In other words he's saying "Vote for me and I'll give you your cut of other people's trillion dollars." Buying votes.
In any event, gov't programs have done more harm than good. They eliminate the need for families to stay together and create a class of jobs "Americans just won't do" which is part of our immigration issue. If people had to work or starve, they'd work (if they couldn't, Americans are still VERY giving people.) If families had to stay together or starve, maybe we wouldn't have this embarassingly high divorce rate.
...
But the fight against social programs is a losing one. We just have to wait till the whole thing collapses. With the falling birth rate, in a generation or two there simply won't be enough Producers to support the Takers.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well you and I do disagree on the role of government. I do take some exception to your characterization of Obama's intent. I think that sometimes politians want to gain public office in order to do what they think is good, rather than promising to do good* in order to gain public office. Obama isn't just trying to get the votes of people who directly benefit from social programs. I don't szee any evidence that his motives are as cynical as you think they are.
*with the understanding that you and I disagree about what is "good" in this context.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In countries with low estate taxes, much of the wealth, land, and power gravitates toward a few rich families and stays there. That's sort of the European model of former centuries. You have your landowning aristocrats, and then the rest of us are peasants.
At the founding of America, the founders explicitly wanted to avoid that sort of society in favor of one in which opportunity would be much more widely accessible and hard work and ingenuity would pay higher dividends. Thus they instituted an estate tax, to dilute the dynastic wealth that tends to accumulate in the richest lines.
That's still an excellent model for a good American society. In other words, the rich don't need more help getting richer. They seem to be doing quite well over the past decades. Let's not stack the deck even more in their favor. After all, when income disparity gets too large, ugly things like revolutions occur, as the Europeans of former centuries also discovered. And those are good for nobody. That's why I like estate taxes. It's not so much grave robbing as it is discouraging the accumulation of vast piles of wealth in the hands of those who do nothing to earn it except be born.
I agree that watching the original video is the best way to get the actual message here. This man is intelligent and has a whole lot of good sense. He's also idealistic and he's not talking down to his audience. He's not a typical politician. He could be a Hatracker.
posted
And we wonder why politicians don't talk policy and instead talk hyperbole.
Pix, you may not like Obama's liberal take on the Estate Tax. You must give him credit for stating his opinion and his policy instead of avoiding such statements and then doing it anyway.
Of course, you assume, with no proof, that any attempt to help the less fortunate is just a pure attempt to buy votes. Could it be that Obama actually believes that the world needs fewer "Paril Hiltons" and "Spoiled Richies, and fewer starving poor, and that the solution is a relocation of funds.
Tatiana is right, in countries where the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest grows too large, there is usually one resolution--revolution. That is rarely good for the wealthy or the poor.
Finally, the Estate Tax, as Obama proposes, does not go into effect on small business owners or farmers, but on Multi-Millionaires. You know that you are rich when you defend your political ideas by saying it will effect the small people, who only have two or three million dollars.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I think politicians want to get elected and will say anything to do it. I don't think Obama is an exception.
Still love ya, KMB.
This, I can agree with, but watching Obama (in the video posted here and elsewhere) I find myself hoping that maybe we've found an exception. Of course, there are shades of gray. He wants to get elected. But maybe he means a lot of what he says. Maybe he really wants to help people.
I don't happen to agree with the democrats' use of public funds on social programs or the republicans' use of public funds for corporate welfare. Between the two, I'll take the democrats use, but I find myself disagreeing with much of the rhetoric spouted from both parties.
Since I already know I disagree with much of their rhetoric, I have to cast my vote based on something else. It's often a coin toss, to be honest, but I find myself truly hoping that Obama's the real deal. I'll take that even if it comes with some misguided (IMHO) policy decisions.
The video is good. It's now about issues. It's about discussing issues...something far more important that often gets lost in these political debates.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the founding of America, the founders explicitly wanted to avoid that sort of society in favor of one in which opportunity would be much more widely accessible and hard work and ingenuity would pay higher dividends. Thus they instituted an estate tax, to dilute the dynastic wealth that tends to accumulate in the richest lines.
Until 1862, no estate tax based on the value of the estate was enacted federally.
There was a closer version to the current estate tax during the civil war, but the modern types of estate taxes didn't really exist until 1898 (and then only for four years) and then 1916.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what her other sources of income are, but Paris Hilton's grandfather (the rich one) is giving away his 2.4bn to charity upon his death rather than giving it to his slut of a grand daughter.
With few exceptions, inherited wealth dilutes and disappears over the generations. There really aren't that many dynasties.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if there were absolutely no social programs or corporate welfare or any government role other than policing and military, the government would still need funding. That means the money could either be taken from somebody that is alive to enjoy the fruits of their labor or somebody that is dead. If you are against the estate tax, it makes sense that you would prefer the money came from the living person. I'm not sure how this is a libertarian position. I have a strong belief in the right to property. However, I see no benefit in extending this right to the dead.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know what her other sources of income are, but Paris Hilton's grandfather (the rich one) is giving away his 2.4bn to charity upon his death rather than giving it to his slut of a grand daughter.
His slut of a grand daughter? I understand that we don't like Paris Hilton, but no matter how rich she is or how many people she sleeps with, I don't think it's alright to show this level of disdain for someone. Especially someone you have never met. Really not trying to pick a fight, but this kind of struck me as especially mean, the kind of mean that is not justified by celebrity or money, IMO. Or pretty much anything for that matter...
About the estate tax: "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". Oliver Wendell Holmes, noted and admired Republican. That is all...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really liked this speech. It is the first time I have heard a politician with a reasonable, logical approach to religion. He actually manages to show he has listen to both sides and has a suggestion on how we should proceed. He is suggesting real compromise, where both sides get something and both sides give something. Here is a politician I could get behind. Too bad I don't agree with him on many of the issues. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to see who we end up getting to choose from. I will have to say as someone who has pretty much voted republican most of my life, here is one democrat I would consider voting for.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
On the eve(metaphorically) of this election I was impelled to revisit the beginning of all of this for myself. This is the speech that made me an Obama supporter. I had never been moved before by a speech like I had been by this one. And it wasn't just his presence and his oratory style. It was his words. His ideas. His candor and his nuanced understanding and approach to government and moral issues facing humanity.
I was blown away. But that last two elections, as well as some cynicism about our political process in general I think, had demoralized me from believing that someone like him(and I'm not talking about the color of his skin here) could actually become president. I can't believe how close I am to being proven wrong. I'm in awe of how events have progressed and I am bit overwhelmed by the magnitude of all this.
Something we haven't heard in a little while:
Yes We Can.
edit: worth noting. anyone who knows me, knows I'm an atheist. So to be moved like this by a man of faith, speaking to a group of religious people about religion, is a pretty big deal.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't know what her other sources of income are, but Paris Hilton's grandfather (the rich one) is giving away his 2.4bn to charity upon his death rather than giving it to his slut of a grand daughter.
And as we all know, sluts don't deserve inheritance.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: kmb: Thenardier and Obama are mearly a difference of scale. Thenardier took a little and gave it to one poor person (himself.) Obama seeks to take from many and use the proceeds to buy votes from many poor people.
Both are evil people seeking personal gain. Obama is worse due to simple numbers.
I feel sorry for Obama's victims. The people who worked their whole life for a small business to have it broken and sold to pay the estate taxes. Farmers... anyone who owns a house in the bay area...
All to buy votes. To pay people not to work.
That's vastly inaccurate, derogatory, and unfair. The current status of what estates fall under estate tax laws stretches the definition of "small business" to the breaking point, and I've never seen anyone describe a real case of a farm being lost to estate taxes; it seems simply to be a bugbear to frighten people, mostly people who will never see such fortunes in their lives.
The exemption rate that falls into place in 2009 is $3.5 million. That's million, as in six zeroes. Quite aside from any other loopholes a reasonably prepared person can come up with, given the kind of accountants such wealth can afford.
To "buy votes"? To "pay people not to work"? What determinedly caustic and cynical presumptions. How about to make the next generation of entrepreneurs possible? To keep the infrastructures that every small business and farmer depends on functioning? To make sure a nation of entrepreneurs remains possible in the face of competition from countries that don't make individual wealth to be the highest good?
Maybe there's something in there that's worth more than the need to establish a plutocracy so incompetent they can't maintain the family business without every blessed nickel their benefactor took to the grave? Maybe we shouldn't throw around words like "evil".
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The current status of what estates fall under estate tax laws stretches the definition of "small business" to the breaking point
According to the small business administration, small businesses can have annual revenues as large as 33 million dollars or as many as 1000 employees depending on the type of business. This is a definition used for a lot of things, and I've never seen it described as being near the breaking point.
quote:Maybe there's something in there that's worth more than the need to establish a plutocracy so incompetent they can't maintain the family business without every blessed nickel their benefactor took to the grave? Maybe we shouldn't throw around words like "evil".
Maybe you shouldn't throw around words like "plutocracy" and "incompetent."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny how striders resurrecting of this thread resurrected the fight over inheritance tax as if no had ever even paused to breath.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, Canada doesn't seem to have an explicit inheritance tax. (I suspect that we still tax more via normal capital gains tax and whatnot though)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Funny how striders resurrecting of this thread resurrected the fight over inheritance tax as if no had ever even paused to breath.
heh, should've started a brand new thred, eh?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble I'm having with much of what people are saying about Obama's tax plans -- including inheritance tax and his desire to raise taxes on those making greater than 250k a year -- is the branding. Many say that we're taking that money from wealthy people...robbing them...and giving it away to people who make less money.
I pay taxes too. I thought the tax burden was designed to do a wide variety of things from running our schools to defending our country. It's a complicated system and I am often overwhelmed by the depths of complexity, the loopholes, and the sheer number of things that are taxed (income, sales, property, inheritance...).
But I do pay taxes. And should Barack Obama's tax plan go through, I will continue to pay taxes, though less than I do now. I won't be getting a handout, filtered through the government, from wealthy people or business owners. If you want to call that robbing from the rich or redistribution of wealth, then I suggest you may want to look at it another way.
Here's the real question: How do we distribute the tax burden?
Who pays what? Should a middle class person pay 25% of their salary? 50%? 10%? What's fair? Should a wealthy person pay a higher percentage? A lower percentage, because after all it's still more money? How much wealth are we "entitled" to and how much is our fair share of fueling the American bureaucracy?
I have no answers to propose, but both John McCain and Barack Obama do.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I would be perfectly happy to pay whatever I'm paying now or even a little more to balance the budget, help us get out of debt, and have politicians debate something more important than stupid taxes. They're as certain as death, and if I have to budget more money out of my salary, so be it. Can't they talk about the war or social issues or something other than stupid money?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The current status of what estates fall under estate tax laws stretches the definition of "small business" to the breaking point
According to the small business administration, small businesses can have annual revenues as large as 33 million dollars or as many as 1000 employees depending on the type of business. This is a definition used for a lot of things, and I've never seen it described as being near the breaking point.
Oddly, the $33 million dollar limit, which is tied to construction, is not what most people have in mind when they talk about small businesses. Nor the $175 million in assets a "small" commercial lender can possess. I would be highly surprised to hear anyone in the public sector talking about the need to favor small businesses using a $33 million dollar company as an example, largely because it's hard to generate sympathy. They do talk about farmers a lot- who on the same tables are limited to $0.75 million in size to fall under the definition of "small".
So if one insists on using a codified definition of "small business" even though the term is being used in this instance as a rhetorical bludgeon and not a hard-and-fast definition, we seem to be basing this inflammatory fiction on a tiny percentage of businesses- few of which, I'll admittedly speculate, are arranged in such a way that the assets fall under the estate of a single person.
quote:Maybe you shouldn't throw around words like "plutocracy" and "incompetent."
I see a difference between calling a purely hypothetical permanent monied class that so lacks the former generation's savvy that it can't maintain its fortunes without not only having the deck stacked in its favor, but heavily stacked what it is and calling a real person who a great number of people on this board support "evil" to credit an exaggerated narrative.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course you do. Everybody thinks their inflammatory language is ok. It's the other guy's that cross the line.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted. But not all "inflammatory" language is created equal. If you don't see a difference between describing an existant presidential candidate by the same term that others use to describe, say, Satan- and describing hypothetical people in terms based on, well, what they'd be if they existed (a powerful monied minority that lacks their elders' acumen), I must suggest that the problem may have less to do with my language than the way you view it.
If you have some reason to believe that a small number of inheritors of massive fortunes who don't have the wherewithal to maintain them because they're only able to keep the vast majority of those fortunes shouldn't be described as "an incompetent ('lacking the qualities for effective action, unable to function properly') plutocracy ('a controlling class of the wealthy')", I would genuinely be interested in hearing them. But some recognition of the vast stretches necessary for the "evil" description to stick, even as written, would be appreciated. Suggesting the two arguments are equal without any backing is more than you should expect any reasonable person to accept.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have some reason to believe that a small number of inheritors of massive fortunes who don't have the wherewithal to maintain them because they're only able to keep the vast majority of those fortunes shouldn't be described as "an incompetent ('lacking the qualities for effective action, unable to function properly') plutocracy ('a controlling class of the wealthy')", I would genuinely be interested in hearing them.
If you'd bother to even attempt to give a reason why they are incompetent, I might bother.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My notion of their incompetence is based on the idea that, with (presumably) a much greater initial stake than their forebears used to establish their fortunes, they cannot simply maintain them.
Look, to take a step back, I can see why you may have felt Pixiest was being bullied and you had to step in, and I do respect that. I wish she hadn't felt a need to use such a harsh term to describe someone who I (and, as I say, many others here) support, and I think that description is based on a narrative that lacks credence. But I think if this particular digression continues, a potentially valuable and interesting discussion may be lost, because I don't think most of the others who contributed are interested in reading this.
Say your peace, we'll agree to disagree if we must, but let's move on.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The number of billionaires from the Cargill and MacMillan families highlights that wealthy family fortunes tend to fragment over the years. With every generation, there are more children and grandchildren among whom to split increasingly smaller inheritances.
Take the legendary Rockefeller clan. Family patriarch John D. Rockefeller struck a fortune when he founded Standard Oil Co. in 1870. He was America's richest person until his death in 1937. Despite that, he has only one descendant on the most recent Forbes 400. That's partly because his original fortune is now dispersed among the 300 adult Rockefeller family members.
Mr. Rockefeller's fortune was also splintered by his generous donations to charity. That's the reason we probably won't see a Buffett billionaire dynasty in years to come.
America's second-richest man has pledged almost of all of his $50-billion to charity. The Oracle of Omaha says that wealth shouldn't be mindlessly passed down to members of the “lucky sperm club.”
Philanthropic giving is also why you shouldn't count on Paris Hilton continuing her family's billionaire tradition. Paris' great-grandfather Conrad Hilton's 1919 purchase of a hotel in Cisco, Tex., was the first step in a hotel empire which would eventually sell for $26-billion after his death.
Conrad's son William Barron Hilton has an estimated net worth of $2.5-billion. Last year, Barron Hilton announced plans to donate essentially all of his fortune to charity. He was reportedly embarrassed by the behaviour of celebrity granddaughter Paris. Having billionaire ancestors might get you rich, but it's no guarantee.
"Lucky sperm club" is a quote from Buffet who is famously on record in your Senate(Congress) as being in favour of an estate tax and heavier taxes on the rich or "spreading the wealth" as I guess they call it now.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you pay close enough attention to what Obama says, and remember exactly what he says from month to month, week to week, and day to day, you will discover a disturbing truth. Nothing he says is fixed in stone. He will change anything, and not even acknowledge that he changed. For weeks and months he has been saying he would only raise taxes for people making $250,000 or more. That was the only figure he mentioned, as recently as in his last debate with McCain. But suddenly, in the past week, the figure you hear from his lips is that he would only raise taxes for people making $200,000 or more. Now this is the only figure he mentions. Biden slipped a few days ago and said $150,000. Was that really a slip, or just the next step in a progression downward in the limit of who would be taxed?
When Obama was in Pennsylvania, he said he was "giving his love" to the Phillies in the World Series. The next day in Florida, he told the crowds he was "giving his love" to the Rays.
Here is the real truth about Obama. What he says means absolutely nothing at all. He only says what he figures people most want to hear. If elected, he will do whatever he wants, with no reference at all to any election promises he made.
Really, what can you expect from a man who attended a church for 20 years known for its "Black Liberation Theology" with a paster who was outspoken and vociferous in his racist, anti-White and anti-American views, and Obama claimed he was unaware of what was being taught in his church? No one attends a church for 20 years unless he is comfortable there with what is being taught! Despite "distancing" himself from the more hair-raising pronouncements of Wright, Obama did not completely repudiate Wright until Wright denounced and insulted Obama personally.
Obama claimed that he never attended a meeting in the home of William Ayers (the unrepentant terrorist bomber) to launch his first political campaign, in response to McCain's mention of this fact in the third debate. And yet two eyewitnesses do place him at that meeting. So again, we see Obama freely and without a second thought, blatantly lying about something, saying only what he expects people would want to hear.
Sorry, supporters of Obama, but none of Obama's promises mean anything. If you are only going by what he says, instead of critically examining his past, then you have no idea who he really is or what he really stands for. You have allowed yourselves to become infatuated with your own ideal of the dream political candidate, and only mistakenly think Obama is that ideal.
For better or for worse, McCain is genuine. All through his career, he has allowed the media to ask him questions about everything, and he has answered them until there were no more questions. McCain is the most thoroughly vetted presidential candidate in history. Obama has not even begun to be vetted, because the mainstream media has forgotten the professional standards of journalism, and actively is seeking to promote his candidacy.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For weeks and months he has been saying he would only raise taxes for people making $250,000 or more. That was the only figure he mentioned, as recently as in his last debate with McCain. But suddenly, in the past week, the figure you hear from his lips is that he would only raise taxes for people making $200,000 or more.
actually, you're not listening hard enough Ron. What he's actually said in the past is that anyone making under $250,000 would not see their taxes go up. And that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut. Meaning anyone making in between $200,000-$250,000 would see no change at all. This is what he's been saying all along.
The only difference that has occurred is that for most of the time he's been using the language of "if you make under $250,000 your taxes won't be raised a single penny" in response to the McCain campaigns attacks that "Obama will raise your taxes". Just recently he started using the language of "if you make less than $200,000 a year you will get a tax cut" I think in an attempt to drive the point home that he'll save you more money in that bracket. Saying you will get a tax cut if you make under a certain amount, doesn't automatically imply you will get a tax raise if you make over that amount. You made that assumption.
The policy hasn't changed. Just the words he uses to describe it.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When Obama was in Pennsylvania, he said he was "giving his love" to the Phillies in the World Series. The next day in Florida, he told the crowds he was "giving his love" to the Rays.
Have you seen the Daily Show clip where Palin gives her love to the Phillies, the Rays, AND the Red Sox?
What's the big deal? Plenty of love to go around.
quote:For better or for worse, McCain is genuine. All through his career, he has allowed the media to ask him questions about everything, and he has answered them until there were no more questions. McCain is the most thoroughly vetted presidential candidate in history. Obama has not even begun to be vetted, because the mainstream media has forgotten the professional standards of journalism, and actively is seeking to promote his candidacy.
Holy crap, I don't even know what world you're living in.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of XKCD, it's on a daily schedule this week, is mildly political in nature, and extremely funny.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When Obama was in Pennsylvania, he said he was "giving his love" to the Phillies in the World Series. The next day in Florida, he told the crowds he was "giving his love" to the Rays.
You really need to watch the Daily Show, Ron. They showed Obama doing so. And then they showed Palin saying the exact same thing for the Philles, the Rays...and the Red Sox.
Does the multiple praise matter? No. Does the hypocrisy of attacking someone for something you're doing worse matter? Yes.
quote:Really, what can you expect from a man who attended a church for 20 years known for its
So does that mean I can judge Palin for being a member of a church that hosts a man who chased women from villages in Africa for being witches? And then blessing Palin to keep the witches away? Should I judge McCain for taking and showing support to Patterson and Falwell?
quote:For better or for worse, McCain is genuine.
A genuine man who lies to a talk show host? A genuine man who repeatedly lies about his opponent? A genuine man who 'suspends his campaign' and then mysteriously doesn't stop any campaigning?
America doesn't need that kind of 'genuine' any more.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
