Does it seem wrong to anyone other than myself, that Obama who preaches to spread the wealth in taxing certain groups of citizens, retired persons, persons with stock funds, small businesses making over $200,000... and giving this money to people who won't or can't work (We already pay welfare from our taxes) but has just spent in excess of $5 million for a half hour infomercial on several channels prime time, as well as continuous campaign ads throughout the day. Even if this money is legitimate as part of his campaign chest, so are my stocks and annuities that he wants me to spread around. What do you think about that incredible spending from a man claiming to be a cost cutter?

You are not alone :(

It's classic socialism.

As always, with posts outside of site administrative issues, my posts are mine and mine alone... may or may not be those of the site or it's owner :)

Well the Bush administration just spread 1 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to bail out financial institutions; if that isn't redistribution of wealth to the rich, I don't know what is.

Obama says that he will provide tax cuts to the middle class; 95% of American's, and restore Reagan era tax rates to those making more than $250,000.

Warren Buffet arguably one of the richest men in the world says that his taxes are too low.

The Bush administration has created the largest yearly deficit and our largest national debt in history by spending our money like there is no tomorrow; and all of it is on a credit card that we the middle class and our children and our grand children are on the hook to pay, while those corporations and individuals who are the wealthy 5% have profited like kings on the corporate welfare of the Bush Administration.

A record number of people, ordinary American's fed up with greed and corruption and getting stuck with the bill have donated under $200 each to Obama's campaign. Do you think they don't want him to use it any way he see's fit to secure the Presidency away from failed trickle down conservative ideology?

I have to ask, are you blind? The Republican's have had control of the House and Senate for 10 years with a Republican President for 8 years. If the Clinton years were so bad (he left office with balanced budget and a yearly surplus) why haven't they changed things for the better; why will after all this time is the country in it's worst shape ever?

Obama spreading the wealth... lol... darn right, I want tax cuts for the middle class who will spend their HARD EARNED money in America; not ship jobs and investment overseas in the pursuit of profit like large corporations do.

The rich don't care about America, they care about their God, and that is money. Well I'm sick and tired of having to pay for them through my taxes while they get breaks, tax cuts, loopholes, etc.

Tickle down is now trickle down fraud, greed and corruption to the taxpayers and they will keep the profits, the salaries, and yes the extremely low tax rates.

It's time for trickle up, give tax breaks to the middle class, let the rich pay more (they aren't struggling) and if they want our money, they'll have to become more innovative, competitive, honest, transparent. Let the middle class hold more of the power and money and you will see how fast corporations clean up their acts competing for our attention and hard earned dollars.

Well the Bush administration just spread 1 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to bail out financial institutions; if that isn't redistribution of wealth to the rich, I don't know what is.

Obama says that he will provide tax cuts to the middle class; 95% of American's, and restore Reagan era tax rates to those making more than $250,000.

Warren Buffet arguably one of the richest men in the world says that his taxes are too low.

The Bush administration has created the largest yearly deficit and our largest national debt in history by spending our money like there is no tomorrow; and all of it is on a credit card that we the middle class and our children and our grand children are on the hook to pay, while those corporations and individuals who are the wealthy 5% have profited like kings on the corporate welfare of the Bush Administration.

A record number of people, ordinary American's fed up with greed and corruption and getting stuck with the bill have donated under $200 each to Obama's campaign. Do you think they don't want him to use it any way he see's fit to secure the Presidency away from failed trickle down conservative ideology?

I have to ask, are you blind? The Republican's have had control of the House and Senate for 10 years with a Republican President for 8 years. If the Clinton years were so bad (he left office with balanced budget and a yearly surplus) why haven't they changed things for the better; why will after all this time is the country in it's worst shape ever?

Obama spreading the wealth...lol...darn right, I want tax cuts for the middle class who will spend their HARD EARNED money in America; not ship jobs and investment overseas in the pursuit of profit like large corporations do.

The rich don't care about America, they care about their God, and that is money. Well I'm sick and tired of having to pay for them through my taxes while they get breaks, tax cuts, loopholes, etc.

Tis sad, in my opinion, that folk feel this way. No, people who object to Obama's socialist agenda are not "blind".

Admittedly, I'm not happy with Reps either. Our government is way too big as it is - and too often tells us what is right for us.

... I'm not ready for FDR all over again :(

You already has 8 years of republican presidency and it didn't work. How did you expect this election to turn out?

You already has 8 years of republican presidency and it didn't work. How did you expect this election to turn out?

I believe that too many people think like that. A president can do little, if anything, by himself.

Too many people are fooled into thinking that the past crappy 8 years should be blamed on the Republicans.

From what I've heard, half the people who will vote for Obama are voting against Bush.

Sad, quite sad. A reflection on the ignorance of so many on how it all works.

That the same thought many had when the last election people voted based on gay marriage.


I believe that too many people think like that. A president can do little, if anything, by himself.It appears that there is a large grassroots movement that supports Obama and his ideas. How is that bad for a country?

The infomercial cost less than $4M and there was only one. It was paid for out of campaign contributions (four of which were mine). And I am only one person who contributed who is thrilled at how well the Obama gang has wisely used the money we have given to it.

Please read up on socialism and what that really means for us in this country. For decades, socialism has been a major part of the way our country works, N.B.: our efforts to create an egalitarian society.

Wondergirl,
This is their last ditch McCain campaign talking point: Obama is a socialist! All the other talking points have failed; let's see how they do with this one. That's one of the reasons I could never be a republican/conservative: I don't like spending all my time looking for ways to bring the downfall of the 'opposition', I'd rather find solutions - that's why I'm perceived as valuable in my workplace.

The infomercial cost less than $4M and there was only one. It was paid for out of campaign contributions (four of which were mine). And I am only one person who contributed who is thrilled at how well the Obama gang has wisely used the money we have given to it.

Please read up on socialism and what that really means for us in this country. For decades, socialism has been a major part of the way our country works, N.B.: our efforts to create an egalitarian society.

There was only one commercial but it was shown on 4 channels here in Michigan. 3 local channels and one cable at the same time. I heard on our morning news that it cost in excess of $5 million or I wouldn't have said that figure.

Cost a heck of a lot more than the RNC Palin clothing allowance.

My other observations about both the infomercial and Obama's financing can be found here :
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamercial-275249.html

You can't always believe the news. I work at a newspaper. Sometimes people make a mistake... I know, crazy isn't? Humans making mistakes.

cost a heck of alot more than the RNC Palin clothing allowance. You're comparing TV ads to clothing? LOL!

Your right . I should compare infomercials to infomercials. You know why George Foreman's grill commercials work so well ? Because they are credible.

your right . I should compare infomercials to infomercials. You know why George Foreman's grill commercials work so well ? Because they are credible.
"commercials work so well" = sales
Same thing will happen with this infomercial, it's just business. Get your guy to counter with his.

Wondergirl,
This is their last ditch McCain campaign talking point: Obama is a socialist! All the other talking points have failed; let's see how they do with this one. That's one of the reasons I could never be a republican/conservative: I don't like spending all my time looking for ways to bring the downfall of the 'opposition', I'd rather find solutions - that's why I'm perceived as valuable in my workplace.

You're right, and very well said; they don't have a solution. Palin/McCain are tied to the same ideology that has failed us in a catastrophic way. I believe Obama is a centrist who is not tied to a radical ideology (even a left one) but will show fiscal responsibility and intellectual and idealogical flexibility in dealing with the financial crisis.

Just a note to those who are against raising any sort of tax, even on those who can afford to pay Reagan era tax rates. Isn't it financially responsible for individuals to pay of their credit card when their in debt up to the eyeballs? Well Bush has left the next President with the largest debt and deficit in US history. Do I like paying more taxes no, but a responsible President, either Obama or McCain is going to have to work towards balancing the budget and paying down this debt. You know that we borrow from the Chinese to service the debt, if that isn't a concern for National Security I don't know what is. Both candidates talk about energy independence, what about the lack of financial independence that the Bush Administration has put us in and that McCain would continue by forgetting that the enormous bill the Bush/Republican administration needs to be paid. Will it be painful, yes, but not irresponsible like it's been for the last 8 years.

You're right, and very well said; they don't have a solution. Palin/McCain are tied to the same ideology that has failed us in a catastrophic way. I believe Obama is a centrist who is not tied to a radical ideology (even a left one) but will show fiscal responsibility and intellectual and idealogical flexibility in dealing with the financial crisis.

Just a note to those who are against raising any sort of tax, even on those who can afford to pay Reagan era tax rates. Isn't it financially responsible for individuals to pay of their credit card when their in debt up to the eyeballs? Well Bush has left the next President with the largest debt and deficit in US history. Do I like paying more taxes no, but a responsible President, either Obama or McCain is going to have to work towards balancing the budget and paying down this debt. You know that we borrow from the Chinese to service the debt, if that isn't a concern for National Security I don't know what is. Both candidates talk about energy independence, what about the lack of financial independence that the Bush Administration has put us in and that McCain would continue by forgetting that the enormous bill the Bush/Republican administration needs to be paid. Will it be painful, yes, but not irresponsible like it's been for the last 8 years.

VERY GOOD points! It's reasons like these that we need Obama.

There was only one commercial but it was shown on 4 channels here in Michigan. 3 local channels and one cable at the same time. I heard on our morning news that it cost in excess of $5 million or I wouldn't have said that figure.

Your figure is not incorrect, I read that it's costing about $1 million of air time for the large 3 networks. NBC, CBS and Fox (ABC wouldn't take it because they didn't want to replace a show they are currently promoting). The other $2 million when to MSNBC and other smaller cable networks, etc.

Your figure is not incorrect, I read that it's costing about $1 million of air time for the large 3 networks. NBC, CBS and Fox (ABC wouldn't take it because they didn't want to replace a show they are currently promoting). The other $2 million when to MSNBC and other smaller cable networks, etc.

Like I said, you can't ALWAYS trust everything you hear on the news.

Personally, I see the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign raising some $600 billion off the backs of those (supposedly) same working class folks he's fighting for and spending so lavishly on things like his Greek theater, but that's nothing new. I also have to laugh every time I hear Democrats condemn all those greedy Americans since the 6 richest senators are Democrats (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2007&filter=S) as well as the richest House member (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2007&filter=H).

But anyway, I hope all of you who have emphatically supported Obama on his pledge not to raise taxes for anyone making over a quarter million a year have noticed it keeps fluctuating. Yesterday Obama said $200,000, today it's once again $250,000, and Biden put it at $150,000 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/McCain_goes_after_another_Biden_slip.html). Another way to put it is his tax plan is "just words."

Well we could tax us all to death and watch the economy further decline. Or we can control spending and wait for the next economic upturn .The additional revenues would eventually balance the budget.

Obama wants to both tax us to death and increase spending . That is not a recipe to fiscal responsibility.

It appears that there is a large grassroots movement that supports Obama and his ideas. How is that bad for a country?

??
Being "large grassroots" has nothing to do with what's good, right or true.

???
Being "large grassroots" has nothing to do with what's good, right or true.Having a populace that agrees with you will get you to the white house and reinforces that your plans are indeed valued. But tell me, what do you think is the measuring stick for what's good, right or true?

Greek columns and a faux Oval Office .yeah that's the ticket !

Cost of infomercial $3million

Cost of media coverage of Obama: Priceless

Having a populace that agrees with you will get you to the white house and reinforces that your plans are indeed valued. But tell me, what do you think is the measuring stick for what's good, right or true?
I don't have a measuring stick.

The populace of Germany agreed to allow Hitler to be their dictator... so did that make it right?

No, I'm not calling Obama Hitlerish...

It is becoming increasingly clear that at least where financing is concerned... it is a global grass-roots movement.

Well done Rick!
Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)

Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)

YouTube - Obama calls The United States Of America "uncomfortably similiar" to Nazi Germany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNlZYRjtLcU)

Well done Rick!
Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)

I don't see that in Rick's post. Madonna (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4606041.ece) on the other hand...

Tis sad, imho, that folk feel this way. No, people who object to Obama's socialist agenda are not "blind".

Admitedly, I'm not happy with Reps either. Our government is way too big as it is - and too often tells us what is right for us.

...I'm not ready for FDR all over again :(

You are right on. I can't stand the Bush administration. This country is screwed up almost beyond recognition. Patriot Act=government power. We need to take it back. Osama Obama is not the answer. Is it me or does it seem that this whole election thing seems to be a farce anyway. Seems to me that the media has primed us for an Obama admin.

Well done Rick!
:)
Thank you for the kind words.

Need, really: I know you are a wise and smart person and one who cares about people... but not living here and experiencing how the BSPolitics effects Joe Six Pack (me and, I presume, you), I fear you are missing much.

In short, I see Obama as the new FDR... and I bet that Canadians learn that FDR was one of the great Presidents.

Call me a fanatic, but history books treat FDR far too well.

...

Disclaimer/Reminder: Except for posts related to site administration, my posts are mine and mine alone. They may or may not be those of the site owner(s). :)

Osama Obama

Classy.

Having a populace that agrees with you will get you to the white house and reinforces that your plans are indeed valued. But tell me, what do you think is the measuring stick for what's good, right or true?

Sorry I don't agree. Now days it's fairly easy to get popular. Just have to control the media. Once you have the media on your side you can sway the people anyway you choose. American people are mostly sheep imo. They hear the same thing over and over again and start to believe it. That's because if they had their own opinion it would mean that they would have to think. American people don't want to think. They want to be told what to think. They want to continue to live their lives, spend their money to keep up with their neighbors and let someone else worry about the problems. Look at our unions for proof. Declining memberships because we don't want to personally sacrifice. This is just my opinion and personal observation.

Classy.

I'm sorry Cap, I will recant that. I have taken to calling him that for laughs around here but prob shouldn't have brought it over here.

But it does give us insight into you.

I see nothing wrong with it . Frankly the only reason I quit using my nicknames for him was that it was getting boring.

The infomercial cost less than $4M and there was only one. It was paid for out of campaign contributions (four of which were mine). And I am only one person who contributed who is thrilled at how well the Obama gang has wisely used the money we have given to it.

Please read up on socialism and what that really means for us in this country. For decades, socialism has been a major part of the way our country works, N.B.: our efforts to create an egalitarian society.

Oh yes Carol. Socialism is wonderful. Even Hitler thought so back in his day. 'Let's knock those rich Jews down and take their stuff. We deserve it as more than they do' So what if they were the ones who worked for it.

How could anyone interested in this election NOT have read up on Socialism? Some are still around that remember living it... (no, not me)

You know you've run out of lucid arguments when you compare someone to Hitler. :)

NK. How can you be so valuable to your employers when all you do is stay on this site giving snippy comments all day long?

- I work with web sites all day
- I have several browsers open
- I only write quick snippets as you mentioned
- sometimes there a delay while some stuff I do updates at the other end, that's usually when I post
- I am incredibly efficient

Any other questions dear?

Gee, that's the nicest you've ever answered anything I've posted here. I'm in shock

I'm a nice guy, but one of my idiosyncrasies is I hate to see people posting crap unchallenged.

And I hate seeing crap challenged with more crap. :D

Oh yes Carol. Socialism is wonderful. Even Hitler thought so back in his day. 'Let's knock those rich Jews down and take their stuff. We deserve it as more than they do' So what if they were the ones who worked for it.

How could anyone interested in this election NOT have read up on Socialism? Some are still around that remember living it....(no, not me)

Is that all you conservatives can do is spread fear? It must be mighty uncomfortable living in your skin scared all the time, no wonder you need your guns; y'all are the most paranoid frightened little babies.

Progressive tax policy isn't socialism and as is typical you had to play the Hitler card, how can you sleep at night and when does it ever end for you lot?

Here is an article on tax policy:

Progressive Taxation--Socialism? or Just Standard USA Tax Policy?

My colleague Jim Maule has a good post (Taxes, Bailouts, and Socialism, Mauled Again for Oct. 22, 2008) about a topic that is being raised by the McCain-Palin team quite frequently these days, since the interaction of "Joe the Plumber" (who is not really a plumber (not licensed, anyway), not actually making more than $250,000 a year, and not really Joe) with Obama about tax policies. Obama, as is his wont, answered a set question from Joe with an articulate defense of progressive taxation policies, especially during times of financial crisis when those in the lower income distributions find it increasingly hard to make ends meet and those in the upper echelons (we're talking about the very top few percentages of mostly multimillionaires) still have plenty. By spreading the wealth around, everyone ultimately benefits.

The topic, for anyone that has not been following the fantastic lurches of the last few days of the McCain-Palin campaign, is socialism. The Republican team has taken Obama's phrase, labeled it socialism, and essentially smeared the Democrat as unAmerican. The campaign is building on a decades-long effort by various interest groups, from organizations like Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform to the Cato Institute and the Tax Foundation, to paint progressive tax policies as downright unAmerican, all in support of "flat" wage-based or sales taxes that shift much more of the ultimate burden for supporting government activities to the people who are least able to shoulder that burden. These efforts are proclaimed to be in favor of individual liberties, but actually support the corporatist agenda.

As far as progressive taxation representing socialism, nothing could be further from the truth. Note first that McCain himself acknowledged that tax cuts should be provided to the lower income taxpayers, not the wealthiest (in his brief preriod as a Maverick on tax matters, prior to his current incarnation as Bush reincarnate). But aside from that, America's congressional representatives and presidents and leaders have almost uniformly supported progressive taxation throughout our history, and in fact enacted essentially progressive taxation policies into law since the beginning of the income tax. Similarly, American taxpayers have consistently supported progressivity in the tax system when questioned in surveys.

This consistent support evidences at heart a genuine understanding of three key aspects of taxation and spending:

- the benefits of government spending in large part adhere to the wealthier and permit them to acquire and retain that wealth,

- government spending for public goods and infrastructure is essential to broad-based growth that lifts all boats and

- government provision of a safety net for its citizens who have fallen on exceptionally difficult times is an appropriate way that the community acts collectively to take care of its own.

After a period when aggressive deregulation has been combined with aggressive reduction of tax revenues, especially from the wealthy, the US has experienced a financial crisis that will take both time and suffering before it is over. One result of pushing extensive tax cuts for the top income Americans at the same time that deregulation and other factors enhanced wealth-accrual is a period of increasing income disparity: the wealthier, that is, have been getting much wealthier, and the vast majority of Americans have been finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. See, e.g., the general interest in this issue, as shown by this Russ Sype post: Let's Talk About Redistribution of Wealth. The financial crisis can be laid at the feet of the deregulation fought for by the very institutions that are now feeding hungrily at the public trough and their managers and owners who engaged in a frenzy of profitable speculation that created systemic risk. it's worth quoting a paragraph from Jim Maule on this issue.

The tag of "socialism" is an easy piece of red meat (pun intended) for those who want to stir up fears not unlike those afflicting the nation during the "red menace" days. The irony is that just as Communism (with the capital "C") wasn't really communism (with the lower-case "C"), so, too, imposing higher income taxes on the wealthy isn't socialism. Revoking undeserved and economy-damaging tax cuts for the wealthy isn't socialism. If anything, it reflects the fact that the wealth is built on the backs of those who produce it, not those who grab it, manage it, mismanage it, or gamble with it when it belongs to others.

***

[T]here are, and have been for decades, valid arguments for imposing higher taxes on those on whom America has bestowed better opportunities and greater fortune. Undoing the mistaken tax cuts, and fixing the problems caused by trying to fight a war without raising taxes, isn't socialism. It's an attempt to undo the problems caused by welfare for the wealthy.


[corrected 102708 to reflect author's correction of original post]

-----------------------------------------

Oh, you might be interested in how the rich cheat their taxes:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/21/taxes-irs-wealth-biz-beltway-cz_jn_1021beltway.html

???
Being "large grassroots" has nothing to do with what's good, right or true.

So you're saying if Obama wins the election vote the majority of the people are bad, wrong and false simply because they don't agree with you? Sounds like it to me.

Texas Parent:




Revoking undeserved and economy-damaging tax cuts for the wealthy isn't socialism. If anything, it reflects the fact that the wealth is built on the backs of those who produce it, not those who grab it, manage it, mismanage it, or gamble with it when it belongs to others.



Exactly who determines what is deserved or what belongs to someone?

If someone went to professional school for years, or worked out and practiced their craft [ athletics, acting, investing ] to be at the top of their field, don't you think they ahould deserve the fruits of their labor?

Who determines whether Oprah or Bill Gates is worth billions?


In capitalism - you do. Millions of consumers determine what the market is willing to pay.

In socialism, or communism - it is what? a hundred or so government bureaucrats that determine this.

Do you trust this power in your politician or in milllions of consumers?

Two examples:

Government - medicare part D
Free market - $4 dollar monthly rx from Walmart
Which cost the taxpayor more?

Gas prices and vehicles sold:
Free market - gas prices up, less suvs and gas hogs bought, more fuel efficient vehicles bought.
Government - impose café standards - not needed.

Texas Parent:



Exactly who determines what is deserved or what belongs to someone?

If someone went to professional school for years, or worked out and practiced their craft [ athletics, acting, investing ] to be at the top of their field, don't you think they ahould deserve the fruits of their labor?

Who determines whether Oprah or Bill Gates is worth billions?


In capitalism - you do. Millions of consumers determine what the market is willing to pay.

In socialism, or communism - it is what?, a hundred or so goverment bureaucrats that determine this.

Do you trust this power in your politician or in milllions of consumers?

Two examples:

Government - medicare part D
free market - $4 dollar monthly rx from Walmart
Which cost the taxpayor more?

Gas prices and vehicles sold:
Free market - gas prices up, less suvs and gas hogs bought, more fuel efficient vehicles bought.
Government - impose cafe standards - not needed.

Warren Buffet Says: I Pay Less Tax Than My Cleaning Lady, Or When I Was Paper Boy -- McCain/Palin Have Even Worse Deal in Store For Middle Class

Warren Buffet may be the last of the giants of the business world that is still seen nearly unanimously as a statesman, a corporate citizen, and a man who will not claw over the less-fortunate for his own gain. He has avoided the greed pitfalls and short-sighted selfishness that left many other magnates a-hoist on their own petards. As a result, he has the credibility as both trusted financial authority, where fewer than ever remain, and voice of reason countering the McCain campaign's claims about Obama's tax plans and their own.

It is one thing for me, decidedly a denizen of that middle class being hurt by the Republican philosophy, to complain about the unfairness of my dwindling real income. It is one thing also, for me, to resent that smaller income being taxed-away even more to subsidize lower taxes for the wealthy already, and even more if McCain were elected. It is another thing entirely for a whistle-blower inside the economic elite to point out the crime of asking struggling families to pay more tax, just so that oil companies can pay less, in spite of their record-profits. When one adds price-gouging, and collusion by these firms that have abrogated all responsibility as corporate citizens, the policies of Bush and the would-be policies of John Mccain become all the more inappropriate. This system is the definition of perverse incentives: rewarding behavior by citizens or corporations that is damaging to society. But as I say, it is one thing for me, an ordinary American, to be angry since I am directly hurt like most Americans, but is it truly a detriment to the economy as a whole?

The McCain philosophy, like Bush's is to have the tax code we have now, with the middle class paying more and the wealthy getting away without paying their fair share, and giving tax breaks to the worst corporate citizens, while the good guys cover the cost. Don't take my word for it if you don't want. Warren Buffet will, perhaps, be more convincing than me to certain of those voters whose first impulse is to buy-into McCain's version of events. Buffet says it all when he recently stated that as a mega-billionaire he pays the lowest tax rate of his life; lower than when he delivered newspapers on a bike as a kid. Now that was years ago, what about now?

Right now, under the Bush tax policies which have given a bonanza to the richest of the rich shifting burdens to the rest of us, Warren Buffet's cleaning lady pays a higher rate of tax than he does, as do I, and as does almost anyone who may read this page. Why aren't we calling for an end to this nonsense? For one thing, McCain tells everyone that Democrats will raise tax on families (Sure, John, sure they will... like when Bill Clinton fought for the Earned Income Tax Credit, temporarily evening things out a little for us). McCain tells us and even though the fact-checks tell us different, some of us believe him, like some of us believe Obama is a muslim, or that he is the most liberal Senator (all proven to be inaccurate by objective sources). We are told also that tax breaks for the rich and for oil companies will come back to us, even if it is a trickle. But we haven't gotten a trickle more, we have fallen behind, and we haven't see a dime of the tax cuts help lower prices at the pump or for heating oil. Instead we pay more, as much more as the amount by which profits have gone up for big oil, but I am sure that is just a coincidence, right Senator McCain?

That is the reality out on Main Street, on Wall St, on my street, and on every street; the GOP has promised again and again that if the rich were cut a break, they could and would make us all rich along with them. If we all sacrificed to pay more than our share to allow the rich to keep more than their share, the Republicans told us that a rising tide of prosperity would raise us all. The problem is that, the money did not trickle down, it pooled at the top. The investments were not funneled back into America, but increasingly sent to China and elsewhere along with the lost jobs. We are like victims of a batterer who tells us that next time it will be different, and offers us tacky bouquets of empty rhetoric and sophistry. "Subsidizing the rich to help the poor" joins "Destroying the village to save it" in the annals of lies told to the American people by the right wing of the modern Republican party.

The GOP, and John McCain especially, love to tell stories. One of the oldest chestnuts that is dusted-off for every election is the old "Democrats raise your taxes and make deficits" line. Obama will significantly lower taxes, not raise them, for almost every single American, as well as many small businesses. Obama offers tax incentives to individuals and companies that invest in jobs, clean energy, and other positive steps which help us all. The last Democratic President gave us the Earned-Income Tax Credit, to help the middle class, and still did away with budget deficits and paid down more of the National Debt in one year than any Republican has paid-down in their entire life. McCain offers policies which will lead not only to more debt, but to a starvation of cities, towns, and state-aid which can only lead to even higher tax burdens than now for the middle-class who will see state and local taxes hiked, and local services pared back at a further loss of jobs and property values.

Obama plans to get the revenue needed for the jobs, energy, and recovery plans by closing the loopholes which have rewarded firms for sending jobs and capital overseas. He would adjust the tax code so that the most wealthy pay their fair share and working people, the middle class backbone of this country can survive and get ahead again. McCain wants to permanently enshrine the Bush tax code which has brought about the largest re-distribution of wealth in our Nation's history, from the poor and middle-class to the top 1% of the economic pyramid. Buffet deserves credit for telling it like it is, even though he has reaped billions that he does not need from these flawed policies. The scarier thing is that now, nobody is doing very well--not even the rich. Oh, they're still rich, but with this crisis, there really is is no net wealth being generated, rather it is dwindling away as the house of cards crashes down.

It is time to end the fiction that McCain and his cronies perpetuate, before it is too late to save this country. Without a break from the destructive policies and practices that the greed culture has enshrined the last years, we will see the continued decline of the middle class, and of what once made America great. We need the plan Barack Obama is offering, so that we can reclaim this country's strength as an economic giant, capable of driving innovation and progress around the world. Yes we can do it, Barack Obama and Joe Biden Believe it, Warren Buffet believes it, I believe it, and so should you.

You are right on. I can't stand the Bush administration. This country is screwed up almost beyond recognition. Patriot Act=government power. We need to take it back. Osama Obama is not the answer. Is it me or does it seem that this whole election thing seems to be a farce anyway. Seems to me that the media has primed us for an Obama admin.

It's not just you, believe me. Everyone could see the media flow from the beginning. Media is the 'deciders'. While knowing the sheep won't take time to look too deeply they bring out only what's convenient to their cause.

Bush sucks as a leader, but then what other president has had to deal with an in-country terrorist attack like we had on September 11th? Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done something when he had Bin Laden, it wouldn't have culminated into this mess.

Perhaps the Democrats who demanded that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not be regulated should be held responsible for the market crash - not Bush or McCain who tried to get it regulated back in 2004.

It's easy to make Bush responsible for everything and forget that Congress had to approve, even though when it turned sour, they tried to pretend they had nothing to do with it.- as usual.

The Democrats don't smell like roses, but they're trying to make people believe that's the case - and some actually do believe it.

Warren Buffet Says: I Pay Less Tax Than My Cleaning Lady, Or When I Was Paper Boy -- McCain/Palin Have Even Worse Deal in Store For Middle Class


It is one thing for me, decidedly a denizen of that middle class being hurt by the Republican philosophy, to complain about the unfairness of my dwindling real income. It is one thing also, for me, to resent that smaller income being taxed-away even more to subsidize lower taxes for the wealthy already, and even more if McCain were elected. It is another thing entirely for a whistle-blower inside the economic elite to point out the crime of asking struggling families to pay more tax, just so that oil companies can pay less, in spite of their record-profits. When one adds price-gouging, and collusion by these firms that have abrogated all responsibility as corporate citizens, the policies of Bush and the would-be policies of John Mccain become all the more inappropriate. This system is the definition of perverse incentives: rewarding behavior by citizens or corporations that is damaging to society. But as I say, it is one thing for me, an ordinary American, to be angry since I am directly hurt like most Americans, but is it truly a detriment to the economy as a whole?

The McCain philosophy, like Bush's is to have the tax code we have now, with the middle class paying more and the wealthy getting away without paying their fair share, and giving tax breaks to the worst corporate citizens, while the good guys cover the cost. Don't take my word for it if you don't want. Warren Buffet will, perhaps, be more convincing than me to certain of those voters whose first impulse is to buy-into McCain's version of events. Buffet says it all when he recently stated that as a mega-billionaire he pays the lowest tax rate of his life; lower than when he delivered newspapers on a bike as a kid. Now that was years ago, what about now?

Right now, under the Bush tax policies which have given a bonanza to the richest of the rich shifting burdens to the rest of us, Warren Buffet's cleaning lady pays a higher rate of tax than he does, as do I, and as does almost anyone who may read this page. Why aren't we calling for an end to this nonsense? For one thing, McCain tells everyone that Democrats will raise tax on families (Sure, John, sure they will...like when Bill Clinton fought for the Earned Income Tax Credit, temporarily evening things out a little for us). McCain tells us and even though the fact-checks tell us different, some of us believe him, like some of us believe Obama is a muslim, or that he is the most liberal Senator (all proven to be inaccurate by objective sources). We are told also that tax breaks for the rich and for oil companies will come back to us, even if it is a trickle. But we haven't gotten a trickle more, we have fallen behind, and we haven't see a dime of the tax cuts help lower prices at the pump or for heating oil. Instead we pay more, as much more as the amount by which profits have gone up for big oil, but I am sure that is just a coincidence, right Senator McCain?

That is the reality out on Main Street, on Wall St, on my street, and on every street; the GOP has promised again and again that if the rich were cut a break, they could and would make us all rich along with them. If we all sacrificed to pay more than our share to allow the rich to keep more than their share, the Republicans told us that a rising tide of prosperity would raise us all. The problem is that, the money did not trickle down, it pooled at the top. The investments were not funneled back into America, but increasingly sent to China and elsewhere along with the lost jobs. We are like victims of a batterer who tells us that next time it will be different, and offers us tacky bouquets of empty rhetoric and sophistry. "Subsidizing the rich to help the poor" joins "Destroying the village to save it" in the annals of lies told to the American people by the right wing of the modern Republican party.

The GOP, and John McCain especially, love to tell stories. One of the oldest chestnuts that is dusted-off for every election is the old "Democrats raise your taxes and make deficits" line. Obama will significantly lower taxes, not raise them, for almost every single American, as well as many small businesses. Obama offers tax incentives to individuals and companies that invest in jobs, clean energy, and other positive steps which help us all. The last Democratic President gave us the Earned-Income Tax Credit, to help the middle class, and still did away with budget deficits and payed down more of the National Debt in one year than any Republican has paid-down in their entire life. McCain offers policies which will lead not only to more debt, but to a starvation of cities, towns, and state-aid which can only lead to even higher tax burdens than now for the middle-class who will see state and local taxes hiked, and local services pared back at a further loss of jobs and property values.

Obama plans to get the revenue needed for the jobs, energy, and recovery plans by closing the loopholes which have rewarded firms for sending jobs and capital overseas. He would adjust the tax code so that the most wealthy pay their fair share and working people, the middle class backbone of this country can survive and get ahead again. McCain wants to permanently enshrine the Bush tax code which has brought about the largest re-distribution of wealth in our Nation's history, from the poor and middle-class to the top 1% of the economic pyramid. Buffet deserves credit for telling it like it is, even though he has reaped billions that he does not need from these flawed policies. The scarier thing is that now, nobody is doing very well--not even the rich. Oh, they're still rich, but with this crisis, there really is is no net wealth being generated, rather it is dwindling away as the house of cards crashes down.

It is time to end the fiction that McCain and his cronies perpetuate, before it is too late to save this country. Without a break from the destructive policies and practices that the greed culture has enshrined the last years, we will see the continued decline of the middle class, and of what once made America great. We need the plan Barack Obama is offering, so that we can reclaim this country's strength as an economic giant, capable of driving innovation and progress around the world. Yes we can do it, Barack Obama and Joe Biden Believe it, Warren Buffet believes it, I believe it, and so should you.


And now for the facts:

2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html)

Notice how the more you make the greater the percentage taken by the government.



http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff135data--all%20charts.swf

under Percent of federal income tax paid by each group:

top 1% = 37%
top 10% = 68%
top 25% = 85%
bottom 50% = 3%

under percent of total AGI earned by each group

top 1% = 16%
top 10% = 42%
top 25% = 64 %
bottom = 14 %

so... the top 1 % pay 37% though they have 16 % of AGI
the bottom 50% pay 3% though they have 14 % of AGI

THIS CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM THAT THE RICH DO NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE - if anything they pay much more.


As to Warren Buffet - that is what he says. I would actually like to see his tax returns compared to that of his cleaning lady - just the facts and the proof - talk is cheap.
If he feels this is true - did he not act in good conscious and pay his fair share by sending the IRS more of his money?


As to gas prices : A Primer On Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html)

Notice how taxes are the same or more than the % profit per gallon. And what exactly has the government done to provide this product?

As to supply side or trickle down have you ever heard of trickle up? How does a poor person provide a job?

How does Obama plan to get revenue - confiscatory tax policy.
Why would multinational corp stay in the US and pay 36-39% tax under Obama when they can move to Ireland - along with their American jobs and tax base revenue - and pay less than 15%?

What do you think about that incredible spending from a man claiming to be a cost cutter?


Much of what Obama, and all candidates, past and present, have spent is contributions that was given them for the sole purpose to campaign. I'm sure if John McCain would just wave the white flag of surrender tomorrow, instead of about 8 pm on November 4th, the Obama campaign wouldn't have to buy up more commercial spots.

Does it seem wrong to anyone other than myself, that Obama who preaches to spread the wealth in taxing certain groups of citizens, retired persons, persons with stock funds, small businesses making over $200,000.......and giving this money to people who won't or can't work (We already pay welfare from our taxes) but has just spent in excess of $5 million for a half hour infomercial on several channels prime time, as well as continuous campaign ads throughout the day. Even if this money is legitimate as part of his campaign chest, so are my stocks and annuities that he wants me to spread around. What do you think about that incredible spending from a man claiming to be a cost cutter?

I think it means he's serious about running for president. He's not doing anything wrong in spending campaign funds in the course of campaigning. In this country, that's how it's done. If you want campaign finance reform, you should tell your elected officials that you want that and work towards it. McCain is using his budget differently.

(And I don't think Obama wants to give your stocks to someone else. That's just silly, like saying he wants to take your house, or give your dog or cat away. He's a politician, not a criminal. Unless your annual income after deductions is over $200,000, why would you worry? And if it is that high after all your deductions, why would you worry? :))

You whinge about $5million, yet probably don't have a problem with the hundreds of billions of dollars the US economy is in debt for, or the trillions of dollars your man Bush's two wars have cost... Weird!

Socialism is wonderful. Even Hitler thought so back in his day. 'Let's knock those rich Jews down and take their stuff. We deserve it as more than they do' So what if they were the ones who worked for it.

How could anyone interested in this election NOT have read up on Socialism? Some are still around that remember living it....(no, not me)
Socialism includes the creation of an egalitarian society that says all people are to be treated as equals and have the same political and civil rights. In the early days of our nation, only propertied white men, the wealthy and educated ones, were allowed to vote. After Andrew Jackson's presidency, there was a push to give all white freemen the vote, even if they didn't own property. How long did it take before people of color and women were allowed to vote?

Doesn't Christianity practice socialism? For background, read Amos and the Gospels and the Book of Acts. The perfect socialist community is a monastery. A friend was hysterical the day she found out that a criminal who turned to Christ on his deathbed would get to heaven just as quickly as she would after spending her entire life in the service of her church.

about our "progressive tax system";a European group has determined that the US already has the most "progressive " tax system in the free world .



.. a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population."

.. the U.S. collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation's income.
Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.

The study also shows that while most countries rely more on cash transfers than taxes to redistribute income, the U.S. stands out as "achieving greater redistribution through the tax system than through cash transfers

The Tax Foundation - News To Obama: The OECD Says The United States Has The Most Progressive Tax System (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html)

Re: spending his campaign money.

I see nothing wrong with it either. Part of me is pleased that McCain is being burnt by the anti-free speech reforms he introduced into the process with McCain/Feingold "reforms" .

However I think it is very telling that one of Obama's 1st pledges in this campaign was to live by the rules of Federal Matching limits .He swiftly broke that pledge ;and most likely will do "a Clinton" on his proposed middle-class tax cuts also.

And now for the facts:

2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html)

Notice how the more you make the greater the percentage taken by the government.



http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff135data--all%20charts.swf

under Percent of federal income tax paid by each group:

top 1% = 37%
top 10% = 68%
top 25% = 85%
bottom 50% = 3%

under percent of total AGI earned by each group

top 1% = 16%
top 10% = 42%
top 25% = 64 %
bottom = 14 %

so.... the top 1 % pay 37% though they have 16 % of AGI
the bottom 50% pay 3% though they have 14 % of AGI

THIS CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM THAT THE RICH DO NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE - if anything they pay much more.


As to Warren Buffet - that is what he says. I would actually like to see his tax returns compared to that of his cleaning lady - just the facts and the proof - talk is cheap.
If he feels this is true - did he not act in good conscious and pay his fair share by sending the IRS more of his money?


As to gas prices : A Primer On Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html)

Notice how taxes are the same or more than the % profit per gallon. And what exactly has the government done to provide this product?

As to supply side or trickle down have you ever heard of trickle up? How does a poor person provide a job?

How does Obama plan to get revenue - confiscatory tax policy.
Why would multinational corp stay in the US and pay 36-39% tax under Obama when they can move to Ireland - along with their American jobs and tax base revenue - and pay less than 15%?

This is a wonderful explanation. I posted it on my 360 blog but the Obamamites don't want to hear what actually is happening. They live in lalaland.

That's an awful lot of people in lalaland!

So you're saying if Obama wins the election vote the majority of the people are bad, wrong and false simply because they don't agree with you? Sounds like it to me.

Bad or False? No.

Wrong? Well, I'm not sure that's the right answer either.

If Obama wins, that simply means that an agenda leaning towards socialism has been decided upon by the electoral college... and probably by a majority of voters.

I guess you'll have to suck it Rick, just like the people did when you guys voted him into power.

Socialism includes the creation of an egalitarian society that says all people are to be treated as equals and have the same political and civil rights. In the early days of our nation, only propertied white men, the wealthy and educated ones, were allowed to vote. After Andrew Jackson’s presidency, there was a push to give all white freemen the vote, even if they didn’t own property. How long did it take before people of color and women were allowed to vote?

Doesn't Christianity practice socialism? For background, read Amos and the Gospels and the Book of Acts. The perfect socialist community is a monastery. A friend was hysterical the day she found out that a criminal who turned to Christ on his deathbed would get to heaven just as quickly as she would after spending her entire life in the service of her church.


Christianity practices charity.

In order for Acts 4:32 to be possible
- The US would be acknowledged Christian - something against the establishment clause and can you imagine the uproar - we can't even utter God in the pledge or have 10 Commandments in courtrooms.

Certainly - in each Church community- this can be practiced.

Instead of the gov and taxpayors bailing out banks and the foreclosures, why don't collections be taken for those in the flock that are in financial trouble - this happens at my church:)

And for those outside the church - Salvation Army - God's Pantry to name some.

For me to bless others because God has blessed me, comes from the heart; not from government mandate.

Instead of the gov and taxpayors bailing out banks and the foreclosures, why don't collections be taken for those in the flock that are in financial trouble - this happens at my church:)

That's what taxes are, collections for those in financial trouble. They pay for unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, etc. Of course, taxes are also used to support our military and to build roads, airports, the internet, etc--things that everyone benefits from, not just those in need. Paying taxes is patriotic and also christian. You don't have to choose. :)

As for the bailout, it's not clear yet how much will go to mortgages. Of the $700 billion given to financial institutions so far, $40 billion is going to a handful of executives who are owed various bonuses and deferred compensation. They are apparently getting paid right off the top, so they don't have to wait or worry about not getting their "due."

You read it right. Forty billion dollars to just a few people whose bad decisions helped wreck our economy. Hopefully, we can at least agree that's pretty offensive.

"you don't have to choose"

Yes, let autocratic forms of government choose for you.

Do Obama or Biden give 10% ?






Patriotism, taxes, and charity (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/080924)

From 1998 to 2006, Joe and his wife had adjusted gross incomes ranging from $210,432 to $321,379. The most they gave to charity in any one year was $380. He played Daddy Warbucks in 2007, however, donating a whopping $995. That was also the year he announced he was running for president.

Coincidentally, a similar pattern emerges in Barack and Michelle Obama's generosity. From 2000 through 2004, less than one percent of their income went for charitable giving. By 2005, about the time Barack figured out the Nation was intensely yearning for change and hope and "present" votes, charities received more than four percent of the Obamas' income. Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church was given $5,000 in 2005 by the Obamas, who increased it to $22,500 the next year. Someone in the Family Obama must have liked what they were hearing from Wright's pulpit.





https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamas-half-hour-infomercials-275295-5.html#post1349400

Do you get to choose which individuals get your donations to the collection box? Or do you trust an "autocratic" parson to decide?

I don't know how much Obama and McCain each give away to churches or good causes. But I'm not sure how that's relevant to whether taxes are a bad thing or not. I don't know any church that builds freeways anyway. :)

Good for you for giving 10%! I think everyone above a certain income level should do that. I don't think people who only make $10,000 a year should have to though. But then I believe that taxes and tithing are patriotic.

Inthebox,
After you asked about the generosity of the candidates, I was curious and this is what I came up with from various sources, hopefully reliable. The numbers on Obama and Biden are from a conservative blogger/accountant. The info on McCain and Palin came from Wikipedia.

Candidate Donations Income Taxes Paid
Biden (2007) 0.31% to charity ($995) 319,853 (adjusted) $66,273
Palin (2007) 1.5% to charity ($3325) 166,080 (adjusted) $24,738
Obama (2006) 6.1 to charity ($60,307) 983,826 (adjusted) $277,481
McCain* (2007) 26% to charity ($105,467) 258,800 (taxable) $84,460

*McCain's numbers do not include his wife's personal income OR business income.
Mrs. McCain along with her children and John McCain's son Andrew own 68% of the stock in a beer distributor whose annual revenues in 2000 were more than $220 million.

Besides his charitable giving, Obama also paid WAY more in taxes than any of the others. To me, that's a form of tithing, even if a lot of it goes to pay for bombs and bonuses for wall street executives. So I'd say Obama is the most generous, Palin a distant second.

To me, the two who look the worst are Biden and McCain. They could both afford to give more than they do.

This is a wonderful explanation. I posted it on my 360 blog but the Obamamites don't want to hear what actually is happening. They live in lalaland.


Ironically I've found that much of the information you believe is true is factually incorrect. The wealthy affluent people in this country can afford what the middle and lower class is not able. Here shortly the drugstore cowboy is heading back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas to BBQ for his fat cat oil friends.

Do you get to choose which individuals get your donations to the collection box? or do you trust an "autocratic" parson to decide?

I don't know how much Obama and McCain each give away to churches or good causes. But I'm not sure how that's relevant to whether taxes are a bad thing or not. I don't know any church that builds freeways anyway. :)

Good for you for giving 10%! I think everyone above a certain income level should do that. I don't think people who only make $10,000 a year should have to though. But then I believe that taxes and tithing are patriotic.


At the church I attend, tithing or whatever donations I give ARE NOT MANDATORY; besides, I know the money is going to the church and its daily functions, or missions, or for school lunches etc..

That is the difference - I can give of my own CHOICE, not because the IRS is taking it away.

I can give to the Salvation Army or God's Pantry or the local pregnancy care center or the Red Cross - that is my choice. It does not effect you or make you HAVE TO donate too. I'm not making it law that the IRS takes a greater percentage of your income the more you make - look at the AGI tax income brackets.

Btw... what do you think of the IRS's own data on percent taxes from the top 1-25%


Where is the IRS data that Obama paid more in taxes than McCain or Palin or Biden? No link?

Do you find it odd that his percent of income giving to charity [ of which rev Wright's church was the major beneficiary ] only went up AFTER he decided to run for president?

That is the difference - I can give of my own CHOICE, not because the IRS is taking it away.
You don't pay taxes by April 15th?

I think it means he's serious about running for president. He's not doing anything wrong in spending campaign funds in the course of campaigning. In this country, that's how it's done. If you want campaign finance reform, you should tell your elected officials that you want that and work towards it. McCain is using his budget differently.

(And I don't think Obama wants to give your stocks to someone else. That's just silly, like saying he wants to take your house, or give your dog or cat away. He's a politician, not a criminal. Unless your annual income after deductions is over $200,000, why would you worry? And if it is that high after all your deductions, why would you worry? :))

Now you're being silly. I never thought he wanted my property... he just wants the money that I've saved through my own efforts so he can pass it on to someone who hasn't done that. I've worked all my life and invested pretty much all my savings in some form of stock. When Obama says he will raise taxes on Capital Gains, he is surely counting me in. I already pay taxes on that and the money remains there... now you think I should pay more for them to hold my money for me?

Inheritance taxes which were removed a few years ago will resume. Why should the government take money intended for people's family after they die? Why?

There are many more taxes than just income taxes. You should take a look at the actual chart and you'll probably find yourself fitting in there too.

I think since I pay the taxes I owe, whatever I choose to do with the rest of my money should be my choice. This was once a free country. I don't need an even bigger government to decide for me. They have enough control of the citizens as it is.

FactCheck.org: Would Obama tax my profits if I sell my home? Would he tax my IRA? Would he tax my water? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html)


"No. A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false. Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.


Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links.


Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.

Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.


Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.


Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000."[/QUOTE]

Doesn't it bother you that you invested your life savings in the stock market and your life savings lost so much of its value--something like 40% if you are index funds? That's a much bigger loss than a minor increase in the capital gains tax. I'm puzzled by your priorities.

As for the estate tax, the first $2 million is exempt from the estate tax. And you can put your money in a trust to evade the estate tax entirely if you want--which most people with substantial assets do.

What exactly are you worried about, that your children will have only one house each instead of three? Seriously, I don't see what problem you have. Again, the government is not going to take your stocks away. Only Wall Street can do that.

You would have to be extraordinarily wealthy to be affected by Obama's proposed tax increases. Almost everyone on this list would see a tax decrease.

I'm so sick of his lies, and his associations, but mostly, I'm sickened by the number of people who actually believe him.

While it does appear that he may well be our next president, instead of cheering and jumping up and down, any true American should be praying for our future, what little there may be.

The only hope we have is that enough of you Obama lovers, will wake up in time to make the right choice on Tuesday, and save our once great Nation from certain doom.

I'm so sick of his lies, and his associations, but mostly, I'm sickened by the number of people who actually believe him.

While it does appear that he may well be our next president, instead of cheering and jumping up and down, any true American should be praying for our future, what little there may be.

The only hope we have is that enough of you Obama lovers, will wake up in time to make the right choice on Tuesday, and save our once great Nation from certain doom.

Wow! You should keep these prejudice sermons of politico religiosity to yourself. You do have a very poor holier-than-thou attitude! Get over yourself. First off, I do pray daily, and secondly I'm a true American. FYI Atheists and Agnostics are also true Americans. After the past eight years of Republican leadership, if you're now getting sick, you've apparently just awoken from a deep coma. BTW I already early voted for Barack Obama, so I don't have to wait until Tuesday.

First off, I do pray daily, and secondly I'm a true American. FYI Atheists and Agnostics are also true Americans.

Nice.

Wow! You should keep these prejudice sermons of politico religiosity to yourself. You do have a very poor holier-than-thou attitude! Get over yourself. First off, I do pray daily, and secondly I'm a true American. FYI Atheists and Agnostics are also true Americans. After the past eight years of Republican leadership, if you're now getting sick, you've apparently just awoken from a deep coma. BTW I already early voted for Barack Obama, so I don't have to wait until Tuesday.

I voted for Obama early too. I wonder what these blind sheep Republicans would consider a bad President. Can't they see that Dubya has led this nation to the brink of ruin?

They had 8 years to get it right, and they screwed it all up. Out with the bums, that's how Democracy works; so stop crying about Obama you had your 8 year chance and you screwed the pooch as they say.

Thomas Sowell : A Perfect Storm - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/30/a_perfect_storm)




Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.




Liberals like to think they are smart enough to impose what they think as good on us all by methods they think will get us there.

I'm a Republican and disgusted about has been going on during the past eight years.

Go Obama!

I'm a Republican and disgusted about has been going on during the past eight years.

Go Obama!

I'm sorry but a true Republican is one because of ethics, values and policy. We don't change parties because one president has disappointed us. I dislike Bush too - but I remember what the party is about and I don't see McCain as Bush, as much as that image has benefited the Democrats this year.

Obama has promised the stars and will have no means to deliver. Go Bama!

I'm sorry but a true Republican is one because of ethics, values and policy. We don't change parties because one president has disappointed us. I dislike Bush too - but I remember what the party is about and I don't see McCain as Bush, as much as that image has benefited the Democrats this year.

Obama has promised the stars and will have no means to deliver. Go Bama!
I have matured as a voter and have pledged to myself to vote for the person who has the best and most constructive platform and who offers the greatest hope for change. If that person is Republican, fine. If that person is a Democrat, fine. If that person is from some other party, fine. I will no longer vote for a Republican just because of party loyalty.

The Republican party is not the one I grew up with. It has become mean-spirited and authoritarian and caters to wealthy white guys. What "the party is about" now is not healthy and is not what this country needs.

I like McCain. I even like Palin. They would be fun guests at Thanksgiving dinner. But I don't want them to run my country. They bring divisiveness; Obama inspires unity. (I've heard it loud and clear as a campaign caller. Undecided voters in Indiana who want to help not only themselves but also their neighbors. Women in NC who long to connect with successful women elsewhere and meanwhile learn how to give a hand up to those more in need than they are--and meanwhile share family stories and recipes with me, their caller.)

The citizens of this country must stop being hyphenated Americans and must begin to pull together as simply Americans. The will is there; only a leader is needed.

I'm sorry but a true Republican is one because of ethics, values and policy. We don't change parties because one president has disappointed us. I dislike Bush too - but I remember what the party is about and I don't see McCain as Bush, as much as that image has benefited the Democrats this year.

Obama has promised the stars and will have no means to deliver. Go Bama!

One President has disappointed? The Republican's had control of the house and Senate for 6 years under Bush; it's not only Bush that screwed it up. How can you endorse a party that doesn't share your values. Republican after Republican has been caught in some sort of sexual or corruption scandal. Geez, even John McCain had an affair on his disfigured first wife and divorced her and then married Cindy McCain. His first wife remained faithful to him while he was a POW and then he comes back and dumps her for a younger, non disfigured woman. Those are Republican/Christian values? Are these the values you share; adultery, divorce, betrayal?

Do you know that he is an abusive husband to Cindy and once told her that her makeup made her look like a tramp and called her a c... nt? Is that another Republican value you share; to treat women like dirt?


The word in Washington for years is John McCain is one of the sleeziest politician's around, and he says his involvement in trying to stop legislation which would have brought regulation to the savings and loan industry which directly benefited his family friend who owed Lincoln Savings and Load and was convicted of fraud to the tune of 3.2 billion; was the worst mistake of his life. Well, he only admitted it because he was caught. Again, are these the values you share?

Also, did you see the RNC? I counted 5 people of color in the entire arena. Now if you are for a white people only party with the odd token colored person then you can state it directly that you are looking out for whitey and that's a value you like in the Republican party. Ask yourself, if the Republican party is so diverse and loves people of all races and cultures, then why do the local delegates only elect white people to represent them at the convention? Is that a value you share?

Do you share the Republican notion of every man and woman for themselves? If so, then you support that there should not be public schooling. Schools should compete and people should pay for them themselves. If that were the case you would have millions of kids going without an education reducing our global competitiveness. Hence a social program like education for all benefits industry and corporate America by preparing them to enter the workforce. Do you share the everyone only helps themselves Republican mantra or are you willing to help your fellow American's through a social program that strengthens our nation economically.

Don't be a pin-head kool-aid drinking Limbaugh loser.

Also, did you see the RNC? I counted 5 people of color in the entire arena.
The official count was 16.

Whoopi mentioned on "The View" that the cameramen kept showing the same black man from different angles, so it looked like there were lots of black men there.

I guess I am not a true American since I'll be voting for Obama, whatever that mean.

I guess I am not a true American since I'll be voting for Obama, whatever that mean.

Lol... yes, the Republican's only find you a true American if you believe in them, or the war, or taking from the middle class and giving to the rich (spreading the wealth upward). Those are true American's. Oh, and it helps if you are white too.

One President has disappointed? The Republican's had control of the house and Senate for 6 years under Bush; it's not only Bush that screwed it up. How can you endorse a party that doesn't share your values. Republican after Republican has been caught in some sort of sexual or corruption scandal. Geez, even John McCain had an affair on his disfigured first wife and divorced her and then married Cindy McCain. His first wife remained faithful to him while he was a POW and then he comes back and dumps her for a younger, non disfigured woman. Those are Republican/Christian values? Are these the values you share; adultery, divorce, betrayal?

Do you know that he is an abusive husband to Cindy and once told her that her makeup made her look like a tramp and called her a c...nt? Is that another Republican value you share; to treat women like dirt?


The word in Washington for years is John McCain is one of the sleeziest politician's around, and he says his involvement in trying to stop legislation which would have brought regulation to the savings and loan industry which directly benefited his family friend who owed Lincoln Savings and Load and was convicted of fraud to the tune of 3.2 billion; was the worst mistake of his life. Well, he only admitted it because he was caught. Again, are these the values you share?

Also, did you see the RNC? I counted 5 people of color in the entire arena. Now if you are for a white people only party with the odd token colored person then you can state it directly that you are looking out for whitey and that's a value you like in the Republican party. Ask yourself, if the Republican party is so diverse and loves people of all races and cultures, then why do the local delegates only elect white people to represent them at the convention? Is that a value you share?

Do you share the Republican notion of every man and woman for themselves? If so, then you support that there should not be public schooling. Schools should compete and people should pay for them themselves. If that were the case you would have millions of kids going without an education reducing our global competitiveness. Hence a social program like education for all benefits industry and corporate America by preparing them to enter the workforce. Do you share the everyone only helps themselves Republican mantra or are you willing to help your fellow American's through a social program that strengthens our nation economically.

Don't be a pin-head kool-aid drinking Limbaugh loser.

The truth be told, I don't support either of the main parties so I have to choose the one I believe is better able to take care of us in the event of another terrorist attack on this country that I love. John McCain has many years in government service and in military service. Obama has what? 143 days in government service?

I hate the gossip that you've just put out there about John McCain. Do you not think a man who's been held captive for five years might come home with different feelings about his wife? In this country with easy divorce in every direction, you would dare to take a piece of gossip that no one except the two parties in the divorce would know the absolute truth about, and continue to spread it like this is just keeping the nastiness going. No one knows the truth about my divorce and if they talked to me they would hear my truth, if they talked to him they would hear his truth - and they probably would be very different. I can't help but notice you didn't mention the children John and Cindy McCain have brought from other countries who needed tremendous care, surgeries, etc. and have loved and provided a home for. I guess we pick out the things to make a person look their worst and ignore those things that lift them up.

You say the Republicans are morally loose right on the heels of Clinton?? Barney Frank? John Edwards? Marion Barry? Mayor Kilpatrick a Detroit Democrat was just removed from office and is now serving a jail term. Giulani - both Democrat and Republican... Even John F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy had many moral failings along the way.. . there are just too many to even name in both parties so it isn't a matter of parties but of individual character.

I already help people who are having hard times. It's called welfare... food stamps, medicaid, among many other programs. I also contribute to many charities on my own. I don't need a government to tell me to do it. That goes for many, many people as you could determine by the amount of money this country donates to disasters around the world.

I want smaller government - not larger.

The schools are poorly run. Here in Detroit they found 100's of brand new books and computers in dumpsters, which were supposed to be in classrooms. The teachers dare not discipline a student no matter what the student does... guns in classrooms is the norm now. Yes, we can use Charter schools and do a better job.

My opinion.

I don't think anyone has said anything about race, so why have you? I think it would be wonderful to have an African American president. It's been time for that for awhile... It doesn't have to be the first one that presents himself either.

I hate the gossip that you've just put out there about John McCain. Do you not think a man who's been held captive for five years might come home with different feelings about his wife?
It's not gossip. It's information that has been documented from quotes not only by Carol, the first wife, but also by John McCain. The story of her car accident, her losing four inches of height (had been a swimsuit model), and her increase in weight all happened while he was in Nam. She supported him during his captivity by sending letters and gifts (none got to him). When he finally came home, both were in rehab and they tried to make a go of their marriage. Carol says his interest in other women was due to who he was inside, his immaturity, and not because of his scars from captivity. He has publicly acknowledged he was wrong and had treated her very badly. He proposed to Cindy while he was still married to Carol, yet to this day, Carol supports him and says he would be a good president.

The truth be told, I don't support either of the main parties so I have to choose the one I believe is better able to take care of us in the event of another terrorist attack on this country that I love. John McCain has many years in government service and in military service. Obama has what? 143 days in government service?

Terrorist attacks are coming, just look at the rest of the world. We can't keep drugs or people from coming across our border, what makes you think that we can keep another terrorist attack from coming. The truth is, we can't. In a free society and economy, the borders have to be open for the free flow of goods in and out of our country; with open borders and the fact that we have so much coastline, any terrorist with serious intentions can get into the country just as easily as drugs and drug smugglers come into this country every day.

As for who is best suited to reduce this threat, I believe Obama's plan for redirecting our resources out of Iraq into more funding for intelligence and focusing on where the leaders of the terrorists have always been in Afganistan and Pakistan and directing funds to border security is a wiser course of action; but I don't fault you for choosing McCain in this regard if his military experience speaks to you more strongly.




I hate the gossip that you've just put out there about John McCain. Do you not think a man who's been held captive for five years might come home with different feelings about his wife? In this country with easy divorce in every direction, you would dare to take a piece of gossip that no one except the two parties in the divorce would know the absolute truth about, and continue to spread it like this is just keeping the nastiness going. No one knows the truth about my divorce and if they talked to me they would hear my truth, if they talked to him they would hear his truth - and they probably would be very different. I can't help but notice you didn't mention the children John and Cindy McCain have brought from other countries who needed tremendous care, surgeries, etc. and have loved and provided a home for. I guess we pick out the things to make a person look their worst and ignore those things that lift them up.

The reason I bring it up is that the Republican party seems to liken itself to the guardian's of family values; christian values I might add. I am surprised that the evangelicals would even support John McCain at all because he is a divorced man, never mind the details.

As for the child they adopted from another country, that was Cindy McCain's doing, she surprised him. Did he support her decision, yes. Do I applaud him for it, absolutely. However, it must be mentioned that John McCain spends most of his time in Washington, always has and Cindy does not live their with him, she lives at home raising the children and being involved in her family business and charitable activities. John mostly just flys home on the weekends. Not unlike some men, but he's not a active hands on family first guy. All in all though, I have no problems with regard to his family as it is currently constructed, but you can't ignore Cindy's addiction to pills; this is a woman who felt lonely as John was more interested in whatever was going on in Washington and didn't know enough about his wife because of his absence from the home to notice.

As far as family values are concerned, to date Barrak Obama is married to Michelle his first and only wife and they have two wonderful little girls. There is no affair that lead to divorce, and by all accounts Barrak makes a point of being around his kids and being the best father he can be because he didn't have the experience of having a father around when he was a boy.

I understand life happens to people, and to John McCain, but the Republican's seem to excuse themselves when it comes to their own who go off the ideal track while smearing Democrats as sin committing heathen's.

It's the holier than though Republican mantra when comparing themselves to Democrats that drives me crazy.

So for me, on family values Barrak Obama scores higher than John McCain through both of their respective actions.


You say the Republicans are morally loose right on the heels of Clinton??? Barney Frank? John Edwards? Marion Barry? Mayor Kilpatrick a Detroit Democrat was just removed from office and is now serving a jail term. Giulani - both Democrat and Republican......Even John F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy had many moral failings along the way. .....there are just too many to even name in both parties so it isn't a matter of parties but of individual character.

I was simply reminding you that Republican's by their actions are not the protectors of virtue as they preach to be. When they tell the public that they are the party of values that American's hold dear to themselves and then betray those values, it's a farther fall from grace and a greater betrayal of those that believed in those values.

Both parties have their people that are going to make mistakes, and have people that life happens too.

My point is, both parties are equal in their indiscrestions; for you to believe that the Republican party values are somehow superior to Democrat ones to me points to someone who believes the propaganda and doesn't see the reality that our elected officials can be equally immoral on both sides.



I already help people who are having hard times. It's called welfare....food stamps, medicaid, among many other programs. I also contribute to many charities on my own. I don't need a government to tell me to do it. That goes for many, many people as you could determine by the amount of money this country donates to disasters around the world.

I want smaller government - not larger.

I agree, smaller government - not larger; but please include the military when you consider the size of government. Bush has spent more of our taxpayers money than any other in history, our yearly deficit is the highest in history, our national debt is breaking new records daily. Yet, he continues to cut taxes for the wealthy (Warren Buffet, the second richest man in America just endorsed Barrak Obama and said that he pays less tax as a percentage of his income than his cleaning lady does and challenged his wealthy colleagues to admit to the same and he would pay them $1 million dollars to say so publically) on the backs of the middle class who have to pay for the war and his out of control spending.

I believe in a hand up, not a hand out. Personally I believe all those on welfare need to earn it in some way. It could be cleaning the highway's, answering phones at government offices, etc. If they are getting paid, then they need to do something to earn it; and this could then turn into a skill that they could use to get a private sector job.



The schools are poorly run. Here in Detroit they found 100's of brand new books and computers in dumpsters, which were supposed to be in classrooms. The teachers dare not discipline a student no matter what the student does......guns in classrooms is the norm now. Yes, we can use Charter schools and do a better job.

That doesn't change the fact that I believe that every child has the right to an education, it can be done better and I am open to all idea's so long as that right is not infringed upon.

I believe that education is in better hands with Obama, he has worked in Education and I think he has a better handle on the real issues facing the school systems and parents in our nation than McCain who I think would just take a blunt instrument to it based on ideology.




My opinion.

I don't think anyone has said anything about race, so why have you? I think it would be wonderful to have an African American president. It's been time for that for awhile.... It doesn't have to be the first one that presents himself either.

As for race, it's a sore point with me towards the Republican's. Tell me why if the grassroots of the Republican party is so diverse and they want to embrace latinos, african-american's, etc. that the party can't at the local level send delegates of color to the RNC. Why does the RNC not reflect the diversity of our country?

If it matter's my skin color is considered white.

I likeyour statement about it being wonderful to have an African-American as President, and I respect your opinion that it doesn't have to be the first. However I am in disagreement, and while it is way down the list of reasons, the bonus for me is if Barrak Obama is elected President it will do this country a great service in terms of speaking to disenfranchised youths of color all over our nation. I think it's an important step in our nations history and if it is not seized at this moment, it might be another generation before it happens again.

Oh... and don't forget to vote!

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.  
* Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.  

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.  
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, and you're a maverick.  

* Graduate from Harvard law School and be President of the Law Review, and you are unstable.  
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.  

* If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and
Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.  
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.  

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.  
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.  

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.  
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.  

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.  
* If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.  

OK, much clearer to me now.'   The revolution will be televised.   Obama/Biden 2008        

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.  
* Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.  

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.  
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, and you're a maverick.  

* Graduate from Harvard law School and be President of the Law Review, and you are unstable.  
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.  

* If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and
Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.  
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.  

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.  
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.  

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.  
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.  

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.  
* If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.  

OK, much clearer to me now.'   The revolution will be televised.   Obama/Biden 2008        


Well said, you need to post that in as many places as you can before Nov. 4th.

Obama/Biden 08.

LIz28 - Aw geez. That's just plain and simple CRAP. Where is NK when the real CRAP is posted?

Anybody can find all the good points of one person and all the bad points of the other. Just like a high school kid.

Anybody can find all the good points of one person and all the bad points of the other. Just like a high school kid.And that's exactly what the converstaive have inundating this board with - looking for ways to shout out any bad points about Obama. For a while the board was being spammed incessantly with it. Time to even the score.

And that's exactly what the converstaive have inundating this board with - looking for ways to shout out any bad points about Obama. For a while the board was being spammed incessantly with it. Time to even the score.

Two wrongs don't make a right.:(

LIz28 - Aw geez. That's just plain and simple CRAP. Where is NK when the real CRAP is posted?

Anybody can find all the good points of one person and all the bad points of the other. Just like a high school kid.

I totally agree with you Purplewings. Maybe these people on this board will wake up and find themselves in a nice gulag one day courtesy of Barky if they don't "share the wealth" with him. He does not want to spread it around - he wants to keep it for himself and his cronies. Oh, well, it's going to be too late to undo this next dictator. I don't like him, never cared for the person and always will think him the moron, liar he truly is. No one here can change my thinking on this jerk, ever. I thought he was weird looking the first time I ever saw him. I haven't changed my opinion on that one either. I really liked the part where he's asking Bill Clinton recently for a lesson on economics. Hilarious. It's obvious he does not have a clue how to think for himself - he never had a real election where it was not rigged on his behalf courtesy of his Chicago handlers. I also like the fact that he got millions and millions of dollars for his campaign from people/companies outside this country. Doesn't that mean that he broke the FEC election campaign funding laws? It certainly does. I'm sure he'll pardon himself of any wrongdoing as soon as he's elected for life like any good dictator would do. I guess that's why Kim Jong of Korea likes him so much as he can see a wonderful reflection of himself in Barky. They'll get along just great dividing the world up or should I say carving the world up between themselves.

You seem a little disturbed twinkie...

You seem disturbed Skell considering you don't live in America.

Available now at your favorite supermarket.
"I can't believe it's not earned."

Wow. Way to go playing on all those racist stereotypes.
I'm actually shocked.

I totally agree with you Purplewings. Maybe these people on this board will wake up and find themselves in a nice gulag one day courtesy of Barky if they don't "share the wealth" with him. He does not want to spread it around - he wants to keep it for himself and his cronies. Oh, well, it's going to be too late to undo this next dictator. I don't like him, never cared for the person and always will think him the moron, liar he truly is. No one here can change my thinking on this jerk, ever. I thought he was weird looking the first time I ever saw him. I haven't changed my opinion on that one either. I really liked the part where he's asking Bill Clinton recently for a lesson on economics. Hilarious. It's obvious he does not have a clue how to think for himself - he never had a real election where it was not rigged on his behalf courtesy of his Chicago handlers. I also like the fact that he got millions and millions of dollars for his campaign from people/companies outside this country. Doesn't that mean that he broke the FEC election campaign funding laws? It certainly does. I'm sure he'll pardon himself of any wrongdoing as soon as he's elected for life like any good dictator would do. I guess that's why Kim Jong of Korea likes him so much as he can see a wonderful reflection of himself in Barky. They'll get along just great dividing the world up or should I say carving the world up between themselves.

Interesting since Sarah Palin decided to tax big oil in Alaska a bit extra and then give every Alaskan a check for $2k plus each as a result of her take from the rich and give to the poor. Wow a conservative who thinks the oil companies make too much and the middle class could use a break, sounds like Obama to me.
Somehow I know you are going to tell me it's not alike at all.

Warren Buffet the second richest man in America says that his tax rate is lower than his cleaning lady's. He challenges his wealthy colleagues to admit the same publicly and if they do he will pay them $1 million dollars. However, not one person has taken him up on his offer. Sharing the wealth is the corporate welfare the Bush administration has bestowed on the big corporations and the rich from the middle classes pockets. It's called stealing from the poor and giving to the rich and to make matters worse they reward fraud and corruption by bailing out Wall Street with taxpayers money as well.

So your argument about spreading the wealth holds no water, Obama will simply restore Reagan ear tax rates to the rich; they can offord it and give breaks to the middle class who earned it through their blood, sweat and tears.

You are simply a greedy SOB.

I wonder if Buffett would prefer a tax on wealth rather on income that he so successfully shelters. He is a hypocrite.

I wonder if Buffett would prefer a tax on wealth rather on income that he so successfully shelters. He is a hypocrite.

You said it, Tom. Buffer is planning to buy up all those mortgages the banks took back from people and make a ton more money off the misfortune of others. I'd say if he's stumping for Obama, he's got something big to gain from it. Just like Soros, who supports Obama and has tried to get America into socialism forever - and makes it no secret either. There was a time when Soros declared he would one day destroy us.

If the very rich are willing to pay higher income taxes than they do, why should you object and say they are hypocrites? What is it exactly that you afraid of losing? Either your annual income is over a quarter million, but you are still extremely anxious that you will somehow go without if you have to pay an extra few thousand to help someone else who is working 10 hours a day for $6/hour, no benefits; or else you don't make a quarter million dollars a year and are just an idealogue who hates the very idea of the public good. Oddly enough, what's good for your postman and your kids' teacher is also good for you.

Would the TaxHaters be happier without a fire department or a police department, so people could take care of burglars and burning houses on their own? Why should I pay taxes to protect your expensive house anyway? Why should I pay taxes to run a county road and a sewer line up to the 50 houses in your neighborhood, when the road across town that serves 5000 people is full of potholes and needs a new sewer line?

I'd be willing to bet that government services--taken as a whole-- disproportionately benefit the wealthy and the very wealthy.

It's certainly clear from the $700 billion bailout that the rich take that as a given. They assume they are first in line for government services. Don't forget that the first $40 Billion of that $700 Billion Bailout goes to executive IOUs at these failing (so-called free market companies). This $40 Billion is not current pay (there will be some of that too), but back pay. At some companies, the amount of back pay owed to a few executives is greater than the entire pension plan for every other worker at the same company.

Tell me about hypocrites.

Needed services like Fire Dept Police etc. are paid for primarily through local taxes. Whereas they are Federal responsibilities I gladly pay my share.

We are talking Federal Income taxes here and not local taxes and I think that any spending that is not ABSOLUTELY essential should be deeply cut before anyone is asked to contribute another dime. You want roads built ? Let the users pay for them with tolls and gas consumption taxes. INCOMES should be minimally taxed if at all.

I did NOT approve of the bail-out and resent having to shell that out. Both candidates are complicit in supporting it .


If the very rich are willing to pay higher income taxes than they do, why should you object and say they are hypocrites?

Because he is a hypocrite. He shelters INCOME .That is why his secretary pays more . Like I said .Ask him if he would gladly pay a WEALTH tax and he'd sing a different tune.

Because he is a hypocrite. He shelters INCOME .That is why his secretary pays more .Hello:

Let me explain some stuff here...

Tom is right. Buffet "shelters" income... But what does that mean? Is he breaking a law by doing that? Is he being UN-patriotic by doing that? Do YOU "shelter" income when you deduct your home interest from your taxable income??

If Buffet, like you, is following the law, why is that hypocritical? Of course, it isn't! Should he NOT follow the law?

If there ARE laws that allow zillioneres to "shelter" their income, which Republicans are responsible for that? Surely, no Democrat would have supported it.

excon

He is a hypocrite because he is not calling for the elimination of those shelters ;he is calling for higher income tax rates that would mostly hurt the $250,000 earner... oops ;$200,000 earner... oops $150,000earner... oops anyone in the higher brackets before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
Unlike Buffett ;these folks do not have teams of lawyers tucking their income away from the IRS grubbly hands. Their deduction may be only their home mortgage or some other small business related deductions .

If Buffet wants to pay more taxes so badly then he should do so. NO ONE IS STOPPING HIM !

Oops, $120,000...

G88ebXY2uaI

Hello Steve:

Yeah, it's a shame that politicians change their tax policy when the economy craters. In fact, because the economic crisis is just NOW unfolding, anybody who say's they're going to do such and such is just kidding... Uhhh, your guy too.

Besides, didn't we hear all this conservative, small government crap before?? I think we did, and I think we were lied to by YOUR dufus in chief. Why should you have another chance to lie again?

Soooooo, don't vote for Obama because of his tax policy. Vote for him because he's going to appoint Supreme Court Justices that strictly interpret the Constitution. They're not going to be ACTIVIST judges like Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.

I got other reasons you should vote for him if that doesn't float your boat.

excon

I love the way the liberals cannot respond to the links I posted on the IRS's data on who actually pays the nations income taxes.

Are you not disturbed that Obama's "rich" continues to make less and less money already?

Paraphrased from a letter in today's WSJ


If Obama believes the rich should spread the wealth in the name of fairness, why does he not "give" say 200 million of his own campaign money to McCain or Nader or Barr ----- or to charity?

I love the way the liberals cannot respond to the links I posted on the IRS's data on who actually pays the nations income taxes.

Are you not disturbed that Obama's "rich" continues to make less and less money already?

Let's define rich. I say that someone making $250,000/year is rich. Do we agree? Or are you talking about some other income level?

So no I'm not disturbed that the rich "are making less and less money," because I don't believe that's true. I think you may be confusing the people in the middle class that are sinking into the underclass with the upper middle class that have become grotesquely wealthy in the last 2 decades.

I didn't see your link. All data for many years have shown that the American middle class is evaporating. Some of us are become extremely wealthy, while almost everyone else has a lower standard of living than their parents did. You haven't noticed?

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ex=1332820800&en=fb472e72466c34c8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

For example:


.. . the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

I don't know anyone who is worth 440 times the minimum wage.

The minimum wages now is just under $7/hr. 440 times 7/hr is about $3000/hour. Are you really defending someone who makes that much money? Especially when many of those hours are spent having lunch with other people making $3000/hour?

And of course, if you average together the people in the bottom half, they make more than $7/hr. Maybe $10? $12. So the people at the top are making at least $4000/hr, if not $5000/hr. Yes, there are really people who make that much.

I'm guessing you don't earn that much inthebox. So why do you care so much about whether someone who makes $10K-$40K/DAY can buy a new jet or house this year or has to wait until next year because their other spending is already so high? Is it because the rich DESERVE $4000/hour because they work so hard? Whereas, the waitress with two kids and two jobs never worked hard and is lazy and doesn't deserve to have good dental care? I don't even understand the reasoning. I assume it's personal. But since I can't politely ask about your own income, I'm baffled why presumably ordinary people defend such greediness and materialism.

Also from the 2007 New York Times article:


The Bush administration argued that its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, had not added to the widening gap but “made the tax code more progressive, not less.” Brookly McLaughlin, the chief Treasury Department spokeswoman, said that this year “the share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher.”

"Progressive taxes" is code for REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH.

What is Bush? Some kind of socialist? :)

Paraphrased from a letter in today's WSJ


If Obama believes the rich should spread the wealth in the name of fairness, why does he not "give" say 200 million of his own campaign money to McCain or Nader or Barr ----- or to charity?That's the same argument that goes along the lines of "If you are not against the war then why are you not in Iraq right now?" It's idiotic and serves no purpose but to set up a strawman.

I love the way the liberals cannot respond to the links I posted on the IRS's data on who actually pays the nations income taxes.

Are you not disturbed that Obama's "rich" continues to make less and less money already?


I don't know if you count myself among the liberal population, but between my family and work responsibilities checking this site for arguments is an afterthought. BTW I've rarely read any posts here that are beyond questionable or debatable, especially foaming from the mouths of the Dubya tribe. I help with misnomers. What exactly are you wanting to comprehend about taxation and the IRS?? That I personally don't account for paying more taxes than Bill Gates. How silly! When I start generating his income, then I'll be more than happy to help the country and pay much more.

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.  
* Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.  

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.  
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, and you're a maverick.  

* Graduate from Harvard law School and be President of the Law Review, and you are unstable.  
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.  

* If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and
Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.  
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.  

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.  
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.  

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.  
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.  

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.  
* If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.  

OK, much clearer to me now.'   The revolution will be televised.   Obama/Biden 2008        


LOVE it! And I'm going to repost this if you don't mind, on my myspace =)

Paraphrased from a letter in today's WSJ


If Obama believes the rich should spread the wealth in the name of fairness, why does he not "give" say 200 million of his own campaign money to McCain or Nader or Barr ----- or to charity?


And do what? Buy seven more homes?

And do what? Buy seven more homes?!

Very good!

McCain isn't exactly financially needy, at least as long as he sticks with Cindy Hensen McCain. Anyway, the people who donated to the Obama campaign would be pretty unhappy if any of it went to McCain. That would be even worse than the $40 billion of bailout going to back pay for the executives who created the mess.

I guess making that big a mess was exceptionally hard work.

en=fb472e72466c34c8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows - New York Times[/url]

I posted the opposite earlier. According to the latest Census Bureau figures (http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf) (pdf):


Income inequality decreased between 2006 and 2007, as measured by the shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index.

he is a hypocrite because he is not calling for the elimination of those shelters ;he is calling for higher income tax rates that would mostly hurt the $250,000 earner ....oops ;$200,000 earner ....oops $150,000earner .....oops anyone in the higher brackets before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
Unlike Buffett ;these folks do not have teams of lawyers tucking their income away from the IRS grubbly hands. Their deduction may be only their home mortgage or some other small business related deductions .

If Buffet wants to pay more taxes so badly then he should do so. NO ONE IS STOPPING HIM !

Buffet's a very intelligent financial advisor. These arguments about a person making 250k a year not making ends meat, worried about taxation, when the vast majority of combined two income households in the US don't even make 80k is proof that the Pubs are way out of touch.

Buffet's a very intelligent financial advisor. These arguments about a person making 250k a year not making ends meat, worried about taxation, when the vast majority of combined two income households in the US don't even make 80k is proof that the Pubs are way out of touch.

I didn't see anything of a person making 250k a year "not making ends meat [sic]" in tom's post, but I guess that was just another one of those "misnomers" you help people out with. If my eyes didn't deceive me (and they didn't) he said "these folks do not have teams of lawyers tucking their income away from the IRS grubbly hands" as does say, Warren Buffet. How many 250k...oops; 200k...oops; 150k...oops; 120k earners do you know that can afford "teams of lawyers" to tuck their money away?

Yeah Bobby ;maybe one day I aspire to achieve his success. It won't happen because he has a much higher risk threshold than I do .

But I wonder if he would bother if he knew his initial successes had too many artificial road blocks contructed in front of them.

I am and always will be a worker. The degrees of success I have achieved are due to my hard work. But I did not go out and risk all to get to where I am. I found a rich guy who would hire me.

All evidence I see is that employers will reduce staffing if increased taxes are imposed.

Yeah that will help out Main Street!

I didn't see anything of a person making 250k a year "not making ends meat [sic]" in tom's post, but I guess that was just another one of those "misnomers" you help people out with. If my eyes didn't deceive me (and they didn't) he said "these folks do not have teams of lawyers tucking their income away from the IRS grubbly hands" as does say, Warren Buffet. How many 250k...oops; 200k...oops; 150k...oops; 120k earners do you know that can afford "teams of lawyers" to tuck their money away?


Hey snappy pants... then why make it an issue?? Remember that lesson you learned the hard way about counting the teeth in my mouth? You're going to draw back a nub... again. Are you whining about making 250K when combined household incomes are not even close to that 120K number??

All evidence I see is that employers will reduce staffing if increased taxes are imposed.




Too late. Welcome to reality! People are being laid off in our country, left and right. This idea of threatening the middle and lower class with fear for your upper class trickle down BS buddies, has worn thin. What? Some corporate executive bigwig is going to kick the individual he just laid off out of the unemployment line because he's not getting a huge bonus this year? Bwa ha ha ha!

Hey snappy pants....then why make it an issue??? Remember that lesson you learned the hard way about counting the teeth in my mouth? You're going to draw back a nub....again. Are you whining about making 250K when combined household incomes are not even close to that 120K number???

Snappy pants? Lesson I learned? Whoa... I'm so scared. Besides, I can't even see your teeth while you're in this position...

Snappy pants? Lesson I learned? Whoa...I'm so scared. Besides, I can't even see your teeth while you're in this position...

Oh yes you can! I have to keep you somewhere.. my little happy turd! ;)

http://www.buzzworks.nl/files/products/LM_Happy_Turd.jpg

Yeah, we love how John McCain talks to his wife Cindy those are family values that all American's aspire too.

Me neither. No teeth at all. Lol

I don't know much about much, but it's easy to ascertain that the corporate heads have much more education and ability to direct huge companies than the average person, and should be paid more. Because of their direction, millions of ordinary people have jobs.

What I read here with those who think it's OK to change the tax levels on people who make more money... ($250,000 is not rich by my standards, although I would be happy to make that much) is just plain jealousy. If you feel jealous, go to college and get the degrees, and put in the extra time and energy it takes to raise your own level of living. Then see if you feel it's fine that you should be paying more than the average citizen.

Suppose you suddenly hit a big lottery or something else that substantially increased your income. Wouldn't you be saying something like: "Well, I had to be poor a long time before I had this break so why should I give it to people who haven't put in the time and energy that I have?"

Those who provide jobs for others deserve some thanks for doing so - Where would those others be without those who generate the jobs? I don't know how much more they deserve, but it seems obvious they are putting more money into the government coffers simply by keeping others paying taxes and spending money.

I don't think the managers of McDonald's fall into the wealth range much more than their employees do. I'm referring to the production line in the auto factories where the ordinary person makes $20 to $35 an hour. Put 100,000 people into that category and look how much money is taxed at regular rates, and how much spending is done to create a better economy.

Let's punish those who have created and maintained these positions by raising their taxes. When they get tired of it, they can just leave this country and take their expertise some place that won't over tax them so highly.

Me neither. No teeth at all. lol.


Not even false teeth? Dentures? Just teasing with you. :rolleyes:


I don't know much about much, but it's easy to ascertain that the corporate heads have much more education and ability to direct huge companies than the average person, and should be paid more. Because of their direction, millions of ordinary people have jobs..

You'd be wrong. Actually some of the smartest business minds that built this country had little formal eduction. I know corporate execs today that got position hires by having pull. Don't fool yourself.


What I read here with those who think it's ok to change the tax levels on people who make more money....($250,000 is not rich by my standards, although I would be happy to make that much) is just plain jealousy. If you feel jealous, go to college and get the degrees, and put in the extra time and energy it takes to raise your own level of living. Then see if you feel it's fine that you should be paying more than the average citizen.


How ironic! Thanks to Dubya there's good edcuated people roaming the unemployment lines with college degrees. Maybe they're jealous for wanting to eat? For goodness sakes PW! How much money are you banking? Wow! 250K is over four times the average household income in the US. BTW I graduated form broadcasting school, although I've been working credit in Vegas for the past twelve years. I've survived the lay-offs thus far.



Suppose you suddenly hit a big lottery or something else that substantially increased your income. Wouldn't you be saying something like: "Well, I had to be poor a long time before I had this break so why should I give it to people who haven't put in the time and energy that I have?"


Are you kidding me? In that circumstance, I'd be happy to have to pay more taxes.


Those who provide jobs for others deserve some thanks for doing so - Where would those others be without those who generate the jobs? I don't know how much more they deserve, but it seems obvious they are putting more money into the government coffers simply by keeping others paying taxes and spending money..


You mean for some companies. However in many cases that's not reality. Most large corporations have downsized even in good times. Any expansion is done with absolute necessary help only. Those customer service classes and seminars of the nineties are almost extinct in major corps today. They were on the out long before executive bonuses were even thought about being slashed.


I don't think the managers of McDonald's fall into the wealth range much more than their employees do. I'm referring to the production line in the auto factories where the ordinary person makes $20 to $35 an hour. Put 100,000 people into that category and look how much money is taxed at regular rates, and how much spending is done to create a better economy.


I can't imagine that McDonald's management is paid all that much either, perhaps 40 to 50K depnding on the area of the country. But what is your argument about the people making to 20 to 35 dollars in this economy knowing the cost of living haven risen, and with inflation up the yang yang?? You know that under the Dubya's disastrous two terms they've been laid-off and the middle and lower classes have already cut normal spending and are on frugal budgets.



Let's punish those who have created and maintained these positions by raising their taxes. When they get tired of it, they can just leave this country and take their expertise some place that won't over tax them so highly.

Poor things. Multimillionaires are considered being punished for paying more taxes. Oh! Cry me a river. Put me in that punish category... please! Lottery ticket, donations, whatever, etc... Punish me! Punish me! All the way to the bank!

You wouldn't have to go to the bank if your money were being redistributed. Just hand it over to Obama and save gasoline.

(You'd be wrong. Actually some of the smartest business minds that built this country had little formal eduction. I know corporate execs today that got position hires by having pull. Don't fool yourself.)

When this country was built people were lucky to go through elementary school. That's not a reality in this time. More people, more skills required.. more competition. Your friends who got top positions through pull still have to produce or they wouldn't hold onto their position very long.

I know I'm not wrong about the corporate heads, as far as this state, being extremely well educated. I worked with many of them over my 14 years at General Motors, and knew many who went back to school to get the highest possible degree to better themselves. Even I went back to school while working full time and it was no picnic.

Also, even though there are many people laid off right now, there are many more who are still holding onto their jobs... gratefully.

I don't really worry or care too much about the multi-millionaires or billionaires... they can take care of themselves. But those in the $150,000 - $250,000 range need their money as much as you or I. Perhaps our cost of living is higher than some other places.

I suppose it's easy to say you wouldn't mind giving half your money away to the government with some distant fantasy floating in your head, but in reality, I think you would.

The bottom line is that those huge corporations that hire many people will easily leave this country if the government pushes too hard. They can get cheaper labor and supplies elsewhere so why not? Then there are NO jobs.

You wouldn't have to go to the bank if your money were being redistributed. Just hand it over to Obama and save gasoline.

Too late! It already be redistributed under Dubya's presidency... mainly to his buddies and that adventure of his into Iraq. The man will go back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas and BBQ for his close friends, while the mainstream Pubs attempt to scapegoat Obama the next four years for Dubya's failures.


When this country was built people were lucky to go through elementary school. That's not a reality in this time. More people, more skills required..more competition. Your friends who got top positions through pull still have to produce or they wouldn't hold onto their position very long.

Many of them just suck up space on payroll. I see it week in and week out. When the numbers don't hit the quarterly goals they just cut the workforce to save their own hides (and end of the year bonuses).


I know I'm not wrong about the corporate heads, as far as this state, being extremely well educated. I worked with many of them over my 14 years at General Motors, and knew many who went back to school to get the highest possible degree to better themselves. Even I went back to school while working full time and it was no picnic.


Listen. I'll say this again. Very highly educated people are in the unemployment line already. We are not talking about what if, it's already happened.


Also, even though there are many people laid off right now, there are many more who are still holding onto their jobs......gratefully.


That will sure make the unemployed feel better to know. Maybe George Bush will invite them over for a Thanksgiving dinner.


I don't really worry or care too much about the multi-millionaires or billionaires...they can take care of themselves. But those in the $150,000 - $250,000 range need their money as much as you or I. Perhaps our cost of living is higher than some other places.


Why are you not worrying about those in the 40k to 60k range?? That's where the vast majority of Americans household incomes are at.


I suppose it's easy to say you wouldn't mind giving half your money away to the government with some distant fantasy floating in your head, but in reality, I think you would.

Eating and keeping a roof over our families head, at least for most of us, is reality. Your idea of wealthier people struggling because they pay more taxes is not.


The bottom line is that those huge corporations that hire many people will easily leave this country if the government pushes too hard. They can get cheaper labor and supplies elsewhere so why not? then there are NO jobs.

You're stuck in the failed trickle down economic past of the Bush clan. Many of those large corp would move to Mexico if possible only to hire the cheapest labor possible then still hit the US at top retail dollar. In fact it was done before when Nike was in Mexico. Citibank is so cheap they outsourced customer service jobs to India. I know exactly what they prefer to do.