http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=71185&boardID=39&page=1

I have no qualms about calling Obama liberal.  There is nothing wrong with being liberal (or "a lib" as I've seen snidely remarked on this board)  

Liberal
9 dictionary results for: liberal
Dictionary.com  
lib•er•al      
–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.  
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.  
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.  
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.  
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.  
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.  
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.  
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.  
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.  
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.  
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.  
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.  
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.  
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.  
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.  


On the subject of "socialist policies", see next post  ...

“Socialist policies”--- I’ll grant you that his policies are “socialist in nature.”   But given the mess this country is facing, the options he offers look pretty darned good.

 “Obama favors wealth redistribution, he believes the "rich" don't pay their fair share. He believes government can better spend the people's money than the people themselves.”  >>>  not entirely accurate. If that was true he would’ve proposed raising the taxes on the wealthy to the levels of those in Scandinavian countries.  He has simply called for eliminating the tax cuts that “W” doled out.  He has also called for cuts to the Federal spending & elimination of programs that don’t work.

Obama on Social Security  … what are the  options?  Social Security is currently teetering on the edge.  Millions of taxpayers paid their Social Security taxes on the assumption that they would receive payments when they retire.  If the government can’t fund those obligations, why am I paying Social Security  tax right now (under a Republican administration)?

“Massive entitlements, from socialized health care to free college to all,” >>>>  a developed country OUGHT TO PROVIDE EDUCATION & HEALTHCARE FOR THEIR CITIZENS.   If a country can spend half a Trillion dollars annually on a defense budget & yet can’t afford a world-class education or basic healthcare plan for its citizens, that is an embarrassment & a misallocation of resources.  If reallocation from the defense budget to other programs is not on the table, then the money has to come from somewhere … I make a lot more than the average taxpayer but I’m willing pay a little extra in order to “put country first”

“Not to mention oppresive increases in corporate taxes which already are among the highest in the developed world,”  >>>  somehow I’m not convinced  that large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.  With the innumerable loopholes in the taxcode, the large corporations have armies of lawyers & tax advisors to help them “reduce” their tax obligations.

Let me say this: in the ideal world I would like to pay as little in taxes as possible. I’d like it to be fair. I’d like our government to be smaller. And more accountable. And our money to be spent more wisely & with more transparency.  Sound familiar?  It should – those are some of the most dearly-held conservative values.  

I have had it with the current Republican administration & see no future in the one seeking to succeed him.

Obama is the change I'm looking for.  And I'm willing to take a chance on that ... the way I see it, he can't f*ck it up any worse.  If he does, he will be on his keester in 4 years.

We have differing viewpoints. But as you say "you can disagree without being disagreeable". On that I agree!

First off Social Security. You state accurately that it is teetering on the edge. While it is true that millions have contributed, including you and me, why is it that the "fix" to the problem is for me and other small business owners to pay 20-30-40 times what the average person pays without being entitled to a single penny more at retirement?

I could ask the same question you asked, Why should I pay into a retirement program that can't pay me back 5cents on the dollar at retirement?

Corporate taxes, The biggest company in this country paid over 40% in taxes, over $30 billion. If this doesn't convince you that corporation pay their fair share I don't know what will. Under our oppressive tax code the shareholders that received dividend on Exxon's earnings got to pay taxes all over again. It's a wonder that any companies choose to remain in the US.

I'll get to the other issues later.

Social Security is not teetering on the edge. If we do absolutely nothing to change the system, it will still be able to cover 75% of it's obligations for the next 50-60 years. All it would take to be able to continue current levels of benefits are modest increases in the retirement age and income limits. The system is far from collapse as the echo chamber insists.

Medicare is a different story but that problem is due to increases in the cost of delivering medical care, not because of problems inherent in the fiscal part of the program.

Corporate taxes are at their lowest level in decades in the U.S.  Sure tax rates are high but the thing that matters is actual tax burden and the percentage of total tax revenue paid by corporations is small when compared to most other developed nations.

You have a valid point about taxing dividends however, my income is taxed at least three times before I get it and then again when I spend it. I have little sympathy for those who complain about the tax on dividends.

As to why corporations choose to remain in teh U.S., many don't. They rent a PO box in Bermuda or the Caymans and avoid taxes while still maintaining most of their activity in the U.S. Very patriotic, don't you think? Take advantage of the benefits of the U.S. economy without contributing your fair share to it?