I honestly haven't decided. - Edit 1
Before modification by nossy at 24/08/2012 02:16:55 AM
And I was not conned; there was no way I would have ever voted for McCain/Palin after that campaign. If that is my mistake because I judged them on the things they said to get elected that they wouldn't really have done, I believe at least some of that burden is on them.
A big tax? Or a 3.8% tax on the profit above $500,000 (250,000 single)? And unless it has been changed, it was supposed to be 2013.
I know you have issues with $250,000 being the threshold, and I don't disagree. However, IF I understand this correctly, one hast to be making $250,000 (couple) or $200,000 (single) before it is even an issue, and can exclude up to $500,000 in profits from a sale of a residence, so you would have to have made a fairly large profit to be paying more than, say, a grand. How many people can buy a house and then come back and sell it for much more than 500,000 in profit? I have to truly ask - am I far wrong? I am not in the 3% of people who have to worry about this, and I am not in the business of house-flipping, so I could be majorly missing something.
But we can also suspect that on the national stage (aka: not in a state that is referred to as socially progressive and liberal) there is only so much Romney will/can do to put his foot down if the house or senate tries to pass certain types of legislation. My one confidence with Obama is that if a certain type of bill comes up, I know he is less likely to be peer-pressured into making a decision I won't like (re: civil rights, foreign relations, etc), and maybe even more likely to be peer pressured into something I do support. Before you get all frothed, I am not claiming I always know what is "right." Just pointing out that we all have pet likes and dislikes, and I can't just ignore them, even though I am thinking more about the economy at the moment.
I need to research more than I have, but I haven't seen evidence that the current tax cuts have shown much growth. The exact same comment is true from the other angle - lowering taxes causes a different sort of tail-chase, and it will also never be enough. It seems to me that we need to spend more time focusing on where our taxes go than on raising or lowering them.
I do agree that that was a boneheaded comment, precisely because it ignores that risk. I don't think he was wrong though, regarding the other angle - it isn't fair to ignore the fact that if that girl couldn't get to school, the honor roll would be the least of her worries. *shrug* Yet again, we're back to a truth that's somewhere in the middle.
And I do respect your opinion. At the risk of giving you a larger ego (the horror!), I don't mind saying your comments on Obama definitely make me stop and think. And research. And read stuff I barely understand. And in general make my life hell. Thanks a lot.
For example, he says he wants to help the housing market, but under his Obamacare law, there will be a new, big tax on sales of real estate (starting in 2014). Oh, did Obama fail to mention that? Of course he did.
A big tax? Or a 3.8% tax on the profit above $500,000 (250,000 single)? And unless it has been changed, it was supposed to be 2013.
I know you have issues with $250,000 being the threshold, and I don't disagree. However, IF I understand this correctly, one hast to be making $250,000 (couple) or $200,000 (single) before it is even an issue, and can exclude up to $500,000 in profits from a sale of a residence, so you would have to have made a fairly large profit to be paying more than, say, a grand. How many people can buy a house and then come back and sell it for much more than 500,000 in profit? I have to truly ask - am I far wrong? I am not in the 3% of people who have to worry about this, and I am not in the business of house-flipping, so I could be majorly missing something.
We know that Romney is a moderate who won't do anything to restrict abortion rights, birth control or the like. It's clear from his record.
But we can also suspect that on the national stage (aka: not in a state that is referred to as socially progressive and liberal) there is only so much Romney will/can do to put his foot down if the house or senate tries to pass certain types of legislation. My one confidence with Obama is that if a certain type of bill comes up, I know he is less likely to be peer-pressured into making a decision I won't like (re: civil rights, foreign relations, etc), and maybe even more likely to be peer pressured into something I do support. Before you get all frothed, I am not claiming I always know what is "right." Just pointing out that we all have pet likes and dislikes, and I can't just ignore them, even though I am thinking more about the economy at the moment.
1. Raising taxes to raise revenue in this economy is like a dog chasing its tail - the taxes will slow growth, so the Feds won't get the money they need from the tax increase, leading to another increase, etc., and it will never ever be enough.
I need to research more than I have, but I haven't seen evidence that the current tax cuts have shown much growth. The exact same comment is true from the other angle - lowering taxes causes a different sort of tail-chase, and it will also never be enough. It seems to me that we need to spend more time focusing on where our taxes go than on raising or lowering them.
2. The "you didn't build that" was even worse than the "out of context" line that has become the sound byte. Obama said "you think you succeeded because you're smart or you worked hard, well, lots of people are smart and work hard". This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about business. It is good ideas, hard work and a MASSIVE UNDERTAKING OF RISK that lead to a small business; if someone else works hard, they get a paycheck. If I work hard, I might not get anything if the client refuses to pay, goes bankrupt, disappears, etc. Romney put it very well: a girl on the honor roll might take a school bus to class, but I'm not going to credit the bus driver with her making the honor roll. Yes, we need infrastructure, but trying to make the government an equal partner in our success is perverse. It's statements like the entire "you didn't build that" speech that lead some to think Obama's a socialist. It's not a particular policy, but rather, a sense of contempt or disdain that he has for private enterprise. He really does want to pick the winners and losers.
I do agree that that was a boneheaded comment, precisely because it ignores that risk. I don't think he was wrong though, regarding the other angle - it isn't fair to ignore the fact that if that girl couldn't get to school, the honor roll would be the least of her worries. *shrug* Yet again, we're back to a truth that's somewhere in the middle.
Oh well, that's enough for me. I'm probably not back online for another couple of days. At this point I wouldn't piss on Obama if he were on fire (think of it as disgust for the man combined with respect for the office of the President 
). As you know, I'm not a social conservative, but the thought of another four years for Obama makes me want to vomit.
). As you know, I'm not a social conservative, but the thought of another four years for Obama makes me want to vomit.And I do respect your opinion. At the risk of giving you a larger ego (the horror!), I don't mind saying your comments on Obama definitely make me stop and think. And research. And read stuff I barely understand. And in general make my life hell. Thanks a lot.