Who are you voting for:Obama or McCain

<p>
[quote]
I saw this on the first page on I take offense with it:
Quote:
It is not the rich's patriotic duty to pay higher taxes
It certainly is, as the rich benefit from society the most. Plus it is only people making over 250k a year, the top 5%. When I am making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year I will expect to pay higher taxes, because I had a somewhat priveleged upbringing, being middle-class and a white male, and I attended the school of my choosing.</p>

<p>Furthermore, any taxation is the redistribution of the wealth. I don't advocate a "socialist state" but pure capitalism isn't the answer either. The answer is somewhere in between.</p>

<p>I support Obama FWIW...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The rich benefit from society the most, or society benefits from the rich the most? </p>

<p>You act as if the rich don't already pay higher taxes... here's some news, they do. And all taxation is hardly the redistribution of wealth. Just thought I'd fix some major flaws in what you've just said.</p>

<p>
[quote]
When I am making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year I will expect to pay higher taxes, because I had a somewhat priveleged upbringing, being middle-class and a white male, and I attended the school of my choosing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why penalize the people that didn't have the privileged upbringing that you did and still managed to make it big? Why not just donate the extra money you feel you owe society to a charity that you think will make good use of the money? I'm sure your local soup kitchen will make much better use of a $1000 donation than the federal government would.</p>

<p>umm taking money from the rich won't solve your problems people. if there won't be a suitable business environment for the rich, they'll suffer, and there just won't be that much left to tax out of them.</p>

<p>I have decided that I am not voting at all. They wonder why the youth doesn't vote, its too complicated and hard, plus I got things to do. And if I was going to vote....hmmmmm....it would be a toss up between crap...and crap.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And if I was going to vote....hmmmmm....it would be a toss up between crap...and crap.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are much better reasons to abstain from voting than that.</p>

<p>wow the polls show obama ahead...election is coming soon!!</p>

<p>This thread is GREAT NEWS!!!!</p>

<p>FOR JOHN McCAIN!!!!!</p>

<p>(Only regular readers of FiveThirtyEight.com:</a> Electoral Projections Done Right will get this post).</p>

<p>Obama.</p>

<p>Why should any group of people be required to contribute more to society than any other group? Most people are capable of working a min wage jobs, but only a few can run a fortune 500 company, a business or practice law.
BO's tax policies will actually hurt the poorest Americans, as he will repeal the Bush tax cuts which excuse those making $30,000 from the income tax. That group will be taxed if BO is elected.
It is unfair that the top 5% would pay a higher percentage of taxes because that money os going to programs only the lower classes use. So, if these programs are almost exclusively used by the lower classes, shouldn't the lower class have to pay more?
Also, the wealthy are the most likely to donate large amounts of money or to create charitable organizations, not the middle class or poor. Actually, Republicans donate a higher percentage of money to charities.
In our society(for the most part), everyone has equal access to oppurtunities and will not be denied oppurtunities based on income or class. Anyone can apply to any college or job, and anyone is allowed open a business or enter any work field they choice. No our society is not perfect, and people get left behind. And nearly every policy enacted to help that small group "catch up" has hurt middle class Americans (welfare, section 8 housing, Affirmative Action, the relaxed lending standards for mortages to encourage minorities to buy homes, Community Re investment Act). The gov needs to do what is best for the most, period.
It is unfair for hard working Americans to experience higher taxes for social welfare programs only a few Americans will ever use. The rich are usually rich because of hard work or taking advantage of great ideas, and should not be punished for their success.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The rich benefit from society the most, or society benefits from the rich the most? </p>

<p>You act as if the rich don't already pay higher taxes... here's some news, they do. And all taxation is hardly the redistribution of wealth. Just thought I'd fix some major flaws in what you've just said.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Taxation is exactly redistribution of the wealth. It is essentially using everyone's money for a public use, and that generally benefits the working/lower classes. I don't believe in trickledown or anything and think its crap that the wealth would translate to the middle/lower classes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why penalize the people that didn't have the privileged upbringing that you did and still managed to make it big? Why not just donate the extra money you feel you owe society to a charity that you think will make good use of the money? I'm sure your local soup kitchen will make much better use of a $1000 donation than the federal government would.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is the minority of people. Some have also fell ass-backwards into money and are mediocre in every sense of the world. Responsibility is why, because I don't think the government should trust people to be benevolent. In an ideal world we would all care for each other. Hell, an ideal world would embrace socialism, but its a moot point. The rich and corporations can't be trusted to be charitable, they are interested in making profits/self interest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is unfair that the top 5% would pay a higher percentage of taxes because that money os going to programs only the lower classes use. So, if these programs are almost exclusively used by the lower classes, shouldn't the lower class have to pay more?
Also, the wealthy are the most likely to donate large amounts of money or to create charitable organizations, not the middle class or poor. Actually, Republicans donate a higher percentage of money to charities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lol.</p>

<p>I don't believe all people are rich because of hard work. Never underestimate the old boys' network, or cheating/unethical business practices. You know how Standard Oil made Rockefeller rich? He cut prices, took heavy losses, but drove everyone out of business so he could have a monopoly. Don't tell me that the other CEOs weren't equally hard working; Rockefeller was bigger, and could take losses better than anyone else. This system allows the rich to get richer, and everyone else to get screwed.</p>

<p>You know how Microsoft rose to power? Bill Gates copied Mac's GUI while aggressively marketing windows, which was not backwards compatible.
"Microsoft initially embraces a competing standard or product, then extends it to produce their own version which is then incompatible with the standard, which in time extinguishes competition that does not or cannot use Microsoft's new version.[93] These and other tactics have resulted in lawsuits brought by companies and governments, and billions of dollars in rulings against Microsoft."</p>

<p>It is exactly this dog-eat-dog, money-hungry, grab-all leave none frenzy that led to Wall Street's current FUBAR, the great depression, etc.</p>

<p>I don't think that the competitors were less hard working or enterprising. The simple fact is that this system favors exploitation and cheating to come out on top. Communism doesn't work and is a major SNAFU, but complete Laissez Faire doesn't work either. It's all about the Goldilocks problem, finding the balance so it is just right.</p>

<p>Bush's "invisible hand", trick-down BS empirically failed, I won't give McCain another chance. It's time to vote for BO and tip the balance a little to the left, but not too far left.</p>

<p>Obama. Never McCain...hell not Palin</p>

<p>Okay, pencils down class. Here are the right answers.</p>

<p>“Exactly. As a tax payer, I don't want to pay for you decision to have a child you can't support.”</p>

<p>Since you are a college student, you are probably not a tax payer. If you actually have a job right now, you will get out the taxes you pay back, except social security. Social security is theoretically your money anyway, provided it doesn’t go under. Unless you made over 20k last year, you will not pay a dime for whatever you’re talking about. So shut the f*** up.</p>

<p>“An abortion always kills someone.”</p>

<p>If you think a fetus is a person. I don’t. But that argument is fruitless and been beaten to a pulp already. Moving on.</p>

<p>“but you do not have $50 to pay for an abortion? Not my problem”</p>

<p>It will be when the oft-neglected, poverty stricken Tyrone grows up on the streets and bumps into you one night. Might cost you more than the trillionth of a penny you theoretically tossed in.</p>

<p>“You do not have the right to have sex without consequences.”</p>

<p>You are grossly misusing the term “right.” Actually, you are allowed to have sex with any consenting adult without consequences. I guess you meant, “It’s not possible to have sex without consequences.” That is a grand, vague statement. Are there emotional and social ramifications from having sex? Yes. If you have sex regularly and use proper birth control, will you have a child? HELL NO. The chances are extremely low with proper precautions (condoms + pill) – less than 0.01% (1 in 10,000 – sex every day for 30 years). Are people educated enough about safe sex practices – no – we do need better sex education. The “head buried in sand” method we currently have is terrible.</p>

<p>“The government has no responsibility to ensure that you can have "safe" sex. You are trying to create a world where people can do whatever they want and the government will help them out and bail the out if something bad happens.”</p>

<p>Actually, the government has a vested interest in protecting people against the spread of deadly diseases; hence the criminalization of knowingly having sex with someone without informing them of your deadly disease.</p>

<p>Secondly, the right to birth control and abortion is not a “bail out” – it’s the opposite. People want the government to “back off” in matters that are none of its business – let U.S. citizens help them damn selves!</p>

<p>“To take from money from people and give it to those who have made poor decisions is morally wrong. People should be encouraged to give to charities that support those who are in bad circumstances.”</p>

<p>Luckily, the government is not intended to prescribe morality. Law and morality are not equivalent. What government class did you fail out of?</p>

<p>You’ve hit the nail on the head concerning charities, though. I think we should support our police departments, fire departments, school systems, and public parks on a charity-basis also. It’s all socialism, anyway. You know, zero money from taxes, but if I remember to give a few bucks to Officer whoever then I guess I’ll just--- oooh!!! I just LOVE those new red shoes at Macys!! Hey Daddy I think those new shoes will match PERFECTLY with the new Lexus you bought me!!! Hmm – better luck next year city infrastructure!</p>

<p>“When you allow irresponsible behavior, you only create more of it.”</p>

<p>Banning birth control or abortion DOES NOT LEAD TO LESS SEX. Read that statement again. Read it a hundred more times if you haven’t internalized it yet. This has been proven repeatedly, everywhere. People are just f-ing animals, okay, and there are only very few, if any, biological drives stronger than the urge to have sex. All this “banning” does is lead to more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, more crime, more diseases, more deaths, and more ruined lives.</p>

<p>“personal responsibility is not good for women?”</p>

<p>Many times, getting an abortion is the vastly more responsible act, for all parties.</p>

<p>“It is not fair that I, as an individual, should have to pay for other people to get abortions because they made an irresponsible life decision.”</p>

<p>No one is trying to get pregnant. One is allowed to have sex even if there is a very small chance that is will result in pregnancy. There is a much greater chance that you will get into a serious car accident when you drive or ride a car. Do you still drive/ ride cars? Obviously. If you take all the precautions, but end up getting sideswiped by someone who blew a stop sign, are you accountable? By your logic, yes – because you could have easily avoided the catastrophe if you decided to abstain from traveling anywhere.</p>

<p>In other words, up yours.</p>

<p>“It is unfair that the top 5% would pay a higher percentage of taxes because that money os going to programs only the lower classes use. So, if these programs are almost exclusively used by the lower classes, shouldn't the lower class have to pay more?”</p>

<p>You’re right! The poor should pay their own high taxes that will go to paying for all the food and shelter they couldn’t possibly afford. Yes, they can give their meager money to the government who in turn will give them back their money and… Oh wait…</p>

<p>How dumb are McCain supporters? Seriously—was this a joke?</p>

<p>Some fundamentals you guys need to get through your head:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The rich benefit by far the greatest from society. This is evidenced by the fact that the rich have been growing even richer over time, and the poor poorer. Nothing’s simpler than that. Look at yourself, for instance. Without your parent’s financial backing, you would not be able to attend college; you might have had to even work a full time job in high school to pay for food. You would likely end up in a minimum wage job somewhere, where I can point to you and laugh at how lazy you are and that this is completely your fault.</p></li>
<li><p>It is not free to live in this country; you are not entitled to live in this country for free. When you were born here and made a citizen, you implicitly agreed to follow this country’s laws. Some laws require that you pay money to support the government and infrastructure of this country. The agreement being: If you don’t like it, you are free to get the hell out.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>“It is essentially using everyone's money for a public use, and that generally benefits the working/lower classes.”</p>

<p>Yeah, totally, like building roads and highways, where poor people drive their cars. And giving money to Haliburton, Oil companies, and National Banks. And trillions have been given to the war machines. Stupid greedy poor people.</p>

<p>Next thing you know, they’ll want a meager fraction of what was spent above to feed a starving single mother or treat a lazy poor person who got stabbed on his way back from his graveyard shift. God I hate poor people they’re so gross and smelly!</p>

<p>Good thing Obama is slam dunking this election. Not that it’ll change much, but it’s “damage control” against McCain – Palin.</p>

<p>Some of you people are nuts.</p>

<p>^^ This is exactly why I intend to vote for Obama. Very well said.</p>

<p>Very, very well said Peter_Parker. I award your post with e-dollars and a e-patontheback. A lot of the people on these boards don't understand one or more of the following 1: basic economics 2: social contract theory 3: political science</p>

<p>Peter_Parker</p>

<p>Word.</p>

<p>Lets just say, not anything that will give Palin power to (possibly) take women some huge steps back in their rights. I couldn't stand to have someone who is that clueless be the first person in that high of a position in the whitehouse to represent females (plus the idea of her having any chance of being pres <em>shudder</em>).</p>

<p>Oh good where god, where do I start? I could refute every one of your arguments but I don't have time right now. I'll go with this one for now:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Here's the thing, morality is the role of government. A government's policies are derived from the morals of its people. Why is murder illegal? Why do communities provide police protection to everyone? Why is child molestation punishable? We as a society have decided what laws and programs our government implements.</p>

<p>When communities decide that things like infrastructure improvements and fire departments are good, they vote for taxes to fund those things. They are forcing their morals on everyone in the community. Do you really contend that government does not "prescribe morality"?</p>

<p>Now we have to ask is it moral for a government to take money from those who have earned a lot to support those who haven't earned as much? I say that this is morally wrong and any society that claims to be fair should have more or less a flat tax.</p>

<p>In relation to this election, all of this basically moot. Obama will assuredly win the presidency and Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (along with a stronger majority in the House). With Pelosi, Reid, and Obama in charge America will make a swing to the left like we have never seen before. Things will get ugly, but Americans will learn the true price liberal leadership and liberal policies.</p>

<p>The fact that peter parker cannot express himself in a respectful way already speaks volumes...</p>

<p>“I could refute every one of your arguments but I don't have time right now.”</p>

<p>That sounds like something Palin would say.</p>

<p>“blah blah laws are morality”</p>

<p>No, you’re wrong. Murder and molestation are illegal because they violate fundamental individual rights that people created government to protect. Morality stems from religion or other personal beliefs that cannot be logically argued/ vary widely from person to person. You might notice some traditional moral beliefs that are not criminal/ against the law: adultery is legal, lying is legal (except under oath), being a rude a-hole is legal, using alcohol and smoking are legal, premarital sex is legal.</p>

<p>The source of law is the Constitution, not some set of collective morals. We cannot interpret law through a set of morals because each person has a different, unique set of moral values. You may notice that most of this country is Christian – yet there is no law requiring you to attend church on Sunday. Yes, I realize this is bit of an extreme – but it sets up why you are wrong. I remember several years ago members of the neo-Nazi party wanted to have a march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood near my hometown. The community was up in arms against them and extremely angry – a justified anger that is pretty hard to describe. But the neo-Nazi group was given police protection and allowed to have their parade through the town. Now, do I agree with this? No – I think the parade was disgusting and inflammatory, and I think that anyone who is a member of the neo-Nazi party should die a horrible death for what it stands for. But that’s just it – my personal moral instincts are not the law. We can’t pick and choose who gets certain rights, at what time, what place, when it’s convenient – if we did our constitutional government and ‘rule of law’ would be a farce. There are tons of books on this subject, but I’ve said enough here.</p>

<p>But if you want to go by the Jesus perspective, then maybe you might heed his words and not complain when the tiniest fraction of your tax dollars goes to feed and clothe the poorest of the poor or give them medical attention. We’re not just talking “poor” – we’re talking below poverty here, if you know the difference. And what of children who don’t have parents – you know, kids whose only mom wound up in prison because of drugs or have been abandoned. We’re talking kids who are four, five, six, or seven. You think they are responsible for their situation? Thankfully, the state already has programs that help them – but the point is Republicans only see situations in terms of $$$ - they don’t care about the human factor or human worth at all. “Charity” is a nice cop out, of course. Very few donate substantially to charity, vast majority don’t. But you get significant tax breaks for giving to charity anyway, so it shouldn’t even be an issue.</p>

<p>“The fact that peter parker cannot express himself in a respectful way already speaks volumes...”</p>

<p>Oh I can, but I choose not. You might not be so respectful either after seeing some things that go on in this country and the grinning bastards behind them. Take a look around. And you’re getting bent out of shape because I said “up yours” on an anonymous internet message board? Lol you’re funny.</p>

<p>Anyway, I’m done with my diatribes here. I’m really not that gung-ho about debating ideology as I probably appear to be; just wanted to offer my opinion. Although I may have said some controversial stuff I don’t want to get into the whole back-and-forth but feel free to have at it.</p>

<p>In all honesty, the biggest reason I would prefer McCain over the two is that it brings a split between Congress and Presidency. Whenever one party controls both, bad things tend to happen, because legislation gets passed more more easily. This is why all the tax cuts from the last eight or so years were so bad; Bush didn't do anything to stop them. Whereas, when the republicans tried to do it before, Clinton smacked it down.</p>

<p>It's incredibly obvious that with Obama as president, taxes will rise, but still probably not at a rate to keep up with newly created programs.</p>