Barack Obama heavily outweighed Hillary Clinton on most issues. She was "matronizing" her experience way too much for my liking, trying to make him appear even younger and less experienced. I like Obama, though I am not sure if he has the pull to do EVERYTHING he envisions at one time. I also think his views have some shortterm detriments that he doesn't see, or at least isn't admitting.
As far as Clinton, she stayed on the ropes, and did some backpedalling IN THE DEBATE on the issue of healthcare. I know she did some good in the past, but there isn't enough good to outweigh the bad. Her vision of the future is of a nation that enables and even encourages dependence on the government in the lower classes, while that same government is dependent upon the upper class. These provisions of power invite too much corruption. I must say she sounded (overall) much more deliberative than Obama, and her conviction really was evident. This was the least annoying I have ever seen her be and her marketing is improved, even if it is still transparent, but I still think her myopic vision of international affairs and immigration reform is perilous when she imagines her term.
Were I not a registered independent from the day I could vote, I would vote Barack to be the party candidate. Where there policies are concerned, I think Barack's state is less of a nanny state, and and his vision seems more aimed at a product state, not a process state. He has far more deliverables, and those he can be held accountable for.
What about any of you? Of the Democrats, who would you say was most prominent in the debate?
2008 Democratic Debate
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
Re: 2008 Democratic Debate
I have long shyed away from politics, and my views are not..Well, I don't image they make much political sense...I listened to what they had to say, and overall, I just think Barak has more capacity to serve as president...I imagine that there will be a rough first year or so, but he would settle into the job and make good on some things...
Hilary just seems too rehearsed man...It's almost like she never really says what she wants to say, or, doesn't have the ability to say what she wants to say without saying something that would all but put her out of the race...She's politically savvy, and I think that carries her more than some may think...I mean, she spent 8 years in the white house, rode out a scandal...If it came down to the two, I'd vote Barak as well, and I tend to favor Republican candidates...
Hilary just seems too rehearsed man...It's almost like she never really says what she wants to say, or, doesn't have the ability to say what she wants to say without saying something that would all but put her out of the race...She's politically savvy, and I think that carries her more than some may think...I mean, she spent 8 years in the white house, rode out a scandal...If it came down to the two, I'd vote Barak as well, and I tend to favor Republican candidates...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
Re: 2008 Democratic Debate
well, even money wise Clinton's record in New York is painful to look at.
I agree she seems VERY cautious about saying anything.. far too calculated.
Some people say "Obama stammers too much." I say the man who is trying to raise my taxes better be stammering because I don't see penny one in services for the money I pay for! The danger of voting Democratic is that if you are "coming up" you will be taxed more, but never had money before, so you are not positioned to pay taxes.
I think they really need at least a tax reform that takes into consideration your yearly income, adjusted by the last two years. Look at this: A man making 19k a year is getting his refund, THEN say next year, he hits a good but TEMPORARY gig and makes 70k, then the next year, his temp gig is over, and his is makign 19k again.
For that three year stretch he averaged a weighted 36k per year. But if you look at his taxes, he paid MUCH more than what a man making 36k a year would pay... and his ass is back to making 19k... cause that was a one time deal. So most of his sudden income really just exposes him to more taxes. Because to get the 70k, he had to live above his means (new suits, transportation to distant job, eating in fancier places for lunch, the "celebration time"), and now he is back down shovelling the dirt that falls off the feet of the upper crust. If he is lucky, he squirreled some away, but chances are he will have to use that to buffer his transition back to 19k a year.
So, in the 5 year stretch, the person making 36k a year has made 180k.
Dude with the windfall has only made 146k.
yet for that one motherload one year that skyrocketed his tax bracket, he has paid more in taxes though he still lives below the standards of the person who makes 36k, which is 2k less than DOUBLE his taxable income. You know who is more eligible for a good return, the guy who gets a percentage of that 36k a year... cause that 70k a year tax bracket is BRUTAL.
(btw: these number are used, not for personal relavance, but for ease of mathematics. My own situation is that I worked as a consultant for 5 years averaging about 57k a year, and due to bursts of income, I paid taxes of someone who made about 78k a year. My windfall was huge, but required 16-19 hour days. And all that hard work did was make me pay more taxes, and cover my moving and increased living expenses. I live in a smaller apt., have a longer commute, higher living expenses, and am ineligible for any discounts, help or refunds.. go figure.)
But let's go back to 19k a year guy. Chances are, he has the "low income" light bill and phone bill discount, he prolly has food stamps, and seeks govt. services when he can. Services that his windfall year PAID for. So, we take the money from him, to measure it back to him in ineffective amounts at a later date with no appreciative value. Social Security Scam all over again.
Any viable tax reform needs a weighted 5 year average (4 year college + 1 year job search) adjustment or people with unstable income will never better their position, and INCLUSION and adjustment based declared work hours. And I don't have to tell you all that unstable income launching you into different tax exposure is what is killing small business... hopefully.
In what Universe is a person working 40 hours for 1000 dollars paying the same taxes as a person working 80 hours for 1000 dollars fair? Let me know cause I want to avoid that place.
TAX REFUNDS should be influenced and determined by how many declared work hours you commit to earning your income. Consultants and small businessmen do not always make more in overtime hours, and this KILLS them in taxes.
My biggest problem with politicians though is they are ALL capable of more inclusion of American observation and American PARTICIPATION in the process of administration in respect of our govt. In this age of transportation and information, it is criminal we do not have a close circuited channel where we can watch the proceedings of the House of OUR Representatives and communicate directly during the voting proceeds. To his credit, Obama seems most progressive in informing and including Americans in the process, which is my personal grounds for investigating him further.
The Republicans... I am still waiting for final verdict on nominees, and that will be a longer thread.
Ron Paul would have been the best partisan candidate, in a nonviolent world. just saying.
I agree she seems VERY cautious about saying anything.. far too calculated.
Some people say "Obama stammers too much." I say the man who is trying to raise my taxes better be stammering because I don't see penny one in services for the money I pay for! The danger of voting Democratic is that if you are "coming up" you will be taxed more, but never had money before, so you are not positioned to pay taxes.
I think they really need at least a tax reform that takes into consideration your yearly income, adjusted by the last two years. Look at this: A man making 19k a year is getting his refund, THEN say next year, he hits a good but TEMPORARY gig and makes 70k, then the next year, his temp gig is over, and his is makign 19k again.
For that three year stretch he averaged a weighted 36k per year. But if you look at his taxes, he paid MUCH more than what a man making 36k a year would pay... and his ass is back to making 19k... cause that was a one time deal. So most of his sudden income really just exposes him to more taxes. Because to get the 70k, he had to live above his means (new suits, transportation to distant job, eating in fancier places for lunch, the "celebration time"), and now he is back down shovelling the dirt that falls off the feet of the upper crust. If he is lucky, he squirreled some away, but chances are he will have to use that to buffer his transition back to 19k a year.
So, in the 5 year stretch, the person making 36k a year has made 180k.
Dude with the windfall has only made 146k.
yet for that one motherload one year that skyrocketed his tax bracket, he has paid more in taxes though he still lives below the standards of the person who makes 36k, which is 2k less than DOUBLE his taxable income. You know who is more eligible for a good return, the guy who gets a percentage of that 36k a year... cause that 70k a year tax bracket is BRUTAL.
(btw: these number are used, not for personal relavance, but for ease of mathematics. My own situation is that I worked as a consultant for 5 years averaging about 57k a year, and due to bursts of income, I paid taxes of someone who made about 78k a year. My windfall was huge, but required 16-19 hour days. And all that hard work did was make me pay more taxes, and cover my moving and increased living expenses. I live in a smaller apt., have a longer commute, higher living expenses, and am ineligible for any discounts, help or refunds.. go figure.)
But let's go back to 19k a year guy. Chances are, he has the "low income" light bill and phone bill discount, he prolly has food stamps, and seeks govt. services when he can. Services that his windfall year PAID for. So, we take the money from him, to measure it back to him in ineffective amounts at a later date with no appreciative value. Social Security Scam all over again.
Any viable tax reform needs a weighted 5 year average (4 year college + 1 year job search) adjustment or people with unstable income will never better their position, and INCLUSION and adjustment based declared work hours. And I don't have to tell you all that unstable income launching you into different tax exposure is what is killing small business... hopefully.
In what Universe is a person working 40 hours for 1000 dollars paying the same taxes as a person working 80 hours for 1000 dollars fair? Let me know cause I want to avoid that place.
TAX REFUNDS should be influenced and determined by how many declared work hours you commit to earning your income. Consultants and small businessmen do not always make more in overtime hours, and this KILLS them in taxes.
My biggest problem with politicians though is they are ALL capable of more inclusion of American observation and American PARTICIPATION in the process of administration in respect of our govt. In this age of transportation and information, it is criminal we do not have a close circuited channel where we can watch the proceedings of the House of OUR Representatives and communicate directly during the voting proceeds. To his credit, Obama seems most progressive in informing and including Americans in the process, which is my personal grounds for investigating him further.
The Republicans... I am still waiting for final verdict on nominees, and that will be a longer thread.
Ron Paul would have been the best partisan candidate, in a nonviolent world. just saying.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |