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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

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. .

---

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 class
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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:

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

---

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:

---

Is there anything about Obama that isn't about image?

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

what's going to happen to that when the Obamanator hits us with his tax increases?

---

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 BABRAM

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.

---

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. ;)

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.

---

He pi$$ed off Muslims, too.

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

This unforunately will be a done deal before the election. The House already passed the measure by unanimous voice vote

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.

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/

---

From the transcript:

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.

---

From the Reuters blog:

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.”

---

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.

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?