Who are you voting for:Obama or McCain

Student Lounge College Life
61

<p>lollybo:
I love how people use say "you didn't back up your argument, so I shouldn't have to either."
Except I at least gave examples, and you have offered nothing other than disillusionment.
So why does the constitution give rights to all americans, and why does it not give special powers to the elite?
I mean, I guess we shouldn't care about the rights of the accused, the protection of government abuse through curtailment of the basic liberties outlined in the bill of rights, because its elitist. Even thought the rights protect the average citizen far more than the wealthy. The same constitution also sparked a world wide political movement towards democratic societies.
If you are at all familiar with the Constitution, the civil rights amendments ended slavery, so the 3/5th compromise in Articele 1 sec 2 clause 3 is nullified by the 14th amendment.So no, we don't still adhere to the 3/5th compromise, especially because we do not have a VISIBLE slave population.
Many of the framers were farmers, and very few attained any prestigious occupations. As farmers they identified with much of the population.
I think you misunderstood my points. I clearly referred to how the redistribution of wealth did not work in China nor USSR, as was their objective. BO's tax policies hold such a philosphy. I never called any of his policies socialist. You stated we had the WORST health care system in the world, which we don't. I used China as an example of an idustrialized nation with a worse health care system, which is less affordable to their systems than is ours.
The fed gov has not proved it is at all capable of oversight, or overseeing a national health care agenda. Look at how the gov created and then reacted to the mortgage issues. That was some great oversight.
Why should we expand the powers of gov? Explain to me how BO's health care policy WON'T unecassarily expand the power of the fed gov, and how can he guarentee that there will be proper oversight, especially after the inability of the fed gov to oversee loan practices?
His health care policy=more government. Period. So does the bailout, so does his tax policies, because he alone can not implement a health care system, and it is unlikely that it will resemble BO's policy.
I have not called any policies by BO socialist or communist. Certain principles behind his policies are rooted in extreme liberal views which may equate to socialist influences.
The Constitutions main goal is to protect man from government, and to protect man from the government becoming too big or too powerful, because a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.
It would be far more effective to
1) force insurance companies to offer the same rates to individuals as companies/groups
2) ban the practice of insurance companies denying or hiking up the costs for those who have previous medical conditions.
No need to create more government.</p>

62

<p>


</p>

<p>That's great that you think the charity should give to the poor and uneducated. But if think it's such a good idea why don't you give money yourself instead of demanding that the government take money from the rich to give to these programs? I'm sure many rich people also believe in charity and they can should be allowed to give as much of their income as they want. The problem is that you want the government to forcibly take from the rich to give to the poor.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
That's great that you think the charity should give to the poor and uneducated. But if think it's such a good idea why don't you give money yourself instead of demanding that the government take money from the rich to give to these programs? I'm sure many rich people also believe in charity and they can should be allowed to give as much of their income as they want. The problem is that you want the government to forcibly take from the rich to give to the poor.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I personally did not give back to the poor, but my parents donated a couple grand to China's earthquake victims. Because China has no social security, my parents also pay two thousand dollars a month to my grandparents in China. My parents aren't super rich either, their combined income is about 180k a year. We're well off, but definitely not rich. I don't donate anything personally because I'm a poor college student and have loans and stuff to pay off.</p>

<p>There's a problem when 5 percent of the population owns 90 percent of the country's wealth. There's a problem when CEO's have trouble deciding which million dollar boat they want to buy, when many Americans have trouble finding a home- that's precisely why the government needs to be active in providing public services- there are a lot of people in this country that can't contribute much to public services, the rich can contribute the most.</p>

<p>The point of a public service is that it benefits everyone, therefore everyone has to pay for it. The rich can afford to pay more, so they should even if they get the same benefits as everyone else. The problem with letting everyone pay equal taxes is that it hurts the poor the most. As a result, they go into debt, stop buying things, and the whole economy gets hurt in the long run.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
There's a problem when 5 percent of the population owns 90 percent of the country's wealth. There's a problem when CEO's have trouble deciding which million dollar boat they want to buy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I just want to throw this out here, because it's something that always irritates me. My dad is the CEO of an up-and-coming tech company, and was previously the CEO of a publicly traded telecom company. While it's safe to say we're well off, we own one house, three cars for four people, and most certainly do not own a yacht or any boat for that matter. Could we buy another house and more cars? Sure. Could we just go buy a million dollar yacht? Probably not. Don't assume that everyone who has money spends their money like it's Supermarket Sweep, and don't assume that everyone who is a CEO/has money owns several multi-million dollar mansions around the world, and goes cruising on their yacht on the weekends.
I know you're going to counter with the fact that you meant Fortune 500 CEOs, and while many of them likely own multiple houses and a yacht(s), they likely worked just as hard as my dad did to get to where they are now. Why should they (and my father) be penalized for their hard work? And for what it's worth, my parents donate a lot of money to charities in the U.S., and all over the world. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The rich can afford to pay more

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Utterly ridiculous logic. Plain and simple.</p>

65

<p>If the rich doesn't pay for it, who will? The poor certainly can't. The middle class can, but the rich should pay for a larger portion than the middle class or else it would be an unfair tax.</p>

<p>If what you are saying is true (I'm not saying it's not), then your parents are very hard workers. However, I also think that the people working for minimum wage 40 hours a week with little benefits are also hard workers. Why should they have to pay a higher proportion of their income for the benefits that everyone receives? Taxes should not "rob" the rich of their hard earned wealth (they deserve it...most of the time), they should still pay the same proportion of their income for the benefits that everyone receives. The same for the middle class, the same for the upper middle class, and perhaps the poor can be cut a little slack because they can barely feed their families. That is the most democratic way of doing it, IMO.</p>

66

<p>Wow I would say your pretty well off at $180,000 a yr. In fact that's very close to the upper class echelon, placing you in upper middle class.
Wish my parents had that kind of money, but I guess that's what happens when you work in the non profit sector and for the FDIC, less than have of what your parents make.
Public service DOES NOT benefit everyone. Homeless shelters only help the homeless, and welfare only helps the poor. People who make under $30,000 currently do not pay fed. taxes, which is where the poverty line should be(I have no idea how the poverty line for a 4 person family can be $12,400...unless my soc. prof was mistaken). Poor people are unlikely to contribute to the economy because they only should be spending money on necassities.
Raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy the most, b.c. the middle and upper class by far contribute more percentage wise than lower middle, poor and the impoverished.
Actually, 1% owns 96% of the wealth/assets in America. There's nothing wrong with that b.c. 1) they've earned it 2)they possess skills that most others don't have. Anyone can work in sanitation or in retail, but far fewer are capable of running a business.
The vast majority (75%+) are at least middle class, so why should we redistribute wealth?
How can you be a poor college kid when your parents make $180,000? The median income of Americans hovers around $50,000. I would assume that your parents don't support you if college is such a burden. You are much better off than the majority of Americans, and, based on your ideas, should find a way to donate or volunteer based on the wealth of your parents. Don't ask ME to be forced to sustain public services that I WILL NOT USE and when you don't walk the walk.
I guess it's fine as long as these programs are sustained not by you, but by someone else.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
Actually, 1% owns 96% of the wealth/assets in America. There's nothing wrong with that b.c. 1) they've earned it 2)they possess skills that most others don't have. Anyone can work in sanitation or in retail, but far fewer are capable of running a business.
The vast majority (75%+) are at least middle class, so why should we redistribute wealth?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some things are deserved and others are not. I'm pretty sure Michael Phelps deserves all those Gold medals, and my (imaginary) dog deserves a treat for good behavior. Does a serial killer deserve to get away with homicide just because he is smart enough to get away with it? Just because it is the result of talent and/or hard work doesn't mean it's right. When people are starving and others are swimming in money, something is wrong. I'm not saying change the people- I appreciate entrepreneurism and invention, it's what keeps the world progressive. I'm saying something is wrong with the system, hard working people should not be condemned to a life of financial struggles while CEOs, who are usually equally hard working, reap all the benefits. Hard working inventors and CEOs should be rewarded for their hard work, but it should not cause a massive imbalance in wealth. This is just common sense. The system needs to be changed, not the people.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
If the rich doesn't pay for it, who will? The poor certainly can't. The middle class can, but the rich should pay for a larger portion than the middle class or else it would be an unfair tax.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the point is that the rich don't need to pay for it; at least they don't need to be coerced into paying for it. If people want to help out others, they are more than welcome to, but they should never be forced to. Making the rich pay more is generally thought of as normal, since the maringal utility of money decreases as people gain more. I have no problem with the rich paying more taxes than other classes; but Obama is going to gouge them. Thus, he's coercing them to pay, and I see that as wrong. The tough part is drawing the line between fair and unfair. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Does a serial killer deserve to get away with homicide just because he is smart enough to get away with it? Just because it is the result of talent and/or hard work doesn't mean it's right.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, making money is now equivalent to killing someone? I got your point, but I'm a little unsure of the analogy. Also, on a total tangent, a lot of people commit crimes after weighing in the costs, benefits, and its expected value. I might even argue that those people deserve whatever they are getting, as long as they have weighed the consequences and the benefits. But, this is a totally different debate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm saying something is wrong with the system, hard working people should not be condemned to a life of financial struggles while CEOs, who are usually equally hard working, reap all the benefits. Hard working inventors and CEOs should be rewarded for their hard work, but it should not cause a massive imbalance in wealth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>CEOs tend to work a lot harder than most people, and they have a very uncommon skill set. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for their talent and skills? There is obviously a market for everything. Like, why aren't teachers paid well? Because there are few barriers to entry, and most people wouldn't mind (and some would even enjoy) doing it. Conversely, why are surgeons or investment bankers paid so well? They have a particular skill set, and lots of barriers to entry (going through med school, working 80 hour weeks, going up the ranks....etc). They should be compensated for their work. If becoming a CEO were easy, there would be lots of them, and they would all get paid a lot less. IMO, the system doesn't need anything to fix it.</p>

69

<p>Thanks for your input Myrmidon, but it's not just about welfare, it's about public goods in general like the Army and simple things like roads and street lights. Everyone benefits, so everyone theoretically has to pay for it. The problem is, it hurts the poor the most when taxes are not based on proportion of income.</p>

<p>If taxes didn't exist or were dramatically lowered, who would pay for these goods? I don't forsee any single person or company stepping out and saying "I'm going to pay for this good that everyone else will benefit from." That simply doesn't work- taxes are needed.</p>

70

<p>I'm voting for Obama because a McCain administration would treat me like a second-class citizen and take rights away. No-brainer from my POV.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>If taxes didn't exist or were dramatically lowered, who would pay for these goods? I don't forsee any single person or company stepping out and saying "I'm going to pay for this good that everyone else will benefit from." That simply doesn't work- taxes are needed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course taxes are still necessary; I'm not anti-taxation (I hope I didn't come off that way). I was just saying that there is a point of excessive taxation (which invariably happens to the rich), and I feel that Obama is mighty close to crossing that line.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
I'm saying something is wrong with the system, hard working people should not be condemned to a life of financial struggles while CEOs, who are usually equally hard working, reap all the benefits.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why is that wrong? I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why should they have to pay a higher proportion of their income for the benefits that everyone receives?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They shouldn't--FairTax</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
They shouldn't--FairTax

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I actually really like FairTax, but how can it be implemented? Also, how does it deal with black markets that sell goods untaxed? Usually a 7% tax rate isn't enough to warrant that, but a 23% tax rate might. (I might be totally off here, as some large cities may have sales tax rates that high anyways).</p>

74

<p>just to set out the facts straight. obama is going to go back to the tax rate of the 90s for the rich families who make more than 250k (which would be 39%). this is nothing extreme compared to what other countries have in place. taxes are necessary. they will be used for things that will benefit all sorts of people. i don't see what's so hard to understand about that. the problem with people is that they don't want to pay taxes and so they keep getting lowered while the government gets bigger and spending increases. you can't have both. while both tax plans, will end up creating more debt in the long run, obama's plan creates less debt. what's astounding here is that some people feel there is nothing wrong with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. it's a disgusting attitude to have. it creates an even bigger divide between the rich and the poor. obama's plan isn't to benefit lazy people. it has nothing to do with skill set. it's about helping out the lower and middle class families who are working. it's not to benefit lazy people who don't work. not sure why that's being brought up. rich people can afford to give up more because they are making that much more than everyone else. and at the end of the day each job is valuable, and while they may not pay the same amount, there's no reason that the lower and middle class should be stuck in poverty or being middle class all their live while the upper class continues to reap of benefits from all the work those lower and middle class workers do for them.</p>

<p>it's down right disturbing that some people feel that it's a person's fault for not having health care. not everyone can afford it. why is it someone's fault if they can't afford it? it's a shame other countries can have healthcare for everyone, but we can't. health care should not be a business. it should be a guarantee for everyone. there's no reason a person making 20k a year can't afford health care and a person making 100k a year can. once you start making that distinction you start putting values on people's life. that's wrong.</p>

<p>the mentality some people have is just very self-centered and greedy when it comes to certain issues.</p>

<p>obama's plan as far as health care and taxation goes is the better of the two because it does help out more people rather than just a few people which is what mccain's plan does.</p>

<p>just remember not everyone was born into wealth. somewhere down the line, someone had to work hard to get to where they were. and just like that person had the opportunity to get rich, so should everyone else. but when people are just stuck in poverty and don't lack the funds or benefits to get there, then it becomes even tougher to get richer.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
I just want to throw this out here, because it's something that always irritates me. My dad is the CEO of an up-and-coming tech company, and was previously the CEO of a publicly traded telecom company. While it's safe to say we're well off, we own one house, three cars for four people, and most certainly do not own a yacht or any boat for that matter. Could we buy another house and more cars? Sure. Could we just go buy a million dollar yacht? Probably not. Don't assume that everyone who has money spends their money like it's Supermarket Sweep, and don't assume that everyone who is a CEO/has money owns several multi-million dollar mansions around the world, and goes cruising on their yacht on the weekends.
I know you're going to counter with the fact that you meant Fortune 500 CEOs, and while many of them likely own multiple houses and a yacht(s), they likely worked just as hard as my dad did to get to where they are now. Why should they (and my father) be penalized for their hard work? And for what it's worth, my parents donate a lot of money to charities in the U.S., and all over the world. </p>

<p>Quote:
The rich can afford to pay more </p>

<p>Utterly ridiculous logic. Plain and simple.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, so your family is wealthy. And you're telling me that you, a college student, who grew up in a household of two "staunch Democrats" - parent identification being the single greatest factor in predicting an individual's identification - are a McCain supporter? Please - my original predictions about your family - obvious as they may be - were true, stop bsing us.</p>

<p>It is obvious why you like McCain - same reason I like Obama - it will mean less taxes for your family. Too bad you are outnumbered.</p>

<p>"The rich can afford to pay more" is utterly ridiculous logic? Haahahahah ahahahhahah HAHAHAHAHAH. Those with more money can spend more money. That doesn't make sense to you? It may not be true in practice, given a myriad of factors and philosophizing, but based on logic alone, it is completely sound.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don't think people who are wealthy are "evil" or "undeserved." I never mentioned that in my original post. Frankly, a lot of rich people have worked their a$$es off to get where they are. Many have done nothing to accomplish their wealth. There is a broad spectrum. You can't judge a person's character based on their wealth or lack of it, so this isn't about some sort of "class" war.</p>

<p>Your parents give to charity? Great, they'll get tax breaks for it then.</p>

<p>John McCain is not going to lower taxes --- he's going to end the War in Iraq "when hell freezes over" aka when the Republican party gives a flying F about anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year, women, or minorities.</p>

<p>Clinton created a surplus. Clinton created more jobs from when he entered to when he left. Who cares what the man stuck his dick into; frankly it's none of your business. They tried to remove him for perjury, not the actual sex act (this blantant partisanship hurt Republicans - they got flushed from Congress in the immediately following election).</p>

<p>Bush has.... well I don't need to get into it. Deficit, less jobs. Running the economy into the ship house...</p>

<p>But I guess you like the war in Iraq, though. You are in favor of killing endless amounts of soldiers and flushing extravagant amounts money in the toilet in the name of "Iraqi Freedom"? "Mission Accomplished" I guess, right? All to grease the wheels of the oil and war machines, cough, I mean Iraqi freedom, we all love Iraqi Freedom.</p>

<p>It's no wonder Obama, even while black, is stomping on McCain in this election. This country can only be kicked in the balls so directly and repeatedly by the Republican party before it gets the picture that it's filled with self-dealing crooks who couldn't give a damn about their fellow citizens. I've seen interviews with blatant racists from West Virgina or Alabama who call Obama the n-word and then talk about how they're still unsure of who to vote for (they are considering Obama) - looks like desperation crosses even racial (racist) lines.</p>

<p>And another thing: Sarah Palin</p>

<p>I don't blame you for your view: Voting McCain might mean more money for your family in theory - provided he doesn't tank the economy or convince Congress we need to build a few aircraft carriers (war machine) to attack a land-locked country.</p>

<p>But for the sake of you, me, and the vast majority of this country, I'm glad Obama will be landsliding McCain this November.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
parent identification being the single greatest factor in predicting an individual's identification - are a McCain supporter? Please - my original predictions about your family - obvious as they may be - were true, stop bsing us.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you insinuating that I'm lying, and that I'm really a Democrat? That's completely false, and I have no idea why you would say that...</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is obvious why you like McCain - same reason I like Obama - it will mean less taxes for your family.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't support McCain from the beginning. I'm not a big McCain fan, and Palin was simply a big mistake. I will, however, support the 'lesser of two evils' (IMHO), and do support Conservative/Republican ideals. The fact that my family gets taxed less doesn't hurt either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Those with more money can spend more money. That doesn't make sense to you? It may not be true in practice, given a myriad of factors and philosophizing, but based on logic alone, it is completely sound.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I understand that, but just because one has more money doesn't deem it necessary to be taxed more (and in many cases, A LOT more)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Frankly, a lot of rich people have worked their a$$es off to get where they are.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Including my dad, who grew up with the economical means of an average American (and yet worked multiple jobs and paid for college himself). What benefits did he receive? Not a thing. He got to where he is now because he worked hard. No stupid handouts. Nothing. Now he gets penalized for that? That's BS.</p>

<p>As far as the war goes, the whole thing is a mess, but I dont think that means we should necessarily just get out ASAP. I'm not very knowledgeable on the matter, though, to be honest.</p>

<p>And for what it's worth, I acknowledge that Obama will win. I'm fully aware of that.</p>

77

<p>The thought of Sarah Palin a heartbeat from our nation's highest office is one of the most frightening things I can even imagine.</p>

<p>Even my parents, who are staunch Republicans, are voting for Obama.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
Why should the constitution be used to justify modern policies? The constitution said that slaves count as 3/5th of a person, does that still apply today? The constitution was written by the wealthy elite of the day, and is NOT as egalitarian as it seems. For example, they replaced the pursuit of property with the pursuit of happiness because they did not believe everyone deserved a right to property. I don't see the constitution's policies of favoring the elite as justified at all in today's world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The constitution did not say that slaves count as 3/5ths of a person. What are you talking about?</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
I just want to throw this out here, because it's something that always irritates me. My dad is the CEO of an up-and-coming tech company, and was previously the CEO of a publicly traded telecom company. While it's safe to say we're well off, we own one house, three cars for four people, and most certainly do not own a yacht or any boat for that matter. Could we buy another house and more cars? Sure. Could we just go buy a million dollar yacht? Probably not. Don't assume that everyone who has money spends their money like it's Supermarket Sweep, and don't assume that everyone who is a CEO/has money owns several multi-million dollar mansions around the world, and goes cruising on their yacht on the weekends.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No one is saying that rich people spend their money on ridiculously expensive items. I actually agree that Barack is taxing the rich TOO much. But it certainly is right to raise the taxes on people who have been getting a break for about 8 years. It only makes sense, since the rich make the most money, they should pay the most taxes. They aren't getting "punished" they are finally paying their fair share. But, I think Obama's fair share is a bit too high.</p>

<p>They also need to change these tax brackets. You can live a lot differently from a person who makes 250k a year if you make 300k, and the 250k person will get taxed just as much.</p>

80

<p>I'm voting for Bob Barr. Yes, I know he is not the paragon of libertarianism. RP might have recieved my vote, but he is running (basically) as an individual. I would rather see the Libertarian Party gain votes, because RP will not be around forever. Once RP is gone, neither party will be concerned with his stances. However, if the Libertarian party continues to gain popularity, both parties will be forced to recognize this and incorporate parts of the LP's stance.</p>