[ETWolverine]

I'm watching McCain give his acceptance speech and he's not wearing a USA flag pin on his lapels.

He's got scars... you don't need a flag pin when you've got scars, and broken bones, and "spare @$$holes". (A "spare @$$hole" is what they call bullet wounds. A bullet wound tends to leave a puckered scar that looks just like an anus.)

Oh? So those Greek columns only look good on Dubya's stage.

I never said that Obama's temple didn't look good. It looked quite nice in fact. But there's a huge difference between a pair of columns on a stage and an all-out temple built on high.

Godhood? Wow! McCain is practically worshiped as Thor for his Nam story.

As he should be. He not only survived the Hanoi Hilton, he also risked his life and was badly injured saving other naval pilots from the fire on the USS Forestal. His heroism in the POW camp wasn't a fluke. This guy was a hero BEFORE he became a POW. He SHOULD be respected and worshipped for that. Not as a god, but as an incredible, self-sacrificing human being.

What is it that Obama has done that he should be worshipped for? Do you truly see a moral equivalence between McCain's accomplishments and Obama's?

I agree. She's in and there's no looking back now. It is... what it is.

And what it is seems to be driving the Obama campaign nuts.

Fortunately this is not about executive experience alone, otherwise we could just vote in thousands of qualified corporate bonus heavy titans over Palin.

True. But in the comparison between Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin, she comes out on top in terms of executive experience. Throw a Mike Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, or a Mitt Romney in there, and any one of them beat Pallin in terms of executive experience. But they aren't on the ticket. She is. And she beats all the other candidates for Pres or VP in this area. Trying to deny or discount that fact (which the Dems and the press seem to be trying to do) doesn't do anything but make the Dems less prepared to handle her in the next 7 weeks.

I said nothing about a wedding, albeit shotgun or planned. I say Bristol got pregnant and that perhaps Sarah should get to know her daughter, since they live at the same residence.

Perhaps. But again, why attack either Sarah Pallin or Bristol Palin for Bristol getting pregnant, and then deciding to do the responsible thing, which is to marry and keep the baby? THAT is how one takes personal responsibility, and the whole point of the conservative ideology is "personal responsibility". Whether Bristol made a mistake or not is irrelevant. That she is taking responsibility and keeping the baby is the point. And it shows that her mother taught her that basic conservative value that says "if you screw up, you take responsibility for your mistake. (Contrast that with Obama STILL not admitting that he was wrong about the troop surge. He won't take responsibility for his mistake.)

(And please don't start with Bush's "mistake" of the war in Iraq. It wasn't a mistake, you will disagree with that, and considering the current state of affairs in Iraq... with the Iraqis taking up more and more responsibility, asking for more autonomy, and a $79 billion budget surplus for the Iraqi economy... I'm right, and so was Bush.)

In all fairness it's not an issue for me concerning either parties candidates. I have no doubt that Michelle and Barack's kids are their own. But being black and given the higher percentage of African American single parent households, they would be scrutinized beyond the Palin family.

Apparently not.

Schlesinger's not a liberal. She's a self proclaimed conservative.

She can call herself what she wants. She is a "social" conservative, but she's not a conservative pundit of any sort. Her economic statements are LIBERAL. On anything except family values stuff, she a liberal. I like her, but she is no more conservative than Joe Lieberman, who is ONLY conservative on foreign policy.

Michelle's with the two girls and neither are pregnant, or have down syndrome. Just a fact.

A fact that I question. Given her time on the campaign trail, how much time is she spending with her kids?

Jimmy had Roslyn at home with Amy. The Kennedy's could afford special services for Rosemary and FDR had good care as well.

And you think that the Vice President of the USA won't be able to aford a nanny for her kids, or that her husband won't spend time with the kids? Why does the press assume that because Pallin is a woman, the rules are different for her than for men in the White House? Aren't liberals supposed to be the ones who say that women can do anything that men can, and shouldn't be chained in the house with babies?

OK. But before we carried away, I'm sure we could find a few political science graduates on the golf courses in Georgetown, West Lake, Lago Vista and other surrounding Austin areas. Maybe if we transplant them to Alaska where they can even drive in a snowmobile race like Sarah's husband. Let's not make that a qualification while were at it.

Are you denying that executive experience is an important qualification for President of the United States or that Palin has executive experience? Racing snowmobiles isn't a qualification for president, and neither is shooting a gun. But executive experience certainly is. Why are you likening the executive experience of Palin to the racing skills of her husband? Seems like a straw argument to me.

Well I went to school with a Lisa Ingraham.

:)

Yes... Laura is a pretty women. Not quite as pretty as my wife (I'm scoring points!). Anyway the Pubs seem to want a beauty contest. Like I said in another post, McCain maybe archaic in his thinking, bones re-healed from Nam, but at 72 years old his eye sight is EXCELLENT!

Wasn't it Harry Reid who said that Obama was qualified because he's a "good looking, clean-cut, well spoken black man"? Who is putting appearance at the top of their qualifications list?

As for the anti-Obama rhetoric it was certainly in the headlines for weeks at a time. Actually it was brought up by the Clinton campaign long before the Pubs.

Actually, the only "anti-Obama rhetoric" that I have been hearing from the Reps is a repetition of Obama's own statements and the repeated questioning of what Obama has accomplished that makes him qualified to be president. I won't speak for what the Clintonistas said or didn't say. If by anti-Obama you are referring to Reps pointing out that he has no experience and his political statces are wrong, then yeah, I guess there's been a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric.

Obama was called and labeled the unpatriotic Muslim extremist for months.

By whom? Which Republican said that? I certainly don't agree with it. I happen to think that Obama is an Islamist (his ever-changing positions regarding Israel and Jerusalem make that clear enough), but that doesn't automatically make him unpatriotic. He's not unpatriotic. He's just wrong on issues of national security.

It will be over in November than she can head back to Alaska.

Maybe. But I doubt it. This particular genie ain't going back in the lamp.

Trust that the McCain campaign will keep her under wraps and tell there little princess puppet what to say and when.

Do you really believe that?

Even if the party wanted to do that (which I highly doubt, given how much she has electrified the campaign) do you think this attack-dog media that you have agreed is in play in this election cycle is going to let her get away with that?

It will eventually come down to issues for them.

And that's where Obama loses. He keeps talking about change, but he has never (not even in his acceptance speech) listed what his changes would be. He has not enunciated one singl piece of solid policy on the issues. He has no history to point to and say "I did that, and I'll do it again". He can't make a straight policy decision on when human rights begin. He can't decide whether Jerusalem should remain unified or be divided. He can't decide on whether he backs public funding for his campaign or not. He can't decide whether Iran is a small little country that is no threat to us, or is a grave threat. His idea of energy policy is to inflate our tires, get tune-ups and use wind power, a technology that was rejected 150 years ago as being to costly and inefficient to work. On the issues, Obama loses. That's why Palin is so scary to him... she's got a better handle on the issues than he does.

Again... so McCain thinks. He should had just begged Condi and he could had covered both bases. Obama will garnish the overwhelming amount of Hillary voters, both women and men.

And you think Hillary supporters were more likely to vote for Condi than Palin? I think you are dreaming.

As for Hillary's voters, you are right... the vast majority of them, approximately 2/3, will vote for Obama. But 1/3 won't... and that is 6 million voters who will either vote for the McCain/Palin ticket or who will stay home. They WON'T be voting for Obama.

I didn't watch Biden's speech, but I'm sure compared to McCain's coma speech flat liner that I just finished listening to, it was at least pulsating.

Huh? Were you watching the same speech I did? McCain was electrifying in his talk of sacrifice for his country, his call to duty, etc. He did a fantastic job, and he brought the party together behind him. What were you watching.

Sarah will get her chance at the debates.

Yep. I'm looking forward to it.

But the polls had Reagan and Carter neck and neck going into the last week. Gaffs, which McCain is full of, should be the least of his worries as well. He's attached to Dubya you know what! That's his problem and he's not going to be able to shake that.

And as I mentioned, I don't think he has to. People's view of the war in Iraq has changed since the surge, and McCain is very attached to the surge. The success surge makes Bush AND McCain look better than they did 8 months ago.

I agree. It should be a blow out by now. It was obvious to me not to vote for Dubya twice. But the public is not all in the same place at this time. I think the majority will arrive at the same conclusion.

Yeah... that's the definition of a majority... where most of them arrive at the same conclusion. :cool:

But what conclusion? That's where you and I seem to disagree.

As compared to that wonderful trickle down Bush economics. No thanks. I have no doubt most Americans in that upper class range are going to hate Obama. But it's not going to bother me a bit.

So you like higher taxes?

The only way that you are not going to get higher taxes under Obama is if you don't buy anything, sell anything, gass up your car, or die, because while Obama claims he's going to cut income taxes for 95% of Americans (which is pure BS on it's own right), he plans on doubling the capital gains tax, raising gas taxes, raising CORPORATE income taxes (which will jack up your prices for simple everyday goods) and raising the death tax... all in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts.

But I'm glad that Obama's economics don't bother you a bit. You must be rich. Which isn't a bad thing... if you're rich, more power to you. But us regular Americans don't want more taxes.

I need to spend time with the family the next few days. I'll catch you around. Don't be a stranger. It was good hearing from you.

Great hearing from you too, bro.

Have a great Shabbos.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Welcome back Elliot. Right now im about to begin my weekend so ill comment on your post some time Monday. Good to see you back. Ive been polishing my gun in anticipation. ;)

I'll be sure to wear my vest. :)

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Well, you don't expect these macho rightwingers admit it, do you??

excon

Let's just say I'm taking the Missouri state slogan to heart. You're going to have to show me. ;)

[ETWolverine]

Great to hear from you!

Thanks.

I have a question about banks overdraft fees ,that are greater than loan shark rates, that they impose on students who use debit cards .This occures when the accounts are slightly overdrawn ,based primarily on the way the banks tabulate the withdrawals . But perhaps I'll send you a private about it.

Feel free. If I can help, I will.

Looking forward to your continued input into our debate. It's a funny thing.. I have been here taking on Excon ,Bobby et al in lively debates and I have never once thought of my a$$" being kicked" . Nor have I kicked any. But it sure is fun!!

:D

Yeah, I think that the crowd here is pretty evenly matched, certainly among the regulars.

I've missed this...

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Interesting Rassmussen report out today:

A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.

The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view (full demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members). Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52%. A week ago, 67% had never heard of her.

The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden.

Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.

There is a strong partisan gap when it comes to perceptions of Palin. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans give her favorable reviews along with 33% of Democrats and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men. The Friday morning update—the first to include interviews conducted after Palin’s speech--showed the beginning of a Republican convention bounce that may match Obama’s bounce from last week.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans believe that most reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign, a fact that may enhance her own ratings.

The Palin pick has also improved perceptions of John McCain. A week ago, just before he introduced his running mate, just 42% of Republicans had a Very Favorable opinion of their party’s nominee. That figure jumped to 54% by this Friday morning. Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week—from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters now believe that McCain made the right choice when he picked Palin to be his running mate while 32% disagree. By way of comparison, on the night after Biden gave his acceptance speech, 47% said that Obama made the right choice.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans say that McCain made the right choice while just 69% of Democrats said the same about Obama.

Among unaffiliated voters, 52% said that McCain made the right choice for his running mate and 45% said the same about Obama.

Forty percent (40%) now say that Palin is ready to be President, if necessary. That’s up from 29% last week. Forty-nine percent (49%) say the same about Biden.

However, following the Wednesday night speech, voters are fairly evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say Palin has the better experience while 48% say Obama has the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 45% say Obama has better experience while 42% say Palin.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters say that Palin’s speech helped McCain’s chances of becoming President while only 10% believe it hurt those prospects.

While Palin’s numbers are stunning today, it remains to be seen how the Alaska Governor’s numbers will hold up through the next two months. She has made a tremendous first impression, but the country will get to know her a lot better between now and November.

[inthebox]

ET

Glad you are back! ;)

[tomder55]

Wasn't it Harry Reid who said that Obama was qualified because he's a "good looking, clean-cut, well spoken black man"? Who is putting appearance at the top of their qualifications list?

Even better 'it was his own VEEP pick that said it.

He SHOULD be respected and worshipped for that. Not as a god, but as an incredible, self-sacrificing human being.

After hearing the narrative of his struggle in the Hanoi Hilton a few times this week by people like Fred Thompson who are much better at relating a tale ,I was frankly surprised when McCain again repeated the story. That was until he got to the part where he said
But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.

When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners.


To me that made him a bigger hero than even I had ever realized. It seemed like a catharsis for him to open up and admitting a personal failure while he was under the greatest test he could face. Anyone would've been forgiven for folding long before they reached that point .But he was afraid he let his fellow POWs down. I truly think that he would deny himself the moniker "hero" if he could.

The selflessness of service was a thread that ran through the entire speech and this line was the one that tied it all together:

I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.

[inthebox]

All things staying as they are right now, the winner of the election will be McCain & Palin. It is going to take something BIG over the next 7 weeks to put Obama over the top. Yes, I know that Obama is ahead right now, but he's not far enough ahead, and the momentum currently stands with the Republicans.

I'm back!!!!!

Elliot

What of Biden's counterpoint - nothing on the economy or healthcare?


What of the latest inflation + unemployment = misery index > 10 ?


Bush's low approval?


Obama should win!


That being said, I predict that gas prices, barring a major oil disruption, will continue to drop or not rise until election day.

If Obama/ Biden are elected with A Democratic congress, hate to say it, but gas prices and the misery index will go up and up.

What energy solution does not include, increasing oil supply, nuclear, clean coal, along with wind, solar, and conservation?

[BABRAM]

He's got scars... you don't need a flag pin when you've got scars, and broken bones, and "spare @$$holes". (A "spare @$$hole" is what they call bullet wounds. A bullet wound tends to leave a puckered scar that looks just like an anus.)

Yes, I know about scars. But Elliot only a simpleton would pin the flag to his skin, or his @$$hole! I would hope that McCain knows that the flag pin is worn on the cloth of his lapel. Now instead of me going through and dissecting your post again, sentence by sentence, I'd rather not be here for weeks playing dozens. I'm not going to rehash who is the bigger victim of media bias Palin, or Obama. Or which Greek columns look more impressive in their staged convention, Obama's or Dubya's Temple '04. Or who has more experience signing contracts and giving orders, Palin or Obama (or McCain or Biden for that matter). Or the exploitation of gender vs. race, a women or an African American. Or who's more aligned with the basic tenets of Islam, Obama or McCain. Or whom should be worshipped based on morals, Obama or McCain. Nor am I going to discuss Schlesinger's family value views and social conservative stance. Nope! I'm going to use the issues here that should be more relevant to the general public.

"if you screw up, you take responsibility for your mistake. (Contrast that with Obama STILL not admitting that he was wrong about the troop surge. He won't take responsibility for his mistake.)

(And please don't start with Bush's "mistake" of the war in Iraq. It wasn't a mistake, you will disagree with that, and considering the current state of affairs in Iraq... with the Iraqis taking up more and more responsibility, asking for more autonomy, and a $79 billion budget surplus for the Iraqi economy... I'm right, and so was Bush.).

What a surprise! :rolleyes: We do disagree. Well, at least in part. Concerning surges and current affairs... since we are stuck their for now, and as worn torn as Iraq is, they (the country) have nothing to do but improve. Responsibility? Well on that part I agree. It's about time the Iraqi's run their own country. Concerning the decision to go to war... personally I would had bombed military installations and government building to they were parking lot level flat. But I would had never wasted one US soldier on Iraq. Bush was wrong in the first place, and I was right.

So you like higher taxes?

The only way that you are not going to get higher taxes under Obama is if you don't buy anything, sell anything, gass up your car, or die, because while Obama claims he's going to cut income taxes for 95% of Americans (which is pure BS on it's own right), he plans on doubling the capital gains tax, raising gas taxes, raising CORPORATE income taxes (which will jack up your prices for simple everyday goods) and raising the death tax... all in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts.

But I'm glad that Obama's economics don't bother you a bit. You must be rich. Which isn't a bad thing... if you're rich, more power to ya. But us regular Americans don't want more taxes.

You're mistaken. If I were upper class wealthy and the issue was my personal economics alone, I'd definitely vote for McCain.

Capital Gains...

Political Radar: Obama Clarifies Scope of Capital Gains Tax Hike

Republican Convention...

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

Whose tax plan is better for you? Obama vs. McCain :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

Chart of the taxation plans...

By the numbers: The tax plans :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

[ETWolverine]

Capital Gains...

Political Radar: Obama Clarifies Scope of Capital Gains Tax Hike

Republican Convention...

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

Whose tax plan is better for you? Obama vs. McCain :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

Chart of the taxation plans...

By the numbers: The tax plans :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

Here's the part that these article don't tell you...

If you own a home and try to sell it, and your combined income from the sale of that home and your regular income/wages for the year combine to over $250,000, you will be in the 28% tax bracket. Since more than 60% of Americans own homes, that means that the majority of AMericans will get bumped into the 28% tax bracket when they try to sell a home. The raising of the capital gains tax to a max of 28% will not just affect "the rich", but rather the vast majority of Americans. ANd since for the vast majority of Americans, home ownership is where they place the vast majority of their earnings, an increase in the capital gains tax is a major drag on their ability to create wealth.

And let's not forget that something like 80% of Americans own stock in some way, shape or form. That means that even if their capital gains taxes are only raised by 5%, 80% of Americans will be affected by such a tax raise, and we're not just talking about the rich.

You cannot raise the Capital Gains tax without affecting EVERYONE adversely. It can't be done.

As Fred Thompson put it, Obama says he wants to take the water from the other half of the bucket, not your half.

You're an analyst, Bobby. You know this. I shouldn't have to be telling you this stuff.

Elliot

[sGt HarDKorE]

Barack is only going to raise taxes for the incredibly wealthy (5% of americans),

And lower taxes for the other 95%

[Emland]

SGt, are you aware that many citizens pay no taxes at all? The "working poor" pay virtually no taxes at all thanks to EIC and if they are on government assistance programs, i.e. WIC, welfare, reduced lunch etc they take way more from the system than they pay in. These "incredibly weathly" people pay over 60% of the taxes. How much more are we going to slap them with? Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

Who are we going to tax when they chase all the people with money out of the country? How many poor people employ others? Tax increases will affect the middle class and small businesses like the one I work for. The "tax break" will most likely require the employer to pay all payroll taxes instead of the 1/2 paid now. If that happens, we will cut staff to compensate.

Tax and spend is not the answer and neither is borrow and spend. We need responsible elected representatives but the likelihood of that happening is somewhere between slim and none.

[BABRAM]

Here's the part that these article don't tell you...

If you own a home and try to sell it, and your combined income from the sale of that home and your regular income/wages for the year combine to over $250,000, you will be in the 28% tax bracket. Since more than 60% of Americans own homes, that means that the majority of AMericans will get bumped into the 28% tax bracket when they try to sell a home. The raising of the capital gains tax to a max of 28% will not just affect "the rich", but rather the vast majority of Americans. ANd since for the vast majority of Americans, home ownership is where they place the vast majority of their earnings, an increase in the capital gains tax is a major drag on their ability to create wealth.

And let's not forget that something like 80% of Americans own stock in some way, shape or form. That means that even if their capital gains taxes are only raised by 5%, 80% of Americans will be affected by such a tax raise, and we're not just talking about the rich.

You cannot raise the Capital Gains tax without affecting EVERYONE adversely. It can't be done.

As Fred Thompson put it, Obama says he wants to take the water from the other half of the bucket, not your half.

You're an analyst, Bobby. You know this. I shouldn't have to be telling you this stuff.

Elliot

Eilliot, I do know and had those percentages been factual, but they're not. That's a false story and deceitful propaganda.

FactCheck.org: Would Obama tax my profits if I sell my home? Would he tax my IRA? Would he tax my water?


"No. A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false. Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.


Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links.


Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.

Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.


Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.


Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000."

[ETWolverine]

First of all, Bobby, there is, as I said, no way to keep such a tax increase on capital gains from affecting everyone, not just "the rich". As soon as you tax the "rich" they start laying that tax burden off on everyone else.

How many homes will sell for less than $250,000 today in the northeast or the northwest, or in large cities throughout the country? If you tax real estate valued at over $250,000, then one of two things will happen... sellers will either raise their selling prices to cover the extra taxes, which will result in people not being able to purchase the real estate (keeping the poor poor and the middle class in the middle, rather than allowing people to do better), or real estate sales will drop off, thus devaluing the real estate, and eliminating the main source of wealth for most Americans. A de-facto tax on the middle and lower classes. Either way, the poor and middle class suffer along with the rich, because you cannot tax one part of society without it affecting the wealth of other parts of society. It has been tried and it can't be done.

(Similarly, you cannot lower taxes to one sector of society without it affecting all sectors of society. That is why what you refer to as "trickle-down economics" works.)

Here's another point that people keep missing: IRA's are not tax free. They are tax deferred. Which means that you pay tax on those assets at the time you draw them. Which means that Obama may not be taxing the young 20-year-old today, but he is most certainly talking about taxing the 65-year-old retiree anywhere from 20% to 28% on his IRA draw-downs. Remember the poor retirees that the Dems keep complaining have to already sacrifice food in order to get their meds because Medicare and Medicaid are failing (and it's all Bush's fault).

Since when can retirees who no longer work, who sell their homes in the cities to move to retirement communities (capital gains), and are now living on Social Security and IRAs (capital gains), afford to pay 5%-15% MORE than they already do in taxes? Obama's tax plan specifically targets the very communities he claims to be trying to help. Why can't he (or you, for that matter) see that. Whether the increase is 5% or 15%, it is still the WRONG THING TO DO.

Furthermore, why would anyone support any increase in their taxes, whether that increase is "only" 5% to the level of 20%, or a 15% increase to 30%? When did people start approving of giving up to 1-5 to 1/3 of their earnings to the government? What, exactly, does government do to earn that money?

According to the Constitution, the federal government can tax the people for only 3 purposes: 1) maintain roads, 2) maintain a military, and 3) maintain a mail service. The mail service has been privatized with the use of electronic systems like phone and e-mail, as well as private carriers like DHL and FedEx. Even the Postal Service charges for stamps. There is no tax necessary for that purpose anymore. That means road maintenance and military maintenance.

The estimated cost for the military, national defense and homeland security in the 2009 budget is approximately $553 billion.

The estimated cost for the department of the interior (roadways) and the department of transportation is $22.1 billion.

The total cost for these two items is $575.1 billion. If we double it, just for good measure, to cover any additional costs the government might have, we still get $1.15 trillion, which is about 1/3 of the expected outlays for 2009 ($3.1 trillion).

In 2007, the US government took in $1.4 trillion in individual income taxes, $395 billion in corporate income taxes, and $850 billion in employment taxes for a total of $2.65 trillion. (This leaves off excise taxes, gift taxes and estate taxes which totaled another $79 billion.)

The point that I'm making is that we ought to be paying about HALF the taxes that we currently do, which would still cover the federal government's real costs. And we could do it with a flat tax of about 15% across the board. But it takes a decrease in government spending... something that Obama cannot do and still provide his bread and circus welfare programs to the lower class in order to stay in power.

And there is also the point that every time there has been an increase in taxes at any point in history, the result has been an increase in unemployment... which means a decrease in earnings. That too is a form of tax.

Bottom line: every economist and financial expert worth their salt agrees that Obama is bad for the economy, his tax plan will make the poor poorer, the middle class poorer and the rich less capable of supporting the middle and lower classes. Whether that plan means a 5 point increase in taxes (33% up from where they are now) or a 15 point increase (a 100% increase from the current level) is simply a matter of incremental level of the disaster. It's still a disaster either way.

Elliot

[BABRAM]

Elliot, for starters, your premise was based on a non-factual story. It wouldn't be fair to Obama (or McCain) for me to argue something that they didn't actually represent as fact from their candidacy. Secondly it's not the home sales for 250k that's being taxed. You misunderstand. The taxation starts if you profit more than 250k (500k married filing joint). In other words, let's say you sale your home for 700k and you profited (netted) 260k. You would pay the percentage on 10k, whatever percentage that ends up being. Another thing, I don't think the 28% has been settled on yet. It will probably be closer to the 15 to 23 percent range.

Finally, I agree with you about the constitutional taxation purposes. Actually we are both outside the normal Democrat and Republican thought on this. I'm registered as an Independent and for good reason. Unfortunately taxes have been around since ancient Egypt. I've considered the flat tax and I'm OK with that. Personally though I favor a consumption tax plan. I think that would be fairer to everyone across the nation.

[Skell]

Recent unemployment rates in the US just rose sharply again. Is this also Obama's fault?

We have capital gains tax down here and I am one who suffers from it. I'm into property development. Do I LIKE paying it? NO WAY! Do I think it is fair! Actually YES I do!

[tomder55]

Skell ,the downturn in the US economy coincides with the Democrat congressional victory in 2006. Whether having a cap gains tax is a fair debate.(I think they are double taxation ,and harmful to small business) But without question the proposed raising of them by as much as Obama's plan does (or at least did... the proposal now is much more modest than when he proposed doubling them in the beginning of the campaign) would be detrimental to the economy.

[Emland]

Recent unemployment rates in the US just rose sharply again. Is this also Obama's fault?

Might have something to do with the federal minimum wage going up.