Newszap Forums Home
 Search       Members   Calendar   Help   Home 
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 
Newszap Forums > Arizona Public Forums > Queen Creek Public Issues Forum > Gallup Poll/Oct.21/Obama 52% McCain 41%

Gallup Poll/Oct.21/Obama 52% McCain 41%
 
 New Topic   Reply   Print 
AuthorPost
Joe_the_Plumber
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 20th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 55
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 01:10 am
 Quote  Reply 

TheBigShow
Member
 

Joined: Sat Feb 11th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 1133
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:58 pm
 Quote  Reply 
QCVillager wrote: TheBigShow wrote:  They don't understand us and they mostly just see the leader of our country on their tv.  What they saw, they didn't like.  The people I met in Amsterdam were first a bit leery when I said I was American and without fail, every one of them said "you are so different than what I expect from Americans".  Not one of the said they hated Americans, they just have a false perception of who we are.   


right, false perceptions propagated by liberal media bias.
Ummm Jeff, it's their media, not ours.  They don't see our "liberal media bias".  I watched their tv, there was no bias.  It was our president acting like a cowboy against the world and they didn't like it.

 

 

TheBigShow wrote: You're so right, the people in Holland pray that we all die in a burning heap every day.  Of course the rest of the world cares what happens with America and who is leading our country.  Take a look at the Nikkei index or the TSX exchange.  You think those guys are loving Bush right now?  Oh heck no.  We are the country the wordl looks to, it shouldn't be the country the rest of the world loathes and fears.  We should lead by example, not by force.

BigShow, you always go for the most extreme and rediculous comparison - Holland. LOL 

Netherlands is but ONE of the 73 countries - see here for full list and comparitive http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx#2

Obama is doing best in this poll in Kenya and Uganda at 89% and 85% respectively

as to Nikkei or TSX echanges and whether those guys are loving Bush or not... again, Bush isn't running this time out... but even at that... i would venture a guess that they are sophisticated enough to recognize that which some of our own masses seem to miss... you cannot lay blame or praise on just ONE guy.  Bush is not single handedly responsible for all the worlds ails... or even for the recent sad state of affairs in the world economy. 

a simple civics lesson needs to be driven home... Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch.  learn about them... heck, go WIKI them... but recognize that for things to happen in this US of A, it takes a LOT MORE than one guy to make it so.

 

I bring up Holland because I've been there.  I've met the people there.  David brought up Europe, thus I explained my experiences.  Had he brought up Uganda, I would have said "never been there dude".  So that's not an off the wall discussion, considering the context.

And you're right, I do hold all sides accountable for our financial crisis but if you ask the people who's to blame, especially in Japan or Canada, they'll give you one name.  Guess who.....



QCVillager
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 17th, 2006
Location: Town Of Queen Creek
Posts: 2898
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:53 pm
 Quote  Reply 
TheBigShow wrote:  They don't understand us and they mostly just see the leader of our country on their tv.  What they saw, they didn't like.  The people I met in Amsterdam were first a bit leery when I said I was American and without fail, every one of them said "you are so different than what I expect from Americans".  Not one of the said they hated Americans, they just have a false perception of who we are.   


right, false perceptions propagated by liberal media bias.

 

 

TheBigShow wrote: You're so right, the people in Holland pray that we all die in a burning heap every day.  Of course the rest of the world cares what happens with America and who is leading our country.  Take a look at the Nikkei index or the TSX exchange.  You think those guys are loving Bush right now?  Oh heck no.  We are the country the wordl looks to, it shouldn't be the country the rest of the world loathes and fears.  We should lead by example, not by force.

BigShow, you always go for the most extreme and rediculous comparison - Holland. LOL 

Netherlands is but ONE of the 73 countries - see here for full list and comparitive http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx#2

Obama is doing best in this poll in Kenya and Uganda at 89% and 85% respectively

as to Nikkei or TSX echanges and whether those guys are loving Bush or not... again, Bush isn't running this time out... but even at that... i would venture a guess that they are sophisticated enough to recognize that which some of our own masses seem to miss... you cannot lay blame or praise on just ONE guy.  Bush is not single handedly responsible for all the worlds ails... or even for the recent sad state of affairs in the world economy. 

a simple civics lesson needs to be driven home... Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch.  learn about them... heck, go WIKI them... but recognize that for things to happen in this US of A, it takes a LOT MORE than one guy to make it so.

 

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:28 pm
 Quote  Reply 
I got similar reactions from the people I spoke with. After one of my classic one liners, one person in Romania looked at me laughing then puzzled and said "You know, you're pretty funny for an American". I took that as a compliment. lol

People do have a misconception of who we are as a people. We definately agree on that. However, the jealousy and hope for our failure was evident in most people I spoke with. Comments like "It's only a matter of time." and "History shows that one country cannot stay in power indefinately." were quite common. I think the US is changing from a beacon of hope to an object of envy in many places in the world. We just need to be wise enough as a people to understand where that sentiment is rooted and protect our interests now more than ever.

TheBigShow
Member
 

Joined: Sat Feb 11th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 1133
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 07:55 pm
 Quote  Reply 
David, I can't say I've been all over Europe but I did spend time in Amsterdam during the past 8 years.  What I can tell you is that they don't wish for us to fail.  They don't understand us and they mostly just see the leader of our country on their tv.  What they saw, they didn't like.  The people I met in Amsterdam were first a bit leery when I said I was American and without fail, every one of them said "you are so different than what I expect from Americans".  Not one of the said they hated Americans, they just have a false perception of who we are.   Part of that has to do with the number of people in the US that have actually travelled to another country.  The number of Americans with a passport is extremely low.  Now that passports are required to travel to countries that it wasn't required for before, that number will go up.  But our foreign travel shouldn't just be limited to Vancouver or Tijuana.

As far as the EU is concerned, that's all about the money Liebowski.  Every country had it's own denomination and it's own valuation.  They wanted to unify the countries and the currencies.  Some of their efforts have worked, others haven't. 

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 07:31 pm
 Quote  Reply 
I can't speak for Holland, but you don't think that Europe is jealous of America? Why do you think they formed the EU? They are trying to emulate our economic system.

I don't know how much travel you have done in Europe, but most of the people I have spoken to about this topic are waiting for us to fall. They liken it to the Roman empire and eagerly await the Euro being the new standard for oil trading and the balance of power shifting in their favor. Of course they cheer for the weaker candidate - the candidate that will oppress us like their governments do them. In their eyes, it levels the playing field and a weaker America means a stronger Europe.

TheBigShow
Member
 

Joined: Sat Feb 11th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 1133
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 07:15 pm
 Quote  Reply 
You're so right, the people in Holland pray that we all die in a burning heap every day.  Of course the rest of the world cares what happens with America and who is leading our country.  Take a look at the Nikkei index or the TSX exchange.  You think those guys are loving Bush right now?  Oh heck no.  We are the country the wordl looks to, it shouldn't be the country the rest of the world loathes and fears.  We should lead by example, not by force.

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 06:50 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Joe_the_Plumber wrote: Bambi wrote: World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1
October 28, 2008
Gallup Polls conducted in 73 countries representing 3.2 billion of the world's adult citizens reveal a more than 3-to-1 preference for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain among those who say they know enough to have an opinion. Citizens in Europe are the most likely to state a preference for the next president of the United States, while citizens in Asia are the least likely.

Another really good reason to not vote for Obama

Exactly. Do you think these people have the interests of the US in mind? Wake UP!

Joe_the_Plumber
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 20th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 55
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:52 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Bambi wrote: World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1
October 28, 2008
Gallup Polls conducted in 73 countries representing 3.2 billion of the world's adult citizens reveal a more than 3-to-1 preference for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain among those who say they know enough to have an opinion. Citizens in Europe are the most likely to state a preference for the next president of the United States, while citizens in Asia are the least likely.

Another really good reason to not vote for Obama

gk
Member


Joined: Mon Jan 9th, 2006
Location: Tonga
Posts: 2730
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:47 pm
 Quote  Reply 


Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:03 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Well, let's see what the Gallup Poll says today about this Race.

50% Obama

43%  McCain

October 29, 2008



 
 

World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1
October 28, 2008
Gallup Polls conducted in 73 countries representing 3.2 billion of the world's adult citizens reveal a more than 3-to-1 preference for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain among those who say they know enough to have an opinion. Citizens in Europe are the most likely to state a preference for the next president of the United States, while citizens in Asia are the least likely.

Last edited on Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:04 pm by Bambi

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 11:12 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Bambi wrote: You missed the message I was trying to convey.  He was trying to keep his employees happy as he knew they were the ones to buy his product.  Most companies back then had horrible working conditions.  He had the right "mentality."

A banker would laugh at my business plan based on that mentality?  I've been around alot longer than you have, and my business plans

But the biggest point here is that Henry CHOSE to do those things as part of his business strategy, which for the time he was in, turned out to be brilliant. Had he had an Obama wanting to tax him into the stone age, he would not have had the ability to do it.

Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 11:07 pm
 Quote  Reply 
You missed the message I was trying to convey.  He was trying to keep his employees happy as he knew they were the ones to buy his product.  Most companies back then had horrible working conditions.  He had the right "mentality."

A banker would laugh at my business plan based on that mentality? 

David.  I have had many successful business's based on that mentality. No banker has ever laughed at me or my thoughts about how to run a business.  Don't make assumptions and promote them as truths, unless you know for sure.  Poor business practice.

Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 11:10 pm by Bambi

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 10:46 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Bambi wrote: Henry Ford was asked many years ago, when he started his auto plant...."Why in the world do you pay your workers so much?"....
Henry started Ford Motor Co in 1903. Income taxes didn't begin until a decade later. This is a pretty poor example for your argument. I would love to see you start a business today with that kind of philanthropic approach. A banker would laugh at the business plan.

I believe companies can be socially responsible and that the vast majority are. I believe I do the right thing by offering excellent pay and benefits including major medical, dental, life and supplemental health insurance. Taxing my business at an even higher rate than I am paying now will only serve to make those benefits less affordable and likely will cause me to downsize, not grow and create more jobs. I have the work and could use more people, but I can't afford them as it is. Obama is certainly not going to help that situation.

Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 10:11 pm
 Quote  Reply 
David...If you agree that's socialism, then we're all socialist.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776


""Promote the general welfare" means precisely what it says - promote the well-being of the nation's citizenry as a whole."  from Obama's website.

Is this a socialist idea or would this be considered an American ideal?

Warren Buffett and the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Paul Krugman, as well as any other prominent economist today, believes that the corporate socialism practiced by the neo-cons has contributed to the fall of our economy. Even Buffett said that Obama's tax plan is too lenient--too "conservative," in fact--on the upper class, and that they should be taxed even higher. One can hardly accuse Buffett of being a "socialist."

Many people have a blind loyalty to the rights of the rich.  Nothing can be said to change their mind.

Perhaps we can trace this problem we're having to the central banks...the federal reserve.  If the federal reserve siphoning machine was stopped, perhaps we wouldn't even have a personal income tax system.  Let them just keep printing enough money to sustain ourselves.  You're right about the income tax originating to fund the civil war. But, in 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. 

The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." ~ Thomas Jefferson

 

 

The Pilgrims came to America, not to escape taxation, but for freedom of religion and for other freedoms.

The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation.
 

 

 

Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 10:21 pm by Bambi

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 08:56 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Bambi wrote: It was disigned so those who enjoyed the benefit of making the most wealth, have to pay a greater share to keep this country going for all of us.  Is that socialism?Yes, yes it is.Sharing the wealth by having the rich pay more in to benefit the masses? If you think it is, then you have a beef with our forefathers and all those who have occupied congressional seats since our Country begin.  Don't forget to call them socialist too. Our forefathers fled England in large part because of oppressive taxation. In fact, when this country was formed there was NO income tax. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? It wasn't until the civil war that income taxes were introduced and they were supposed to be voluntary and temporary. It was also taxed at a rate of 3% for wages over $800.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson

If you're interested in the true history of our tax system, one need only go to the department of treasury.

Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 06:17 pm
 Quote  Reply 
therenow wrote:
Tax the rich has been around since the beginning of time. It's not a new concept, and the results speak for themselves. The reason our country as grand as it is is because it was formed on the basis of not being taxed to the point of oppression and freeing people to create wealth. Now some would like to bring back those failed approaches and somehow hope it will work out differently this time. I'm sorry Obama supporters, I just don't get it.

 

well tax the rich..they are currently paying over 90% of tax revenues now..and THE USA has the highest Corporate tax rate in the world. What does that mean in a global economy? Well, Ireland has an 11% corporate tax rate and their economy is flourishing after years of struggle. Now OBama wants to tax the rich and big companies who create the jobs and capitol. I have never worked for anyone that did not have money. So, rich people create economic growth? If not, who does. Notwithstanding the crooks at Freddie and Fanny (Obama associates heading them up and taking 100,s of millions as a self reward) and Barney Franks AKA Buddy Hackett , Chris Dodds, Maxine Waters sat on thier thumbs while Freddy and Fannie rolls out the sub Primes. So, Obama people, I just don't get it how Obama gets a pass from the media and how he evades the important questions. Too smooth for me..


I would suggest you do your research first before posting your answers.  Ireland's economy is flourishing you say?  Where did you find that information?  Please quote your source. 

Here is what I found and it came from the respected magazine..the Economist.


"The Irish Economy is in a shambles after copying the American-style Enron-Lehman Bros. style of unregulated, lightly taxed speculative bubble-nomics. Like us, they are paying a terrible price for greed, and a naive complete trust in the uncaring vagaries of markets. "

You state America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  Japan has the highest rate in the world.  Also, rates are figured by including state corporate tax rates.  Iowa has a 12% corporate tax rate, so if you want to lower the rate, you will have to visit state capitols too  Most countries rates run between 20% and 30%.  Canada's is 34%.  What Obama should do is have a policy where if the Corps. treat the employees fairly via good wages, programs, etc., then they get a credit. Give them a credit if they stay in America.  Treat the American worker right like Henry Ford did, then sit back and enjoy your wealth.





We have a progressive tax code, where the more you make the more taxes you pay.  Obama didn't originate that code.  It was disigned so those who enjoyed the benefit of making the most wealth, have to pay a greater share to keep this country going for all of us.  Is that socialism?  Sharing the wealth by having the rich pay more in to benefit the masses? If you think it is, then you have a beef with our forefathers and all those who have occupied congressional seats since our Country begin.  Don't forget to call them socialist too. 

Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 07:08 pm by Bambi

CSI_QueenCreek
Member


Joined: Tue May 20th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 142
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 06:13 pm
 Quote  Reply 
We have now reached the point that a wise man warned us of long ago. Almost half of our citizens [and how many who are not??] have discovered they can vote themselves benifits, paid for by someone else. In order for this to work, those in charge of our government, will need the power of that government to confiscate the earnings of corporations,their shareholders,small business,and productive individuals,

The freedoms we have enjoyed will be sacrificed for the "common good"!!--whatever and whoever, "they" decide that is. The fact that socialism has been tried and failed for over 75 years in various countries,with huge loss of life and liberty,standard of living,has been sold to those ignorant of history---or--reality??

 
Unfortunately, those we communicate with here, already understand what the outcome of this election really means. It is not them we need to reach  !!  The folks who have bought the Democrats idea of "change" may  have to learn the hard way. I feel sad, knowing what that will mean for our children and grandchildren.---!!!

Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:30 pm
 Quote  Reply 
My realestate commissions are always negotiable, depending on the seller's circumstances.  If they are in a jam, I cut it.  If they are basking in wealth, I keep it at the usual rate.  I'm flexible depending on the situation and the needs of the clients.  It's based on need.  Does that make me a socialist or a caring person?

a group of persons who by virtue of money, position or education exercise much power or influence..... this is the definition of an elitist.  This is how our Country has been operating for 8 years.....morally bankrupt elitist who have been holding the majority of the wealth for their own personal gain.  Wealth achieved via lower wages (going to other countries) lower taxes, unregulated behaviors. no benefits, poor working conditions, and less Corp. Taxes.  Greed based.  The feeling of superiority has been engineering this train, and now it's a runaway train, and they are coming to the middleclass to be rescued.   Watch what happens to that money.  Don't take your eye off the ball, or it will disappear into coffers that it was not intended, as you still have a mentally bankrupt President and Administration overseeing their friends.

If a Corporation wants to go to Ireland to open their company because it's tax rate is only 11% and ours is 35%, then let them go.  Another company will only take their place via their loyalty to America and it's people.  Why are so many in our Country unemployed?  Those jobs are oversees.  Why should we give money to a Corp. that functions in another Country to save on taxes and wages to acquire more profit?  Let that Country they occupy loan them the money. 



Henry Ford was asked many years ago, when he started his auto plant...."Why in the world do you pay your workers so much?"  Henry's answer was:  "because I want them to buy my cars."  He knew he had to create a formula, that included the majority, in order to survive in the marketplace.  He didn't seek out other countries so he could pay little to nothing to his government or his employees.  He didn't complain about the costs of running his company needed to be decreased, so he could pay his CEO's millions, so cut the workers benefits.  He benefited by "sharing" his wealth thru higher wages, better working conditions, and fairness to his workers...the middleclass.  Win Win situation. and he still rendered unto "Ceasar" that which is Ceasars."

You're going to see a "restructing" of our society, so fairness and opportunity is afforded to all.  Call it what you want.  I call it long overdue.  McCain won't do it, as his tax plan favors the wealthy.  Obama will do it as his tax plan favors the middleclass.  Confirm by going to the Tax Center.

You want to see what happens to governments that are out of balance, where only the top 5% benefit?  Then read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.  What happened there is happening here.

therenow
Member


Joined: Tue Oct 31st, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 273
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:26 pm
 Quote  Reply 

Tax the rich has been around since the beginning of time. It's not a new concept, and the results speak for themselves. The reason our country as grand as it is is because it was formed on the basis of not being taxed to the point of oppression and freeing people to create wealth. Now some would like to bring back those failed approaches and somehow hope it will work out differently this time. I'm sorry Obama supporters, I just don't get it.

 

well tax the rich..they are currently paying over 90% of tax revenues now..and THE USA has the highest Corporate tax rate in the world. What does that mean in a global economy? Well, Ireland has an 11% corporate tax rate and their economy is flourishing after years of struggle. Now OBama wants to tax the rich and big companies who create the jobs and capitol. I have never worked for anyone that did not have money. So, rich people create economic growth? If not, who does. Notwithstanding the crooks at Freddie and Fanny (Obama associates heading them up and taking 100,s of millions as a self reward) and Barney Franks AKA Buddy Hackett , Chris Dodds, Maxine Waters sat on thier thumbs while Freddy and Fannie rolls out the sub Primes. So, Obama people, I just don't get it how Obama gets a pass from the media and how he evades the important questions. Too smooth for me..

Joe_the_Plumber
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 20th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 55
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:55 am
 Quote  Reply 
By Obama's own count there are 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and he wants them all getting government benefits.

Obama has stated he also wants to give each and everyone of them amnesty and citizenship.

As for them learning English, he has stated he thinks American kids, your kids, should learn Spanish.

There is no doubt this man is the most radical leftist ever nominated by the Democratic party.

We have already exposed Obama's shocking plan to give illegals driver's licenses - even though everyone knows the 9/11 plot began with 13 of the 19 terrorists getting driver's licenses.  

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 07:56 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Bambi wrote: I don't know what your profit margin is, but is it necessary for you to lay off workers in order to maintain your margin, or is there room for adjustment in the profit or operations and still keep your workers?Ohhh!!!! I think I'm getting it now. I'm supposed to be in business so that I can create as many jobs as possible so that people that don't want to take the risk of going into business for themselves can have security and happiness. See, originally I thought I was doing it so that I could attain my goals in life.

If this is what US business is really all about, shouldn't all companies in the USA be non-profit? I mean, if there is any profits, they should just create a job. I can really see a lot of people jumping into entrepreneurship ( incidentally what has made this country great ) knowing their reward will be to make jobs for people and serve the greater good. And for those that don't want to work, well, that's OK. Here's a house and some money.

You're a real estate agent, right? See, I think 3% commission is WAY too much for what agents actually do. How about we just drop the commission down to say 1.3% and you can send the other 1.7% to Obama. In fact, there is no changes in the tax code necessary. I'm sure the government won't turn down your donation.

Even better, let's skip the government bureaucracy altogether to save their 'commission' on the income redistribution deal. I mean, you don't think they're going to broker this deal for free do you? I have a solution to get us to where many Obama supporters want to take us - and I can accomplish it overnight. We can all take our tax returns out this Halloween and whomever makes more than the other can just shove some cash in the other's trick or treat bag. Income can be 'redistributed' overnight and Obama can go back to Chicago. Then you can cut taxes on businesses and recover this economy.

There have been some pirates on Wall Street. They need to be thrown in jail for a long, long time. It has undermined our economic strength and the greed of a few cost literally trillions of dollars from people's investments and retirements. Regulation reform is badly needed, but riding the brake on our economy by introducing new and increased taxes is not going to help US business to get back to where it always has been.

Tax the rich has been around since the beginning of time. It's not a new concept, and the results speak for themselves. The reason our country as grand as it is is because it was formed on the basis of not being taxed to the point of oppression and freeing people to create wealth. Now some would like to bring back those failed approaches and somehow hope it will work out differently this time. I'm sorry Obama supporters, I just don't get it.

 

Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:48 pm
 Quote  Reply 


 




         Obama's Corporate Tax Policies




End Tax Breaks for Companies That




Ship Jobs Overseas. Would reverse the




backwards incentive that allows




companies to defer or avoid taxes




entirely if they invest overseas while




requiring them to pay full and immediate




taxes if they invest in America.




New Tax Breaks for Companies That




Create Jobs in America. For companies




that expand or create jobs in America,




Barack Obama would lower corporate




tax rates with the savings attained from




ending deferral.




 




McCain's Corporate Tax Policies:




Voted to retain tax breaks for




companies that ship jobs overseas.




Nearly $200 billion in tax cuts to




corporations, even if they do not invest




in the US or create a single US job.




Includes:




o $4bn for large oil companies




o $2bn for health insurance




companies




Small




Business Tax




Policies




  Obama's Small Business Tax Policies:




Eliminate Capital Gains for Small




Businesses. Obama would cut capital




gains taxes to 0% for investments in




small businesses and start ups.




 



A New Small Business Healthcare Tax



Credit. Obama would provide a 50%



health care tax credit to small businesses



and lower health insurance costs by



$2,500 per family for all firms.


 



McCain's Small Business tax policies:



Would continue to tax capital gains for



small businesses at 15%.



Added Costs for Firms That Provide



Health Insurance. McCain would tax



employer contributions to employee health



insurance plans for the first time in




 

Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:56 pm by Bambi

Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 05:30 pm
 Quote  Reply 
I'd like to make this comment regarding Palin's statement last night on the stump.

She said that she feels our Country is emulating countries where the people are not free.  This is a statement with regards to her maintaining we will become socialistic under Obama.  Before I proceed, I would like to encourage you to watch the rerun of Meet the Press tonight, where McCain was interviewed on it this a.m.  Pay attention to the playback of a time about 4 years ago, where he makes the statement about spreading the wealth.

Now Palin:  She just doesn't seem to grasp what is going on here in our Country.  I think Reagan said it best when he made these comments during his time, about how our Country operates.  ".....if it moves; tax it.  ....if it keeps moving, regulate it.  ......if it stops, subsidize it.

According to G.Will, 95% of what our Government does is redistribute wealth.  We operate on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed cost.  Example the Sugar industry.  Sugar subsidies cost the taxpayer and is causing this industry to become very wealthy....subsidies are redistribution of govt. wealth (our monies).  There are farms in the midwest that sell  with those subsidies, so it has become a business, where you buy the land to inherit the subsidy, and let the land sit idle.  No need to farm it as the owners are now living off our money, and becoming rich.

We're also injecting money into those banks from Wall Street.  Only problem is that those same banks are still not lending, but in the meantime, the stockholders are benefiting from the taxpayers money.  Why aren't they lending?  Because there was no verbiage in the edict that said they had to.

During one of the wars, we nationalized the railroads.  Now we have "nationalized" banks and other Wall Street casinos, by giving them our monies and theoretically regulation of those monies and their behaviors. This is all happening under Palin's Party, yet she fears Obama?

As I delve more into this, I see that when we become troubled as a nation, the govt. intervenes to protect it's people.  This is going to happen again, until we are back to why we formed this country in the first place.  That will probably mean restructuring the system to allow the free market to trickle thru the many as it was intended to.  From there, it will be up to the generation of that time to determine what works for them and what doesn't.  They will have a great deal of history to draw from to formulate that successful equation.  Hindsight is definitely 20/20 and gives a view of both success's and failures to learn from.

Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 05:36 pm by Bambi

Bambi
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 3503
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:51 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Thank you David for your clear response. And good luck on your business's.  I hope you are successful, dispite this taxation problem.  I don't know what your profit margin is, but is it necessary for you to lay off workers in order to maintain your margin, or is there room for adjustment in the profit or operations and still keep your workers?

I thought we'd take a look at that 30 year old code (and it's amendments) you questioned we still use. It begin in 1954. A good lesson in civics. 



Internal Revenue Code of 1986

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Taxation in the United States



This article is part of a series on
Taxation
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
Year 2008 income brackets and tax rates
Before deductions.


Marginal Tax Rate
Single
Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er)
Married Filing Separately
Head of Household

10%       Marginal Tax Rate
$0 – $8,025       Single
$0 – $16,050     Married, filing jointly       
$0 – $8,025       Married, filing separately
$0 – $11,450     Head of Household

15%      Marginal Tax Rate
$8,026 – $32,550         Single
$16,051 – $65,100       Married, filing jointly
$8,026 – $32,550         Married, filing separately
$11,451 – $43,650       Head of Household

25%       Marginal Tax rate 
$32,551 – $78,850        S.
$65,101 – $131,450      M
$32,551 – $65,725        M
$43,651 – $112,650      H

28%   Marginal tax rate
$78,851 – $164,550      S
$131,451 – $200,300    M
$65,726 – $100,150      M
$112,651 – $182,400    H 



33%   Marginal tax rate
$164,551 – $357,700    S
$200,301 – $357,700    M
$100,151 – $178,850    M
$182,401 – $357,700    H

35%    Marginal Tax Rate
$357,701+        S
$357,701+        M
$178,851+        M
$357,701+        H
The effective tax rates corresponding to the definitions above are shown in the accompanying graph.




Here's another chart explaining the 2007 calculations. 

Schedule XSingle





If taxable income is over--
But not over--
The tax is:

$0     If taxable income is over
$7,825   But not over
10% of the amount over $0 would be your tax.

$7,825  If taxable income is over
$31,850   But not over
$782.50 plus 15% of the amount over 7,825 will be your tax

$31,850
$77,100
$4,386.25 plus 25% of the amount over 31,850  will be your tax

$77,100
$160,850
$15,698.75 plus 28% of the amount over 77,100  will be your tax

$160,850
$349,700
$39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850  will be your tax

$349,700
no limit
$101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700  will be your tax.

Effective income tax rate in 2008 as function of taxable income. The two most common filing statuses are shown, single (black curve) and married filing jointly (red curve). The dashed green line represents the maximum tax rate. This graph should not be interpreted as bearing on the so-called marriage penalty.
Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income rates as listed above. Long-term capital gains have lower rates corresponding to an individual’s marginal ordinary income tax rate, with special rates for a variety of capital goods.
   
Federal taxation

Authority · History
Internal Revenue Service
CourtFormsCodeRevenue

Income tax · Payroll tax
Alternative Minimum Tax
Estate tax · Excise tax · Gift tax
Corporate tax · Capital gains tax

State & local taxation

State income tax · State tax levels
Sales tax · Use tax · Property tax



Federal tax reform[show]

Automated payment transaction tax
Competitive Tax Plan
Efficient Taxation of Income
Hall-Rabushka flat tax
Real Property Use Tax
Taxpayer Choice Act
USA Tax · Value Added Tax
FairTax · Flat tax



Tax protesting[show]

History
America: Freedom to Fascism
The Law that Never Was
Cheek v. United States

Notable tax protesters
Irwin Schiff
Richard Michael Simkanin
Robert Clarkson · Tom Cryer
Vivien Kellems
Wayne C. Bentson
Wesley Snipes


Tax protester arguments:
Constitutional · 16th Amendment
Statutory · Conspiracy



Taxation by country[show]

 

v [size=•] d [size=•] e

Tax rates around the world
Tax revenue as % of GDP



view [size=•] talk [size=•] edit
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 redesignated the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and made numerous other amendments. The '86 Act, however, did not change the overall structure of the Code. See Internal Revenue Code.

edit] Internal Revenue Code of 1954
The 1954 Code was enacted by the United States Congress as Chapter 736, Pub.L. 83-591, and became law on August 16, 1954, succeeding the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. As enacted, the 1954 Code was published as Volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large. The 1954 Code temporarily extended the Revenue Act of 1951's 5 percentage point increase in corporate tax rates through March 31, 1955, increased depreciation deductions by providing additional depreciation schedules, and created a 4 percent dividend tax credit for individuals.

References to the Internal Revenue Code in the United States Code and other statutes of Congress subsequent to 1954 generally mean Title 26 of the Code as amended. The basic structure of the Title 26 remained the same until the enactment of the comprehensive revision contained in Tax Reform Act of 1986, although of course individual provisions of the law were changed on a regular basis.

edit] Online versions of 1986 Code
An online version of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is maintained by the U.S. Government Printing Office at [1]. Another online version is maintained by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School, at [2].

edit] The 1954 Code and progressivity










20%

$2,000.01 - $4,000.00
22%

$4,000.01 - $6,000.00
26%

$6,000.01 - $8,000.00
30%

$8,000.01 - $10,000.00
34%

$10,000.01 - $12,000.00
38%

$12,000.01 - $14,000.00
43%

$14,000.01 - $16,000.00
47%

$16,000.01 - $18,000.00
50%

$18,000.01 - $20,000.00
53%

$20,000.01 - $22,000.00
56%

$22,000.01 - $26,000.00
59%

$26,000.01 - $32,000.00
62%

$32,000.01 - $38,000.00
65%

$38,000.01 - $44,000.00
69%

$44,000.01 - $50,000.00
72%

$50,000.01 - $60,000.00
75%

$60,000.01 - $70,000.00
78%

$70,000.01 - $80,000.00
81%

$80,000.01 - $90,000.00
84%

$90,000.01 - $100,000.00
87%

$100,000.01 - $150,000.00
89%

$150,000.01 - $ 200,000.00
90%

$200,000.01 or more
91%
Source: Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Pub.L. 83-591, 68A Stat. 5, enacted August 16, 1954 (modified from text of the statute).









[hide]

v [size=•] d [size=•] e[size=Tax Acts of the United States]



Internal
Revenue


1861 · 1862 · 1864 · 1913 · 1916 · 1917 · 1918 · 1921 · 1924 · 1926 · 1928 · 1932 · 1934 · 1935 · 1936 · 1940 · 1940 · 1941 · 1942 · 1943 · 1943 · 1944 · 1945 · 1948 · 1950 · 1950 · 1951 · 1954 · 1954 Code · 1962 · 1964 · 1968 · 1969 · 1971 · 1975 · 1976 · 1977 · 1978 · 1981 · 1982 · 1986 · 1986 Code
 · 1990 · 1993 · 1996 · 1997 · 1998 Reform · 1998 Bill of Rights · 2001 · 2002 · 2003 · 2006



Tariffs

1789: Hamilton I · 1790: Hamilton II · 1792: Hamilton III · 1816: Dallas · 1824: Sectional · 1828: "Abominations" · 1832 · 1833: Compromise · 1842: Black · 1846: Walker · 1857 · 1861: Morrill · 1872 · 1875 · 1883: Mongrel · 1890: McKinley · 1894: Wilson-Gorman · 1897: Dingley · 1909: Payne-Aldrich · 1913: Underwood · 1921: Emergency · 1922: Fordney-McCumber · 1930: Smoot-Hawley · 1934: Reciprocal · 1948: GATT · 1962 · 1974/75 · 1979 · 1984 · 1988 · 1989: Canada FT · 1993: NAFTA · 1994: WTO · 2002: Steel

Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:35 pm by Bambi

DavidB
Member


Joined: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:36 am
 Quote  Reply 
Bambi wrote: David.  Our business was above board and the perks etc., were allowed, and this was many years ago in the early 80's..  I take issue with your suggestion that I was not above board.  I have a friend in the IRS who told me about the C Corporation, so another suggestion on your part that I was dishonest, when I was just passing on information that demonstrated how these Corp. reduce their tax liability... and then the implication that I should be in prison?  Homes: We were developers. and the homes were owned by the Company.  Legal. I never meant to imply that you were evading taxes. Reading it back, it might be construed that way and I should have worded it differently. Nonetheless, tax codes from 30 years ago have little bearing on a conversation about present day events.  EVERYONE's mortgage is largely deductible for their first 2 homes.

I'm sorry, but a C-corp status means nothing with respect to audit probability. Triggers are based on patterns and data mining. Basically, a computer determines who gets audited and the company structure has nothing to do with that algorithm. My wife just studied this very issue in her income tax auditing class.
Many business's today still operate under those premises and that was my point...to show that a corporation can still get out of paying that $700k, thru the multitude of allowable deductions.They operate under a 30 year old tax code?Perhaps the reason you are paying so much tax is you don't have those deductions....Do you own a warehouse?No.A car(s) used for business?YesA boat used to entertain clients?Yes and good luck explaining that you were entertaining a client. No thanks.A plane used to transport goods and clients? Inventory? equipment?Yes, but you can only bill the business back for company use.Obama's plan not working because the rich will get out of paying those taxes. If he puts safegaurds in that won't allow frivolous deductions and maybe puts a "cap" on it, it will still work.I believe the IRS defines a 'frivolous deduction' as 'tax fraud'. Cap on deductions? Why not put a cap on income? To me this is the same thing. You can't have both sides of the coin here. Either you're going to stick it to small business, or you're not. "If he... and maybe....". Good plan.Perhaps you operate your business out of your home (assuming your zoning allows that) and don't have the writeoffs and overhead that many large corporations have that allows them to drop their tax liability a significant amount?I lease 6000 sq feet of office space in Tempe, and 7000 sq feet in Stellar Airpark. You're dreaming if you think 'write-offs' make a company 'rich'. Those 'write-offs' are operating expenses and the cost of doing business. What you're not getting is that if Obama's tax plan is executed, I have to cut 4 jobs out of 27. 4 jobs that people need. 4 jobs that my company needs to grow. I did the math.That S Corp. allows you to run all those deductions, costs and losses down to you personally. Not all business's do as you do in terms of paying themselves thru W2's or dividends, or pay their mortgages thru your system the ligitimate way as you have suggested.  Are you accusing them of running an illegitimate business too?  
I am fully versed in the different forms of company structure, Bambi and the fact that S corps work like proprietorships or partnerships with regard to taxation. Why do you think I have different forms for different companies?Sounds like you derive most of your income from the Stock Market, which leaves a papertrail.  Wrong. I bought some stocks recently because I think the rest of the world is in an unnecessary panic and stocks are CHEAP. I derive my income from the business I spent 20+ years building. I made major sacrifices and took a lot of risk to make it what it is. Forgive me if I am resistant to give the fruits of my labor to Obama so he can redistribute it as he sees fit.Many people still take cash from their business's.....mostly small business....meaning they don't issue themselves a paycheck.And you would prefer that Obama do it for them.

TAXATION NEVER WORKS!!!

CrimeFighter
Member


Joined: Sat Feb 10th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1204
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 10:18 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Bambi wrote:
I said, based on my past experience as a business broker, that many, not all, people have two sets of books in their business.  Would you rather I lie, and say they don't?  Are you a business owner?  How many business's h