Thread: US Presidential Campaign 2008

Originally Posted by sabang

250K in wage income is a decent ticket, but it doesn't make you rich

all things are relative... but i would tend to agree that this wage alone does not make you 'rich'.

Originally Posted by sabang

I think a bit more tax on 'unearned' income- such as dividends, capital gains &/or trust distrivbutions is warranted.

that's definitely coming in the US.....but obama has stated not at a higher rate than reagan had them at.

Originally Posted by sabang

Inheritance taxes are a joke

in america it's call the estate tax but the republicans renamed it the 'death tax' (christ, who'd be for that?) and it only ends up taxing a very small percentage of inheritances....sorry no stat or link for that, but i think most here would agree.

if you die in 2009 all estates under $3.5 million are passed on tax free.

The New Estate-Tax Rules - Kiplinger.com

^ Really, in the US the 'seriously' rich get a very easy ride. Then, when I look at the way people flipping burgers at Mcdonalds have to live compared to the rest of the affluent West, I think it is quite unfair. And I am no Social Democrat either- as an ex senior professional in this industry, I just do not see the equity in the fact that I could set up my wealthy clientele to be paying less tax than their Secretary.

Originally Posted by Bugs

I am still holding out hope for some meaningful open forum type of debates between the two candidates

Yep, I'm waiting for those townhall debates. McCain has proposed them.

Originally Posted by Norton

After a quick look at the link, I see no professions that have a national average salary of over $200k. I'm sure there are a few making well above the national averages but taxing people with over $250k incomes seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Tax the hell out of them and what? Give it to the inner-city blacks? Is that the plan?

Doubt it. Nothing to indicate he will. Revenues will be used to get educational systems up to snuff, fund his medical plans, shore up the economy and reduce national debt.

BS, I say, Norton. Obama said before that he'd save billions by pulling the troops outta Iraq. Uh huh. Now, the $250k people -- well, that ain't so rich, and Business Week interviewed families making that much. They say they are comfortable, but not rich, as some are still paying off mega student loans, live in expensive areas and are also feeling the pinch of higher prices. Heck, if I paid $200,000 for my education,, I'd expect to make more than ten bucks an hour, too.
So, these folks' taxes may go up to almost 40%, while cap gains tax may go up to 25%. Sure, kill the people who have worked hard to make it and dampen the markets, where all those rich people make free money. haha
The Economist also has an article on Obama's possible admin team. I'm still mulling what these guys will do, but if the mag's first accolade for Tony Lake is that he taught Prez Clinton how to salute, I have my doubts. Lots of brains in the supposed lineup, tho.

Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich
The new Democratic establishment | Who's who in Obamaworld | Economist.com

^ Um, no, Norty, that's not what I meant at all.
If Bammer saves all that money from an Iraq pullout, why raise taxes.
My implication as you point out is nothing what you just implied. People who paid for uni or who worked hard to get a well-paying job desrve to make more money. Actually, anybody with a brain who goes out and creates something and makes gobs of money deserves it, too, IMO. What, just coz I was born I should deserve handouts so I can loaf around? NO.
"where all those rich people make money" was tongue in cheek.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

My implication as you point out is nothing what you just implied. People who paid for uni or who worked hard to get a well-paying job desrve to make more money.

Of course they do. But let's keep in mind a good portion of the 97% not earning $250k per year have done the same. I was one and stupidly being an engineer, never earned $250k per year! Guess I should have been a fund manager.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Obama gaffs? Sticks foot in mouth? I am sure he has and does.

Just like McCain, but much less often.

And remember, GWB, has stuck his foot in his mouth many, many, times, before and during both of his election campains in 2000 and 2008.

My point:

"Gaffs" for Obama are too rare, and too far and few between to be an issue for him.

For McCain, it might be.

So why not accept McCain town hall meetings?

^ Exactly. Perhaps Obama has made fewer gaffes coz most of his stuff is on the tele-prompter.

McCain appeals best to a Town Hall- by all accounts he's usually an affable, folksy kinda guy (apart from his notoriously foul outbursts of temper). Obama is a communicator more comparable to Kennedy. Why should he bother debating him in some Town Hall? He's ahead anyway, and the lead will likely increase. No disrespect to the good folk of Lincoln Nebraska or wherever, but Obama is speaking to the Nation.

Originally Posted by Bugs

So why not accept McCain town hall meetings?

because he's so far ahead in nearly every poll taken. why should he be on the same stage with mccain? fair or not, this is how political campaigns are run.

and btw, some of mccain's biggest gaffes have been in these town hall meetings....'bomb, bomb, iran', and not rebuking a questioner for calling hillary clinton a bitch, etc...

Originally Posted by Bugs

But others (more informed than me) seem to have different opinions. One rather short but fairly encompassing example: The Weekly Standard

a fred barnes opinion piece in bill kristol's neo-con rag is hardly the place to go for a non partisan perspective on barack obama.

and btw, at mccain's most recent 'town hall', no democrats were allowed in.

Why would Obama agree to a town hall meeting where he might actually have to come up with answers about Iran, AIPAC, how to pay for his health care plan and why he hasn't been to Iraq for 900 days?

If I were him, I wouldn't want to answer random questions from critics either.

Originally Posted by Bugs

Originally Posted by Milkman

Obama gaffs? Sticks foot in mouth? I am sure he has and does.

Just like McCain, but much less often.

And remember, GWB, has stuck his foot in his mouth many, many, times, before and during both of his election campains in 2000 and 2008.

My point:

"Gaffs" for Obama are too rare, and too far and few between to be an issue for him.

For McCain, it might be.

So why not accept McCain town hall meetings?

I think it's part of Obama's campaign strategy.

And, to piggy-back off of Norton's comments somewhere, McCain has less money, and a Town Hall debate is free airtime for McCain.

I just read an article about Obama's subtle shift, as the campaign nears the election. Access is carefully thought about, and any pics of him are carefully being managed.

Originally Posted by raycarey

fair or not, this is how political campaigns are run.

Yea why worry about fair or not, and why not run the Obama campaign just like every other political campaign - some candidate for change there.

Originally Posted by raycarey

a fred barnes opinion piece in bill kristol's neo-con rag is hardly the place to go for a non partisan perspective on barack obama.

Did not pick the piece because I thought it was non partisan. As I stated I picked it because it was fairly short and seemed to cover what many were saying in general.

Originally Posted by Bugs

Originally Posted by raycarey

fair or not, this is how political campaigns are run.

Yea why worry about fair or not, and why not run the Obama campaign just like every other political campaign - some candidate for change there.

such drama.

let's try to remember that it's only the middle of june, and the election isn't until november. there will be plenty of time for debates.....and i have little doubt that a 'town hall' style forum will figure in somewhere.

Speaking of the candidate for change. Seems that the candidate for change is more of the same ol' same ol' and will renege in regard to his earlier comments:

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7...NALRELEASE.PDF

Sure he made that commitment before he knew he would be far in the lead in regard to fundraising. But in order for some kind of deal like what he proposed to be struck it would require the campaign with the fundraising edge to concede that advantage. Seems Obama thought that would be fair when he probably thought it would be the red team making the concession, but now that he would have to be the one making the concession it probably won't happen. Seems like politics as usual to me, and not so much change.

Then again maybe he is just waiting to officially become the Democratic nominee? (but I doubt it)

Originally Posted by Bugs

worry about fair or not

Yes, why? Unlike several previous would-be President Democratic contenders, Obama is playing to win. It is possible for democrats to learn some things from republicans you know- even though, ultimately they would not stoop as low as Rovian tactics..

Apparently, you have a problem with that.

Texas GOP discriminates against alternative lifestyle vendors at state convention.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080618/D91CLLBG6.html

"We don't allow pedophiles, transvestites or cross-dressers, either," then-GOP spokesman Robert Black said.

I'm sure that will absolutely outrage many TD libs. It's just not fair, is it?

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Bugs

worry about fair or not

Yes, why? Unlike several previous would-be President Democratic contenders, Obama is playing to win. It is possible for democrats to learn some things from republicans you know- even though, ultimately they would not stoop as low as Rovian tactics..

Apparently, you have a problem with that.

My main problem with the politicking is related to the "candidate for change" banner Obama continously waves. If you want to hold yourself up as not being like the rest of them then put your money where your mouth is and take action. Don't talk the talk and then when push comes to shove hide behind "it makes sense for the campaign" rhetoric. If Obama already has to resort to that kind of rhetoric this eary in the general election campaign why should anyone believe he will doing anything but politics as usual should he secure the top job?

McCain and Obama don't have the smoothest of histories and I would venture to guess as this campaign unfolds there will be just as much (if not more) mud slinging and nastiness from all sides as there has been in the past.

I love it when folks talk about how nasty Rove is/was. All Rove did was refine what the Clintons brought to the table, and what tactics helped to secure the top job for the Clintons two times running. Interestingly enough whenever Hillary or Bill went down a similar path in the primaries the blue team electorate punished them for it and Obama continuously came out on top. But the general election is different from primaries. I don't think either team's electorate takes too kindly to that kind of mud slinging in the primaries because at that stage the candidates are still all from the same team. But the general election is a different story and the electorate seems to eat up the mud.

IMHO Obama will fair far better in the upcoming debates than many seem to think. The guy is no dummy and generally carries himself rather well (from what I have seen). If anything I am anxious to see how things unfold in the town hall type debates in regard to both McCain and Obama. Both have made comments about not running their campaigns with all the mud slinging and nastiness of the past. And while neither of them can really control/prevent any nastiness from taking place, in a town hall format we should be able to see for ourselves how each carries themselves in this regard face-to-face.

More to the point Tex, just more votes in the bag for Obama. Them rednecks are only going to vote one way anyway, whereas a few more undecided voters will swing Obamas way on the back of their disgruntlement with this sort of attitude.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Texas GOP

Texas, the belt buckle of the bible belt. Even the Dems know better than to allow those "San Francisco" perverts into the state convention.

^^^ Decent post Bugs. Obama will go down this road in due course and 'take up the challenge', I agree. Basically though, it is to his benefit to string McCain along for a bit longer yet- he can play his fiddle more succesfully to a wider audience right now, frustrate his opponent, and as you said, he will be no easy pckings in a debate- indeed may well be the winner.

Unlike so many previous Democratic campaigns, the Obama team is playing smart imo.