Barack: Transperency in Washington At Last!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bobber205, Sep 22, 2008.

  1. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #1
    Just some of the biggest things:

    Every bill he signs will be on the internet for 5 days before he signs it or not.

    As many as possible lobbyist and congressmen interactions will be on the internet in video form. :D

    And lots of other things. I am EXTREMELY impressed. This is something new from Barack and as usual, I am impressed.

    Video here.
    What do you think?
     
  2. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #2
    I'm also impressed. McCain has been trying the past two days to come out as some sort of populist, but hasn't been able to even give any sort of coherent message, and Obama came out with this. Detailed, yet most of it would be pretty understandable and easy to remember and define for the average person. And some of it was gutsy, which I also thought about his convention speech. The primaries have always weeded out the gutsy ones in my lifetime.
     
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #3
    Wow. :eek:

    Do you see what Obama's doing here?

    The events of the last two weeks have given him permission to come out as an old-fashioned populist who's not afraid to be a regulator, a progressive, a liberal. He's throwing out all the crappy Reagan-era ideas and saying he's proud to have open, honest, liberal ones.

    Yeah, I know he's not going to win all the things he's proposing...but the fact is that he's not afraid to go for these ideas.

    If you didn't believe before that Obama was going to win this campaign, well, it's time to start believing.

    Get ready to rock, folks: liberalism is back. :)
     
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
  5. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #5
    "You shouldn't have to pay higher taxes because some corporations cut corners to avoid paying theirs" - Barack Obama.
     
  6. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #6
    And I shouldn't have to pay more because I'm able to make more.
     
  7. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #7
    You're able to because your country and society give you the opportunity to do it.
     
  8. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #8
    So I get punished for succeeding? That's ace.
     
  9. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #9
    I know that I don't want that next raise/bonus any less even though the government might take up to 5% more of that money.

    Which sum would you rather have?

    $253,908.90 or $253,908.25.

    OK they're close, but the first one is the amount you take home when you make $1 more than the highest tax bracket, and the second is what you take home at the limit of the lower one. For every other dollar you earn that first total goes up by another $0.65.

    I know that most people will chose the greater total and until you find me someone who doesn't want to take home more money because the government takes a little more of those extra dollars I refuse to believe that the progressive tax scale is a "punishment" for making more money. You get to take home more money when you make more money, that doesn't sound like a punishment.

    The biggest tax bracket jumps are 5% and one of the 5% jumps comes in after you hit the cap on Social Security so you get a tax break at that point to offset the 5% jump.

    And do your raises require you to drive further to/from work? Does every raise require an identical increase in non-essential expenditures? If not then you're also getting a break on sales and gas taxes which are regressive in nature.

    Do I like the idea behind a flat tax more? Sure, but then remove the caps on other taxes and get rid of gas and sales taxes and have States do a flat income tax as well. Why do I never hear anyone complain about the regressive taxes that would need flattening if we went to a flat income tax structure at the federal level? Why should the top brackets benefit from those regressive taxes just because they make more? Why should I pay a higher percentage in total taxes with a flat tax structure at the federal level just because I make less?
     
  10. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #10
    Do you honestly believe that tax is a punishment? There are a lot of people out there that wish they could be punished by earning and taking home a hell of a lot more money, working less hours in much better conditions. Having much better lives than they currently struggle for.

    If you earn more, you have more to contribute to society without it effecting your life as much. I've earned a lot of money in certain periods of my life and I want to raise tax for the richest earners and lower it for the people that are really struggling. Take a lot from few that can afford it, take less from the many that can't.
     
  11. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #11
    You earn more, you're taxed more. That makes total sense to me.

    You still make more money, whats the problem?
     
  12. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #12
    When it makes a difference to your lifestyle then there is no problem.
    When poorer folk are able to eat out and have more smaller luxuries than me - then it's not so good. It's ridiculous that our council tax is so high, that there's a 'middle class' tax here in the UK.

    A little bit of a tangent but because my folks earned more than a set amount I wasn't able to get financial support when at college, despite being low down in the bracket so my parents couldn't support me.
    A lot of it is wrong.
     
  13. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #13
    That doesn't make much sense, really. If they're poorer, they can't do those things more than you, surely.

    That's a completely different issue, though.

    That's even more different. All education should be entirely free.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Really- this is tired. We've already seen what the "successful" expect when they fail, a handout. Seriously- take this Limbaugh talking point and can it. The rest of us are going to be propping up the "successful" for quite some time in the future if this little bailout goes through.

    I'll make you a deal, iGary: we'll give you the bailout, if you agree to some form of single payer health care system. Because you know what it really comes down to? Everybody needs help at some point.
     
  15. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #15
    Yes, "punished"

    1. When taxes have been raised in the past, the overall economy has improved -- under Obama's plan you will STILL get more than your fair share of that improvement. (His plan certainly isn't radical) That's the "punishment" you'll get.
    2. You will STILL pay a LOWER percentage of your salary in social security that someone making under $102,000 (approx). -- yes, for those that earn over $250,000, you'll pay a bit more than before, but STILL a MUCH lower percentage than anyone who earns about twice the median income or less -- that's the "punishment" you'll get.
    3. Income inequality hurts everyone -- lower health levels is one example. Many economists think there was a link between income inequality and the Great Depression. Again, under Obama's plan the rich will still get richer, but at a slightly lower rate, which will help EVERYONE. That's the "punishment" you'll get.
    4. You've gotten much more of the increase in wealth and income of this country than at least 75% of the population.* No one's asking you to pay any of that back. You've benefitted from Wall Street abuses and tax codes more than at least 75% of the population. Everyone's children and grandchildren will have the bill of bailing out Wall Street. No one's asking you to give that back. That's the "punishment" you'll get.
    5. Everyone's children and grandchildren will be paying the economic costs of the Iraq war. POOR people and their families (not "middle class," which Obama defines as earning less than five times the median income) overwhelmingly paid for the war with their lives (over 4,000 deaths) and their health (over 60,000 injuries). It's PUNISHMENT to ask you to pay a bit more to try to get out of the economic downturn caused by the war?

    We're talking about very modest changes to the tax system. Someone who earns FIVE TIMES the median income will have to pay a bit more than they're paying now. It's "punishment" to ask you to pay a bit more than you're paying now so we can take very small steps to improve life for everyone in a small way, when life as always will be improved MORE for you than for over 75% of the population? I guess I have a different definition of "punishment."

    *While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth
    distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.

    In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out, and another 28 million households had only $47,153 on average in net wealth. The top 28 million households had $1,556,801 of net wealth on average, or 33 times that of the lower middle quartile in the wealth distribution. In contrast to the wealth distribution, the annual household income distribution in 2004 was much less uneven, with the top quartile having a share of 65 percent of total aggregate income, while the bottom quartile had at least a 4 percent share. The bottom 28 million households had an average household income of $12,688, but the lower middle 28 million households fared better, with $31,803 on average. The top 28 million households, on the other hand, had $177,265 on average, or more than 5 times that of the lower middle quartile. Nevertheless, both wealth and income distributions were less balanced by 2004 than in 1995, as indicated by the ratios of averages of top to lower middle quartiles

    http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

    Punishment?
     
  16. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #16
    +1 :D
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    And I shouldn't have to pay more because I work for my money rather than my money working for me.
     
  18. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #18
    I really cant stand it when people toss out numbers like $250,000 or $100,000 per year.

    I can name no one who makes that much whom I know personally.

    If you make over $100k a year, and you are bitching about taxes, youre just being whiny.

    If the vast majority of the US can survive on $25-65k a year, you can too. :rolleyes:
     
  19. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #19
    But... but...

    I like those this topic turned into a whine fest about taxes. It's about transparency in government, which we need alot more of. Let's get back to the topic at hand. :D
     
  20. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #20
    Crazy isn't it. I can't afford to eat out that much, yet there are people on the council estate a few streets over who can afford their cable TV and even drive. I'm working my arse off and I can't even afford that.


    Oh it was free. But my parents earned just above a certain amount so I didn't get EMA. So my folks had to pay for my dinners and travel fees. If they couldn't afford it I'd walk the 4 miles instead (which wasn't too bad). EMA should be available to all students.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    I'll hazard a guess that there's more to this story than just taxes.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Jimmi- you're not gonna get a whole lot of sympathy from us Americans on this. If you knew what many of us here have to go through to go to college, you'd be truly horrified. Let me give you a hint- it's only slightly less expensive than our health care. ;)

    And I'm guessing there's more to your story as well.
     
  23. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #23
    I'm sure that many of the people in council houses are working their arses off, too. Maybe they have two incomes in some of those houses. If they do, they have to pay rent and council tax just like you. There money goes out as fast as it comes in, just like you.

    Some might be on benefits but that's no real life, job seekers allowance is something like £60 a week and if you live in a council house you still have to pay electric/water/gas etc out of the £60 a week.

    The class of people we're talking about are not well off, believe me. I've been there and I don't want to go back to it.

    I don't believe EMA should be available to all students. It's actually quite a luxury to live in a country where they pay you to educate you, if your family are on low income. However, that's straying from the point.

    I went to college before EMA was bought in, I lived with a single parent that was either on a very low paid part time job, or on benefits. With respect (and I mean that), moaning about having two parents that earn enough money not to be eligible for any EMA (which is at least £30,800) seems a bit harsh. I could only dream about being bought up in a household that had that much, when I was going to college.

    I just don't think you're painting an accurate picture of what it's like to be a poor/'under' class family verses a working or middle class family. And to be honest, you're exactly the type of guy I want to help out by raising taxes for the richest few and cutting them for many.

    Neither of your points actually have much to do with taxes, mate :D
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Its sad that even if elected half of these policies WILL NOT HAPPEN. And that is not at the fault of Obama, they will be blocked by all the politicians that want to continue to work corruptly and cover their asses.
     
  25. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #25
    What does the bailout and health care have to do with the unfair tax system? :confused:
     

Share This Page