Powell's endorsement of Obama

[_richardMdBorn]

Here's an interesting post about evidence which the mainstream media ignores in its eagerness to tell us that its favored candidate has already won the race

Well, there is another story out there that the mainstream media refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.

Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)

Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.

Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.

There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)

Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.

The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the mainstream media.

Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/signs_pointing_to_a_mccain_vic.html

[_antishock8]

Ah. It's not over. Not by a longshot.

But even if he's elected. It's cool. I'll support him. If it's what the people want you have to respect that. That's the democratic way. If you don't like it, you're always free to leave, no? Oui oui.

[_Jason Bourne]

I wonder if you understand the difference between "revenue", "gross profit" and "net profit" (at least, you seem to be using them incorrectly here). Revenue is how much money is made from all transactions. Gross profit is how much is made by reselling raw materials into a finished product. Net profit would be how much is earned after indirect overhead.

In order to have a gross profit of over $250 K, assuming a 5% net profit margin for say, a restaurant (which is about what restaurants shoot for), they would have to have revenues of 5 million dollars. That means the restaurant would have to pull in an average of about $13,700 a day. That's a pretty damn successful restaurant right there.

Your example is not representative of the plan. Businesses get to write off all their expenses, so in your example, this business would be taxed at the rate for having netted $60 K, not $250 K, and they would see no increase due to Obama's plan.

The reason that net income from small businesses is income to the owners is most small businesses are either S Corps, Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships or LLCs. These entities pay no tax and the profits land on the owners tax returns and are taxed there. I work with many, many small businesses and quite a few net over $250,000. In fact I am also part owner of a small business as well.

I do not think many understand this including the ones who talk about taxes only going up on those making $250k plus and talking about this not impacting businesses.

[_Jason Bourne]

In regards to small businesses? Incorrect. Go review the third presidential debate and Obama's proposals again.

Save me some time and enlighten me.

[_Jason Bourne]

(3) TAX CREDITS FOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES. Barack Obama and Joe Biden understand that too
many families that do not qualify for public health programs like Medicaid and SCHIP have trouble finding
affordable health insurance. They know from talking to small business owners across the nation that the
skyrocketing cost of healthcare poses a serious competitive threat to America’s small businesses. The Obama-
Biden health care plan will provide tax credits to all individuals who need it for their premiums. They will also
create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to
50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. To be eligible for the credit,
small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share
of the cost of employee health premiums.

So currently a small business that makes over $250k of taxable income pays 35% Federal Tax and 4%-8% state tax depending on the state. Let's use 5% for the state. Total tax rate of 40%. Thus under current law if the business owner pays $10,000 for an employee's health care he saves $4000 in taxes. Under this plan if he pays $10,000 he gets an dollar for dollar credit against his taxes of 50% of the premium so it saves him $5000 in tax. That assumes there are no phases ins or phase outs and it is also a tax credit for Alternative Minimum Tax which many tax credits are not. Also, as noted what is a quality plan and a meaningful share of the premium? Seems pretty vague for not all the much more benefit.

(4) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful
contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a
percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this
requirement.

And what is the definition of a large employer? 25 employees, 50, 75, 100, 1000?

[_antishock8]

The reason that net income from small businesses is income to the owners is most small businesses are either S Corps, Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships or LLCs. These entities pay no tax and the profits land on the owners tax returns and are taxed there. I work with many, many small businesses and quite a few net over $250,000. In fact I am also part owner of a small business as well.

I do not think many understand this including the ones who talk about taxes only going up on those making $250k plus and talking about this not impacting businesses.

I grew up in a "small business" family. My dad was at first a carpenter, and then later switched to owning and running gift shops. At one time he had three gift shops called "The Golden Forest". Heh. After making a series of bad business decisions he folded, and then re-opened one of his gift shops as "Le Decor". Lol. Yep. He also was a slum lord, more or less. He owned a few houses in sh**ty neighborhoods, and would rent them out to s**tbags. I would be frequently employed, as a child, as cleaner-up-after when these "oppressed" types would trash the place, urinate on the floors, and break stuff. Ahhh.. The memories.

Anyway. I'm very familiar with revenue streams, gross profits, net profits, overhead, taxes, etc... I was also a book keeper for him in addition to being an "employee" as a teenager and young adult. I have to admit, my experience is limited to gift shop revenue economics. So perhaps I have a skewed sense of what $250,000 is, what operating costs mean, what taxes, overhead, profit margins... All of that because it's related to the retail gift industry.

I stand by my assertion that B.O.'s plan does include small businesses, and it will result in a heavier tax burden on them. What will end up happening is small businesses will let go of employees, and bring back those willing to work under the table. That's one of the reasons why you see so many Mexicans on construction crews. They make decent scratch, and employers aren't getting nailed by Uncle Sam. Paying someone $10/hr may not sound like a lot, but after the employer gets done abiding by all his government mandates it's around $16-$18/hr depending on the state. So, for the construction crew guy, if he pays a Mexican $14-$15/hr he's avoiding an additional $6-$10 in tax burdens. That sounds crappy, but profit margins aren't that large to begin with...

It's the same in a gift shop. A restaurant. Etc... And when the gift shop owner is pulling $60k/year for 60-80 hour work weeks... Paying someone under the table is really the only way to stay in business. No one is going to bust his or her ass for $40k/year. And that's iffy depending on whether or not people want your product. No way.

[_Jason Bourne]

Anyway. I'm very familiar with revenue streams, gross profits, net profits, overhead, taxes, etc... I was also a book keeper for him in addition to being an "employee" as a teenager and young adult. I have to admit, my experience is limited to gift shop revenue economics. So perhaps I have a skewed sense of what $250,000 is, what operating costs mean, what taxes, overhead, profit margins... All of that because it's related to the retail gift industry.

I stand by my assertion that B.O.'s plan does include small businesses, and it will result in a heavier tax burden on them. What will end up happening is small businesses will let go of employees, and bring back those willing to work under the table. That's one of the reasons why you see so many Mexicans on construction crews. They make decent scratch, and employers aren't getting nailed by Uncle Sam. Paying someone $10/hr may not sound like a lot, but after the employer gets done abiding by all his government mandates it's around $16-$18/hr depending on the state. So, for the construction crew guy, if he pays a Mexican $14-$15/hr he's avoiding an additional $6-$10 in tax burdens. That sounds s****y, but profit margins aren't that large to begin with...

Antishock

I hope you don't think my comments on small bus and taxes was critiquing you. It was more to explain why this includes small businesses when he says that it is only people that make. over 250k that he will tax. Also I think he will tax more than what he says. It is popular to say HEY! I will tax the rich guys making over 250K and give you money back! I will cut the little guys tax! But remember Clinton's promise to cut middle class tax then a few months after he was in office he said he had tries harder than ever but just could not do it.

People forget that Clinton did no cut taxes from what Bush 1 had in place. He only raised them. He left in place what was there for lower income earner. No cuts. Then raised them on higher earners. He also passed a tax on Social Security income. Anyone collecting SS income that made over 32k in other income saw 85% of their SSI taxed.

Obama claims Bush only cut taxes for the rich. This is a lie. All tax brackets have dropped and especially the middle class. Bush also put in a 10% bracket for low earners, expanded the earned income tax credit, instituted the $1000 per child credit, passed the ROTH IRA-which was brilliant, increased tax deductions and credits for college tuition and made cololage loan interest deductible even if you do not itemized. Obama and his campaign lie about Bush tax cuts. Sure there were cuts in rates for the higher earners as well. And the Capital gains rate dropped to 15% and for low income tax brackets cap gains tax is 10% and even 0%!!!! The biggest thing Bush has taken heat for is the 15% rate on dividends which tend to favor people who have lots to invest in stocks. But it makes sense to have a low rate in dividends becuase corporations that are taxed at 35% do not get a deduction for dividends. So the overall tax on dividends is still 50%!!!!

Anyway, as noted, Obama lies about Bush tax cuts. Plain and simple. The cuts put in place in 2001 and phased in over the past 7 years have been across the board and everyone has gotten cuts.