flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > becoming world president, obama?

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
is that part of da dark power to make him the first world president?
Post 15 Nov 2008, 14:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
I wouldn't worry about him becoming the "world's president" because he'll have a tough enough time becoming the US president. Despite what you read in the media, he did not win an overwhelming majority of the vote. The vote was actually quite close and if you look at this electoral map of the united states, you will see that most of the country is still slightly right of center in thier views. Blue areas are where Obama won and red areas are where McCain won. Obama won in the heavily populated city centers in New York, Detroit, Chigago, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. but lost in the "heartland".

But his real dilemma will be reconciling his campaign rhetoric with his actions once he's in office. For example, he promised universal healthcare, college tuition assistance, mortgage bail-outs, energy independence, etc. while at the same time promising to give 95% of all Americans a reduction in taxes in the face of a crumbling economy. Nice trick if he can do it. No one is holding their breath.

It was the far left who gave him this slight majority victory (labor unions, NAACP, ACORN, etc.) and they are expecting him to enact their far left agenda. However, he promised to govern in a bipartisan way and it doesn't seem likely he will be able to do that and at the same time please those who handed him the victory.

He promised "hope and change" and everything sunshine and lollipops and he may have raised expectations way beyond anyone's ability to achieve, thereby setting himself and his administration up for profound disappointment in the electorate.

So, we'll see if he can become the US president before letting him take over the world. Wink
Post 15 Nov 2008, 17:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
The vote was actually quite close and if you look at this electoral map of the united states, you will see that most of the country is still slightly right of center in thier views.

But US "center" is far right by rest-of-world standard Wink

Quote:
But his real dilemma will be reconciling his campaign rhetoric with his actions once he's in office. For example, he promised universal healthcare, college tuition assistance, mortgage bail-outs, energy independence, etc. while at the same time promising to give 95% of all Americans a reduction in taxes in the face of a crumbling economy. Nice trick if he can do it. No one is holding their breath.

Solution is simple: taxing upper 5% more. I think he was openly claiming support for progressive taxes.

Quote:
He promised "hope and change" and everything sunshine and lollipops and he may have raised expectations way beyond anyone's ability to achieve, thereby setting himself and his administration up for profound disappointment in the electorate.

did any politician ever promise only realistic targets? Smile
Post 15 Nov 2008, 18:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
vid wrote:

Quote:

The vote was actually quite close and if you look at this electoral map of the united states, you will see that most of the country is still slightly right of center in thier views.




But US "center" is far right by rest-of-world standard


Okay .... Confused Not sure what the point is. I'm talking about a US election voted on by only US persons. When US elections are opened up for the world to vote on, I'll let you know. Smile

vid wrote:
Solution is simple: taxing upper 5% more. I think he was openly claiming support for progressive taxes.


Sure. But those upper 5% create the wealth. They own the factories and stores, etc. If you tax them more, they will have less money to hire and pay workers and therefore workers will loose jobs if they are taxed more. Furthermore, those taxes will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices and less people will buy those products resulting again in more lost jobs.

vid wrote:
did any politician ever promise only realistic targets?


True, but this guy really over achieved!! Shocked
Post 16 Nov 2008, 01:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Quote:

I'm talking about a US election voted on by only US persons

Oh, I though that the software of the electronic vote was credited with not only this right but also with the ability to vote upon others Wink
Post 16 Nov 2008, 01:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
but, that link is from palin site right...??? Razz Razz Razz Razz

just hope he does the best to bring the world to peace and harmony.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 03:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
HyperVista wrote:
Sure. But those upper 5% create the wealth. They own the factories and stores, etc. If you tax them more, they will have less money to hire and pay workers and therefore workers will loose jobs if they are taxed more. Furthermore, those taxes will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices and less people will buy those products resulting again in more lost jobs.
Those upper 5% probably have a personal income of some million USD/year, and the same for the company shareholders. They could probably survive losing a bit of that...

people here in .dk would probably classify me as a capitalist fascist pig, but I do believe in social responsibility and letting the wealthiest contribute a bit to help out the poorest. They might not have deserved it, but keeping a balanced society means that I have to worry less about crime and keeping my ass covered.

I don't believe in socialism in any way, though - all implementations of it have failed. Even on paper it sounds like a cute-ish pipedream thing, but I don't like the idea of removing private initiative and incitement.

McCain sounded like a decent guy when he ran against Bush all those years back; he's definitely the better choice of the two. But seeing just how much he bended over for the religious right during this campaign, I lost pretty much all respect for him. I think Obama is the best choice of the candidates this year, even if he's just another populist politician who won't succeed at implementing even a tenth of his ideas.

I also kinda wonder how long it'll be before we see the first assassination attempt - after all, he is black, and there's an awful lot of redneck racists in the .us.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 16 Nov 2008, 04:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
sleepsleep wrote:
just hope he does the best to bring the world to peace and harmony.

Of course he will! Like all those before him. And I'm sure Rahm Emmanuel and Co. will be as lovely as teddy bears. And everyone will live happily ever after.


f0dder wrote:
I also kinda wonder how long it'll be before we see the first assassination attempt - after all, he is black, and there's an awful lot of redneck racists in the .us.

AFAIK, there has already been 2 official attempts.
But it doesn't matter and it won't happen. Just because every Klansman out there wants to hang him up the first tree, doesn't mean any could ever succeed. Any assassination in the past has been a political one. JFK assassination's records for instance weren't sealed for 75 years i.e. until 2039 (the Warren Commission) if high ranking officials weren't directly involved.
If Obama serves the interests of the military-industrial complex well (and there's no reason for it to be otherwise), he'll be fine during those 4 ( or 8 ) years.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 09:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
What assasination attempts? There have been stories of people arrested for plotting such things but no attempt was made.

A lot of people forget that the President has no ability to introduce legislation or pass any laws based upon his say. He can influence all he wants but it is Congress that does all that and he can only give a yay/nay vote on what they pass.

Also, Congress is mostly Democrat, as is Obama. So what the Democratic Party approves of is what will be introduced and passed. That is where his advantage is. As I said long ago, a vote for Obama is only your approval of the Democratic Party and not just Obama.

I also feel it is Joe Biden who will really run this show with Obama only the front man.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 14:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
f0dder wrote:
Those upper 5% probably have a personal income of some million USD/year, and the same for the company shareholders. They could probably survive losing a bit of that...


Sure, but at what point is it enough? How much should those who create the wealth pay before it's enough for those who don't?

Here in US the top 5% earners pay 50% of all taxes. The top 1% earners pay 29% of all taxes. The top earners are shouldering 50% more of the tax burden than they did in 1977. The tax structure here is NOT progressive, it's confiscatory.

In 1999, the average income of the top 5% earners was $276,000.00 per year. The top 1% average income that same year was $719,000.00 per year. These are the people pulling the weight here in the US, not the supper wealthy (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc.).

A very small minority here is paying an overwhelming majority of the taxes. So one has to ask. how much is enough?

I think the growing feeling here among those top 5% is that conveyed in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

For me, I'm seriously considering moving to Ireland; and not just because of the taxes. Education is going down the tubes, we're loosing freedoms every year, the "victim" mentality here, and the growing class warfare. But also because Ireland is a beautiful place to live, not to mention ready access to Guinnes. Very Happy

drhowarddrfine wrote:
A lot of people forget that the President has no ability to introduce legislation or pass any laws based upon his say.


Not so drhowarddrfine. The President has the power of Executive Order and can implement policy with the enforcement of law with the stroke of a pen. I suspect we will see a flurry of Executive Order activity on Jan. 20. The President also introduces legislation quite regularly. Each President has a legislative agenda that is usually outlined in the annual State of the Union address before Congress. True enough, Congress has to pass that legislation, but the President does introduce and push legislation all the time. And when you have a majority in Congress, as Obama does, your agenda generally sails through like shit though a goose. I wonder if I can find a place within staggering distance of a Guiness distillery?
Post 16 Nov 2008, 14:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 16 Nov 2008, 15:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Sure. But those upper 5% create the wealth. They own the factories and stores, etc.

Just owning factory doesn't create anything. It is quite clear that it's capital AND workers who create stuff. I'd even argue that "workers create wealth" is more fitting than "capital creates wealth", as capital by itself is just a tool. Of course, those who provide capital deserve a share of product, but you can't say "capital owners create wealth", without mentioning workers. That would be like when X borrows notebook to code something from Y, and you would say that it was Y who is the productive one.

Quote:
If you tax them more, they will have less money to hire and pay workers and therefore workers will loose jobs if they are taxed more. Furthermore, those taxes will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices and less people will buy those products resulting again in more lost jobs.

Or, they will have to get extra cash from their zillions of profits, as f0dder pointed out. It is hard task for gov to make laws which force them to limit profits, and dangerous to have effects like those described by you if it is done badly, but I think it is still justified.

I really don't think that someone who owns $900'000'000 company works 10 times harder than someone who owns $90'000'000 company, even though he pays 10 times more taxes. Therefor, it isn't best to say he is 10 times more productive, as you do. It's just that he provides 10x more capital to workers.

PS: which source did you use for those numbers?
Post 16 Nov 2008, 17:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
[quote="HyperVista"]
f0dder wrote:

drhowarddrfine wrote:
A lot of people forget that the President has no ability to introduce legislation or pass any laws based upon his say.


Not so drhowarddrfine. The President has the power of Executive Order and can implement policy with the enforcement of law with the stroke of a pen.
Not exactly right. Executive power is not something done on an every day basis and can be overturned if challenged by the courts (and it has been overturned in the past), and it's not exactly; constitutional though it's been tolerated for no known reason. It's not used to override the powers of Congress nor as a general rule of law over the people. Laws are passed in Congress, not by the President.

EDIT: Just looked over at Wikipedia where they say Congress can override executive orders, too.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 18:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
drhowarddrfine wrote:
Congress can override executive orders

Yes, of course. You asserted that the President has no ability to introduce legislation or pass laws on his own say. I assert that Executive Orders gives the President the ability to create laws on his own say. Congress and or the courts can overturn them, but that wasn't the point. The point is the President does have the ability to introduce legislation and to pass laws on his own say.

Btw, how likely do you think it is that a heavily Democratic Congress led by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, etc. will object to any Executive Order Obama wants to make in his first 100 days in office?? Wanna take any bets? Wink

vid wrote:
Or, they will have to get extra cash from their zillions of profits, as f0dder pointed out. It is hard task for gov to make laws which force them to limit profits, and dangerous to have effects like those described by you if it is done badly, but I think it is still justified.


And I ask again, how much is enough. The top 5% are not "zillionaires", they make an average somewhere below $300,000.00 per year. They are already paying 50% of the taxes. I'll say it again, 5% of the population is paying 50% of all taxes. So if that's not enough, how much should they pay?? 75% of all taxes, 90% of all taxes?? So the government can give it away in welfare programs buiding a politcal base and power for themselves?? How much? What percentage would be Fair? Evil or Very Mad

vid wrote:
PS: which source did you use for those numbers?

Here
Post 16 Nov 2008, 21:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
And I ask again, how much is enough. The top 5% are not "zillionaires", they make an average somewhere below $300,000.00 per year. They are already paying 50% of the taxes. I'll say it again, 5% of the population is paying 50% of all taxes. So if that's not enough, how much should they pay?? 75% of all taxes, 90% of all taxes?? So the government can give it away in welfare programs buiding a politcal base and power for themselves?? How much? What percentage would be Fair?

I really cannot talk in specific numbers, that would be quessing from my side. I was just advocating progressive taxes and (properly-made) regulation as a concept.

Quote:
They are already paying 50% of the taxes. I'll say it again, 5% of the population is paying 50% of all taxes.

That information is only relevant along with information about percentages of their income. If they get 75% of income, but pay only 50% of taxes, then yes, they should pay more IMO.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 22:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

I really don't think that someone who owns $900'000'000 company works 10 times harder than someone who owns $90'000'000 company

i am quite certain that boss who own $900'000'000 really have more trouble (mean he need to works and sort all of them out) compare with a $90'000'000 company.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 22:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
vid wrote:
That information is only relevant along with information about percentages of their income. If they get 75% of income, but pay only 50% of taxes, then yes, they should pay more IMO.

The top 1% earn only 15% of all income yet pay 29% of all taxes.
The top 5% earn only 28% of all income yet pay 50% of all taxes.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 22:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
found the data for 2006 here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

Looks like US already has quite progressive taxation, but falling most heavily on middle class (top 25-50%). Low 50% pay only very little part of tax. But still, as we see, the most rich are becoming richer, middle class is not doing so well, and low 50% are advancing only very slowly. For the top 5%, their share in total income is increasing quickly, for middle class it is stagnating, and for low 5% it is decreasing, eg. the gap really is widening.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 22:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
HyperVista wrote:
drhowarddrfine wrote:
Congress can override executive orders

The point is the President does have the ability to introduce legislation and to pass laws on his own say.
No, the President cannot introduce legislation. Only Congress can do that. I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that executive orders can fly out of his office on a whim or some large number of them. They are somewhat unusual items and controversy surrounds whether they are constitutional.
Quote:

Btw, how likely do you think it is that a heavily Democratic Congress led by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, etc. will object to any Executive Order Obama wants to make in his first 100 days in office?? Wanna take any bets? Wink
Oh, I've been saying that for months.
Post 16 Nov 2008, 22:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I think current taxation rate should become a bit more for the top, and bit less for middle class, but basically i think the its progressivity is fine. Anyway, if Obama really cuts all that military spending, which is now basically hated by everyone, i think US will have shitload of money to invest in bigmacs and diet cola, instead of tanks and bullets. Wink
Post 16 Nov 2008, 23:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.