I can't afford to vote for McCain and neither can middle and lower class America. Vote Obama!
YouTube - CNN Crunches Obama and McCain Tax Plans
|
I can't afford to vote for McCain and neither can middle and lower class America. Vote Obama!
YouTube - CNN Crunches Obama and McCain Tax Plans
Whoever the next President is, he will have to raise taxes to pay for the Wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Obama will not tax the families with income under $250,000.00.
Say what? Perhaps you would like to revise and extend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Fat cats get rewarded under the McCain tax structured policy as the CNN non-partisan clearly demonstrated. The more you make the more John McCain looks out for you. Ann Richards targeted George Herbert Walker Bush when she said he was "born with a silver spoon in his mouth," however every Republican since has proved her correct. The break line is at 112K. If you make less than 112K your punished under John McCain's plan. However, for example, if you make 2.9 million, you pay more taxes under Obama, but guess what "Tom"... you're rewarded under John McCain. Yup! There's that reward for the fat cats! Another Republican p!$$ on the under income middle and lower class plan as we suffer through inflation and a slow economy. No thank you "John McCain." Vote Obama!
YouTube - CNN Crunches Obama and McCain Tax Plans
"Married making $60,000: McCain’s tax is only $9,000. Obama will hit you for $16,000."Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If Human Events is right I can't afford Obama. Of course, everyone has their own analysis of their tax plans but they all agree Obama will cost taxpayers more. Obama "would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total," for an overall reduction of 1.9 percent in after tax income for seniors according to the Tax Policy Center.
More class warfare from Democrats; nothing new. So Obama's message to the young folks just entering the labor market is, "Not only will I not reform the Social Security debacle made by your grandparents, but if you are successful and do well in Obama's Amerika, I will punch in you in the pocket-book." We are supposedly, "Land of the free, Home of the brave." Not with Obama, however. More like, "Land of the meek, Home of the Sheep." No thanks.
Let's see... who's figures should we trust? The facts presented by non-partisans as demonstrated on CNN and shown to a world wide audience or a Republican written article by a Republican that voted for Dubya twice?
YouTube - CNN Crunches Obama and McCain Tax Plans
Vote Obama!
My my: nonpartisans on CNN? CNN as 'nonpartisan'?Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
George, you deny the facts?
At this point, a plan is a plan, and all plans depend upon the assumptions involved in the equation. Meanwhile, here are some facts: FactCheck.org: Do middle-income persons pay lower federal income taxes under Bush than they did under Bill Clinton?Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Of course, as they say, past results is no guarantee of future results.
Just wanted to make it clear that in this election "McCain vs. Obama" that it was non-partisan study presented by CNN. If you want to go off the subject and speak on Bill Clinton and Dubya, I'll be glad to help you beat both of them up.
Hello:
Let's see - we got statistics, and we got other statistics.. Then we got politicians. I don't believe any of 'em.
DO I believe that Obama has MY interests at heart better than does McCain? I DO, and THAT'S how I'm going to make my decision...
This other stuff, is just okee doak.
excon
The point is, in politics, it is never "non-partisan"; and in politics, there is context. Clinton promised tax cuts, just to beat the Elder Bush, in which he lied and raised taxes. I can recall Bill saying, "I've worked harder on this than any thing in my life and we just can't afford this tax cut...blah, blah, blah...." That, Bobby-boy, is a Democrat tax cut. Obama will be no different; in fact, the "Bush" tax cuts will expire in 2010, right? And then Obama has his 'soak the successful' program that you are swooning over.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
The inflation tax hasn't run its full course yet. When it has, real taxes will be raised... don't worry. When they are, I'll bet your poor ole grey haired granny will be hit harder than Bill Gates or your garden variety Wall Street Execs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
You keep moving the target George. Now the argument is that Obama and McCain both liars based on past politicians. All right. I can see your sick of politicians in general. Who isn't? I certainly am! I place politicians in a category next to car salesman, lawyers, and visits to the dentist. Now if you can afford otherwise, vote for McCain. I have plenty of friends that are simply voting for John McCain because they are wealthy, but I'm not. Actually some of are very wealthy. Yes, as is, I'd rather soak the wealthy, I know they can afford it. I'm currently looking to put my wife to work part-time for a second income. Oh! Bobby-boy here has his eyes on a new model Kahr Arms / .45 ACP Models / PM Series (for conceal carry factor) and yet that's not even close to being in my current budget. My wife wants a few things herself like Toyota Cars, Trucks, SUVs & Accessories. Hmm come to think of it, a second car might become a necessity if she gets a job, and perhaps I'll just buy a used vehicle and let her drive my car. Anyway my point is that we've put off purchasing from the wish list so often just for our family necessities. Outside of some connections and fringe benefits, I'm your average Joe middle class guy. That's another reason why I'm voting Obama.
OK. You're OK, Bobby; just a little young and abused.
I think your around my pops age, in your mid to late sixties? I never knew if that 1950 was associated with your actual birth date or represented something else? Abused? Well I had previous a marriage to fiery hot headed Latina from Brazil and that probably counts for some wear and tear :eek:. Life's certainly a wonderful continuous learning process and we can never learn enough.
You are obviously a bright fellow, Bobby. What I would like to know is why you say: "I'd rather soak the wealthy, I know they can afford it." How do you feel about just going to one of your friends and/or neighbors and just taking their money because they can afford it; just pull out your gun or whatever weapon of choice amuses you, and take their money, which no one gave to them, and give it to the government? I hope you wouldn't do that, but it's no less a theft to hire Obama to steal for you. Bobby, you work for your money and it's yours; same with me. How do you reconcile giving your neighbor or the IRS the authority to take what does not belong to them?
I just want one of them circus canons that I can shoot myself out of. That would cover a new gun and a new car.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
George-
Both candidates have realized that taxation is inevitable. However, to McCain's credit, I noticed that he has somewhat regressed from the trickle down economics policies that Republicans have championed for the past two decades. We have huge debts, ongoing wars, and crumbling infrastructure in America. Given the two choices and views of our candidates, I'm choosing the one that lessens the taxation load on the middle class (and lower), i.e. Obama, and the Democrats. It's not about a redistribution of wealth as some have surmised and it's not a form of communism. It's about not pushing more responsibilities on those that already are having difficult times in this country. I see this as a window for reform to help bridge the ever widening gap between "the have and haves not." Which ironically Dubya claimed to help, but rather the opposite effect has occurred. The only rub in taxation of the upper class, is that large American corporations do not see a moral obligation keep people hired, but rather keep their dear executives in six figure annual bonuses in addition to their six and seven figure salaries. Now having said all this, personally I've been a proponent for having a consumption tax system going on some twenty years now. That would be doing away with both McCain and Obama's taxation proposals. This would give us some balance down the road, and resolve the ever ending battle of the Republicans and Democrats see-sawing back in forth with the quest of who ends paying the brunt of taxes.
Magprob-
That would bring a whole new meaning to security and car pooling. :)
Bobby: you can't do this with just a nonpartisan endorsement about a plan ("I'm choosing the one that lessens the taxation load on the middle class (and lower), i.e. Obama, and the Democrats"). You must attend to the context as I explained earlier; there will not be a middle class tax cut under the Democrats.
And here: "I see this as a window for reform to help bridge the ever widening gap between "the have and haves not." Which ironically Dubya claimed to help, but rather the opposite effect has occurred. The only rub in taxation of the upper class, is that large American corporations do not see a moral obligation keep people hired, but rather keep their dear executives in six figure annual bonuses in addition to their six and seven figure salaries." This is where you begin to cross into the land of fascism; be vigilant.
Again you're using circular logic with an argument that goes back to your opinion that a non-partisan study by CNN is biased. I read very little from your proclaimed denoted elder wisdom that puts a dent in their CNN chart. You provided a link that admits "Yes" there would be more tax cuts for the middle class under Obama and H. Clinton's admins, rather than McCain's proposal, but with lesser figures. I've heard from McCain supporters using Republicans blogs and articles, but not one network has done a non-partisan study to contradict the CNN analysis. Come on pops, I gave you credit and agreed with you that politicians in general are not trust-able. But regardless of how much we all can't stomach politicians, inevitably a politician will be elected in November.
Nothing circular about being realistic about Democrats and their ill-informed shillers, paid and unpaid: Here is how your 'non-partisan' analysis is reported elsewhere: "Analysts say Obama offers three times the tax break for middle classQuote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
By KEVIN LANDRIGAN, Staff Writer
CONCORD – The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank.
…
The McCain campaign fired back Wednesday that it’s their candidate who has a better record of voting for tax cuts while Obama, in the Senate, has voted to raise some taxes.
“Barack Obama voted 94 times to raise taxes in just three years in the Senate. Any suggestion that he’ll lower taxes for hard-working New Hampshire families is an insult to their intelligence,” said Jeff Grappone, McCain’s New England communications director.
“Facts are facts. Barack Obama has promised higher income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and tax hikes on small businesses. These tax hikes will hit middle class Americans and seniors hardest, and it’s change we can’t afford.”
…
McCain’s plan give this group an average tax cut of $270,000, the report said.
By contrast, Obama would raise taxes for these wealthy families by an average $700,000 a year according to the report.
Obama pays for his plan in part by raising the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 25 percent.
McCain eventually sets those rates to be no higher than 15 percent.
The individual authors of this 36-page report work for the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.
They state these conclusions are their own and aren’t meant to represent views of the Tax Policy Center.”
Nashuatelegraph.com: Analysts say Obama offers three times the tax break for middle class
A "left-leaning think tank" (The Tax Policy Center) that sponsors analysis that the think tank doesn't endorse? What kind of credentials are those, son?
Hey old boy,
From your link:
"By contrast, Obama would raise taxes for these wealthy families by an average $700,000 a year according to the report."
Well cry me a river "George." Those making 2.8 million plus a year will be desolate and on welfare. How are they ever going to make it? :rolleyes:
"McCain lowers the top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Obama would raise it from 35 percent now to 39.6 percent."
Oh! That will do it. Take Dubya's vision in the same direction and extend it even further. More of the same trickle down economics that provide execs with even fatter end of the year bonuses. :eek: Plug this into your search engine "2007 US Top executive bonuses" and the results, "301,000 for 2007 US Top 100 executive bonuses. (0.20 seconds)." Now plug this into your search engine "Corporation downsizing" and the results,"1,440,000 for Corporation downsizing. (0.30 seconds)."
Well Bobby I'm sure you are well aware that we are one of the countries with the highest corporate tax rates and that puts our companies at a competitive disadvantage . I'm also sure you know that corporate taxes get passed onto the customers of the company in the price of goods and services they provide.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah, that's the standard rhetoric. I believed it too. I kind of still do... But, I also believe that boards of directors AREN'T nuts... If given the choice between raising prices and cutting managements obscene salary's, I'll bet that most will cut the salary.
Of course, there's a few directors who are themselves obscenely overpaid CEO's who wouldn't do that... But, those companies with boards like that, are dinosaurs and will be weeded out - or they SHOULD be if they weren't propped up by lobbyists and their buddies in congress.
The markets are STRONGER than ANY government. What we're seeing now, is the markets reasserting their dominance. THOSE companies WILL fall by the wayside, and I'm not going to miss 'em. These are going to be the big guys too... United Airlines... Ford... GM... The biggies.
excon
I got no problem with companies going down . We spend too much time and resources trying to prop them up ;mostly due to union pressure to preserve jobs.
But the facts about the cap gains is undeniable. Countries with growing or emerging economies all have lower cap gains taxes than we do .Arguments against a capital gains tax cut must be tempered by the knowledge that a large and growing proportion of Americans in the "middle class "that Obama pretends to want to protect hold assets generating capital gains.
By the way ;Bobby is right about a move toward consumption taxation.. but that will never happen.
Middle class America can't even afford to invest into their own retirement.
The Daily Item, Sunbury, PA - Disappearing class
"On inflation, from gas, home heating oil, food, electricity, byproducts from oil, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. I saw this coming more than one year ago at the same time the stock market started heading south, almost 2,500 points from its high.
First off, because one's paycheck no longer can accommodate all the increases, those who were funding a 401K and IRA, which employers matched contributions, stopped their deductions funding their IRA and 401K. The winners are the big companies that no longer having to match those employee deductions -- more profit in their coffers.
Now the retirees can no longer sustain their way of life and must start pulling more than allowed by the IRS in order to sustain a minimal quality of life. Keep in mind, they're dipping into their retirement when the market is down 2,500 points. Never pull your money out in a down market, but they have no other choice. They're getting a double whammy -- pulling out their money in a down market and losing from what it was before the market headed south.
If retirees pull more than the allocated percentage that they're able to withdraw, they stand to pay a 10 percent penalty by the IRS. Active employees who are not yet retired, if they withdraw, are subject to a fine and penalty if they withdraw before 59 1/2 years of age. As you can see, the middle class or blue-collar worker has no other choice in lieu of today's crisis. Before long, between the employees and the retirees exhausting their savings early and having nothing to withdraw, they move down the ladder to the poor class from the middle class."
Only 28% of Americans ready to retire
"Today's financial problems may have a huge impact on many families' futures. Nearly 3 out of 4 Americans worry about saving enough for retirement, some so much, they don't save at all.
"I spend it as quick as I make it, unfortunately. You always need something." Phil Scudelha is over 65 years old, but he says with the high cost of living, he can't retire. "there is no retirement anymore, you can't afford it." He's not alone. A new study released today from bankrate.com says only 28% of Americans will be able to retire comfortably, 33% say they'll have just enough, and 19% say they'll never be able to retire.
"I think the survey is front-loaded to get responses from people that already have 401k's and are pretty well set up in retirement. Low income folks have a really hard time saving." Patrick Jordan is with the non-profit group Arizona Saves that helps families save for the future. He says if you want to live comfortably at retirement, you'll need about $1 million in your savings. "Nowadays we don't have pensions and retirement plans from employers, so the amount people have to save is astronomical."
EVERYTHING gets passed on to the consumer in the way of higher prices. Think about this, charitable giving hit a record high in 2007, what's going to happen to that when the Obamanator hits us with his tax increases? Oh that's right, he'll take it out of our hands where it can be effective and give it to the feckless UN to reach the United Nations Millennium Summit goals to help restore our shattered image abroad. Is there anything about Obama that isn't about image?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The big thing is that as he moves towards the center the onion continues to peel. The latest is his p*ssing off gays by making the point that he thinks marriage is between men and women . But that is for another posting . As far as the economy goes; I think he is as clueless as McCain claims to be.Quote:
Is there anything about Obama that isn't about image?
Cry me a river! Well you'll have to cut back on the grey poupon dijon mustard and tighten up your belt like the rest of us in middle and lower class America. I'll even help you learn how to shop on a budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Did you forget that's the DNC's area of expertise?
http://damnrebel.com/uploads/Politics/DNC_Crybaby.jpg
Besides, I don't eat that uppity mustard and I am part of us in middle and lower class America. ;)
He pi$$ed off Muslims, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
He better watch out other pols have been known to be subject of fatwahs.
Here is the link that is upsetting gays .
ABC News: Transcript: Full Obama Interview
And the reaction
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/200...-sex-weddings/
Bwa ha ha ha ha... like the Republican party is now sponsoring luncheons for the Gay and Muslim communities! Drink slower guys. Sip! Sip! Sip! :D
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/3538786_4015783e54.jpg
This unforunately will be a done deal before the election. The House already passed the measure by unanimous voice voteQuote:
Oh that's right, he'll take it out of our hands where it can be effective and give it to the feckless UN to reach the United Nations Millennium Summit goals to help restore our shattered image abroad.
H.R. 1302: Global Poverty Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)
And it is rumored that the vote in the Senate will come after the July 4 recess. I don't think there are enough votes to stall it procedurally ;and I think a Presidential veto will be over-ridden.
From the transcript:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
From the Reuters blog:Quote:
You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.
And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That's what I'll do as president.
M. Willard is a confused person since M. Obama agrees with him. I too agree with Obama: you can't force the church to marry gays, they are too set in their ways with their old book, gays should have a civil union to secure their rights as a couple. Having said that are churches that voluntarily marry gay couples so that option is open.Quote:
Added Stephen Willard : ”He was a civil rights lawyer. It just seems weird to me that he doesn’t think we should have full civil rights.”
I thought I made my position clear on that . I fully agree that from a contractual legal point ;civil unions should have exactly the same rights as marriage .
That is not the issue .
I agree with tom on civil unions as well.
What do you expect from the church which is "too set in their ways with their old book" as you put it, NK? That "old book" is our standard - kind of like our constitution is the American standard. Should we abandon our standards and have no particular guidelines in either case?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 AM. |