2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

[lockmat]

You didn't read my last sentence in post 1136.

You're right. My bad.

Eh? Wha? Are you really saying that good Christians believe YHVH wants a gas pipeline built in Alaska??

no

Isn't Fred Thompson a celebrity? That's funny, I thought the McCain camp attacked Obama for being a celebrity, and now they have a celebrity speaking at the RNC.

They did. But I didn't. So maybe we can talk about the issues in the quote. I'm wondering the rebuttles to his argument are.

[memebag]

no

Then tell us what you're trying to say. Why is Palin a better Christian than Obama?

[lockmat]

Then tell us what you're trying to say. Why is Palin a better Christian than Obama?

I'm not saying she's better. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. But it does seem odd that a Christian would put other Christians down for clinging to their Bibles, don't you think?

[barracuda]

They did. But I didn't. So maybe we can talk about the issues in the quote. I'm wondering the rebuttles to his argument are.

QUOTE

Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you! They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.)

That's a common argument against raising taxes on businesses. I don't really buy it though because of competition -- in most situations, people have many choices of what they buy and where they buy it. If one vendor decides to pass increased costs of doing business onto the consumer, the consumer can buy from someone else offering a better price. Additionally, there are many ways of managing profitability besides increasing product prices. And lastly, those that consume less end up paying less anyway, which is why I'm not against sales taxes. So, this argument comes across as more of a scare tactic than anything.

I would be interested in seeing some statistics regarding any correlation between increased business taxes an increased cost of living.

[memebag]

I'm not saying she's better. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. But it does seem odd that a Christian would put other Christians down for clinging to their Bibles, don't you think?

But you did say she's a better Christian, 40 minutes ago:

It seems that she at least tries to walk the walk while he just says he's a Christian (He even puts them down). That's all. I'm not sure why he claims to be one at all.

It can't be odd for Christians to put other Christians down when so many of them do it. You're doing it, and you claim to be a Christian.

That's a common argument against raising taxes on businesses.

And it's a convincing one. The taxes can come from one of three places: price, profit or debt. Raising taxes on a business will impact at least one of those, and directly affect a business's ability to survive and grow. A company can decide to go into debit or reduce profit to keep prices down, but that affects their ability to grow and develop new products and/or services.

[lockmat]

It can't be odd for Christians to put other Christians down when so many of them do it. You're doing it, and you claim to be a Christian.

Hmmm...that's kind of true.

But the difference is that I'm against him for not being a more conservative Christian, as if clinging to your Bible is a bad thing. He almost made it seem like its bad to be one. It's from a different angle.

Kind of like conservatives get upset with McCain for being a liberal Republican, ya know?

[barracuda]

And it's a convincing one. The taxes can come from one of three places: price, profit or debt. Raising taxes on a business will impact at least one of those, and directly affect a business's ability to survive and grow. A company can decide to go into debit or reduce profit to keep prices down, but that affects their ability to grow and develop new products and/or services.

Yeah, but I'm viewing from the perspective of whether you shift more of the tax burden to individuals or to businesses. Individual taxpayers end up paying regardless of which side you tax more since they are consumers, but at least by shifting more of the tax burden to large businesses, the consumer has the choice of where they buy or to not buy at all.

Additionally, the tax burden has been shifting more and more to the individual and away from the corporation over the last few decades, both for state and federal taxes. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_bi_ge/corporations_income_tax) (http://www.cbpp.org/4-9-02sfp.htm). But maybe the answer isn't raising taxes on corporations, but closing the loopholes that let them to escape their obligation to pay taxes in the first place.

Also, I can understand higher taxes could harm small business, so I would only support shifting taxes to large corporations and not small businesses and non-profits.

[memebag]

But the difference is that I'm against him for not being a more conservative Christian, as if clinging to your Bible is a bad thing. He almost made it seem like its bad to be one. It's from a different angle.

Sorry, the difference in angles isn't clear from my perspective. You think Christians should be conservative Christians. Obama doesn't. I don't think either of you are more accurate than the other. I think Christians are whatever Christians want to be at that moment.

Kind of like conservatives get upset with McCain for being a liberal Republican, ya know?

Right, there's nothing odd about that, and nothing odd about Obama putting down other Christians.

[barracuda]

QUOTE:

"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_...ions_income_tax

[memebag]

Yeah, but I'm viewing from the perspective of whether you shift more of the tax burden to individuals or to businesses. Individual taxpayers end up paying regardless of which side you tax more since they are consumers, but at least by shifting more of the tax burden to large businesses, the consumer has the choice of where they buy or to not buy at all.

Additionally, the tax burden has been shifting more and more to the individual and away from the corporation over the last few decades, at least in the case of state taxes. This is largely due to loopholes and subsidies that corporate lobbyists are able to glean from our elected officials. So maybe the answer isn't raising taxes on corporations, but closing the loopholes that let them to escape their obligation to pay taxes in the first place.

Also, I can understand higher taxes could harm small business, so I would only support shifting taxes to large corporations and not small businesses and non-profits.

If the consumers stop buying, then the businesses don't pay enough tax and the government has to tax the consumers.

Closing the loopholes doesn't change the fact that a tax on business is a tax on consumers.

Large businesses are harmed just as much as small businesses by corporate taxes. Large corporations just have better options when it comes to moving their business to other, more hospitable nations. That's not good for consumers, btw.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Isn't Fred Thompson a celebrity? That's funny, I thought the McCain camp attacked Obama for being a celebrity, and now they have a celebrity speaking at the RNC.

I would hardly consider Fred Thompson a celebrity. He was a Politician that was asked to play Himself in the movie "Marie". He's at best a small time Character Actor. Whenever they need someone to be an overbearing politician, the call on Fred. He's a natural since he is an overbearing politician.

[barracuda]

If the consumers stop buying, then the businesses don't pay enough tax and the government has to tax the consumers.

Closing the loopholes doesn't change the fact that a tax on business is a tax on consumers.

Large businesses are harmed just as much as small businesses by corporate taxes. Large corporations just have better options when it comes to moving their business to other, more hospitable nations. That's not good for consumers, btw.

Consumers will never stop buying unless the economy crashes. If there's one thing Americans can do, it's consume goods.

I'm not suggesting that corporations be taxed out of business, but they do need to pay their fair share rather than shift more or all of the burden to individuals. Corporations owe something to society besides just the jobs and token donations the make to small local charities.

[lockmat]

QUOTE:

"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_...ions_income_tax

no weuno.

So if/when(yeah right) they're held accountable, that will also increase cost of business. And then Obama's plan(the way Fred Thompson sees it) on top of that, Ouch!

[barracuda]

I would hardly consider Fred Thompson a celebrity. He was a Politician that was asked to play Himself in the movie "Marie". He's at best a small time Character Actor. Whenever they need someone to be an overbearing politician, the call on Fred. He's a natural since he is an overbearing politician.

Don't forget the 116 episodes of Law and Order, as well as appearances on Roseanne, China Beach, Matlock, and a string of other lesser known sitcoms and Law and Order spin-offs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson#Television

[memebag]

Consumers will never stop buying unless the economy crashes. If there's one thing Americans can do, it's consume goods.

But you just said taxing corporations was good because people could decide not to buy their products or services. Make up your mind. If people have to consume then taxing businesses is just indirectly taxing consumers. If people can choose not to consume then taxing businesses is just delaying directly taxing consumers.

I'm not suggesting that corporations be taxed out of business, but they do need to pay their fair share rather than shift more or all of the burden to individuals. Corporations owe something to society besides just the jobs and token donations the make to small local charities.

What can corporations do other than shift the burden to individuals? Where will they get the money?

[TJones]

I would hardly consider Fred Thompson a celebrity. He was a Politician that was asked to play Himself in the movie "Marie". He's at best a small time Character Actor. Whenever they need someone to be an overbearing politician, the call on Fred. He's a natural since he is an overbearing politician.

Pretty much overbearing in any role. Fred rocked in "Die Hard 2" and "Law and Order". Ronald Reagan was a well-known celebrity, but at least he was also Govenor of California and was there for a little more than 143 DAYS !

[barracuda]

But you just said taxing corporations was good because people could decide not to buy their products or services. Make up your mind. If people have to consume then taxing businesses is just indirectly taxing consumers. If people can choose not to consume then taxing businesses is just delaying directly taxing consumers.

I'm saying in general, Americans will always buy goods. But as individuals, we have a choice.

What can corporations do other than shift the burden to individuals? Where will they get the money?

How about from massive profits? Do you really think all the profits corporations make go towards good causes? For example, the pharmaceutical industry spends more on advertising than on research and development. If they can afford to blow that kind of money, they can certainly shoulder some taxes too.

Or perhaps they cut back on the huge growth in executive pay and parachute packages for CEOs who leave the company.

[memebag]

I'm saying in general, Americans will always buy goods. But as individuals, we have a choice.

So you're saying we have to buy stuff, but we don't have to buy stuff. Clear as mud.

How about from massive profits? Do you really think all the profits corporations make go towards good causes?

Nope, the profits go to people, and those people pay taxes on those profits.

For example, the pharmaceutical industry spends more on advertising than on research and development. If they can afford to blow that kind of money, they can certainly shoulder some taxes too.

Or perhaps they cut back on the huge growth in executive pay and parachute packages for CEOs who leave the company.

But cutting advertising (business development) costs and cutting CEO pay doesn't effectively increase tax revenue. It decreases the income for advertisers and CEOs, which decreases the taxes they pay.

[west20th]

Pretty much overbearing in any role. Fred rocked in "Die Hard 2" and "Law and Order". Ronald Reagan was a well-known celebrity, but at least he was also Govenor of California and was there for a little more than 143 DAYS !

Your favorite ex-prez said it best "is anyone really ready to be president?". If the last eight years is what "experience" gets us I'll take my chances with Obama's lack thereof. And please, you make it sound like Obama's going to be sitting in the oval office by himself making decisions. It doesn't work that way. Actually his coming from nowhere to become the nominee speaks pretty well to his ability to put a staff together. Compares pretty well to McCain's three (and counting) campaign staff shakeups and his roll the dice VP pick.

[barracuda]

So you're saying we have to buy stuff, but we don't have to buy stuff. Clear as mud.

Nope, the profits go to people, and those people pay taxes on those profits.

But cutting advertising (business development) costs and cutting CEO pay doesn't effectively increase tax revenue. It decreases the income for advertisers and CEOs, which decreases the taxes they pay.

You're not looking at the inverse relationship -- the less you tax corporations, the more government will have to tax individuals in order to compensate.

Since you seem to be flatly against taxing corporations, you have to at least acknowledge that corporations benefit from government that defends them, educates the citizens that become employees, builds the infrastructure that corporations use to ship their resources and goods, develops and builds trade relationships with other countries, invades other countries so corporations can benefit from their resources, etc.

You also might acknowledge your personal willingness to shed more of your own income so Walmart, Exxon, and other large profitable corporations can rake in more profits even as they benefit greatly from the protection and infrastructure our personal taxes provide.

[memebag]

You're not looking at the inverse relationship -- the less you tax corporations, the more government will have to tax individuals in order to compensate.

You're not looking at the direct relationship. The more we tax corporations, the more we tax individuals. There's nothing to a corporation except individuals and a legal fiction.

Since you seem to be flatly against taxing corporations, you have to at least acknowledge that corporations benefit from government that defends them, educates the citizens that become employees, builds the infrastructure that corporations use to ship their resources and goods, develops and builds trade relationships with other countries, invades other countries so corporations can benefit from their resources, etc.

Sure. But corporations aren't really people. They're imaginary people protecting hives of real people from risk.

You also might acknowledge your personal willingness to shed more of your own income so Walmart, Exxon, and other large profitable corporations can rake in more profits even as they benefit greatly from the protection and infrastructure our personal taxes provide.

No. I don't think getting rid of corporate taxes would make corporations any more profitable than they are now. It could simplify the tax code and reduce the cost of administration. I'm not in favor of waste.

[RedScare]

QUOTE:

"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_...ions_income_tax

Yes, it is sad that US corporations are forced to survive on so little that they cannot pay taxes.

[memebag]

Yes, it is sad that US corporations are forced to survive on so little that they cannot pay taxes.

Giggle.

[barracuda]

You're not looking at the direct relationship. The more we tax corporations, the more we tax individuals. There's nothing to a corporation except individuals and a legal fiction.

Sure. But corporations aren't really people. They're imaginary people protecting hives of real people from risk.

Okay, I'm confused. You say corporations are individuals but they aren't really people.

No. I don't think getting rid of corporate taxes would make corporations any more profitable than they are now. It could simplify the tax code and reduce the cost of administration. I'm not in favor of waste.

I at least agree with you on waste and simplifying the tax code. Personally, I feel a flat tax makes much more sense and would be equal across the board and allow IRS resources to be redirected to more productive means.

[memebag]

Okay, I'm confused. You say corporations are individuals but they aren't really people.

The law says corporations are "legal people". I'm saying they aren't really people, and that they are composed of individuals.

I at least agree with you on waste and simplifying the tax code. Personally, I feel a flat tax makes much more sense and would be equal across the board and allow IRS resources to be redirected to more productive means.

A flat tax is regressive. I like progressive taxes. Those who benefit the most from shared services should pay the most for them.

[houstonmacbro]

Your favorite ex-prez said it best "is anyone really ready to be president?". If the last eight years is what "experience" gets us I'll take my chances with Obama's lack thereof. And please, you make it sound like Obama's going to be sitting in the oval office by himself making decisions. It doesn't work that way. Actually his coming from nowhere to become the nominee speaks pretty well to his ability to put a staff together. Compares pretty well to McCain's three (and counting) campaign staff shakeups and his roll the dice VP pick.

I am gonna take my chances with Obama too. I think McCain is unstable and possibly off his rocker.

[barracuda]

A flat tax is regressive. I like progressive taxes. Those who benefit the most from shared services should pay the most for them.

So you're saying corporations and the rich should pay the most.

[houstonmacbro]

So you're saying corporations and the rich should pay the most.

I agree with that. They make the most.

[RedScare]

The law says corporations are "legal people". I'm saying they aren't really people, and that they are composed of individuals.

A flat tax is regressive. I like progressive taxes. Those who benefit the most from shared services should pay the most for them.

True. A flat tax does not reduce the size of the IRS code at all. It merely eliminates the brackets. There is a lot of attempt at claiming the lower classes do not contribute their fair share, but the simple fact is that those who benefit most from the favorable economic structure of the United States should contribute the most to its upkeep. The wealthy use the services of the military, police, courts and prisons far more than the poor. The military defends the economic interests and expands them. The police, courts and prisons protect wealthy assets from thieves. The poor have much less need for these services, as they have few assets to protect. It is only fair that the wealthy pay for these expanded services at a greater rate. Even welfare is useful to the wealthy, though in an indirect way. Feeding the poor is far cheaper than greatly expanding the police force and prison system to cope with the desparate hungry hordes that would be roaming the streets otherwise. Public schools educate (marginally at least) the poor, so that they may become productive citizens rather than petty thieves.

These facts used to be well known. Today, for whatever reason, they are less so.

[wernicke]

Here's a nice hot mic moment with Mike Murphy and Noonan.

"It's over," said Noonan, and then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.

"The most qualified? No. I think they went for this