Today, America gets changed forever

[Smuff]

Missing the point when discussing who gets more money etc.....

THERE IS NO F'IN MONEY ANYMORE !

Obama will become the leader of the most debt-ridden nation in the world. He will be remembered as the man on whose watch the US of A went totally and completely irrevocably bankrupt, bringing down the entire world economy as it went.

 

[Hop2089]

A) African-Americans only make up around 16% of our population.
B) Most (key word is most) racist groups like Obama because they are getting tons of new members thanks to him. They want him alive.
Every president has had someone attempt to kill him, so the fact that someone tried is nothing new. Even Reagan got shot!

Just goes to show you what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander. I wonder what new policy changes will be implemented in this administration.

 

[Jasonage]

"Tomorrow, America gets changed forever..."

Yeah, for the worse. His name should be Barack Obamanation

Please keep the partisan crap out of here. Give anyone a chance before you condemn them.

He's got some of the most stupid ideas I've heard yet. More taxing on the wealthy, but less on the poor?

That's going to make everyone poor, because obviously the poor can't manage money as it is. Give them money, and they'll waste it.

I don't hate him as a person, just as a politician.

Do you know how many people you could have insulted just then? Some families have hardly any money because fo the economic crisis, people losing their jobs, prices going up etc.

They wouldn't be able to waste it on anything apart from being able to live. Think about other people.

 

[MistahJelly]

+1 Jasonage ^^^^

 

[lastdual]

Today, nothing changes at all.

Look at Obama's advisors and policies. He's basically GW Bush part 2. Redistribute some money here, redistribute some troops there, no real *change* whatsoever.

His solution to the economic crisis is to spend us deeper into debt and print more money to cover the bills. When the dollar collapses, it's going to be far worse that it is now. Sadly, what choice did Americans have? Both of the frontrunners this last election had basically the same monetary policies. So much for the 2-party system.

 

[SargeSmash]

He's got some of the most stupid ideas I've heard yet. More taxing on the wealthy, but less on the poor?

That's going to make everyone poor, because obviously the poor can't manage money as it is. Give them money, and they'll waste it.

More money for the poor means more people with money to buy products from the rich guys, and it means more healthy workers for the rich guys. And it's not a case of giving them money, it's about taking less of the money that they earn off them. I think it's perfectly OK to tax Paris Hilton more than a family trying to bring up kids on the salary of a fireman and a nurse. Oh, and for what it's worth there aren't just "Rich" and "Poor" people in the US. People tend to talk about this as if the only 2 groups of people are toilet cleaners and CEOs. The middle clases will also be taxed less. You and your family would almost certainly be taxed less. Do you consider yourself to be a poor idiot who needs his money taken off him by the state so he doesn't waste it buying some magic beans?

You think rich people can be trusted to be sensible with money? Have you not watched the news for the past 12 months? And even on a personal level, give a millionaire another million and he'll buy a third car he never drives or a rolex. How is that not wasting money, compared to a poor family who spend it on food, heating and healthcare?

Why does everyone assume that the rich are taking everything from the poor to get richer? You know, there's a problem here. People view the economic pie as limited, and that what someone makes, it has to be taken from someone else. This is NOT the case, as many "rich" people work themselves to the bone to get where they are. Sure, you have some that are living off old money (like, say, the Kennedys), but most rich people got their money off of hard work, and CREATING wealth. They grew the pie. Most of them did not take it from the poor, or step on their necks to get where they are.

Now, this is not saying there are not poor people that work hard. There are. But there are a lot of people that are in the financial position they are in because of bad decisions. And some of them are poor because they're too lazy to work. But the answer is NOT to take the money from the rich (most of whom earned it legitimately) and give it to the poor. In general, the hardest working poor people I know are too proud to take government assistance, anyway. The sheer number of people sponging off the government that don't deserve it are keeping those that need it from getting it, if they take it at all.

The problem with what is most assuredly wealth redistribution is that it eventually leads to everyone having the same amount of money, but without the potential reward from working hard, people do the bare minimum to get by, leading to shared poverty. Look at Communist Russia for a good example of this in action.

 

[BlueStar]

People who have the most money can afford to give the most back - that applies to both those who have the money due to privillaged upbringing (inheritance, walking into a job at daddy's company regardless of ability or commitment, private schooling etc) and those who have used infrastructre paid for with tax money in order to get to where they are. That includes the likes of Joe the Plumber, who's been on welfare, as have his parents, but then don't want to pay back into the system that gave them the opportunity to get to his imagined $250,000 salary. If you're poor and work your way up to being rich, you've been helped along the way by being able to use roads, transport links, the security provided by the police, fire service, and army, the schools that educated you, the assistance given to your parents to feed you, clothe you, buy you books, keep you healthy so you don't miss school (if your parents are receiving welfare because they're lazy or not is irrelevant, that's nothing to do with you), subsidised buses that allowed you to get to the menial job you needed to fund your ambitions... You can't get to the top with these things then refuse to support them when you get there.

 

[lastdual]

SargeSmash, you're assuming people actually think logically.

For instance, the government actually collects more tax revenue when the highest tax bracketts are lower than 30%. But people don't care. They want to "stick it to the man" even if it means less money in their own pockets.

The fact is, what the rich do with their money (either spend it or invest it - both of which inject growth into the economy), is almost always better than the inefficient spending programs of the federal government - the most wasteful monopoly in the world.

But oh well. People are too dense. They want to punish "Corporate America", but the fact is we live in a *global* economy. Get rid of your own rich, and everything of value in your country will just be bought up by rich foreigners (who barely pay taxes here at all). That's how the game works, and it's already happening.

 

[Noobix]

God bless America!!!

 

[gblock247]

Beautiful orchaestral piece....

and does Aretha Franklin's performance of "My Country Tis Of Thee" remind anyone of that Simpsons episode where Bleeding Gums Murphy took over 30 minutes to sing the National Anthem??? That seemed to go on forever....

 

[Canonbeat234]

Beautiful orchaestral piece....

and does Aretha Franklin's performance of "My Country Tis Of Thee" remind anyone of that Simpsons episode where Bleeding Gums Murphy took over 30 minutes to sing the National Anthem??? That seemed to go on forever....

True but that's why its called 'REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *five minutes later* EEEEEEEE-MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII *twenty minutes later* IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIX'

 

[Brian117]

Can anyone say 12212012? *cough*

 

[SargeSmash]

People who have the most money can afford to give the most back - that applies to both those who have the money due to privillaged upbringing (inheritance, walking into a job at daddy's company regardless of ability or commitment, private schooling etc) and those who have used infrastructre paid for with tax money in order to get to where they are. That includes the likes of Joe the Plumber, who's been on welfare, as have his parents, but then don't want to pay back into the system that gave them the opportunity to get to his imagined $250,000 salary. If you're poor and work your way up to being rich, you've been helped along the way by being able to use roads, transport links, the security provided by the police, fire service, and army, the schools that educated you, the assistance given to your parents to feed you, clothe you, buy you books, keep you healthy so you don't miss school (if your parents are receiving welfare because they're lazy or not is irrelevant, that's nothing to do with you), subsidised buses that allowed you to get to the menial job you needed to fund your ambitions... You can't get to the top with these things then refuse to support them when you get there.

Wait a second here, there are legitimate uses for government, and places where government should butt out. I'm not saying that no one should pay ANY taxes. And both rich and poor are able to use roads, and benefit from the police and other public services rendered, and protection of the country by our brave military. Those are very, very relevant. But that's not what is being talked about here. We're talking about a gradated tax system, in which people are punished if they improve their standing. If anyone remembers, back in the Carter years, the highest tax rate was 70%. 70 percent! Who in their right mind would invest when the government is taking that much money from you?

Also, it should be noted that all the things you mention don't cost nearly the amount of money that the government confiscates from us. Which begs the question: Where IS our money going? The government is the worst purveyor of our money, period. The waste there is atrocious, and if they were a business, they'd have gone under long, long ago. There are private organizations, funded by people who give privately, that do a much better job than the government ever has in providing for the poor and needy.

We need something like a flat tax. Everyone pays a fixed percentage of their income. Now THAT is fair. To be honest, I think in some way that the more Draconian tax policies keep poor people from joining the rich people's club. It doesn't help the poor, it keeps the power in the hands of a few people in Washington, who maintain the iron grip of dependence on the poor, in the name of "helping" the poor.

This notion that the rich have more money, and thusly can "afford to give the most back" is wrong-headed in every way. Especially when the "giving the most back" ends up going to the government, and not to the people who actually need it.

 

[SargeSmash]

SargeSmash, you're assuming people actually think logically.

For instance, the government actually collects more tax revenue when the highest tax bracketts are lower than 30%. But people don't care. They want to "stick it to the man" even if it means less money in their own pockets.

The fact is, what the rich do with their money (either spend it or invest it - both of which inject growth into the economy), is almost always better than the inefficient spending programs of the federal government - the most wasteful monopoly in the world.

But oh well. People are too dense. They want to punish "Corporate America", but the fact is we live in a *global* economy. Get rid of your own rich, and everything of value in your country will just be bought up by rich foreigners (who barely pay taxes here at all). That's how the game works, and it's already happening.

You're right about that. Cutting tax rates has actually increased the amount of money in the government coffers by spurring growth in the markets, every time. Yet another reason this notion of taxing the rich more to give to the poor is misguided at best.

 

[BlueStar]

Only being able to afford three cars instead of four is not being "Punished". Not being able to afford food or heating after tax is being punished on your earnings and being forced to live on the breadline, work two jobs or live in declining health because you cannot afford healthcare (with the vicious circle of the less well you are, the less you can earn) due to tax is simply not conducive to bettering yourself. Until we get a situation when people in that $250,000+ tax bracket decide to give up their jobs to work in the service sector because they'd be better off, ambition is not being stifled. Where does that money go? The military takes up a fair wack of it. That's why I baulked when Sarah Palin said, with an enormous amount of incredulity "My opponent think paying taxes is PATRIOTIC!!!" Where does she think her son's body armour comes from?

Aside from the fact we disagree on the effects on the economy of varying types of tax plan (which is fine, there are a wide variety of people with a wide variety of beliefs on which is the most benificial) the fact is that there is more to life and government that simply increasing the GDP at any and all costs - there are moral and ethical requirements as well. I'm often puzzled when people brand themselves as "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" because many of the big finacial issues, such as government welfare, universal healthcare, if the tax burden effects the rich or poor are as much social issues as financial.

 

[SargeSmash]

I just take issue with the idea that the government is the savior of the poor. They're not. They've been proven to be the opposite.

By the way, 40% of people in this country don't even pay income taxes. And Palin had it right, but it's not just paying taxes. He thinks that in the current climate, certain people paying MORE taxes is patriotic. It's not. Many of us are already being gouged by the government, with little to show in return due to the immense waste. And make no mistake, both sides are guilty of out-of-control spending.

It is not the government's job to ensure economic equality between people, it is to ensure that equal opportunity to prosper is there. Higher taxes achieve the exact opposite, making the rich sit on their money instead of investing and erecting a barrier to the ranks of the rich for the poor and middle class.

 

[BlueStar]

The majority of people will pay lower taxes. To me, that's a tax cut, not a tax rise. Most consumers in the economy will have more money to spend, rather than having to sit on it because they're not sure if they can afford any luxuries. Most businesses who are desperate to get people through the door or buying their products and services are no concentrating on the top 1% of earners, but the other 99%. People earning the kind of money in that top tax hike aren't going to sweat it when buying their wife a birthday present. The middle classes and smaller businesses are also more likely to spend their money domestically, rather than using it to jet off to the Bahamas and spend it there, import a foreign car or set up a business in India to outsource their work to.

 

[m3rox]

I just take issue with the idea that the government is the savior of the poor. They're not. They've been proven to be the opposite.

By the way, 40% of people in this country don't even pay income taxes. And Palin had it right, but it's not just paying taxes. He thinks that in the current climate, certain people paying MORE taxes is patriotic. It's not. Many of us are already being gouged by the government, with little to show in return due to the immense waste. And make no mistake, both sides are guilty of out-of-control spending.

It is not the government's job to ensure economic equality between people, it is to ensure that equal opportunity to prosper is there. Higher taxes achieve the exact opposite, making the rich sit on their money instead of investing and erecting a barrier to the ranks of the rich for the poor and middle class.

If you make enough money to be getting that tax hike, you really shouldn't be complaining at all.

 

[DrKupo]

I will repeat my earlier comment:

The interesting question is, in my opinion, how many of you are old enough to vote? For the record, I voted for Obama.

edit: before any mods over-react, i'm not trolling here.

 

[Translucentbill]

i got out of half an hour of school to watch the inauguration, it wasn't too bad either.