3 ms·

Taking tax revenues and spending it on projects that benefit the entire society is not "spreading the wealth around". The rich who paid extra taxes in the 80's

by viggity 18y ago

Taking tax revenues and spending it on projects that benefit the entire society is not "spreading the wealth around". The rich who paid extra taxes in the 80's and 90's benefited from a more skilled and educated populace. This is stark contrast to what Obama wants to do: take an extra $50000 from a single rich person and giving $1000 in CASH to 50 poor people. Unless the rich person owns stock in malt liquor and plasma television companies, they won't be benefiting at all. Alaska doesn't "siphon" money off of the oil companies. The oil that the oil companies are extracting is the property of the citizens of Alaska. Alaska is cutting checks to its citizens for what they are properly owed in exchange for their property.

noodle 18y ago
ok, you disagree with obama's 500-$1k stimulus plan. thats cool, you have the right to not agree with it. but, to be clear, you don't like the entire platform based on this one thing? in addition, the point would be to have the money stimulate the poor economy. buying booze and tvs would be the exact point of the checks going out. it would be, theoretically, "bad" if it were to be saved. japan did something similar but set it up so that the people were required to spend their money. like a governmental gift certificate. also, you don't see anything marxist/communist about a state collectively owning a resource and divvying up profits equally to its citizens?
- viggity 18y ago
  His economic policy is the biggest thing that turns me off from Obama. He has also floated the idea of getting rid of the cap on payroll taxes which would turn Social Security from an insurance/retirement scheme to wealth redistribution scheme. I'm also very pro second amendment and he has supported some pretty whacked out stuff in that regard. Supporting a bill that would ban all gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park (elminiating 99% of all gun stores in the country) pretty much says enough about that. Obama wanting more government involvement in health care seems like a genuinely bad idea. Do you want the same type of people at the DMV to dictate what kind of health care you get? I see nothing marxist about a country or a state owning a resource and divvying up its profits, as long as they didn't take it from someone who already had owned it. Alaska divvying up the profits from oil that sits underneath state owned land is completely different from Alaska taking land away from its owner and divvying up the profits.
  - noodle 18y ago
    while i do agree that his economic policies aren't perfect, neither are mccain's, and neither are any past/present presidential candidates'. i have a group of prominent economists and businessmen that i enjoy/follow/etc., and they unanimously point towards obama's economic policies as what is currently best for the country given the current economic climate. i am very much willing to sacrifice a personal ideal or two if the country will get itself back on the right track. i tend to take a long view on things. short-term pain for long-term prosperity and goals is what i would prefer. don't want to see the country in a 10+ year malaise like japan after their housing market burst. just my $0.02, though.
  - krschultz 18y ago
    -Because so much of society is regressive as it is. Considering that the guys who live around me who are stock brokers pay 28% capital gains tax for trading day in and day out rather than the 36% income tax that I have to pay, and they have to pay less for SS and Medicare as is than their secretaries. -I have no fear of losing the 2nd amendment rights, after the supreme court ruling this year, and the NRA strength every year, it just isn't going to happen. This is FUD and even Obama himself hasn't said that in MONTHS. -Does it seem like a bad idea? To me healthcare isn't a cost that is to be minimized, it is a beneifit to be maximized. That is really the difference between the two plans. Obama thinks everyone should have healthcare, McCain thinks we should spend less. Problem is, under McCain total cost of healthcare spending would be less, but per individual it would be higher. And I really don't understand why anyone is allowed to NOT have insurance in this country. A lot of 20 y/o healthy adults have no insurance to avoid paying the premium. Fine, but when you are 50 they can get coverage? You not only have to spread the risk out among the people, but along their entire life. I'm not allowed to take car insurance out for only the rainy days, why are you allowed to take out health care insurance when you pick and choose, and the familes who plug along year after year with it get stuck with a higher bill each month? -The state of alaska didn't buy that land from canada, the United States federal government did and gave it to alaska. Yet the state gets to charge a tax that raises the price for fuel for the rest of us. It was the lower 48's money that bought the oil, and it is the lower 48's money that is subsidizing the state today.

by viggity 18y ago

noodle 18y ago

ok, you disagree with obama's 500-$1k stimulus plan. thats cool, you have the right to not agree with it. but, to be clear, you don't like the entire platform based on this one thing? in addition, the point would be to have the money stimulate the poor economy. buying booze and tvs would be the exact point of the checks going out. it would be, theoretically, "bad" if it were to be saved. japan did something similar but set it up so that the people were required to spend their money. like a governmental gift certificate. also, you don't see anything marxist/communist about a state collectively owning a resource and divvying up profits equally to its citizens?

viggity 18y ago
His economic policy is the biggest thing that turns me off from Obama. He has also floated the idea of getting rid of the cap on payroll taxes which would turn Social Security from an insurance/retirement scheme to wealth redistribution scheme. I'm also very pro second amendment and he has supported some pretty whacked out stuff in that regard. Supporting a bill that would ban all gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park (elminiating 99% of all gun stores in the country) pretty much says enough about that. Obama wanting more government involvement in health care seems like a genuinely bad idea. Do you want the same type of people at the DMV to dictate what kind of health care you get? I see nothing marxist about a country or a state owning a resource and divvying up its profits, as long as they didn't take it from someone who already had owned it. Alaska divvying up the profits from oil that sits underneath state owned land is completely different from Alaska taking land away from its owner and divvying up the profits.
- noodle 18y ago
  while i do agree that his economic policies aren't perfect, neither are mccain's, and neither are any past/present presidential candidates'. i have a group of prominent economists and businessmen that i enjoy/follow/etc., and they unanimously point towards obama's economic policies as what is currently best for the country given the current economic climate. i am very much willing to sacrifice a personal ideal or two if the country will get itself back on the right track. i tend to take a long view on things. short-term pain for long-term prosperity and goals is what i would prefer. don't want to see the country in a 10+ year malaise like japan after their housing market burst. just my $0.02, though.
- krschultz 18y ago
  -Because so much of society is regressive as it is. Considering that the guys who live around me who are stock brokers pay 28% capital gains tax for trading day in and day out rather than the 36% income tax that I have to pay, and they have to pay less for SS and Medicare as is than their secretaries. -I have no fear of losing the 2nd amendment rights, after the supreme court ruling this year, and the NRA strength every year, it just isn't going to happen. This is FUD and even Obama himself hasn't said that in MONTHS. -Does it seem like a bad idea? To me healthcare isn't a cost that is to be minimized, it is a beneifit to be maximized. That is really the difference between the two plans. Obama thinks everyone should have healthcare, McCain thinks we should spend less. Problem is, under McCain total cost of healthcare spending would be less, but per individual it would be higher. And I really don't understand why anyone is allowed to NOT have insurance in this country. A lot of 20 y/o healthy adults have no insurance to avoid paying the premium. Fine, but when you are 50 they can get coverage? You not only have to spread the risk out among the people, but along their entire life. I'm not allowed to take car insurance out for only the rainy days, why are you allowed to take out health care insurance when you pick and choose, and the familes who plug along year after year with it get stuck with a higher bill each month? -The state of alaska didn't buy that land from canada, the United States federal government did and gave it to alaska. Yet the state gets to charge a tax that raises the price for fuel for the rest of us. It was the lower 48's money that bought the oil, and it is the lower 48's money that is subsidizing the state today.