|
um soooooo (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MunkyAngel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Calamar
Awesome -- maybe I saw you at the North Fulton office, in that case? I'm also a member of the North Fulton group and GA-400 for Obama, and I've been working with Amie, organizer for the Johns Creek teams, for months. To answer your question, I managed the Sandy Springs teams at staging area D (West Lake) and canvassed 03A1, 03C, 03H, and 04D. |
YAH!!!! I was wondering if that was you!!! I was the Comfort Captain for Johns Creek 50/51 and Team K on election day.
Did you ever go to meetings in Country Club of the South to Jane's House?? We went to a few of those there. |
|
|
| iammesol |
| quote: | Originally posted by PVDfan07
One thing that bothers me the most about all this is the fact that people are always talking about how they voted for "change" or "history" or whatever other words they used to describe it. I see very few talking about the actual issues they voted for and I wonder if many of them really don't know much about the issues. This election turned into more of a popularity contest and that just really bothers me. I mean, most of you haven't even said why you think Obama would be a good President. You've spent the whole time trying to attack me and whoever else supported McCain. I'm honestly not surprised though. Democrats use this tactic all the time. |
Bro, we're not "haters" or in my case even democrats. If you wanted my views all you had to do was ask for them. ;)
Issues
Tax Plan
Cut taxes in a progressive form, granting the most money at the bottom and the least at the top. Also raise taxes for those earning around $600,000 a year.
I agree with this because I've read that to get out of a recession, you cut taxes to generate spending. In essence, that money that would go to the government ends up in the economy. The raise in taxes is a good thing because that top 1% of the US ends up paying about 39.9% of the government's tax income. Because those people can afford to continue paying money, it makes sense for the country.
I've seen this argued as socialist, and "an unfair redistribution of wealth". First of all, any taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Second of all, because Bush's plan years ago was to cut everyone's taxes remarkably; we're only seeing the upper class pushed back to an equilibrium that was then disrupted. Taxes are necessary, and to be honest - I really wouldn't mind paying more if it would help our country get back on its monetary feet. Money is important to all of us, but I can't think going to see Deadmau5 is more important than keeping this country out of a recession.
All of that is why I was for Obama's, and I'll go ahead and include why I opposed McCain's. He had the same progressive form of tax plan going, but it was in the complete opposite direction. As you can see in the image above, people with more money got a bigger percentage tax break, whereas people with less got a lower percentage tax break. I can understand if there was a lower total for the lower people, but lower percentage? The average US citizen got a $300 break, instead of Obama's $1000+ break. In contrast, the top 1% gets around a 4% decrease, which takes a huge chunk out of that tax income the government receives. Aside from cut government spending (and getting less stuff done due to that), McCain's tax plan looked to drive the country into a bigger recession.
Abortion
Let's get this out of the way since I know Zack doesn't support it, and I'm sort of wasting my fingers' time here. I support legal abortions in cases rape/incest/failed birth control that take place inside proper abortion clinics. The baby is in fact the mother's responsibility, and it's up to her what she decides to do with it.
A lot of people bring up the fact that it is murder, which is a ten commandments sin. Is this country based from the bible, or the constitution? If you're a Christian, don't have abortions. If you're not, I don't see why you should be stopped from preventing an unborn child from becoming a full blown child. This is mostly a moral matter without factual information to back your choice, so I'll quit wasting time.
Foreign Policy
I will immediately concede that McCain has much more experience simply because he has more years in the senate under his belt, and has traveled more due to that. However, when Obama wants to pull out of Iraq asap (I was shown an amazing presentation my sophomore year in high school on why it was absolutely insane to try to establish a democracy there. I'll show/tell you if anyone would like.), and wants to recoup the respect of the USA by other countries - rather than have priorities such as removing Russia from the Group of Eight, I trust more in Barack's judgment.
I'm also reading a book for a history class called "All The Shah's Men - The Folly of Attacking Iran" that completely spells out how imbecilic it would be to even imagine the continuation of what we have done in Iraq to Iran.( Again, if you would like to hear, I'll share.) McCain has been very clear that he has no qualms about continuing the war in Iraq and even spreading it further to Iran.
The rest of the world has been ecstatic about Obama's victory, with parties similar to the one I had but in countries like China, Sweden, and France. The rest of the world respects Barack, and with that respect we could repair a lot of our broken ties.
Energy
The candidates' energy plans were extremely similar this year, and it made me laugh watching them debate about them. Both wanted more nuclear plants, more clean energy, and a step towards futuristic energy (stepping away from oil). The only inherent difference was McCain/Palin's offshore drilling views. Barack succumbed to those views in the final weeks before the election, and I really wish he wouldn't have.
The oil we have in the US (including untapped areas) is about 1% of the world's oil. We use about 25% of the world's oil. Even after we get more oil from offshore drilling, it would take about 10 years to see that oil in the US. Why wait ten years for an extra drop in the bucket?
Endorsements
Barack was endorsed by an uncountable number of people I respect. These include but are not limited to Colin Powell (a registered republican), retired Brigadier General John Adams, the CEO of google Eric Schmidt (who I'm sure makes much much much more than $250,000 a year), Warren Buffett (richest man in the world), and Paul Krugman (winner of the nobel prize of economics this year).
These people obviously know more about their respected issues than I do, and look up to them for their knowledge and insight. |
|
|
| Caution_BiPolar |
Yeah, so, we got "change". Now instead of the black vs. white thing, we have a democrats vs. republicans thing. It's still a prejudice. Where the Hell is the change?
By the way, it's Thursday... this is like those losers who will argue the outcome of a football game for a week. It's not gonna change anything. Just RESPECT each others views and move on... we can't go forward to benefit the country if we're still stuck arguing about something that happened two days ago. |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Caution_BiPolar
I'm sorry, I've yet to see any proof that your argument is valid.
Get out a calculator, compare, do the math. Tell me what you find.
Apparently I'm not the only one concerned with his stance on economy, I see Wall Street is particularly sorry compared to yesterday. |
Since you sound interested in knowing the details, here are two links for you.
Easier read:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03...ness/supply.php
Tougher read:
| quote: | | The supply-side economic policy of cutting high marginal tax rates, therefore, should be viewed as a long-run strategy to enhance growth rather than a short-run tool to end recession. |
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/...eEconomics.html |
|
|
| enydo |
| Getting real sick of hearing about this nonstop everywhere. The elections over, please just move on. |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
Here's some more.
| quote: |
* Real investment growth after the tax increases of 1993 was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001. The yearly growth rate after 1993 was 10.2 percent versus 2.8 percent for the first supply-side era beginning in 1981, and 2.7 percent in the period of the second supply-side era beginning in 2001. Without better investment growth being associated with supply-side policies, a critical link in the theory of supply-side economics is broken—and it is difficult to draw any plausible connection between supply-side tax cuts and any observed positive economic performance.
* Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras. Over the seven-year periods after each legislative action, average annual growth was 3.9 percent following 1993, 3.5 percent following 1981, and 2.5 percent following 2001.
* Average annual real median household income growth was greatest after the 1993 tax increases, at 2.0 percent annually compared to 1.4 percent after 1981 and 0.3 percent after 2001.
* Wage levels also did better after 1993. Average real hourly earnings following 1981 fell at an annual rate of 0.1 percent and following 2001 rose at a rate of only 0.3 percent. Following the 1993 tax increases average hourly earnings grew by 0.9 percent per year.
* Employment growth was weaker during the supply-side eras than during the post-1993 era. Average annual employment growth was 2.1 percent after 1981, 2.5 percent after 1993, and 0.6 percent after 2001.
* Federal budget deficits and national debt increased during supply-side periods and decreased following the 1993 tax increases. In the seven years from 1993 to 1999, the country went from a federal deficit of 3.9 percent of GDP to a surplus of 1.4 percent. After 1981 the deficit ballooned to 6 percent of GDP by 1983. In the year the 2001 tax legislation was adopted, there was a surplus of 1.3 percent of GDP. This turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent by 2004, which fell back to 1.2 percent in 2007 but will undoubtedly be higher in 2008. The national debt has followed a similar pattern, rising by an astounding 14.8 percentage points relative to GDP over the 7 years following adoption of the 1981 supply-side tax cuts, shrinking by almost 10 percentage points relative to GDP following 1993, and moving back up by 3.8 percentage points relative to GDP after the 2001 tax cuts.
|
http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...upply_side.html
OK, I'm done. I just wanted to illustrate I can be free of attacks and able to conduct a proper debate on an issue that sounds good when explained in simpler terms, but fails the litmus test of reality. |
|
|
| iammesol |
| quote: | Originally posted by enydo
Getting real sick of hearing about this nonstop everywhere. The elections over, please just move on. |
Just because the president has been decided doesn't mean that politics game is over. |
|
|
| PVDfan07 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Caution_BiPolar
Yeah, so, we got "change". Now instead of the black vs. white thing, we have a democrats vs. republicans thing. It's still a prejudice. Where the Hell is the change?
By the way, it's Thursday... this is like those losers who will argue the outcome of a football game for a week. It's not gonna change anything. Just RESPECT each others views and move on... we can't go forward to benefit the country if we're still stuck arguing about something that happened two days ago. |
The thing is this just started two days ago, not ended. It's not like a game that ended, this is something that affects the next 4 years. I mean, did any of the Bush haters stop hating after he won a second term. Definately not. They are still talking about it now. They will still be talking about it after he's gone. Of course nothing can be changed, but we still have keep the discussions out there. I mean, I'm going to stop discussing it here, but mostly because obviously there is not going to be much intelligent discussion. I mean, Scott seems to be the only one making an effort to actually discuss his beliefs. And I would have stopped talking about it already if I saw any form of respect for us McCain supporters. If someone tries to make me look stupid or call me disrespectful things, I tend to want to respond. I'm not sure if you were looking at me or just everyone in general with that post, but there's my thoughts on that. That being said, hopefully this will be my last post on the subject. As I said before, we will let Obama's actions in the coming years speak for themselves. Maybe you guys won't think I'm so dumb after all. |
|
|
| iammesol |
| quote: | Originally posted by PVDfan07
I mean, Scott seems to be the only one making an effort to actually discuss his beliefs. |
I'm in the process of editing my post now.
edit: posted. I still have more to go but will do it when I get back from work and class around 8pm. |
|
|
| Calamar |
| quote: | Originally posted by MunkyAngel
YAH!!!! I was wondering if that was you!!! I was the Comfort Captain for Johns Creek 50/51 and Team K on election day.
Did you ever go to meetings in Country Club of the South to Jane's House?? We went to a few of those there. |
Congratulations on achieving the campaign's most hilariously awesome title, Comfort Captain MunkyAngel. I had heard about their Country Club of the South meetings, though I never attended one. In truth, I didn't work too closely with Jane-and-Jean's team, outside of a couple meetings and maybe a VoteBuilder training session at the North Fulton office. My understanding is that they led a very effective team. |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
It's my hope Obama won't let the lobbyists have influence on his administration like he promised. If he does, I will be severely disappointed, and my support of him will be evaluated.
I also hope he carries through with his goal to turn clean energy as the new industry for America, much like what computer technology has done for us in the past two decades. I see the opportunity to be the world's leader in this sector ushering in a new era of prosperity because of American made energy technologies. |
|
|
|
|
