Gee, that's the nicest you've ever answered anything I've posted here. I'm in shock
|
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
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/tax...21beltway.html
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Texas Parent:
Exactly who determines what is deserved or what belongs to someone?Quote:
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.
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.
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 ClassQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by XxRoosterXx
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
And now for the facts:
2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules
Notice how the more you make the greater the percentage taken by the government.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...l%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
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%?
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
(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 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
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 .
The Tax Foundation - News To Obama: The OECD Says The United States Has The Most Progressive Tax SystemQuote:
.. 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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
That's an awful lot of people in lalaland!
Bad or False? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
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% ?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1349400Quote:
Patriotism, taxes, and charity
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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?
You don't pay taxes by April 15th?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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?
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
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
Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
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 official count was 16.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 PM. |