Obama and McCain tied in the polls. What needs to happen for either to win?

MeowGirl said:

This reminds me of a quote (can't remember where I read it): money makes you more of who you are. If you're a jerk, money will make you a bigger jerk. If you're a kind person, though, money gives you the tool to spread that kindness.

Click to expand...

I've always wanted to win the lottery so I could get on the news and say, "Now I can afford to be the asshole I always wanted to be."

I'm going to side with Christine on this because once i was, well, maybe not rich rich, but owned a company that grossed over a million several years in a row and I made very little reported income because as a business owner most of my expenses could be written off, Example 7 day business trip to vegas: attended a sales presentation twice, entertained business people for dinner 3 times wrote off the entire trip, while partying 90% of the time I was there. 5k no taxes, came home lease a new car, pay no taxes, I actually made more and paid way less in taxes than my wife who earns aboiut 42k at her job has deducted every year. You may be in a 50% bracket, but I guarantee you that if you are earning more than 250k per year and don't have substantial tax shelters you're a fool. Shit just burying money in 401ks Ira's, & Real estate can get you to zero if you work the money...

Thanks, Don. I'm not saying ALL wealthy do it, I'm saying it's done, and it hurts everyone because then someone else has to pick up their slack, and it's not fair. (not that the world is fair, but some things should be at least fair-er)

Don Allen said:

You may be in a 50% bracket, but I guarantee you that if you are earning more than 250k per year and don't have substantial tax shelters you're a fool. Shit just burying money in 401ks Ira's, & Real estate can get you to zero if you work the money...

Click to expand...

How? 401k takes only $15,500 off your gross income, and IRA contributions are not deductible if your income is that high. As far as real estate goes, it never made much sense to me to pay the bank $10K for a $3K tax break.

Fair?

News Flash, there is no such thing as Gravity, the world sucks at 32 ft per second per second.

But Don, it sounds to me like you were SPENDING money. That stimulates the economy and that's the point behind all those tax incentives.

Did you have any employees or was it just you?

But self-employed people (like me) also have to pay hefty self-employment taxes. I don't see the reason why we can't deduct our business expenses, as long as we can document and justify these expenses.

What I don't get is the double- and triple-dipping. That's just mind-boggling.

dgiharris said:

I think the focus on taxes is a red herring. The real problem is government inefficient spending.

My biggest gripe with the Republican party is that we never have enough money for social programs, fixing failing schools, etc. , but when it comes to using the military, we can dig up a trillion dollars faster than you can say 'Coca-Cola'

Now, i'm not opposed to defense or matters of national security, but don't then turn around and tell me we don't have a few billion to fix our failing schools.

Mel....

Click to expand...

I agree with you there, about the waste and inefficiency, though it's not just the military (they're biggest, but also more likely to self-improve). It's a systemic problem.

You'd think that the warmongers would realize that investing in education is an investment in a more capable military for the next generation.

The interesting thing is, before Reagan, the Republicans were known for holding the line on spending. He went crazy with Star Wars. Bush is going crazy with the never-ending war.

Hard to believe that they still think of themselves as fiscal conservatives.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Hard to believe that they still think of themselves as fiscal conservatives.

Click to expand...

Part of my objection (of course, anyone could disagree) with this crop of new Republicans is that they're going back on their fiscal conservatism and yet still trumpeting the same tune, accusing the Democrats for being the big spenders. Well, how much have you spent lately? How big has your government grown? Combined that with the renewed social conservatism (really, a constitutional ban? Abstinence-only education? Talk of overturning Roe vs. Wade?), no wonder even Susan Eisenhower said, "Is this the Republican party I knew and loved?"

So while I agree with their stated fiscal principles, I don't believe them. Convince me -- talk is cheap.

This is our platform. Welcome aboard. Just be mindful of all the holes.

LOL.

None of them are perfect. I remember when the GOP were the thrifty ones. Maybe we need to start a new party - the Spendthrift Party. No bills passed without accounting for every single cent you spend. No more government perks. You're a public servant - let's emphasize the 'servant' part.

Remember that movie "Dave" - where the guy impersonating the President went over the budget and cut out all the crap? We need him now.

With fiscal irresponsibility on both sides of the aisle, maybe the Libertarian Party will finally have a chance. I can always hope, anyway.

MeowGirl said:

With fiscal irresponsibility on both sides of the aisle, maybe the Libertarian Party will finally have a chance. I can always hope, anyway.

Click to expand...

Problem there is the Libertarian party would draw almost exclusively from the current GOP base, and right-leaning moderates. There's no cross-party appeal.

An interesting article I've found on the subject of polls:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

MattW said:

Problem there is the Libertarian party would draw almost exclusively from the current GOP base, and right-leaning moderates. There's no cross-party appeal.

Click to expand...

The real problem is that the Libertarian Party isn't running a libertarian candidate this time around.

Don said:

The real problem is that the Libertarian Party isn't running a libertarian candidate this time around.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, that too.

johnnysannie said:

That's the old "trickle down economics" which sounds great in theory but never works in practice!

Some explanations that I agree with are here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html

Click to expand...

The article didn't even come close to addressing the MAIN issue of trickle down economics, that giving tax breaks to "the rich": 1) stimulates the economy and 2) creates more jobs. I think it was intentional, because MOST people see that as the main benefit of trickle down economics, not work ethic like the article is attempting to make the reader believe.

It also didn't provide any proof that the typical Democrat tax and spend economic plan works any better. If anyone can provide an article providing proof that this country's last luxury tax did anything to stimulate the economy, I'd sure like to read it.

I've personally seen people I consider to be rich, handing out money left and right. Chartering planes, majorly upscale salons, spa treatments, a guy that comes TO you to detail your car, lawn care, pool cleaning, the list goes on. How does that hinder the economy?

You know what Obama needs to do to win?

Sell more masks for halloween.

It's been our most accurate poll for Presidential elections.

So, that's what he needs to do- sell more masks.

Since the winner usually sells more masks in October, all he needs to do it get people to buy a lot of masks and he'll be the winner!

MattW said:

I agree with you there, about the waste and inefficiency, though it's not just the military (they're biggest, but also more likely to self-improve). It's a systemic problem.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of waste, but I do think that inefficiency has gotten a bad rap. Another name for inefficiency is 'redundancy' which is often a very good thing to have. (Especially if things around you are getting blown up.)

As an accountant, I have often seen cuts made in the name of 'efficiency' which may have made perfect sense when everything in the company was going well, but meant that the first time that a problem came up, there were no reserves to deal with it. The 'emergency' spending can end up being much more than the money saved from the 'efficiency' in the first place.