McCain's Speech

[termogard]

Originally Posted by samurai007

McCain's speech tonight was different, though even more moving and powerful in it's own way. Here is a man who has dedicated his entire life to his country. He's a true American hero..... THESE are the kind of people we need leading America.

PRISONER OR HONORED GUEST?

McCain’s 5½-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg. He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain’s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison’s loud speakers.

On October 26, 1967, McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973), McCain didn’t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.

Jack McLamb is a highly respected name in law enforcement circles. After 9 years of clandestine operations in Cambodia and unmentionable areas, he returned home to Phoenix where he became one of the most decorated police officers on record. Twice McLamb was named Officer of the Year. He went on to become an FBI hostage negotiator. This man has stated that every one of the many former POWs he has talked with consider McCain a traitor. States McLamb, “He was never tortured…The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.” McLamb further quotes former POWs as saying McCain starred in 32 propaganda videos in which he denounced his country and comrades.

Source

True Hero, huh!

[Ryzorian]

Only fair tax is a flat tax that's same % for everybody.

[GoNative]

Fair for who? The rich?
If you didn't have marginal tax rates what other taxes would you increase to maintain the required taxes to run the country?
Or what services would you cut?
I find it interesting how Americans seem so worried about taxing the rich. For a start the vast bulk of Americans are not rich and don't pay anywhere near the top tax bracket. And your top tax percentage is much lower than many other developed nations and the income you have to earn before reaching that bracket is much higher. In Australia the top tax bracket kicks in if you earn more than $180,000 and it's 45% on any money earned over this amount. And yet Australia's economy is doing very well with close to full employment, the economy continued to grow after the GFC and housing prices instead of tumbling have only flattened. Some areas have decreased slightly and some have continued to increase slightly.
One of the benefits of running a company in Australia is that the company tax rate is a constant 30%. I run my own business and up to $130,000 the personal income tax rate averages out to 30%. So any income I earn above this I don't take as personal income but company income so effectively my tax rate regardless of how much I earn is capped at 30%. This is a great incentive for those running a business in Australia.
Our marginal tax rates I think assist the poor better than in the US. The first $6,000 you earn is not taxed at all and from next year this will increase to $18,000. So those earning the least and in most need of help pay very little income tax at all.
We have a 10% goods and services tax but this does not apply to basic food staples.
So Although I agree with a reasonable cap on company tax rates to help small to medium businesses which are the biggest creators of jobs I don't agree that CEO's and other top executives earning millions of dollars a year pay such low tax rates. You could easily increase their taxes without greatly affecting their lifestyle at all and their tax rate won't affect the amount of jobs created.

A flat tax rate as Ryzorian suggests disproportionately affects those on lower incomes and only allows the already rich to get much richer. They have been getting richer anyway. Why should the lower and middle incomes brackets which make up the vast bulk of the population have to accept a tax regime that only really benefits those who already earn bucket loads of cash? Crazy idea that could only fly in a place like America.

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by GoNative

I find it interesting how Americans seem so worried about taxing the rich. For a start the vast bulk of Americans are not rich and don't pay anywhere near the top tax bracket.

Too many Americans have been wrongly convinced that they are affluent and that any extra taxes for the highest income earners also will affect them negatively. It's a sustained campaign that has been sold to Americans since, at the very least, the 1950s. This is why you see many Americans in the middle class, and especially the suburban upper middle class, balk at the suggestion that they ought to support a more equitable tax structure (equitable being how percentage affects your buying ability, NOT a flat tax percentage which due to independent costs, makes the buying ability of low income earners considerably lower than high income earners). The 1% is the 1%, but I'm willing to bet you at least 20% or more of Americans think they're in that 1% or close to it, when in reality nearly half of Americans don't even make enough to qualify to be taxed because they make so little that any taxation would be a detriment to their ability to survive.

The middle class needs to pay taxes, absolutely, but the middle class alone can't carry the entire infrastructure, defense, and social security cost for themselves and the poor, let alone provide for those programs (like defense and transportation) that the rich do benefit from. Progressive income tax, higher capital gains taxes, and a progressive sales tax (more sales tax the higher the cost of the item, so staple items have little or no tax, but luxury yachts have a high tax) is the way to go.

I say this having been quite blessed in my life, and I'm willing to pay for social programs and infrastructure. Slap some taxes on my iPhone and iPad and BMW. I can afford the tiny percentage that goes to supporting my fellow citizens, and if I can't, maybe I need to rethink my financial priorities.

[GoNative]

It is a very weird country. Much of us in the rest of the world just can't get our head around why the rich are so protected. You have something like 50 million people living in poverty in the US (more than twice the entire population of Australia) and yet so many seem determined to protect the wealth creation ability of the top few percent of income earners. It's just crazy. People like Ryzorian (who probably earns bugger all) seems happy for lower income earners to pay more tax and the wealthiest pay less by introducing a flat tax rate. I just can't understand how anyone would think this would be better for the country. Ryzorian is a complete nutter though so I'd expect nothing less.

[Tsuwabuki]

We've been told the lie for so long, that most of us believe it.

It's especially true in times like the 50s/60s or 80s or 90s where jobs are plentiful, credit is (dangerously!) free-flowing, and war is either over or hidden. When we start getting uppity and start asking questions of the 1%, they start screaming, "SOCIALISM. COMMUNISM. WEALTH DISTRIBUTION KILLS INNOVATION. NO INNOVATION, NO JOBS!" They convince us that what little money and affluence we do have will disappear the moment we start to affect the mass-hoarding by the highest income earners.

Think about the last time the United States really moved forward. Late 1960s, early to mid 1970s. What did we have? Racial unrest. A neverending war. A cheating, lying, corrupt President. A recession. An oil shortage. Gee... sound familiar? If you go back to the time before that, you'll get to the Progressive Movement in which the same things were true (the war was the Philippine Occupation). The Occupy Movement is a classic protest movement in America, and one that should produce real gains, but it won't be today, and it won't be next year. It might take ten years. It usually does.

When we make money, we can sort of believe the lie, but when we can't, the status quo better watch out. 40 million Americans out of work. 50 Million Americans below the poverty line, another 75 million or so which are the "working poor," just one paycheck away from total ruin, and 15 million families unable to even get basic medical care. Two seemingly unending wars, with troops now in Africa (and I support legitimate uses of our forces, but we are spread far too thin at too big of a cost, and I say this as someone who no longer wears the uniform in part due to the fact I am no long affordable for the US Navy), re segregated schools by socioeconomic class which falls along racial lines (suburban schools, 90% white, inner city schools, 90% black and latino), tuition rates out of control for higher education, and top that all off with a lack of energy innovation and an increasing cost of oil products considerably higher than inflation.

If we don't see some serious changes from Congress and Corporate America, shit is gonna get way uglier than peaceful sit-ins in Zucotti/Liberty Park and a few marches up and down Wall Street.

[GoNative]

Something is certainly wrong when you are the richest country on the planet and you have so many people living in poverty. I just can't understand it. What is going wrong when you have a very low minimum wage and companies still struggle to be competitive? Australia's minimum wage is double that of the US and we receive a whole range of better work conditions and benefits and yet we have an unemployment rate of only 4.9% compared to over 9% in the US. Both countries are large and resource rich enabling them to take full advantage of the commodities boom in recent years and yet our economies couldn't be more different. Australia's property market although also incredibly inflated has only had a little softening of the market rather than a massive crash like in the US. In Australia we have universal healthcare and a comprehensive welfare/pension system that allows unemployed, elderly and disabled people to still live with some dignity, the US has neither. How can America be getting it all so wrong? I know bugger all about economics so I just don't get it.

[Tsuwabuki]

Your rich pitch in much better than our rich. You also don't have the massive military industrial complex we do, nor the overseas commitments we've set up for ourselves. You also have a significantly smaller population.

[Ryzorian]

Flat tax is fair..those who have more do pay more. Last time I checked 10% of a 1,000,000 is 100,000 and 100,000 is 5 times what I make. So called "progressive" tax rates are just government cronies stealing from the people, punishing anyone who becomes successfull.

It's out rageous, should the team that finishes last in the conference be allowed a trip to the playoffs? of course not, if you want to get "richer" then work harder. The team that becomes champion works it's ass off, a team that just sits on it's ass, gets it's ass kicked.

Gonative; You do realize that the "progressive" tax was invented by the Ultra rich back in the early 1900's? It was designed to prevent anybody getting too rich, it's why they have these "anti trust things against who ever gets "mega" rich these days.( Microsoft/Walmart) Guess who is exempt from taxes? Those same ultra rich as back then..they have thier allready made money in tax free trustfunds. The whole system is built on the idea that the ultra rich elites get to stay in thier little clubhouse and NO ONE from the masses is ALLOWED to join them.

That's not what America is about, it's about anybody who is willing to work hard, dream adapt, improvise, and overcome can rise to the top and join that clubhouse.

[Tsuwabuki]

It's not about ratio, it's about ratio of BUYING POWER. 10% of $20,000 is $2000, and total probable cost of apartment, utilities, and transportation, especially in urban areas. Whereas someone making $1M, as long as they live less than completely ostentatiously, that $100,000 makes very little appreciable difference to day by day or month by month needs.

Flat taxes would only work in a parallel universe where people have different prices based on what they earn. Only then would a flat tax actually apply to everyone equally.

As for your views on the Progressive Era, you are flat out wrong. The progressive era capitalists such as Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller were staunchly "make your own fortune" and staunchly anti-hereditary aristocracy- whether landed gentry or by trust fund. Did they pass on large fortunes to offspring? Yes, but they still espoused the idea that any man could rise to the top. Carnegie himself was a the son of a Scottish fabric weaver and was a fierce republican and believed in the power or representative democracy and social mobility. He was also utterly ruthless and cut off competitors at every turn before they could get rich, but he would never begrudge his competitors for trying, and would acknowledge when he had been beaten by his own game.

Yes; the ultrarich have way too many tax havens, including on trust funds and the like. Those should subject to taxation. Which makes me wonder why you're not on our side. Especially since you only make $20K a year which is barely a living wage in many urban and suburban areas. You are not the 1%. Why would you defend their right to have such a multiple of your buying power?