The LAST Presidential Debate

[Reba]

...To my POV, it's okay for the people to pay taxes to support war issues but not okay for 3% tax increase of annual $250,000 or more to support middle class and poor class.. :roll:

As a member of the lower middle class, I resent the idea that I need "support" from other people's taxes.

 

[Reba]

If you refer to Factcheck.org at:

FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

you will see that Obama does not plan on banning firearms.

From your FactCheck.org link:

NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"

True: In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. The Chicago Tribune, which queried the candidates on several issues, reported:

Chicago Tribune (Feb. 20 2004): Obama ... backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.

"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.

More recently, Obama was quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in an article on April 2, 2008, saying "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. ... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

 

[Foxrac]

From your FactCheck.org link:

NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense

False: Obama is proposing no such ban.

This falsehood from the "10 point plan" flier is repeated in a TV spot in which a man identified as Kurt Rusch, an Iraq war veteran says, "Obama opposes my right to own a gun for self-defense."

The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 - 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.

It states that in any Illinois municipality where gun registration is required it shall be an "affirmative defense" if the person accused of violating the registration requirement can show that the weapon was used "in an act of self-defense or defense of another ... when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business."

Letting the owner of an unregistered firearm escape the penalty for failing to register is one thing, but it's another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense.
The bill came about after Hale DeMar, of Wilmette, Ill., shot a burglar who had invaded his home. At the time, Wilmette had an ordinance that prohibited owning handguns.

NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"

False: Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to "ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." What Obama voted for was a measure to ban "armor-piercing" ammunition, which the measure's sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition.

This claim is based on Obama's vote on S. 397 in the U.S. Senate. Obama was one of 31 senators who voted in favor of S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 which sought to "expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition."

2nd Amendment does state about self-defense but it doesn't state about CCW.

 

[jillio]

I think this article gives a pretty fair overview of the issue:
Washington Times - Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay


In short, with our progressive tax system, the rich are already paying most of the taxes, so if you're giving an across the board tax-cut, they'll get most of the tax-cuts. They may not need all the money they earn, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve it, as long as they earned it legitimately. I find it interesting that people talk about the rich being greedy with their own money, but you don't hear much about the government being greedy with other people's money.

If you want a more specific answer, here are some stats from the Tax Foundation. They compiled this from the IRS data (which is a lot more detailed). Note that it only gives data through 2006.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

There are a lot of tables on this page and I don't mean to bury you in stats, so just look at tables 5 and 6. Table 5 shows the percent of the country's wealth earned by each income group and table 6 shows the percent of the federal taxes paid by each income group. If you look at 2006, while the top 10% of income earners earn about 37% of the wealth, they're paying 60% of the nation's taxes (and this is after the Bush tax cuts). The bottom 50% is making about 12% of the wealth, but only paying 3% of the taxes. There's just not much to cut there.

The rich are actually paying greater percentage of the total taxes now (as of 2006) even though their tax rates have gone down. My understanding is that there are two reasons:

1. Their actual income has increased because they have been able to invest more of their money.
2. Their reported income has increased because they're less likely to seek out tax shelters or other loopholes.

I know it's easy to lie through statistics, but I promise this is a good-faith effort to describe the truth with my limited economic knowledge and time to sift through data. If you see a flaw in my analysis, please let me know.

You are still failing to see it from a proportianate perspective. The statistics you have reported are very misleading. And not up to date given the financial situation of the country today.

 

[Reba]

2nd Amendment does state about self-defense but it doesn't state about CCW.

Any infringement on gun ownership by American citizens is still infringement. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that only certain kinds of weapons are allowed. Adding on restrictions to the types of weapons, the availability of ammunition, the times and places where they can be carried and used, etc., are infringements of our rights.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

Please note that the Amendment does NOT mention self-defense, so saying that it doesn't mention CCW doesn't hold water.

 

[Beowulf]

As a member of the lower middle class, I resent the idea that I need "support" from other people's taxes.

I would resent the fact that there are attempts to "force" me to support liars and thieves through the "bailout" plan, but I haven't paid income tax in years.

 

[Foxrac]

From your FactCheck.org link:

Any infringement on gun ownership by American citizens is still infringement. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that only certain kinds of weapons are allowed. Adding on restrictions to the types of weapons, the availability of ammunition, the times and places where they can be carried and used, etc., are infringements of our rights.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

Please note that the Amendment does NOT mention self-defense, so saying that it doesn't mention CCW doesn't hold water.

How? Go look at wikipedia, that what I learned from history class at high school and discuss about how 2nd Amendment works, self-defense at home is part of 2nd Amendment, remember about DC passed UK style gun ban law, it means citizens can't own gun at home either and court had struck down the law due violate under 2nd Amendment.

 

[Boult]

How? Go look at wikipedia, that what I learned from history class at high school and discuss about how 2nd Amendment works, self-defense at home is part of 2nd Amendment, remember about DC passed UK style gun ban law, it means citizens can't own gun at home either and court had struck down the law due violate under 2nd Amendment.

He's referring to this; High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com

Wikipedia on 2nd Amendment;
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Reba]

How? Go look at wikipedia, that what I learned from history class at high school and discuss about how 2nd Amendment works, self-defense at home is part of 2nd Amendment, remember about DC passed UK style gun ban law, it means citizens can't own gun at home either and court had struck down the law due violate under 2nd Amendment.

Wikipedia? No thanks.

 

[Foxrac]

Wikipedia? No thanks.

Wikipedia has references included, it could take to bottom and check for source if statement is true or not.

That's fine with you, you could find real define of 2nd Amendment from other website.

Boult, thanks for include a news link about supreme court strike down on DC handgun ban.

 

[Boult]

Wikipedia has references included, it could take to bottom and check for source if statement is true or not.

That's fine with you, you could find real define of 2nd Amendment from other website.

Boult, thanks for include a news link about supreme court strike down on DC handgun ban.

You are right it has references at bottom as well as links to citations and sources that are used to form a entry in wikipedia.

 

[faire_jour]

I just can't imagine that guns are more important to intellegent people than putting food on the table (the economy), their children's schools (education), getting their children proper medication and health care (insurance plans), and taxes. It is just ridiculous to me.

 

[Hear Again]

You're still $50,000 off, so you would actually get more benefits from Obama's plan than from McCain's.

And the Democratics are not necessarily "big in welfare where people who don't work will get money." as you stated. The people that will benefit most from those that go to work every day of their lives and still can't pull themselves up because they are paying a higher percentage of taxes than the fat cats. And, yes, the Democrats have historically instituted more social programs to assist the unfortunate. What would you suggest we do with someone who encounters a catastrophic illness and can't work, and all their insurance benefits run out? Or someone who suffers from a life long mental illness that prevents them working and needs meds just to get through the day, and assistance to purchase the necessities such as food and rent? Without social programs in place to assist these individuals, what would be your solution to people who find themselves in these dire straits? What about a woman with 4 small chidlren whose husband dies unexpectedly leaving her a widow to single handedly raise, feed, clothe, educate, and provide a roof over the children's heads. Should we get rid of all social programs that allow her to raise her children and keep them fed and clothed?

 

[Beowulf]

Bob Schiffer did a good job as moderator, far better than the first two, since he was TOTALLY in control. I am wondering, though, about his question of climate "control." Did anyone notice that? He asked about climate control and there was an uncomfortable pause between Obama and McCain, and the latter sort of went, Umm, you mean climate CHANGE? Hmmm, I am wondering if that was a gaffe on Schiffer's part or deliberate?

 

[darkdog]

You are still failing to see it from a proportianate perspective. The statistics you have reported are very misleading. And not up to date given the financial situation of the country today.

Actually, I did look at it from a proportional perspective. I looked at the slice of the total wealth pie that each income group earns and the slice of the total tax pie that each income group pays. I did not look at size of the pies or anything else. Perhaps your objection is that you want me to look at a different pie? If so, show me and I'll gladly look at it.

For the more visual types, I went ahead and made charts, just because I'm kind of nerdy that way.



Note that the top 1% wage earners (orange) earn between about 15 and 20% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 50% of wage earners (blue) earn between about 10 to 15% of the nation's wealth.



Here, the top 1% of wage earners (orange) pay anywhere from 25% to 40% of federal taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners (blue) pay around 3 to 5%.

Basically, if the entire country earned $1000 every year and paid $100 in taxes (just using easy numbers), then in 2006, the top 1% of wage earners would collectively earn about $220 and pay about $40 in taxes, which means a tax rate of about 18.1%. The bottom 50% of wage earners would collectively earn about $125 and pay about $3 in taxes for a tax rate of about 2.4%. Interestingly, from these charts, the Bush years look similar to the Clinton years. At least here, I don't see any evidence that the rich are paying any less now than the poor in absolute or relative terms. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Admittedly, the data is not up-to-date. After a good amount of digging, I couldn't find the information for 2007 on the IRS website, but I doubt it would be much different. The 2008 information should be interesting given the financial disaster we're in, but of course we have to finish 2008 first to get data on that.

 

[Reba]

Bob Schiffer did a good job as moderator, far better than the first two, since he was TOTALLY in control. I am wondering, though, about his question of climate "control." Did anyone notice that? He asked about climate control and there was an uncomfortable pause between Obama and McCain, and the latter sort of went, Umm, you mean climate CHANGE? Hmmm, I am wondering if that was a gaffe on Schiffer's part or deliberate?

I noticed that, too. Maybe he was thinking about his home thermostat?

 

[Reba]

I just can't imagine that guns are more important to intellegent people than putting food on the table (the economy), their children's schools (education), getting their children proper medication and health care (insurance plans), and taxes. It is just ridiculous to me.

Gun ownership is guaranteed in our Constitution. The Constitution does NOT guarantee food on the table, children's schools, or insurance plans. It seems that most "taxing" that happens ignores the Constitution.

Intelligent people are concerned about putting food on the table, their children's education, and their families' health care. They don't depend on the federal government to take care of those things for them. Whatsoever the government giveth, it can also taketh away.

 

[jillio]

Actually, I did look at it from a proportional perspective. I looked at the slice of the total wealth pie that each income group earns and the slice of the total tax pie that each income group pays. I did not look at size of the pies or anything else. Perhaps your objection is that you want me to look at a different pie? If so, show me and I'll gladly look at it.

For the more visual types, I went ahead and made charts, just because I'm kind of nerdy that way.



Note that the top 1% wage earners (orange) earn between about 15 and 20% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 50% of wage earners (blue) earn between about 10 to 15% of the nation's wealth.



Here, the top 1% of wage earners (orange) pay anywhere from 25% to 40% of federal taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners (blue) pay around 3 to 5%.

Basically, if the entire country earned $1000 every year and paid $100 in taxes (just using easy numbers), then in 2006, the top 1% of wage earners would collectively earn about $220 and pay about $40 in taxes, which means a tax rate of about 18.1%. The bottom 50% of wage earners would collectively earn about $125 and pay about $3 in taxes for a tax rate of about 2.4%. Interestingly, from these charts, the Bush years look similar to the Clinton years. At least here, I don't see any evidence that the rich are paying any less now than the poor in absolute or relative terms. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Admittedly, the data is not up-to-date. After a good amount of digging, I couldn't find the information for 2007 on the IRS website, but I doubt it would be much different. The 2008 information should be interesting given the financial disaster we're in, but of course we have to finish 2008 first to get data on that.

Lovely charts, but your focus is still too narrow. You are not looking at it proportionately.

 

[jillio]

Gun ownership is guaranteed in our Constitution. The Constitution does NOT guarantee food on the table, children's schools, or insurance plans. It seems that most "taxing" that happens ignores the Constitution.

Intelligent people are concerned about putting food on the table, their children's education, and their families' health care. They don't depend on the federal government to take care of those things for them. Whatsoever the government giveth, it can also taketh away.

Yep, and it taketh it away through taxing those that can least afford to pay the taxes.

 

[faire_jour]

Gun ownership is guaranteed in our Constitution. The Constitution does NOT guarantee food on the table, children's schools, or insurance plans. It seems that most "taxing" that happens ignores the Constitution.

Intelligent people are concerned about putting food on the table, their children's education, and their families' health care. They don't depend on the federal government to take care of those things for them. Whatsoever the government giveth, it can also taketh away.

I didn't think that the goverment should give those things to you, but that you should be more concerned about where the canidates stand on those issues rather than you right to shoot at empty beer cans.