Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[ocelot_ark]

I don't know where this conversation about reparations started from, and I don't have time to read back.

BUT, if anyone is actually saying we need to pay some reparations in any form, given the current economic crisis...they're a full-fledged idiot.

[dude1394]

A new tipping plan!

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

BUT, if anyone is actually saying we need to pay some reparations in any form, given the current economic crisis...they're a full-fledged idiot.

Ding, ding, ding...We have a winner!!

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Or, because KG passed 4th grade English?

I dunno, the fact that your reading comprehension skills are so poor is why this has gone on and on with no resolution.

Let me make it real simple:

1. You're citing a need for vast improvement in failing public schools. This is a correct assessment and right on the money.

2. You're suggesting that corrective action be taken. This is also something I agree with.

3. You're calling that corrective action "reparations for Slavery and Jim Crow." By doing so, you imply that the actions will only benefit blacks.

4. This shows you are eager to make a completely colorblind issue a race issue. This is what makes you a race baiter, an illogical debater, a worthless forum contributer, and an utterly failed bit.

In my opinion!

My calling you an idiot has everything to do with my opinion and nothing to do with me being a moderator.

My being a long time moderator and long time member of the board means that I have a very firm grasp of what is or isn't an acceptable expression of personal opinion.

And there's not a lot of racism on this board. There's a lot of opinion on this board about race that you don't agree with. That doesn't make it racist. This, again, is why you're an idiot.

3. Yes, I call for the form of reparations in the form of education, and the way I said it meant that people of ALL colors would be entitled to it based on income. Real simple, that is EXACTLY what I said. I am not in favor or giving money or property as reparation payments. I say just make it right by providing college education to the lower class, which means a large percentage of blacks would be afforded college, BUT at the same time MORE white would be afforded college due to the fact the number of whites in the lower class far outweighs blacks. This is fine to me, because the fact that a very large percent of blacks would be afforded college. Thats MY solution to the reparations issue as well as Obama has just about said the same exact thing. Stop being a dumb ass, because as you can see people of all colors benefit from what I proposed. Shit, even change the name from reparations to "DUMB ASS" for all I care. It does not matter what they call it, just get it done. This will kill two birds with one stone. I think it would make the slavery reparations issue go away and end, and also put a big dent in our education failures.

4. Your statement there was dumb as hell and did not make sense. Your statement was race baiting in fact. I never talked about reparations to ONLY benefit blacks, BUT if I did I would still be right.

By this token I think you are a dumb ass idiot who thinks he is better than everyone else on this board because he is a moderator.

Lastly, you are a silly ass poster hiding behind a computer and that is my personal opinion of you. Again, that is my personal opinion of you.

[chumdawg]

In case you guys weren't watching, Obama fully explained the "redistribution" issue in a very convincing way at the rally in FL tonight.

Otherwise I thought he gave an extremely flat performance, though. Either he was just very tired, or I myself am growing tired of hearing the same things over and over again.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

In case you guys weren't watching, Obama fully explained the "redistribution" issue in a very convincing way at the rally in FL tonight.

Otherwise I thought he gave an extremely flat performance, though. Either he was just very tired, or I myself am growing tired of hearing the same things over and over again.

I watched long enough to hear him give an emotionally touching tale to illustrate a basic principle "We can't replace the role of the parent in education" then launch into a beautifully dramatic presentation of how he will higher more teachers, pay them more, test kids better, and do a million things that will, in effect, replace parents for up to 8 hours a day - without saying one word on how he will allow for more responsibility to be successfully assumed by parents.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I watched long enough to hear him give an emotionally touching tale to illustrate a basic principle "We can't replace the role of the parent in education" then launch into a beautifully dramatic presentation of how he will higher more teachers, pay them more, test kids better, and do a million things that will, in effect, replace parents for up to 8 hours a day - without saying one word on how he will allow for more responsibility to be successfully assumed by parents.

I was talking about the rally in FL, not the infomercial. If you watched the rally, you heard him say that all the government work in the world won't help education if parents aren't involved and don't turn off the TV and such.

It was also in the rally where he addressed the "redistribution" issue.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I was talking about the rally in FL, not the infomercial. If you watched the rally, you heard him say that all the government work in the world won't help education if parents aren't involved and don't turn off the TV and such.

He said the same thing in the infomercial, then went on to explain how he will implement "all the government work in the world" anyway - excepting any government work that would put responsibility for the education of children into the hands of those children's parents.

I thought to myself as he said all this, "that's how he will redistribute my wealth, from me to the government."

What did he say about redistribution at the rally?

[chumdawg]

He talked about how important the middle class was to the economy. How they are the people out buying cars and stuff. How when they do well Ford does well. It was all about an economy thriving on the spending power of the middle class.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

He talked about how important the middle class was to the economy. How they are the people out buying cars and stuff. How when they do well Ford does well. It was all about an economy thriving on the spending power of the middle class.

won't taxing the car and stuff makers make it harder for those middle class people to do their buying to make sure that Ford does well?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

won't taxing the car and stuff makers make it harder for those middle class people to do their buying to make sure that Ford does well?

As you know, it's a complex issue. As for your question, though, I suspect that your concerns are not well founded.

[mary]

I say just make it right by providing college education to the lower class, which means a large percentage of blacks would be afforded college, BUT at the same time MORE white would be afforded college due to the fact the number of whites in the lower class far outweighs blacks.

We've got that. They're called Pell Grants and federally subsidized low-interest loans.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by mary

We've got that. They're called Pell Grants and federally subsidized low-interest loans.

I am saying we dont need Pell Grants and Loans at all in the lower class. Education should be FREE to the lower class. As far as Pell Grants and low interest loans move them up to the middle class to where middle class gets Pell Grants at a high level.

Then on the backside, we need to cut the cost of education down so low that even the mddle class only have to get a very small loan if possible, but if we get the cost down to where middle class parents can pay the difference then that is perfect.

I dont have the answer to lower the education costs, but I am pretty sure there are people smart enough to get it done. Education needs to be a top priority, and maybe start with the free education in the lower class. BUT, make sure colleges are not raising costs to compensate for the free education for the lower class. Maybe some type of incentive plan or something for keeping costs down.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

As you know, it's a complex issue. As for your question, though, I suspect that your concerns are not well founded.

I've tried to be as transparent as possible with my lack of knowledge of economic issues. If you don't want to try to answer the question, just say so.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I've tried to be as transparent as possible with my lack of knowledge of economic issues. If you don't want to try to answer the question, just say so.

What question were you really asking, though? You asked if taxing companies like Ford would make it harder for people to afford their products. Those companies are already taxed. So, I guess you mean "taxing them more." Well, how much more? And for that matter, what reason is there to believe that Obama's idea is to tax them more in the first place?

I just don't know how to answer your question, within the context of this thread. But again, I do suspect that there is no reason for concern.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

won't taxing the car and stuff makers make it harder for those middle class people to do their buying to make sure that Ford does well?

I'm not aware of any additional taxes on cars being proposed by either candidate.

obama is not proposing to increase the rate of corporate taxes, he is advocating the elimination of certain deductions some corporations receive. his proposal does require publically traded partnerships to treated as s corporations, which does change how those entities treat income. those shouldn't affect ford or their suppliers. obama is proposing to increase the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%.

these shouldn't be negative to people buying a ford.

obama is proposing to lower the income tax burden for those families who make less than $250,000 in annual income, and by providing more money to these housholds that should make buying a ford easier for them to afford.

so the bottom line appears to be that the tax proposals of obama would help, not hurt, ford's potential to sell their cars.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

obama is proposing to lower the income tax burden for those families who make less than $250,000 in annual income, and by providing more money to these housholds that should make buying a ford easier for them to afford.

I thought it was lowering only for those making $200,000 or less. And that from $200,000 to $250,000, there is no increase. But Biden has indicated that the number may be as low as $150,000.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

won't taxing the car and stuff makers make it harder for those middle class people to do their buying to make sure that Ford does well?

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, so I (and I think UL too) would appreciate the more economics-savvy people to indicate how. I only took a couple economics classes between high school and college, and it's been a while.

Say this is your original business model.


An increase in taxes either is an increase in your variable costs...


Or a decrease in your income, depending on how you want to factor it.


Both result in a break-even line that requires more quantity in sales, meaning there is less profit for the same amount of sales.

To fix this, the company can try to artificially increase their income while keeping sales quantity the same by increasing the price.


So I think the hope has to be that with a tax break for those making $200,000 or less, the quantity in sales would make up for the otherwise decrease in profits? Otherwise, prices go up and the increased tax burden gets trickled down to the customers.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I thought it was lowering only for those making $200,000 or less. And that from $200,000 to $250,000, there is no increase. But Biden has indicated that the number may be as low as $150,000.

the obama proposal is to lower the taxes for individuals under $200k and families under $250k.

http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the obama proposal is to lower the taxes for individuals under $200k and families under $250k.

http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/

The link you provided doesn't support that statement.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, so I (and I think UL too) would appreciate the more economics-savvy people to indicate how. I only took a couple economics classes between high school and college, and it's been a while.

Say this is your original business model.

An increase in taxes either is an increase in your variable costs...

Or a decrease in your income, depending on how you want to factor it.

Both result in a break-even line that requires more quantity in sales, meaning there is less profit for the same amount of sales.

To fix this, the company can try to artificially increase their income while keeping sales quantity the same by increasing the price.

So I think the hope has to be that with a tax break for those making $200,000 or less, the quantity in sales would make up for the otherwise decrease in profits? Otherwise, prices go up and the increased tax burden gets trickled down to the customers.

well, he first question is why you are making the statement that the car producer's taxes are increasing? no one is proposing that.

obama is not proposing to increase the car manufacturer's, or any corporate taxes. in fact, he does propose to give them some tax concessions for producing more fuel efficient vehicles, and also a tax credit to consumers who purchase "advanced fuel vehicles" (which I assume is electric or hybrid) which would be given only to ones that are domestically produced.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, he first question is why you are making the statement that the car producer's taxes are increasing? no one is proposing that.

obama is not proposing to increase the car manufacturer's, or any corporate taxes. in fact, he does propose to give them some tax concessions for producing more fuel efficient vehicles, and also a tax credit to consumers who purchase "advanced fuel vehicles" (which I assume is electric or hybrid) which would be given only to ones that are domestically produced.

Er, I was speaking more generally about taxes on businesses that fall in the 5% of society. I have no idea what the cost model for the auto industry looks like. I think cars are just an exemplar, though it may be a flawed exemplar since it's so closely related to the alternative energy push that Obama really wants.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The link you provided doesn't support that statement.

could you point out where it doesn't? this is what my computer reads:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase"

well?

[Flacolaco]

Is he going to lower taxes on top of the Bush tax cuts, or let them expire, and then lower them again?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

3. Yes, I call for the form of reparations in the form of education, and the way I said it meant that people of ALL colors would be entitled to it based on income. Real simple, that is EXACTLY what I said. I am not in favor or giving money or property as reparation payments. I say just make it right by providing college education to the lower class, which means a large percentage of blacks would be afforded college, BUT at the same time MORE white would be afforded college due to the fact the number of whites in the lower class far outweighs blacks. This is fine to me, because the fact that a very large percent of blacks would be afforded college. Thats MY solution to the reparations issue as well as Obama has just about said the same exact thing. Stop being a dumb ass, because as you can see people of all colors benefit from what I proposed. Shit, even change the name from reparations to "DUMB ASS" for all I care. It does not matter what they call it, just get it done. This will kill two birds with one stone. I think it would make the slavery reparations issue go away and end, and also put a big dent in our education failures.

4. Your statement there was dumb as hell and did not make sense. Your statement was race baiting in fact. I never talked about reparations to ONLY benefit blacks, BUT if I did I would still be right.

By this token I think you are a dumb ass idiot who thinks he is better than everyone else on this board because he is a moderator.

Lastly, you are a silly ass poster hiding behind a computer and that is my personal opinion of you. Again, that is my personal opinion of you.

Silk, everyone currently has an equal opportunity to attend college. It has NOTHING to do with lower, middle or upper class.

I have -0- for my kids to go to school. As parents we influenced and encouraged them to focus on their grades. As such, both of my sons, who will graduate this year, have finished in the top 2.5% of there class. Both have a 4.0 GPA and both are getting opportunities to attend college with funding in the form of scholarships based on academic achievment. These will be only partial and I will be finding ways to fund the remainder.

My wife and I are working/volunteering and fund raising activities in order to raise money for my sons college...we are hoping to do everything possible to keep them from having any college loans. All we want to do is give our sons a shot at career success and to live a debt free life.

These possibilities are open to ALL students, it doesn't matter how much money mom & dad have, it doesn't matter what ethnic background someone is, it doesn't matter what faith someone has, it doesn't even matter what someones sexual preference or gender is. At the end of the day, did the student do the work to learn, get educated and perform when it comes time to earning grades?

Even if a student has some rough grades, as I did in HS...they have options. Mine was to join the military and obtain a college education while serving this great nation. Now that it aint for everyone and I know that.

Their are other options, one of which is Jr. Colleges which are easier to get into and actually quite a bit more affordable.

The big question is if a student wants to truly take the opportunities provided or if they want to be selective and whine about not meeting a standard to enter into a place that has a so-called higher status?

There is not one single person who will be denied the opportunity at an education...heck even Prisoners obtain College Degrees from behind bars...so please help the youth today recognize the opportunities before them, rather than feed them victimization lies.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Er, I was speaking more generally about taxes on businesses that fall in the 5% of society. I have no idea what the cost model for the auto industry looks like. I think cars are just an exemplar, though it may be a flawed exemplar since it's so closely related to the alternative energy push that Obama really wants.

it seems that you are confusing individual taxes with corporate taxes....the "5%" is how many individuals filed last year with incomes over $250k.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

could you point out where it doesn't? this is what my computer reads:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase"

well?

But I don't see any indication of tax cuts for families making $249,999, or what the dividing line is between "middle class families" and families who will merely not see a tax increase. The NY Post article placed Obama's line at $200,000 (household) for a tax cut.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it seems that you are confusing individual taxes with corporate taxes....the "5%" is how many individuals filed last year with incomes over $250k.

Maybe I am. Are you saying that businesses will not be paying more taxes? I think we're missing the point of my and UL's question.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

These possibilities are open to ALL students, it doesn't matter how much money mom & dad have

no, you are not correct.

speaking from experience, I can tell you that there are very, very few scholarship offers that are not need based.

if a family makes over $100k they are pretty much out of luck in competing for these aid programs based on academic acheivement, even if your kid has an exemplary record.

there are a couple of individual scholarships at a few schools that do not take need into account, but they are the vast exception. of the dozen or so liberal arts schools my child applied for, there was one.

and darn it, she went somewhere else....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Maybe I am. Are you saying that businesses will not be paying more taxes? I think we're missing the point of my and UL's question.

across the board, no, businesses will not be paying more taxes under the obama proposal.

I say that because the platform does not call for any increase in the corporate tax rates. it will maintain the current ones.

there are statements that obama intends to remove some favorable tax concesssions for specific industries, especially oil and gas producers. at the same time he proposes new tax credits for businesses that create new jobs in the usa, and for waiver of capital gains for new small business start-ups. obama's plan also calls for improving the research/development tax credit.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

But I don't see any indication of tax cuts for families making $249,999, or what the dividing line is between "middle class families" and families who will merely not see a tax increase. The NY Post article placed Obama's line at $200,000 (household) for a tax cut.

here is a good visual of the two candidate's plans for individual taxes:
.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbe...76&DocTypeID=7

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, you are not correct.

speaking from experience, I can tell you that there are very, very few scholarship offers that are not need based.

if a family makes over $100k they are pretty much out of luck in competing for these aid programs based on academic acheivement, even if your kid has an exemplary record.

there are a couple of individual scholarships at a few schools that do not take need into account, but they are the vast exception. of the dozen or so liberal arts schools my child applied for, there was one.

and darn it, she went somewhere else....

Looks like your experience and my experience are different.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

could you point out where it doesn't? this is what my computer reads:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase"

well?

There's a difference between not seeing their taxes increase and lowering their taxes. You said, "the obama proposal is to lower the taxes for individuals under $200k and families under $250k." The quote above doesn't support either assertion. It only refers to families, and it makes no specific representation about who qualifies for "middle class" designation so as to have their taxes cut.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

here is a good visual of the two candidate's plans for individual taxes:
.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbe...76&DocTypeID=7

Looks like the cut-off for a tax cut under that graphic is $150k.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Looks like your experience and my experience are different.

are you saying that the academic scholarships offered are not need based and family incomes/assets are not considered?

please point out where they are if you would.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Looks like the cut-off for a tax cut under that graphic is $150k.

odd, but I see on my computer (4774), (5782), (6474) on the line next to $200,000.....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

There's a difference between not seeing their taxes increase and lowering their taxes. You said, "the obama proposal is to lower the taxes for individuals under $200k and families under $250k." The quote above doesn't support either assertion. It only refers to families, and it makes no specific representation about who qualifies for "middle class" designation so as to have their taxes cut.

as you can see from the graphic, incomes under $250k see tax cuts.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

across the board, no, businesses will not be paying more taxes under the obama proposal..

That (perhaps over-) simplification by DirkFTW is just what I needed - it seems to sum up how I'm thinking of things. Talk of reductions in tax deductions, and different types of incentives and different types of corporations is over my head. I'm stuck in econ101 and the graphs DirkFTW posted, but I think it's a personal decision model as well as a corporate business model. If I'm making 250,000+ at Ford, I probably have some power to influence my salary in relation to whatever corporate costs there are. If my post-tax income has been 300,000 and that's the way I've budgeted, then when the government says my new post-tax income is going to be 250,000, then I will immediately try to work the corporation (salaries of those below me, prices I control, etc.) to give me my 50,000 back.

In a nutshell, I think the rat-bastards at the top of corporate ladders have enough tools to redirect to themselves whatever amount of money the government wants to redirect away from them.

Joe the Plumber, if he buys his business will be faced with a set of options 1) accept the loss of potential income, 2) hiring fewer workers, or 3) raising his prices (or whatever else, but again, I'm econ101, if that). He'll face these decisions as a person as well as as a business. Obama seems to hope that he will choose option number 1, and maybe Joe will be likely to do that, I have no idea. But the higher someone is in a company, the easier it becomes to choose options 2 or 3. This, I think, would be super-true in any of the seemingly countless industries that will be bailed out of bad business decisions in a few years.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

odd, but I see on my computer (4774), (5782), (6474) on the line next to $200,000.....

I also see basically the same numbers on McCain's plan at $200k: (4676), (6357), (6474). My understanding is that McCain wants to keep the tax rates where they are now. So how is Obama's plan a tax cut?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as you can see from the graphic, incomes under $250k see tax cuts.

The graphic doesn't address $250k at all.