a soon-to-be doctor (with massive student loan debt), Obama would call me "rich" and tax the hell out of me... total taxes would probably be in the 50-60% range... damn... on top of that, he wants to institute socialized medicine, under which I'd certainly be in the poor house - is the government going to make my mortgage sized student loan payment for me too? Last, I fear that he will tear down the military to build his social programs - so much so that we will be in real danger as a nation, in which case, none of the above concerns matter because we'll be to busy trying to defend ourselves. So for me, increased taxes, socialized medicine, and the dismantling of the military are deal breakers. There is nothing Obama could say or do on other issues that would change my mind as long as he stays with this agenda. I hope and pray and that McCain wins.

Edited September 12, 2008 by chrisfisher

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I am VERY fearful for my family and career if Obama wins. I am not exaggerating. As a soon-to-be doctor (with massive student loan debt), Obama would call me "rich" and tax that hell out of me... total taxes would probably be in the 50-60% range... damn... on top of that, he wants to institute socialized medicine, under which I'd certainly be in the poor house - is the government going to make my mortgage sized student loan payment for me too? Last, I fear that he will tear down the military to build his social programs - so much so that we will be in real danger as a nation, in which case, none of the above concerns matter because we'll be to busy trying to defend ourselves. So for me, increased taxes, socialized medicine, and the dismantling of the military are deal breakers. There is nothing Obama could say or do on other issues that would change my mind as long as he stays with this agenda. I hope and pray and that McCain wins.

Wow...I guess fear tatics do work.

I don't have time to address each of your points (I'm a working stiff too...not so much during football season ), so I'll just post the link:

Obama's Stance

The "Blueprint for Change" lays out his plan pretty well. Whether or not he'll get to realize all of it (almost certain he won't) because of opposition (gotta work with those across the aisle) remains to be seen.

I can't help you, though, if you feel you can't trust him (or any politician) or let fear dictate your decision. If you take the issues out of the process, it just becomes a "feelings" contest.

[untbowler]

and the Wheels on the Bus, go round and round.

[meangreendork]

So for me, increased taxes, socialized medicine, and the dismantling of the military are deal breakers.

Do your research - both candidates are probably going to jump taxes and increase the national debt no matter what because both call for spending increases mainly since you can't just run a program and fund it with air. Obama's health program isn't really socialized medicine, it just provides an option for those without insurance and don't pull an income large enough for them to pay a program on their own. He's also not planning to tear down the military, according to his campaign website, he's actually planning to expand the US military quite a bit in both numbers and equipment.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about McCain being elected...not because I don't like the idea of the middle class going without tax cuts (that bugs me, but that's something survivable) but mainly because I don't trust Palin. Her ethics investigations don't look good, that "Iraq was God's plan" scares me, and though she may have executive experience at the state governor level, her foreign policy knowledge scares the crap out of me. McCain alone I'm okay with. But if he were to die or fall ill, I would hope that his cabinet would be hounding Palin with advice because she needs it. At least if Obama were to die (probably by assassin's bullet, knowing this country), I know Biden knows enough to get by.

That "McCain is old" ad made some sort of sense about him being out of touch. The hits on economy didn't really say much to me. Taxes are a by-gone conclusion because that's going to jump no matter what since the pay-down on national debt and the increase in government spending by both candidates is probably going to bring that higher anyways.

What throws me off is this ad:

Mainly because it's beyond a truth stretch. It's actually a huge falsehood. That's as if I asked any of you if you like to drink, then went around calling you a dangerous drunkard. I looked this commercial up on factcheck.org and got this: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/of..._on_sex_ed.html

Actually, that site is pretty good about dissecting both campaign's ads and finding the inaccuracies in all of them. It's a good research tool.

Edited September 12, 2008 by meangreendork

[Guest JohnDenver]

I am VERY fearful for my family and career if Obama wins. I am not exaggerating. As a soon-to-be doctor (with massive student loan debt), Obama would call me "rich" and tax the hell out of me... total taxes would probably be in the 50-60% range... damn... on top of that, he wants to institute socialized medicine, under which I'd certainly be in the poor house - is the government going to make my mortgage sized student loan payment for me too? Last, I fear that he will tear down the military to build his social programs - so much so that we will be in real danger as a nation, in which case, none of the above concerns matter because we'll be to busy trying to defend ourselves. So for me, increased taxes, socialized medicine, and the dismantling of the military are deal breakers. There is nothing Obama could say or do on other issues that would change my mind as long as he stays with this agenda. I hope and pray and that McCain wins.

Well, would you be rich (as a doctor?) Isn't the idea of a big payoff a big driving factor for such a career? My wife is a doctor... I can understand the fear..

They are the masters of FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

The whole notion of taxing the "rich" and refining "rich" is pretty funny. I have seen *no* plan that says it will drive up taxes to the 50%+ range. Both "claim" to want to lower taxes. McCain is the one who voted *against* the Bush tax cuts, but let's not get into specifics.

Socialized medicine? His plan is to start a government health plan that provides insurance to people (who OPT in) for the same price the senate gets theirs... It does *not* make everyone use this plan. There is still fair competition, hopefully it will drive down some operating costs... ?

Breaking down the military?! Where do you see this? Where do you get such an idea? Because he has never (literally) dropped a bomb on someone from 1/2 mile in the sky?

[e-bone ver2.awesome]

I don't read it as attacking him because of his age... It is saying that he does not understand (nor care?) about one of the fundamentals of the modern world. If he were 72 and all teched out, this ad would mean nothing.

Hell, my grandmother is 82 and every other Christmas gets a new computer from her children...

BTW, go to factcheck.org and see how McCain's camp is getting away with blasting with erroneous "facts"... and then go look for the national uproar.

Where did you read that McCain doesn't care about technology and the internet? And how do you foresee a president that is not computer literate having an impact? Do you not think that someone as experienced as McCain can see the importance of something that he doesn't have a great grasp on? Government funds all kinds of programs to advance technology, so do all the government officials and elected leaders who were part of funding those programs have to be experts in those fields?

If McCain was going to have to run a 1 man White House, then hell yeah, he needs to be computer literate. Thankfully, our presidents don't have to do much word processing and blogging.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Where did you read that McCain doesn't care about technology and the internet? And how do you foresee a president that is not computer literate having an impact? Do you not think that someone as experienced as McCain can see the importance of something that he doesn't have a great grasp on? Government funds all kinds of programs to advance technology, so do all the government officials and elected leaders who were part of funding those programs have to be experts in those fields?

If McCain was going to have to run a 1 man White House, then hell yeah, he needs to be computer literate. Thankfully, our presidents don't have to do much word processing and blogging.

Well, tis true that he won't be doing much computing on his own time. I have checked the logs of gmg and he doesn't come here. However, I would love to have a savvy person who can learn new technologies on the fly... I want a smart person who isn't confused by new fangled technology.

If not, we end up with stupid laws would assurdedly hurt consumers and boost profits for the corporations... all based on misunderstandings.

Roll the Series of Tubes by the man who is supposedly in charge of regulating it. Clearly he didn't understand it, and took someones watered down analogy and passed it on.

_cZC67wXUTs

[Quoner]

If not, we end up with stupid laws would assurdedly hurt consumers and boost profits for the corporations... all based on misunderstandings.

United Airlines thinks the internet is doing just fine, thank you.

[chrisfisher]

Well, would you be rich (as a doctor?) Isn't the idea of a big payoff a big driving factor for such a career? My wife is a doctor... I can understand the fear..

They are the masters of FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

The whole notion of taxing the "rich" and refining "rich" is pretty funny. I have seen *no* plan that says it will drive up taxes to the 50%+ range. Both "claim" to want to lower taxes. McCain is the one who voted *against* the Bush tax cuts, but let's not get into specifics.

Socialized medicine? His plan is to start a government health plan that provides insurance to people (who OPT in) for the same price the senate gets theirs... It does *not* make everyone use this plan. There is still fair competition, hopefully it will drive down some operating costs... ?

Breaking down the military?! Where do you see this? Where do you get such an idea? Because he has never (literally) dropped a bomb on someone from 1/2 mile in the sky?

In regard to taxes, successful independent business men are already taxed around 33% plus they have to FULLY fund (there is NO employer matching) the 15% social tax. Thus the current total tax rate is at nearly 50% or 48% to be exact (and this doesn't include other taxes like sales and property tax, capital gains tax, etc.). Even small tax increases then will push the total tax rate above 50%, at least for the first 100,000 of income (can't recall specifically the cut-off for social security tax). And if a liberal (Obama) is raising taxes, there is no such thing as a "small tax increase" in the long run. Even worse, if I understand Obama, he will eliminate 100,000 cut-off for the social security tax, which means the so-called "wealthy" will pay the 15% tax on their total income and thus increase the effective tax rate even more, even if he did not raise taxes. It sickens me to have to pay a significant part of my income into a bankrupt system (medicare/medicaid) that I will never use. BTW, government health plan = socialized medicine, though you aren't' forced into it.... yet. These types of programs ALWAYS start off this way and then grow into something massive and heavily taxed. Look at Clinton administration... raised taxes, tried to implement national healthcare, and tore down the military...Hilliary's healhcare plan? remember when we went to war against the terrorist, the military was significant short on proper equipment, parts, and personnel.? Even basic protection for military Humvees were non-existent at the start of the war due to cut backs. This is what Liberals do. It is their nature and it will not be any different with Obama.

Edited September 12, 2008 by chrisfisher

[Guest JohnDenver]

In regard to taxes, successful independent business men are already taxed around 33% plus they have to FULLY fund (there is NO employer matching) the 15% social tax. Thus the current total tax rate is at nearly 50% or 48% to be exact (and this doesn't include other taxes like sales and property tax, capital gains tax, etc.). Even small tax increases then will push the total tax rate above 50%, at least for the first 100,000 of income (can't recall specifically the cut-off for social security tax). And if a liberal (Obama) is raising taxes, there is no such thing as a "small tax increase" in the long run. Even worse, if I understand Obama, he will eliminate 100,000 cut-off for the social security tax, which means the so-called "wealthy" will pay the 15% tax on their total income and thus increase the effective tax rate even more, even if he did not raise taxes. It sickens me to have to pay a significant part of my income into a bankrupt system (medicare/medicaid) that I will never use. BTW, government health plan = socialized medicine, though you aren't' forced into it.... yet. These types of programs ALWAYS start off this way and then grow into something massive and heavily taxed. Look at Clinton administration... raised taxes, tried to implement national healthcare, and tore down the military...Hilliary's healhcare plan? remember when we went to war against the terrorist, the military was significant short on proper equipment, parts, and personnel.? Even basic protection for military Humvees were non-existent at the start of the war due to cut backs. This is what Liberals do. It is their nature and it will not be any different with Obama.

Chris... give me a break. A "successful independent business man(sexist? .. i jest. )" has SO many more tax write-offs associated with business that us successful corporate monkeys have. On top of that, figure in the nice tax shelters, ability to get taxable income in retirement accounts and all that crap... They are not in the 50% tax range. No way. No how. Maybe if they are the successful in business, but fail at using an accountant, they will have this happen.. but I can't see that happening.

In *any* time of relative peace, the military spending goes down.. It is that way with any industry. Doesn't surprise me that war machines are the same way. I don't think it is the way of the liberal though.

Yeh, You bring up the Clinton health plan, but as I remember it... it failed. Obama *doesn't* have that health plan. That was a major sticking point in their campaigning.. She said his doesn't go far enough to cover everyone. He said he will be *priced* right for everyone to afford, if they want it.

I would love to see some stat about 100k being the delineation of "rich."

And hell.. at a certain point "rich" people should help out the rest of the scrubs for the sake of humanity (ala Warren B or Bill G).

And yes, Corporations SHOULD pay taxes... unlike 2/3rds of them getting away without paying them (as is stands now).

[Mean Green 93-98]

at a certain point "rich" people should help out the rest of the scrubs for the sake of humanity (ala Warren B or Bill G).

Agreed. But the two examples you cite are known for giving of their own accord, not by having someone else take their money away from them and giving it to someone else. A government that disperses wealth largely removes any onus upon such people. "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government"-- James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794)

And yes, Corporations SHOULD pay taxes... unlike 2/3rds of them getting away without paying them (as is stands now).

Interesting stat. Do you have sources for that?

[Guest JohnDenver]

Agreed. But the two examples you cite are known for giving of their own accord, not by having someone else take their money away from them and giving it to someone else. A government that disperses wealth largely removes any onus upon such people. "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government"-- James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794)

Interesting stat. Do you have sources for that?

Ok, how about this... A "rich nation" at some point has to give back for the betterment of the whole society. Health and education are two that I put in that category. Head start programs, literacy, govt work forces, teach for america, govt subsidizing medical school, low interest rates, etc... those are all charity of some form.

Here is a report directly from the govt: http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d08957high.pdf

...a write up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/r...a_n_118455.html

[GreenMachine]

And hell.. at a certain point "rich" people should help out the rest of the scrubs for the sake of humanity (ala Warren B or Bill G).

And yes, Corporations SHOULD pay taxes... unlike 2/3rds of them getting away without paying them (as is stands now).

Actually, the rest of the scrubs need to learn to take care of themselves, it should come from them and not the hard work of others. I had a relative that worked for the welfare dept in a govt job and if you think the majority of people on welfare actually need and deserve it, think again. These people have been trained to receive handouts and its passed on from generation to generation. They need to take care of themselves. Yes there are some people that truly need a temporary helping hand but the majority of people abuse this system and many other systems we have.

MAYBE 2/3's of corporations get some type of tax incentive but I highly doubt they get 100% tax exemption. AT&T just received a $7.5M tax incentive to move to Dallas, wonder how much $$ they will pump into the local economy when they do move. I can guarantee you it will be much more than $7.5M

[untbowler]

Actually, the rest of the scrubs need to learn to take care of themselves, it should come from them and not the hard work of others. I had a relative that worked for the welfare dept in a govt job and if you think the majority of people on welfare actually need and deserve it, think again. These people have been trained to receive handouts and its passed on from generation to generation. They need to take care of themselves. Yes there are some people that truly need a temporary helping hand but the majority of people abuse this system and many other systems we have.

MAYBE 2/3's of corporations get some type of tax incentive but I highly doubt they get 100% tax exemption. AT&T just received a $7.5M tax incentive to move to Dallas, wonder how much $$ they will pump into the local economy when they do move. I can guarantee you it will be much more than $7.5M

shhhh!!!! Big Business is bad, bad.

Overlook the fact that the Gov't makes more of a profit off of oil than the oil companies themsleves.

Shhhh!!! Big business is the DEVIL!!!

[Mean Green 93-98]

Ok, how about this... A "rich nation" at some point has to give back for the betterment of the whole society. Health and education are two that I put in that category. Head start programs, literacy, govt work forces, teach for america, govt subsidizing medical school, low interest rates, etc... those are all charity of some form.

I believe a nation (referring to government) that becomes "rich" by means of taxing its citizens at some point becomes obligated to quit taking so much. I don't believe taxes were authorized and implemented to make the government rich. They were usually given the okay because of some specific perceived need(s).

Here is a report directly from the govt: http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d08957high.pdf

...a write up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/r...a_n_118455.html

Thanks for providing this. I am no accountant or businessman by any stretch, but is not all that corporate income (generally speaking) still taxed in the form of individual income, dividend, and capital gains taxes?

[meangreendork]

Thanks for providing this. I am no accountant or businessman by any stretch, but is not all that corporate income (generally speaking) still taxed in the form of individual income, dividend, and capital gains taxes?

Yes unless there's some sort of tax law loophole or shelter that can be exploited. The main problem with corporate income is like a lot of problems in American law - it isn't so much the lack of taxing, but the ways in which they escape some of the taxing. Here's hoping that the next administration solves that.

[chrisfisher]

Well, would you be rich (as a doctor?) Isn't the idea of a big payoff a big driving factor for such a career? My wife is a doctor... I can understand the fear................And hell.. at a certain point "rich" people should help out the rest of the scrubs for the sake of humanity (ala Warren B or Bill G)

I may or may not be "rich" as a doctor. Fresh out of school I'll have no practice whatsoever. But for argument sake, let's say I get out of school and immediately start making good money. I just finished busting my arse for a total of nearly 25 years of school (high school, undergrad, master, doctoral) and owe well over a $100,000 in debt for grad school alone. I gave up a huge chunk of my life to accomplish this extremely difficult goal at the expense of alot of different things (family, fun, hanging out, friends, etc.). Tell me again, why do I do owe money to others? I am not heartless or selfish, but I do not understand why those who work hard and succeed are obligated to hand over large chunks of their income to others around them. I believe strongly that those in the community should help others through family or volunteer work, not the robin hood approach. But to my chagrin, I believe that my line of thinking is certainly in the minority today as people look more and more to government to provide and look after them.

Edited September 12, 2008 by chrisfisher

[meangreenacct]

I believe a nation (referring to government) that becomes "rich" by means of taxing its citizens at some point becomes obligated to quit taking so much. I don't believe taxes were authorized and implemented to make the government rich. They were usually given the okay because of some specific perceived need(s).

Thanks for providing this. I am no accountant or businessman by any stretch, but is not all that corporate income (generally speaking) still taxed in the form of individual income, dividend, and capital gains taxes?

I am an accountant ...the answer to the question would be not always. If the corporation pays no income tax, whether through a loss, tax exemptions, loopholes, or through "operating" from the Cayman Islands any money that does not leave the business will not be taxed. If the corporation chooses to keep the profit as retained earnings it will not be taxed until distribution to the shareholders. Strictly speaking C Coporations, which would be typically your publicly traded companies does not have income taxed as individual income as it belongs to corporation. The only taxation at the individual level would be when dividends and capital gains are taxed.

[UNTflyer]

Ok, how about this... A "rich nation" at some point has to give back for the betterment of the whole society. Health and education are two that I put in that category.

OK. I agree that education and health programs are certainly in the domain of the "promote the general welfare" part of the preamble. At what point does it stop being "promoting" and becomes "compulsorily" controlled by government? I can't think of very many government programs that are run as efficiently as a privately-owned counterpart. For example, private high schools spend less money per student as public high school (on average), yet produce graduates that are far better educated.

This country gives more to charity than any other nation on earth. In 2006, Americans gave $300 billion to charities, and over $40 billion in donations to education alone. 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity. We're #1 in the world in charitable giving, and we still give twice as much as the #2 country, Britain.

So, I say we do a pretty damn good job at taking care of our own without the need of government taking more of our money.

------------------

Back to Obama's attack on McCain... McCain can't even use a keyboard or even tie his shoes because of years of torture in Vietnam. Nice to see Obama making light of a man's disability. A real compassionate man, he is. McCain said that he doesn't use email, not that he doesn't know how to use email. This is a desparate attack from a man who by all conventional wisdom should only have to campaign part-time and still cruise into the White House.

Edited September 13, 2008 by UNTflyer

[emmitt01]

I'm kinda torn on this.

I live in Lake Highlands. I pay Lake Highlands school taxes...though my daughter is 6 years away from being in school. I pay property taxes higher than the average person for living in Lake Highlands. For this, though, I get schools from elementary up through high school that are superior to anything DISD (Dallas not Denton) has to offer. Lake Highlands stadium (the "bone yard") is a very nice high school stadium. So in theory the money I pay is well worth it. Or is it? Of the kids that I run across in a professional capacity I would say that 85-90% of them attend Lake Highlands High School. Do they live in Lake Highlands? No. Do their parents pay a dime in school or property taxes? No. Most if not all live in apartments outside of the actual Lake Highlands area and are bused in. So, for my taxes I get to worry that my daughter will go to school with kids who have little/no discipline or parental guidance in the household and that her schools (which should allow her to get ahead and excel due to the fact that I'm literally paying for her not to attend DISD schools) will eventually be bogged down to teach to the lowest common denominator...a term that I'd bet most of these kids couldn't explain as it pertains to mathematics.

But then there's the flip side. I found this statement by Green Machine especially telling:

Yes there are some people that truly need a temporary helping hand but the majority of people abuse this system and many other systems we have.

Just let us know how to form a system that caters only to the former and not the latter and we'll be all ears.

[UNTflyer]

Just let us know how to form a system that caters only to the former and not the latter and we'll be all ears.

Minimum wage and entry-level jobs.