News American Election

[anthony]

Why don't we start raising all prior tax decisions made by both parties presidents, and throw that at the current president? That is where this heads... that past presidents decisions are now the current presidents obligation to continue upon any expiry.

It is one thing if a temporary past solution didn't have an expiry.... that is a whole different kettle of fish. But to blame the current president, regardless who it is, for past presidents policies is just ludicrous IMHO.

Where does that blame game even end? The shit any one of us could start to pull from past presidents would be never ending... that is just a blame game for political party idealisation.

Here is something you're not mentioning, which I suspect is in order to bolster your argument. Bush made that a "temporary" relief cut for good reason, knowing full well that it wasn't sustainable long term. If it was, he would have made it permanent, not a temporary solution with an expiry. Lets use the full picture shall we? Not half of it, in order to put blame from past presidential decisions onto the current.

 

[Rumors]

What is ludicrous is having a conversation with someone who doesn't even live here OR understand the policy of American politics. Once again, you have missed my point much like all the others who idolize him for what he says, not what he does.
HE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO LET THE TAX CUTS EXPIRE FOR A MONTH OR TWO UNTIL THEY CAN PLAN A BUDGET!

Lordy.. I am not blaming him for Bush era tax cuts that benefitted or didn't benefit anyone BUT BUSH ISN'T PRESIDENT ANYMORE so he shouldn't even be part of this conversation. The diversion tactics used by Obamamites are incredible! I am not saying Obama has any control or should be blamed for what Bush did. I AM SAYING that he could USE the bush era tax cuts to benefit the lowest income class by extending them until a budget has been reached. If they don't reach a compromise by January 1, 2013, the lowest income bracket he protests to love and protect WILL be hurt the worst by the expiration of the tax benefits.

So, with that said, let me see if this makes it any clearer for you since you can't seem to grasp how he can change the course of the tax. Obama knows January 1, taxes go up on the lowest income bracket (NOT BY HIS DOING). Does he sit by and watch them go up or does he become Presidential and either extend the current tax benefit for two months, OR perhaps just extend the current 10% tax rate for that income class? Hmmm.. NO, he chooses to do neither thus far AND even worse, he makes no future plans in any tax plan he has put forth to lower the tax base back to 10% for the lowest income bracket after he claims that those tax breaks were for the highest income bracket which was a lie. It WILL adversely effect that income bracket by ALLOWING the tax breaks to expire OR not returning the tax bracket to 10% for that class.

What totally perplexes me is that this whole time you have been arguing why people like me should do more for the lower class but when I point out your golden boy isn't doing jack shit for the class he so claims he protects, you jump me like I am a hypocrite. He can help "his" class by either lowering their tax rate to 10% instead of the impending 15% OR by extending the tax cuts for a few months. See, you listen to the media and buy into all the crap they tell you instead of doing factual research on what it truth and fact and not warped BS that the liberal media wants you to buy into. I have had about as much useless conversation about MY country as I would like to have with someone who doesn't live here or understand what I am trying to say. Worse off, I feel like you simply want to argue that I don't understand my point and that somehow you understand my point better. It is insane! I quit, you win, whatever! I pray that you get everything you want out of your political experience!!

 

[anthony]

Rumors, I don't need to live in the US to view political angles and economic issues. Global economy... media... we're all well aware what goes on within countries nowadays.

There is no idolising either... another confusion you're making. You're obviously biased to view objectively versus a devotee to one party, the Republicans... instead of looking at both parties and viewing their ideals for what they are, based on each merit and not confusing ideology with political decisions and focus.

Again, it wouldn't matter which party is running the country, neither one is committed to extending a past presidents policy. That paints them into a corner in their term. The administration already has to deal with both the pro's and con's of past policy... there is no reason any leader need renew a temporary past policy.

Thinking they're somehow compelled to do so is ludicrous and idealist at best.

A Government needs taxes to maintain the country. Without them, the Government is ineffective. Simple really... I am not debating whether the tax is the right amount or not. Again... they need money to function, and right now... the US Government don't have it because taxation isn't covering the bills. You want roads to drive on, you want things happening, but nobody wants to pay via taxes for it.

Around and round the merry-go-round with that argument I guess.

15% for low income and up-to 50% for the rich, is not a huge ask IMHO. 15% is very low tax for low income. If they've had it at 10% to help, it was a temporary decision made by a past Government. It was obviously never, and even by the imposing Government, meant for longevity. If it was, then the past Government wouldn't have put an expiry on it.

You're actually arguing a mute point to be perfectly honest, because the lower income tax rate was 15%, and a temporary concession was invoked during the GFC itself, lowering it to 10%. That tax rate was NEVER meant to be a permanent fixture of the economy, and obviously unsustainable, even by the imposting party granting the temporary concession. Again... if it was meant to be permanent, extended, or other, they would have done it for longer or simply passed it as new law for low income tax.

So I will reiterate the information you're presenting; a past Governments policy is expiring, nothing more. The current Government, regardless who holds the seat, has no requirement to extend a temporary concession.

 

[Zef]

IMO, a very simplified explanation about how Americans currently run elections. As a disclaimer, if I had to label myself, I would call myself a Practical Progressive (feel free to make oxymoron jokes.) :)

In an ideal election, I would take the time to find actual data, listen to all sides of an issue with as open a mind as possible (taking in consideration of my own built-in bias), then adding my voice to the issue and trying to inform those close to me as much as possible about the issue.

All of these things take time. Between supporting my family and dealing with my diseases in such a way that I remain a good, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. . .I don't have time to analyze issues as fully as I feel I need to.

Saying that, amongst all the people I know, liberal, conservative, neutral, and people in all the parties. . .I spend more time doing these things than anyone I know.

My argument is that to be an informed citizen in American society is all but impossible for the vast majority of people. . .which is one reason we get the type of discussion we are seeing in the posts above.

1. Time -- The vast majority of Americans do not have the time to find pure data amongst all the noise and spin generated by the Corporations and Parties. . .much less have time to analyze or deal with the complexities of the data and the proposed solutions.

2. Education -- The vast majority of Americans do not have the education to be able to parse complex data or analyze how a proposed solution will change the data.

3. Skills -- The skill to neutrally analyze information does not occur naturally in humans. It is a skill we have to train ourselves in. The majority of Americans do not develop this skill

4. Spin Technology -- Americans are exposed to more and more technologically advanced marketing (propaganda, if you will) technology than any society in known history. As far as recent elections go this has most noticeably resulted in the 'echo chamber' effect. People only have time to consume a limited amount of political information and people naturally choose an information provider that they are predisposed to agree with. . .which then reinforces those initial beliefs and provide semi-factual information (spin) to reinforce those predispositions.

5. Money -- Unlimited money is now allowed into our political system. The evidence is pretty solid that money buys votes. This has created a situation where the interests that can generate the most money can influence enough people to vote against both their own and their country's best interests. . .because people don't have the time, education and skills to not be influenced. . .while, at the same time, undergoing the most intensive marketing (propaganda) attacks in known history.

 

[anthony]

Well said Zef... I would vote for you if elected and able to. :)