Singapore Expats Forum

Oh bummer Obama!

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Oh bummer Obama!

Postby Wind In My Hair » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:39 am

Did I read right that he wants to increase taxes on the rich so he can give more handouts to the poor? I suppose he is a Democrat after all. But I must say I like McCain's economics better - increase the pie by opening trade and rewarding industry and trust the trickle-down effect, rather than re-distributing the pie with a zero-sum mentality.

Granted, I don't understand US economics nor politics very well. Plus, even ultra-capitalist pro-business Singapore is giving out rebates to the poor. Still, we are doing it out of our budget surplus, whereas Obama intends to do it out of a huge and growing deficit. Am I the only one worried here?

Turtle
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2008

Postby Turtle » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:59 am

Why worry? Republican or Democrat, black or white, we know that regardless of what any of them say, they all do whatever the heck the want once they get in the big chair anyway. :wink:

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10841
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:19 pm

Bush and his cronies have been big proponents of the trickle down effect, passing some of the largest tax breaks ever for the very rich.

But the facts show otherwise. Net incomes for the vast majority of the middle class have declined in real purchasing terms over the last 8 years. The concentration of wealth in the upper 1 or 2 percent has increased dramatically over the same period. While there has been a large increase in overall corporate profitability, this has not trickled down to the average worker.

Meanwhile, jobs continue to be exported offshore, the deficit has exploded, placing a huge burden on future generations. Bush's answer to this: Reduce the taxes on the rich even more. Cut employment retraining benefits. Refuse to extend unemployment benefits. Drastically cut funding for basic, non-military research, the exact thing which has kept the US competitive.

If the deficits are ever to be tamed, then revenue and expenditures must be matched. I see nothing wrong with a progressive tax system that places a larger burden on the very rich; they take more in government resources and resources in general. There is a need for universal health care. There is an unwillingness on the part of the American people to see a reduction in their own benefits.

So, tax increases are a must, the only question is where. Closing loopholes, repealing the removal of the inheritance tax, and higher tax levels for the very rich are a few ways to do this (don't worry about them moving - they still will pay less than just about anywhere else).

And of course, we need reductions in military spending, completely out of control and unnecessary at the level it is at, and we need to get out of Iraq, where we spend $200 million PER DAY.

Read Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope". You'll find that this man has given far more thought to a wide range of issues than the current Presidunce or George McCain, ole 'more of the same'.

Levikane
Regular
Regular
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat, 05 Jan 2008
Location: Tanjong Pagar by day, Bishan at night

Postby Levikane » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 1:05 pm

Strong Eagle wrote:they take more in government resources and resources in general.


Really? I wouldn't have thought so... I would love to see some facts to back that up. Not "facts" like you read in a newspaper but facts from empirical economic research.

User avatar
banana
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue, 24 May 2005

Postby banana » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 5:57 pm

I, for one, welcome our Obama overlord.
some signatures are more equal than others

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10841
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 6:44 pm

Levikane wrote:
Strong Eagle wrote:they take more in government resources and resources in general.


Really? I wouldn't have thought so... I would love to see some facts to back that up. Not "facts" like you read in a newspaper but facts from empirical economic research.


Well, I may have overspoken... the facts might be hard to prove and I look at it from this perspective.

When it comes to criminal courts and supporting administration it is probably the common criminal that consumes most of the resources (thanks to our stupidly insane drug laws). But prosecution of white collar crime is a tremendously expensive undertaking (Enron, Worldcom), and the criminals are all very rich. So, as a class, prosecution of rich people costs more; hence rich people can pay more.

When it comes to civil proceedings, in the state courts there will mostly be smaller disputes. When one moves into federal civil proceedings, it is almost always large companies and/or wealthy individuals, for example, protracted patent cases and shareholder lawsuits.

In the area of regulation, it is true that the entire regulatory system of the SEC, etc is there to protect the financial markets as a whole but it is the malfeasance and outright criminality of the rich and powerful that make such systems necessary. Similarly, it isn't the average guy hiding or money laundering his $10,000, it is the very wealthy who are the culprits... can't wait to see what happens when UBS opens the kimono.

There is a table a small way down this page:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

What is interesting is that in spite of having a so called progressive income tax, the variation between the highest earners and the the mid point aint that great.


It is unconscionable that a hedge fund manager who earned 2 billion dollars for himself is not subject to tax due to a loophole, and even worse that Congress has yet to close that loophole.

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 6:51 pm

Wow, SE. Good posts! You've obviously done some homework and on the basis of your opinion alone I already feel more comfortable. Maybe I'll read Audacity of Hope too.

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10841
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 7:37 pm

Wind In My Hair wrote:Wow, SE. Good posts! You've obviously done some homework and on the basis of your opinion alone I already feel more comfortable. Maybe I'll read Audacity of Hope too.


Thank you. I really do believe Obama is the first in a long time to offer up fresh thinking about what can be done. For sure, the focus of US investment in the future has to be:

a) Education - at all levels. Obama has taken a middle position. He disagrees with the hard left liberals and teacher unions that more money alone will make the difference. It won't. It will also take new policies. He also wants to see the US take a larger role in secondary education as some sort of university training is almost mandatory to prosper in a technological society.

b) Research funding - We've done so much in the past, so little now. Research funding for universities (non-military) has been cut in half. Government programs in space are underfunded. Token funding for energy and environment, yet it is advances in these areas that will help the US maintain its standard of living and solve problems. Bush? Absent or opposed.

c) Energy policy and development of alternate energy sources - essential if the US is to survive long term. The US spends $800 million PER DAY on energy imports, mostly to countries that would like to see the US disappear. Not sustainable.

Obama's big problem will be vested interests. Case in point: The farm subsidy bill will send $5 billion to farming interests, 90 percent of which will go to 3 or 4 mega agricultural companies. But Congress overwhelming passed this piece of junk because of the huge influence of the agriculture lobby.

Military is another big problem - military spending is spread across many states and no senator or congresscritter wants to see money cut. So the bloat continues.

Unions have to get used to the idea that high tariffs will not solve the jobs problem, it will make it worse but they fight tooth and nail anyway. Teachers fight any attempt to set up merit pay or alternate teaching methods.

So Obama will have his work cut out for him. At least he has a vision, something that Bush sorely lacks and something that McCain has not demonstrated one iota of (bad grammar).

GOBAMA!

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:48 pm

Strong Eagle wrote:At least he has a vision, something that Bush sorely lacks and something that McCain has not demonstrated one iota of (bad grammar).

GOBAMA!

That alone would win my irrelevant vote.

(I thought your grammar was fine, unless mine is equally bad. :o )

markhed
Regular
Regular
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu, 31 May 2007

Postby markhed » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 9:51 am

I posted an email yesterday that I recieved and it was moved to the jokes section. Read the posting.

User avatar
Forks
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon, 04 Feb 2008
Location: in the draw
Contact:

Postby Forks » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:20 pm

I know Im going to get branded with the ever popular "conspiracy nutcase" brush but I have to say that I think Obama is going to get elected but that someone is going to have him "removed" once he is in, Kennedy style.

I know thats morbid but I have a lot of trouble seeing how a country which has done a good job of incarcerating and demonising it black population is going to sit still for him. Which is sad as i think even if he turns out to just another political hack its a cool thing to have a black person in the "white" house, just like the George Clinton song says.

My bad dream is that Hilary will become his VP and once Obama is gone she will do a 'Johnson" (as we all know where her loyalties lie) and turn back what Obama is trying to change. Given that the US military is digging in for Iraq, Obamas claims to have them out in 18 months or so doesnt sound like "good biz" to the powers that be.

I do hope that Im all wrong about it as it is morbid to speculate like that but thats how I see it. :cry:

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10841
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:27 pm

No way that Obama will ever pick Hillary for his running mate. His real choices will be to a) select another woman, or b) select someone with strong military/defense credentials.

The Republicans will do everything they can to smear him both pre and post election. SSDD.

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:30 pm

Forks wrote:I think Obama is going to get elected but that someone is going to have him "removed" once he is in, Kennedy style.

I was thinking along these lines too. That if Hilary does indeed become his VP, she will have no objection to his removal for whatever reason since that will make her acting President. Scary thought.

User avatar
Forks
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon, 04 Feb 2008
Location: in the draw
Contact:

Postby Forks » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:47 pm

it worries me more now that others are thinking the same way, I can just see Hilary put a sad solemn look on her face as she "carries on what obama would have wanted", Obama needs a better VP than her, much better.

The republicans know they are going to loose, so they will do everything just to minimize the damage, rigged elections aside (diebold, florida judges etc) Obama will make big, Bush has done so much damage that anyone but another republican, which is sorta how Carter got in.

User avatar
maneo
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat, 15 Mar 2008
Location: Titik Merah Kecil

Postby maneo » Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:08 am

markhed wrote:I posted an email yesterday that I recieved and it was moved to the jokes section. Read the posting.

Looked like a hoax.

Moderator probably thought so, too.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests