Wal-Mart hinting that win for Obama is bad for workers

[Dr. Tower]

I liked may of McCains policies a few years ago, now, however, I do not, as he has changed many of them. I currently like many of Obama's policies, though there are some that I disagree with (windfall profits => stimulus check).

I mainly put that line in response to Deacon because it mimicked his line, which I thought was ass backwards. I do not think this country will go down the drain if McCain is elected, but I believe it is far more likely to prosper under Obama.

[Hirschof]

I'm more interested in who can slow down the downward spiral this country is on. I'd like to squeak out a few more years from this union prior to it's inevitable dissolution and the reign of chaos and thunderdome begins.

[Deacon]

Racism? Did someone really just throw racism into this thread? Do Europeans and ex-pats have such a cartoony view of the US that they believe otherwise reasonable, left-leaning people who would otherwise vote for Obama are instead hating on him because he's half black? Good lord...

Either way, I think what's happening with Obama is that he was nominated not on a platform but on an vague, wispy idea, vapor. As long as he kept saying things like "hope" and "change" it rang a bell with the True Believers, the people who thought that hope died when Bush was declared the winner in 2000. But the rather amusing way in which most of the media has bounded after him like happy little puppies waiting for him to hand out another treat and the rockstar persona that's eventually seemed to start going to his head have both combined to start making everyone but the True Believers actually consider his platform. And what they see doesn't seem to give too many people actual hope, and there is certainly no change, only ideas in lockstep with the Democratic party establishment, if not even more extreme, which certainly doesn't curry any favor with the moderates and centrists. Put that together with a number of PR gaffes, and he doesn't seem quite like The Democrat's Messiah anymore, the golden boy of dirty Chicago politics. The shine has started to come off the apple, and it's all the more dramatic because of how intensely polished he's tried (fairly successfully) to look.

I'm more interested in who can slow down the downward spiral this country is on.

Well, all you have to do is shut down the economy, tax everyone and everything, including doubling the captial gains tax, raise corporate taxes (already higher than even most European nations) to dizzying new heights, promise to make the already giant lumbering beast that is Medicaid even more ridiculously expensive and unweildy by expanding it to cover everyone, here legally or otherwise, who hasn't already worked out their own coverage--and force those of us who already pay for insurance to then also pay for everyone else's, too. And he's going to single-handedly increase the efficiency of the entire nation's medical field, despite never having done anything at all to suggest that he's even capable of organizing anything more than a sweet deal for himself with shady businessmen. And I'm sorry, but if you've drunk so deeply of the Kool-Aid that you truly believe that electing McCain means simply "four more years of Bush," then you need to get your head checked. Yes, he's trying to keep from being That Guy, the centrist who for almost a decade was unable to get enough support to actually win his party's nomination, and now that he's got it he has no desire to repeat that failure on the national stage. As such, he's being less vocal about his many stances that would alienate the far-right people who still vote in droves.

But four more years of Bush? That's nearly as unimaginative an attack as calling everyone who doesn't vote for Barack a racist.

[Calus]

The one thing I find funny about Obama is that he wants to increase taxes for the Rich. When the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes thats almost Double the 22% of the nation income they make. Obama wants to increase taxes back to the Carter years where the top 1% only pay 19%? Under Bush's taxes they pay Double that of Carter's taxes.... Does this sound like a good idea?

[collegestudent22]

In fact, I would think that a National Sales Tax would actually keep the rich paying that 40% or more as the sales tax on a yacht/mansion/biggest TV ever made would be a whole lot more than the tax on the guy that is buying little more than what he needs to live off of, and few "luxury" items.

[Thorsman]

Racism? Did someone really just throw racism into this thread? Do Europeans and ex-pats have such a cartoony view of the US that they believe otherwise reasonable, left-leaning people who would otherwise vote for Obama are instead hating on him because he's half black? Good lord...

The view isn't cartoony at all. It has been known to happen. Sometimes people who profess liberal views DO have a streak of racism, to say nothing of the fact that others simply aren't voting for Obama because he's black and they don't want a black President. It's pretty cartoony of you to deny the possibility.

And by the way, Deacon, do Americans still living in the US really have such a sheltered view of Europeans that they assume that all Europeans think alike and have the same views from country to country, nevermind from person to person?

[Deacon]

For the most part, yes, that'd be an accurate statement, to the same degree that most Europeans seem to think of Americans as generally ignorant and poorly educated and hold the general stereotypes regarding those on the left and on the right and rednecks, etc.

[Martin Blank]

In fact, I would think that a National Sales Tax would actually keep the rich paying that 40% or more as the sales tax on a yacht/mansion/biggest TV ever made would be a whole lot more than the tax on the guy that is buying little more than what he needs to live off of, and few "luxury" items.

A national sales tax would be a tremendously bad idea, as it would strike the poor to such a degree as to make their ability to support themselves even more tenuous. I'm also not certain that it would be constitutional, as it is a regulation of commerce that covers things squarely inside of the states.

[adciv]

A national sales tax would be a tremendously bad idea, as it would strike the poor to such a degree as to make their ability to support themselves even more tenuous.

How about the Fairtax Variant?

I'm also not certain that it would be constitutional, as it is a regulation of commerce that covers things squarely inside of the states.

If congress can tax any income, and they can tax business income, surely they could figure out a way of phrasing it such that a sales tax is covered under the 16th amendment?

[Martin Blank]

A sale is not income. Business taxes are not passed directly on to the consumer, whereas sales tax is.

I'll have to look at the FairTax site more closely, but there's a section that I question deeply:

Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here.

If the taxes only get to the government by the seller reporting the sale, and the underground economy is, by definition, not part of the normally-regulated system of commerce, who is going to report those sales to the government? Also, a sales tax of 23% on top of the base cost (not to mention state and local sales taxes) is likely to reduce the number of tourists coming in.

I also question the prebate idea. It recognizes that the poverty level is different in Hawaii and Alaska, but ignores that there's a difference between the poverty levels in California and Texas. This opens the door to further constitutional challenges regarding equal protection.

However, this is off-topic here, and if it is to be further discussed, it should be in a new topic.

[Deacon]

A national sales tax would be a tremendously bad idea, as it would strike the poor to such a degree as to make their ability to support themselves even more tenuous.

I'm curious as to where you're coming from on this and whether you believe there may be simple tweaks that can be made (such as, say, no tax on clothing items under $15 or whatever--just pulled that out of my ass, but you get the idea) that would help alleviate whatever problems you may have with it?

EDIT: Can you simply move these posts into a new thread? Or would it be sufficient to Quote every one of the relevant posts into a new thread?

[jonesjulia]

Am I like... the only person who feels this way?

Absolutely not. I've always felt that one of the Reps worst mistakes was preferring Bush to McCain. I would have gleefully voted for him 8 years ago. As is, I can't stand his party's far right base enough anymore to give him my vote. His kowtowing to them is, frankly, very sad and beneath McCain.

[Deacon]

For instance?

[jonesjulia]

I believe he's referring to the idea that a flat tax ( be it sales or income) disproportionately affects the poor because taking, say, 5% away from someone making 20,000 cuts more into their lifestyle than someone making 2 million. They'll feel it more on a day to day basis if you see what I mean.

Whether there can be a tinkering to make it a good idea I can't say.

My personal thought is that the tax code needs to be thrown out and rewritten. There's a ton of loopholes in it that large corporations waltz through. I'm not someone who thinks that the rich necessarily need to underwrite the poor but I do object to people/corporations working the system. According to a quick internet search of GAO reports that most of the corporations that control 93% of reported corporate assets in the US reported no tax liability. That's crazy sauce.


http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-358

[adciv]

@jonesjulia: I think you need to re-read that paragraph you link to. What it says is not what you think it says.

BTW, what's crazy is that we tax corporations at all. It makes them less competitive with foriegn corporations and the cost is passed on to the consumer. An analysis would probablyfind it 'regresive' as well. At this point, we need to tax the poor in some way. It's about at the point where they pay no taxes or responsibilities and get most of the benefits of the government. Bread and Circuses, essentially.

@ Lucksi: An underground economy is all activity that avoids taxes that should be charged on it. Think if I am a plumber and go to your place to fix something. You pay me in cash. However, I do not report the income.