Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1564466 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1103331 Mar 25, 2014
Buroc Millhouse Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
tsk, tsk...
You have so much hate & anger you can't even type "You're an idiot!"
You claim to be a Christian. I bet you hate your next door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace.
You are what Democrats have morphed in to.
Look who's talking, you go to bed stupid and wake up nothings changed. No one hates like you idiots, all you do all day is practice that profession. By the way tell you god next time he talks to you, that Grey Ghost said that he knows how he was able to walk on water...Simple Shit floats. So in that case you can walk on water also moron.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1103332 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Moonloon!!! LMAO!!!!! You're dumber than dirt and that's an insult to dirt!!!!!
I'm glad I get to you little man, daily you do your chicken little imitation while pretending to be so insightful but coming across as a total LOON.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103334 Mar 25, 2014
Why do total tax revenues go down when income tax rates go up (and vice versa)?

By: Joe Messerli

"It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments" --Ibn Khaldûn

The S&P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, a result of a near $15 trillion debt that is growing by almost $1.3 trillion per year with no end in sight, has brought national attention to a growing crisis that threatens to destroy not only the U.S. economy, but the world economy also. Most people would agree that out-of-control government spending is the main cause, as evidenced by the fact that spending has doubled in the last decade, while tax revenues have stayed relatively constant . However, most people would agree that total tax revenues will likely have to increase along with a drastic cut in spending in order to bring the budget back in balance. The specifics of growing that revenue is hotly under debate, however.

Many politicians and media pundits are calling for increasing tax rates, primarily on upper income individuals and businesses. But does this really increase total revenues? Total tax revenues have actually increased under the tax cuts of Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush. Annual revenues nearly doubled under Reagan's presidency, despite the fact the top tax rates were drastically cut ! Nowadays, the government is finding every way under the sun to tax us, but total revenues aren't increasing. But why?!!! It can by boiled down to one simple equation:
TOTAL TAX REVENUE = TAXABLE INCOME * TAX RATE

For example, if taxable income was $10 trillion, and average tax rate was 20%, the total tax revenue would be $2 trillion. Simple, right? So why wouldn't total revenue increase to $3 trillion if you raised the average rate to 30%?! It's because this assumes the other number, taxable income, stays constant. But the fact is, it doesn't ! Businesses and individuals change their behavior in response to changes in the tax rate structure. This partially explains why tax revenue actually increased under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush (at least until the 2007 financial crisis), despite the fact they cut rates. Let's examine why that first factor, taxable income, goes down in response to an increase in the tax rate.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103335 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicans are unnervingly adept at convincing large swaths of the public that up is down, or that night is, in fact, day. They are attempting this right now, on a grand scale. "Why won't President Obama and Democrats just negotiate with us?" they bewail. They're hoping that the public (and the media which is supposed to inform the public) has absolutely no memory of what has taken place all year long, as they have blocked -- over and over again -- exactly the budget negotiations they are now screaming for.
So, as a public service, I'd like to trace the history of the Republican Party when it comes to budget negotiations. In a nutshell, if you don't have time to read all the clips below, the Republican Party has been howling for years that Congress should follow the "regular order" when it comes to passing budgets. This regular order is: House passes budget. Senate passes budget. Conference committee hashes out compromise budget. House and Senate pass compromise budget. President signs budget.
That's what they've been demanding. For years. Remember their "clock" showing how long it had been since the Senate passed a budget? This year, however, both the House and the Senate did actually pass budget bills. The Republicans immediately pivoted to demanding that any conference committee would be bound by the chains of Republican demands -- before they even met. In the House, this took the form of demanding certain subjects be put "off the table" so the conference committee couldn't even consider things like tax increases. In the Senate, every time Harry Reid tried to name conference committee members, it was blocked. Alex Seitz-Wald at the National Journal just put all 19 times Senate Republicans did so into a handy list (which is the following timeline's source for Senate data).
For both the general public's education and for the mainstream media (who apparently have problems remembering anything past last Tuesday), here is the history of the budget negotiations, and the shifting Republican position on even holding discussions with the other side. They've come full circle in one year -- going from demanding "regular order," to blocking regular order with every tactic they can bring to bear, and then returning at the last minute to demanding regular order again (as long as they can dictate the terms of the negotiation). Because of the sheer volume of stunning hypocrisy from Republicans on the issue, this timeline will be presented in two parts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/a...
Huf Puff Post!!! LMAO!!!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1103336 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Huf Puff Post!!! LMAO!!!!
mock the source because you can't dispute the facts.

just the usual right wing nutjob response to facts.
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1103338 Mar 25, 2014
forks_make_us_fat wrote:
<quoted text>
make healthy choices and you won't need a doctor....
yeah.....you can smoke pot!!!!!!!
Celebrate!!!!!!!
More bad behavior the healthy folks have to pay for!!!!!
You can live as healthy a life style as you want but if you get bit by Deer lice carrying Lyme disease or a mosquito with West Nile virus, that's not going to help now is it? There are plenty of diseases out there like leukemia that have nothing to do with lifestyle.

You're an idiot!
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1103339 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Huf Puff Post!!! LMAO!!!!
SOO, instead of addressing it you choose to belittle. No wonder you righties stay so stupid. For you to laugh at anyone source is beyond funny. Daily PDupont makes you idiots look like ....well Idiots.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103340 Mar 25, 2014
Emeem wrote:
<quoted text>
First thing Hitler did was outlaw unions.
You're almost right but not quite.
Trade Unions and Nazi Germany
When Hitler came to power in January 1933, he saw trade unions as exercising more power over the workers than he could. Therefore, trade unions were seen as a challenge to be dispensed with. Hitler knew that he needed the workers to be on his side but he could not allow trade unions to exert the potential power they had. Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.
Just months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he took the decision to end trade unions in Nazi Germany. On May 2nd, 1933, police units occupied all trade unions headquarters and union officials and leaders were arrested. The funds that belonged to the trade unions – effectively this was workers money – were confiscated. However, Hitler had to be careful. He had only been in power for a few months and there were many members of the working class he had to deal with. If the working class movement in Germany organised itself, it would have presented the new Chancellor with a lot of major issues that would have to be dealt with. Removing trade union leaders helped this but it did not fully guarantee that the working class would ‘behave’ itself. Hitler had to offer the workers something more. Hitler announced that the German Labour Force, headed by Robert Ley, would replace all trade unions and would look after the working class. The title was chosen carefully. The new organisation was deliberately cloaked in patriotism, as it was now a German entity as was seen in its title. The working class was now a ‘labour force’. The Nazi Party did all that it could to ensure the workers felt that they were better off under the guidance of the Nazi Party via the German Labour Front.
They had to be brought onto the side of the Nazis as Hitler had major plans for the workers. There were simply too many of them to brutalise into submission, so the workers were offered the ‘Strength Through Joy’ movement (Kraft durch Freude’) which offered them subsidised holidays, cheap theatre trips etc.
Hitler offered the working class an improved leisure life in one hand and took away their traditional rights in the other. Strikes – the traditional way for the working class to vent their anger over an issue – were banned. Strikes had been a thorn in the side of Weimar Germany in its final years. In 1928, the equivalent of 20,339,000 days had been lost as a result of strikes. In 1930, 4,029,000 days had been lost. In 1933, it was just 96,000 days and from 1934 to 1939 there were none. New laws had been brought in after the burning down of the Reichstag and one covered ‘un-German activities’ and strikes were classed as un-German. In January 1934, the Law Regulating National Labour (the ‘Charter of Labour’) banned strikes at statute level.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103341 Mar 25, 2014
Trade unions had looked after the rights of the working class. The German Labour Front now did this. However, Hitler was still fearful of large group of unemployed men existing in the fledgling Nazi state. In January 1933, he inherited an unemployment rate of 26.3%. This had the potential for long-term trouble. Therefore, job creation schemes were introduced. An individual had no choice about a job placement as anyone labelled ‘work shy’ was sent to prison. But such an approach brought down unemployment figures. By 1936, it had dropped to 8.3%- an 18% fall. Between 1936 and 1939, this 8.3% would be mopped up by conscription. Also women were no longer included in employment/unemployment figures, so the figure had to tumble.


Those brought into the Labour Front to participate in job creation schemes were regimented almost as much as if they were in the military. A song sung by members of the GFL went as follows:


“We demand from ourselves service to the end, even when no eyes are upon us.
We know that we should love our Fatherland more than our own life.
We vow that no one shall outdo us in loyalty,
That our life shall be one great labour service for Germany.
So in this solemn hour we pray for blessing on the oath we take,
We thank thee, Fuhrer, that we have now seen thee,
Do thou behold us as thine own creation?
May our hearts ever beat with thy heart’s pulses, Our lives find inspiration in thy love,
Behold us here! Thy Germany are we.”


Their conditions of work and pay were controlled and determined by the German Labour Front and the GLF represented the workers when disputes arose between management and workers. Between 1933 and 1939, the wages paid out to those in the GLF actually dropped a little. The cost of living rose during the same time by 25%. However, Hitler’s grip on the working class by 1939 was so great that they had no choice but to continue in this way.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103342 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
mock the source because you can't dispute the facts.
just the usual right wing nutjob response to facts.
Hell that's all you libtards do!!! I refuted your post with posts of my own, then laughed at you.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103343 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
mock the source because you can't dispute the facts.
just the usual right wing nutjob response to facts.
Investors shift money from taxable investments (such as stocks and bonds) to non-taxable ones (such as municipal bonds). All investors, from millionaires to fixed income retirees, seek to maximize their annual investment income. Tax-free investments like munis naturally pay a lower rate of return. Taxable investments like corporate bonds, pay a higher rate. Since the government taxes a chunk out of taxable income, the after-tax return changes in response to a change in rates. For example, say a $1000 corporate bond pays 10 percent, leading to a $100 interest payment. A marginal tax rate of 30% means the after-tax return is $70 ($100-$30 tax). If the municipal bond pays a rate of 6 percent, the after-tax return is $60 ($1000*6%). So because $70 is higher than $60, the investor stays with the corporate bond. Now assume the marginal tax rate is raised to 50%, the after-tax return of the corporate bond is now $50 ($100-$50 tax). Since the municipal bond now pays $10 more, investors are likely to shift money from the corporate bond to the non-taxable muni. Consequently, that first factor, TAXABLE INCOME, drops to $0, and the tax revenue from the bond is completely eliminated. Sure, this is a simplified example, but remember investors nowadays are more sophisticated, especially wealthy individuals that can hire expert accountants and lawyers to squeeze out every penny of income. Computers are making this easier every day.

There is less incentive to work extra hours given the smaller after-tax wage rate, meaning taxable wages decrease. While almost everyone has to work to some extent to pay the bills, the decision to work a second job and/or overtime hours is often one of choice. Do you really need the extra income enough to give up much of your leisure and relaxation time? At $100 per hour, you might say "No doubt"! At $50, probably yes. At $25, maybe. At $10, no way. Everyone has their threshold where the extra money just isn't worth it. By raising tax rates, the hourly rate of take-home pay drops, pushing some below their acceptable threshold. The threshold exists at all levels, from the factory worker that declines taking an additional shift, to the doctor who sees fewer patients. The bottom line is that their is less productivity and taxable income.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103344 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
mock the source because you can't dispute the facts.
just the usual right wing nutjob response to facts.
A smaller potential return means investors & venture capitalists are less willing to risk their money, meaning less business & capital gain income. Everyone with savings has a choice where to put his or her money. We want to earn as much of a return as possible, but we don't want to put our savings at excessive risk of loss in the process. Higher risks, therefore, must be accompanied by higher potential return. If you know the government will take a substantial portion of your earnings if an investment happens to pay off, you know the potential return is limited. Therefore, you may instead decide it isn't worth the risk, and instead put your money in a safer investment like a money market, where you won't lose any money. The net effect on society is that fewer people are willing to start new businesses, businesses are less willing to expand, venture capitalists are less willing to put up money into new opportunities, and investors are less willing to put money into stocks. Business tax income as well as individual capital gains & dividend income are limited as a result. Keep in mind that lower risk investments like CD's are taxed only once, while corporate income is effectively taxed twice--once at the business level and once when it's distributed to owners as dividends. Thus, it generates much more taxable income if investors put their money in stock.

Total economic activity slows as a result of money being taken out of the private sector, where it is spent more efficiently, where capital is pumped into more productive parts of the economy, and where the fiscal multiplier effect is much greater than it is in government. Everyone knows how inefficiently government operates. We've all seen news stories about $500 hammers, bridges to nowhere, duplicate work processes, government employees lounging on the job, and on and on. Not only is government wasteful, it's corrupt, as politicians frequently load bills with pork that pays back campaign contributors and bring business back to their states. Due to the massive government waste, the economic multiplier effect of a $1 of government spending isn't nearly as high as a $1 of private spending. Government is the only place where a miserably failing program or agency could continue to get funding. Conversely, in the private sector is placed into the most efficient and in-demand places. Poorly-run businesses that don't earn more than they spend go out of business.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103345 Mar 25, 2014
A smaller potential return means investors & venture capitalists are less willing to risk their money, meaning less business & capital gain income. Everyone with savings has a choice where to put his or her money. We want to earn as much of a return as possible, but we don't want to put our savings at excessive risk of loss in the process. Higher risks, therefore, must be accompanied by higher potential return. If you know the government will take a substantial portion of your earnings if an investment happens to pay off, you know the potential return is limited. Therefore, you may instead decide it isn't worth the risk, and instead put your money in a safer investment like a money market, where you won't lose any money. The net effect on society is that fewer people are willing to start new businesses, businesses are less willing to expand, venture capitalists are less willing to put up money into new opportunities, and investors are less willing to put money into stocks. Business tax income as well as individual capital gains & dividend income are limited as a result. Keep in mind that lower risk investments like CD's are taxed only once, while corporate income is effectively taxed twice--once at the business level and once when it's distributed to owners as dividends. Thus, it generates much more taxable income if investors put their money in stock.

Total economic activity slows as a result of money being taken out of the private sector, where it is spent more efficiently, where capital is pumped into more productive parts of the economy, and where the fiscal multiplier effect is much greater than it is in government. Everyone knows how inefficiently government operates. We've all seen news stories about $500 hammers, bridges to nowhere, duplicate work processes, government employees lounging on the job, and on and on. Not only is government wasteful, it's corrupt, as politicians frequently load bills with pork that pays back campaign contributors and bring business back to their states. Due to the massive government waste, the economic multiplier effect of a $1 of government spending isn't nearly as high as a $1 of private spending. Government is the only place where a miserably failing program or agency could continue to get funding. Conversely, in the private sector is placed into the most efficient and in-demand places. Poorly-run businesses that don't earn more than they spend go out of business.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1103346 Mar 25, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
You can live as healthy a life style as you want but if you get bit by Deer lice carrying Lyme disease or a mosquito with West Nile virus, that's not going to help now is it? There are plenty of diseases out there like leukemia that have nothing to do with lifestyle.
You're an idiot!
What does A PERSON choosing to get stoned have to do with a tick bite?

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1103347 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Huf Puff Post!!! LMAO!!!!
Joe Messerli . LMAO
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1103348 Mar 25, 2014
Hobby Lobby case fuels bigotry

Christ sought to protect and comfort the weak, not control them.

We know that most American women, regardless of what religion they are, use contraception at some point in their lives. As a pastor, I have seen firsthand what a gift it is to be able to control when and whether one has a child. It offers women some measure of control over their lives.

Sometimes, even for a bishop, it's embarrassing to be a Christian. Not that I'm embarrassed by Jesus, whose life was spent caring and advocating for the marginalized, and whom I believe to be the perfect revelation of God. I'm just sometimes embarrassed to be associated with others who claim to follow him.

The Jesus I follow always stood with the poor and powerless — and trust me, this struggle is about about power. Whether the issue touches women or gays and lesbians, our religion should be about more love, not less; more dignity, not less.

The Supreme Court's rulings on gay rights, with Justice Anthony Kennedy's leadership, have been on this path for more than a decade. The court has made great strides in recognizing the worth and dignity of women and LGBT Americans. A decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would change that direction. It would not be a victory for religious freedom, but a victory for discrimination and a repudiation of the vital progress the court has made in securing equal justice for all.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03...
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1103349 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Huf Puff Post!!! LMAO!!!!
Flacks problem is he wants so bad to contribute something to the conversation that is insightful but unfortunately it's pretty obvious that he offers little to society in general. So he is pretty much reduced to the bizarre and flamboyant as a means to fit in, something that yells "HEY" look at me. He cannot even be honest with his self. He claims to have an open mind but as of yet that part has never surfaced.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1103352 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text>A smaller potential return means investors & venture capitalists are less willing to risk their money, meaning less business & capital gain income. Everyone with savings has a choice where to put his or her money. We want to earn as much of a return as possible, but we don't want to put our savings at excessive risk of loss in the process. Higher risks, therefore, must be accompanied by higher potential return. If you know the government will take a substantial portion of your earnings if an investment happens to pay off, you know the potential return is limited. Therefore, you may instead decide it isn't worth the risk, and instead put your money in a safer investment like a money market, where you won't lose any money. The net effect on society is that fewer people are willing to start new businesses, businesses are less willing to expand, venture capitalists are less willing to put up money into new opportunities, and investors are less willing to put money into stocks. Business tax income as well as individual capital gains & dividend income are limited as a result. Keep in mind that lower risk investments like CD's are taxed only once, while corporate income is effectively taxed twice--once at the business level and once when it's distributed to owners as dividends. Thus, it generates much more taxable income if investors put their money in stock.
Total economic activity slows as a result of money being taken out of the private sector, where it is spent more efficiently, where capital is pumped into more productive parts of the economy, and where the fiscal multiplier effect is much greater than it is in government. Everyone knows how inefficiently government operates. We've all seen news stories about $500 hammers, bridges to nowhere, duplicate work processes, government employees lounging on the job, and on and on. Not only is government wasteful, it's corrupt, as politicians frequently load bills with pork that pays back campaign contributors and bring business back to their states. Due to the massive government waste, the economic multiplier effect of a $1 of government spending isn't nearly as high as a $1 of private spending. Government is the only place where a miserably failing program or agency could continue to get funding. Conversely, in the private sector is placed into the most efficient and in-demand places. Poorly-run businesses that don't earn more than they spend go out of business.
no, i didn't expect a direct response from you.

facts are not your friend. your constant running away from them can attest.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103353 Mar 25, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe Messerli . LMAO
See Sonic!!!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103354 Mar 25, 2014
Citizens have greater incentive to cheat on taxes, use risky tax shelters, or hide their income. Imagine you were making $250,000 per year in before-tax income. If the government was taking 40%, or $100,000, would you look for risky or potentially audit-triggering deductions? Would you report some extra cash income you made working a side job? Would you go to an accountant to find deductions or tax shelters? Would you try to hide some of your income in foreign accounts or in some other way cheat on your tax return? What if the rate went up to 60%, costing you an additional $50,000 per year? What if the rate went up to 80%, costing you $200,000 per year in taxes? Most people have a threshold where they no longer are completely being law-abiding citizens as far as taxes are concerned. At a low tax rate, people may think, "It's not worth the risk of jail, fines, or an audit." At higher rates, that can change quickly. Look at it from the perspective of a billionaire. Assume he makes $250 million in income per year. A simple tax rate increase of 5% amounts to $12.5 million per year! Do you think it's worth that much to hire expensive accountants or lawyers to stretch the law in their quest for keeping taxable income as low as possible?

The underground economy, consisting of bartering and off-the-books cash transactions, grows bigger in size, reducing on-the-books taxable income. This relates to the same kind of thinking as with cheating on taxes; i.e. there is more incentive as tax rates increase. For example, an independent computer consultant needs help with his tax return; an accountant needs help setting up QuickBooks on a network. Rather than charge each other a $100/hr rate as they might with other customers, they simply trade each other services without reporting anything to the IRS. Another example, a lawn service quotes you two prices: 1)$40 per hour if paid by check, 2)$30 per hour if paid by cash. The cash deal is better for them since they can keep the transaction off the company tax return, while a check can be traced. As taxes increase, more people are willing to work out these off-the-books type of deals, which lead to less taxable income and revenue.

People are more likely to contribute money to 401k's and IRA's in a higher-tax environment. It's definitely not a bad thing that people are saving for retirement, but contributions do lead to a reduction of taxable income and revenue to the government. Most people don't contribute the maximum to these accounts since they can't access the funds until retirement without penalty. However, as tax rates get higher, more and more people will decide the limited access to the funds isn't worth the tax cost, so they increase their contributions.

Corporations and wealthy individuals eventually leave the country, taking all their income with them; this is especially true nowadays in a world where technology makes it easier to live or do business overseas. There are hundreds of nations around the world that would love to play host to businesses and individuals with wealth. And in an age of advancing technology, you can get your sports, music, TV, movies, etc. anywhere as long as you have an internet connection. Consequently, if the U.S. keeps raising taxes, eventually the people of wealth will get fed up and simply leave the country. It's ironic that citizens from all over world used to seek sanctuary from such things.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Dr Guru 242,251
Review; Festa Italiana 6 hr Fest man 1
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr They cannot kill ... 11,015
Rahm Emmanuel fake mafia boss 8 hr Ricardo montobomb 1
Spanx-they're for me. 13 hr test 6
TRUTH will be revealed, someday, maybe. 14 hr Blame muslims 9
WHO'D have thunk it? 14 hr Art Vandalay 8

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages