Seeing that 35-40% of Americans pay no taxes at all, do you really believe when Obama says that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of us, that YOUR taxes will not go UP.... to give welfare to those that dont pay taxes?

Thats it, one question! ;)

I dont care what your answer is, I just care that you are aware!  8-)

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:10pm:

do you really believe when Obama says that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of us,

No. But then I just want him to cut mine and Fubar's. After that...you're all on your own. ;-)

BTW, Jonny..(sorry to post this here but I don't remember where the original thread was).......at least it's sticking on topic......

Remember when I said, "who cares if Obama is funded with foreign money?" and you said......you did,

"because it's against the law?"

Seems that McCain hasn't read that law either.

"Washington Post" McCain Solicits Russian U.N. Ambassador.`
The Russian mission to the United Nations furnished a copy of Sept. 29 McCain/Palin campaign letter it received urging Mr Churkin to contribute up to $5 000.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Also, you'll be happy to read who is the latest group to endorse McCain. Maybe it'll push him over the top.  :-/

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Bobw
P.S. you may need to upload a hebrew text reader if your browser hasn't got it installed. Just a FYI in case it pops up, it's ok.


edit to add: Just wanted you to be aware. An educated voter is a good voter. ;-)

Now, if you're really going to ask a country the size and economic strength of Russia to help fund your campaign would you really 1) send "proof" of your request by letter that was personally signed? and 2) only ask for $5,000? Sounds pretty fishy to me.  ;)

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:10pm:

Seeing that 35-40% of Americans pay no taxes at all, do you really believe when Obama says that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of us, that YOUR taxes will not go UP.... to give welfare to those that dont pay taxes? Thats it, one question! ;) I dont care what your answer is, I just care that you are aware!  8-)

what would be wrong with a flat tax? pay tax on what you buy instead of what you earn. (cigarette boat, hummer ect) that way weather your an alien or not you still pay tax like everybody else does.

With two weeks to go before the general election on Nov. 4, the amount of campaign advertising run by Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama will tell voters something about both men. It should serve as a warning that Obama isn't good at keeping promises.

Several months ago, Obama pledged to rely on public funding for his campaign. So did McCain.

McCain has kept his promise. On Monday, it was reported that during the last two weeks of the campaign, McCain will have substantially less money to work with than will Obama.

That is because Obama changed his mind a few months ago. He decided - rightly as it turned out - that he could raise more money by accepting contributions than by relying on the public funding system.

McCain, on the other hand, stuck with his pledge - though it is entirely possible that he, too, could have raised more money through contributions.

What the episode tells voters is simple: McCain keeps his promises. Obama does only when it is convenient for him.

Can anyone answer the question?  >:(

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:48pm:

[b] Can anyone answer the question?  >:(

aren't the people that contribute to mccains campaign the same people that contribute to obamas?

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:51pm:

wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:48pm: [b] Can anyone answer the question?  >:( aren't the people that contribute to mccains campaign the same people that contribute to obamas?

Johnny, the question is....do you t.....Fuck, read my original post! ;)

would either candidate be obligated to the deep pockets that finanaced there campaign or would they stay true to the voters? red or blue  

Quote:

accepting contributions = public funding system.

When did you rely on spin doctoring Jonny?

They are one and the same. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but prove it to me by definition and not rhetoric.  And No, I'm not voting for Obama.

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:57pm:

would either candidate be obligated to the deep pockets that finanaced there campaign or would they stay true to the voters? red or blue

Barack Obama opted out of the federal public financing system , setting himself up for a huge cash advantage over John McCain in the general election -- but also providing his critics with a large opportunity to criticize his claim that he is committed to change in Washington.

In other words....He lied, what will he lie about next?  :-?

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:54pm:

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:51pm: wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:48pm: [b] Can anyone answer the question?  >:( aren't the people that contribute to mccains campaign the same people that contribute to obamas? Johnny, the question is....do you t.....Fuck, read my original post! ;)

i would suggest a flat tax. pay tax on what you buy instead of what you earn. (cigarette boat, hummer ect) that way weather your an alien or not you still pay tax like everybody else does.

hows that? ;D

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:00pm:

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:57pm: would either candidate be obligated to the deep pockets that finanaced there campaign or would they stay true to the voters? red or blue   Barack Obama opted out of the federal public financing system , setting himself up for a huge cash advantage over John McCain in the general election -- but also providing his critics with a large opportunity to criticize his claim that he is committed to change in Washington. In other words....He lied, what will he lie about next?  :-?

i dunno man. i don't trust either one of these guys. i guess your right though. mccain never did say he would never take money from major contributors.

Redd wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:59pm:

Quote: accepting contributions = public funding system. When did you rely on spin doctoring Jonny?

Sorry, Redd.....I go by whats reported and aint none of the important shit being reported about Obama!

What do you think would happen if Palin had half the gaffes as Biden?.....Huh?

The media is in the pocket!!!! ;)

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:05pm:

wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:00pm: -johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:57pm: would either candidate be obligated to the deep pockets that finanaced there campaign or would they stay true to the voters? red or blue   Barack Obama opted out of the federal public financing system , setting himself up for a huge cash advantage over John McCain in the general election -- but also providing his critics with a large opportunity to criticize his claim that he is committed to change in Washington. In other words....He lied, what will he lie about next?  :-? i dunno man. i don't trust either one of these guys. i guess your right though. mccain never did say he would never take money from major contributors.

I can tell you one thing, im voting for the white guy.....because "Im a typical white person" ;)

Still, nobody answered the fucking question!  >:(

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:11pm:

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:05pm: wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:00pm: -johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:57pm: would either candidate be obligated to the deep pockets that finanaced there campaign or would they stay true to the voters? red or blue   Barack Obama opted out of the federal public financing system , setting himself up for a huge cash advantage over John McCain in the general election -- but also providing his critics with a large opportunity to criticize his claim that he is committed to change in Washington. In other words....He lied, what will he lie about next?  :-? i dunno man. i don't trust either one of these guys. i guess your right though. mccain never did say he would never take money from major contributors. I can tell you one thing, im voting for the white guy.....because "Im a typical white person" ;) Still, nobody answered the fucking question!  >:(

Quote:

I dont care what your answer is, I just care that you are aware!

People can be aware, and yet not choose to answer Jonny,  that is part of the American right.  We aren't beholden to answer to you or anyone,  it's a vote behind the curtain.  

So to call out is to negate the voters right to hold a private opinion.

ok lets go back to that. john mccain isn't specific about who obama is going to raise taxes on. it's pretty general.

it seems that republicans run on hate for anybody that is different than they are. on george bushs second term he knew he didn't have a fucking chance and he threw in the gay marriage thing and everybody forgot what an incredible prick he is and focused on that.  

I've been digging like a madman to find IRS numbers for 2007 & 2008 but it's rough to sift through the BS to find the basic numbers. Here are the numbers I've found so far on wage earners vs. their portion of the total taxes paid:

Top 1%   = People who earn approx $ 400,000 or more pay 40% of all income taxes

Top 10% = People who earn approx $ 110,000 or more pay 71% of all income taxes

Top 25% = People who earn approx $ ????? or more pay 86% of all income taxes

Top 50% People who earn approx $ 50,000 pay 97% of all income taxes

I can't find the "top 25%" number no matter how hard I try, but I assume that it's around $75K.   Anyone know? I would love to get my facts straight. This is based on adjusted gross income by the way - from the IRS report in June. The document is called "Report 2008-19"

I don't know what all of the folks here earn, but if you look at those numbers it seems like a few are paying for the majority? I don't know about others, but I was amazed........

No there I answered your question ;)

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:28pm:

No there I answered your question ;)

I thank you, sir.....Christ!, getting an answer here is like pulling teeth. ::)

no (note to Deej, is there any way to get a poll feature?)

Redd wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:18pm:

We aren't beholden to answer to you

Sorry, But I refuse to see where I twisted anyones arm to answer, honey!  :-*

By Marc's numbers, it's only the US government that can equal 294% INTO 100%.

Fuzzy math indeed.

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:28pm:

No there I answered your question ;)

well how 'bout this. about 40% of the nation thinks republican and are unwilling to bend their views. then theirs another 40% of the nation that are die hard democrats unwilling to bend on their views.  the only decision i can make of this is that this country is going to have to shed from this football rivalry mentality  and work together if this country is going to move ahead as one nation.  

Redd wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:40pm:

By Marc's numbers, it's only the US government that can equal 294% INTO 100%. Fuzzy math indeed.

Ummm, I worked hard to get the info right- not sure how you came up with that? Those are "brackets" that they publish, so the $400K guy is in the same group as the 50% guy, etc.  It's a simple distribution curve to indicate what percentage is paid by which bracket.

Now that I've seen the numbers, I think that all taxpayers should understand them!

Respectfully,
Marc

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:37pm:

Redd wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:18pm: We aren't beholden to answer to you Sorry, But I refuse to see where I twisted anyones arm to answer, honey!  :-*

Quote:

We aren't beholden to answer to you or anyone,  it's a vote behind the curtain.

Please Bro, quote me fully or don't quote me at all.

I love you, but i won't let you misquote me the way the media does others.  You don't have the journalistic immunity that reporters do.  Be careful dear.

END THE FED!!


(just had to get that in there)

Melissa wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:48pm:

END THE FED!! (just had to get that in there)

That would be a start. I'll vote for anyone who I think will actually REDUCE the Federal Govt.  

I was given some numbers I won't spread until I can check on their accuracy, but I want to know what percentage of our population is employed by one form of Government or another. I think it's HUGE, but I want to know the number...............

Anyone know?

Wait, federal public financing system?  He used taxes to pay for his campaign?  That's where they got the $150,000 to buy Palin and her family new clothes?  Why would you take public funding over private funding?  It seems that if people want you to get elected they'd be more likely to donate money so it'd be wiser to spend that money.

The Midwest Democracy Network's questionnaire:

Question I-B:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private
funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Yes No ___

Comments (please limit to 250 words or less):
I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party  candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.


While it isn't necessarily a promise, since he said he'd pursue an agreement to preserve the publicly financed general election, not right of him to go against what he said.  I'm not sure what extent he went to pursuing an agreement or even if he did, but either way he really needs to explain himself.  

Why would Obama saying he's going to cut taxes for 95% of us mean our taxes are going to go up?  Why are 35-40% of people not paying taxes and how/why are they getting "welfare"?

Audre wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:54pm:

Why would Obama saying he's going to cut taxes for 95% of us mean our taxes are going to go up?  Why are 35-40% of people not paying taxes and how/why are they getting "welfare"?

the taxes go up for that 5%. that 5% is pissed off about that. i would say the welfare rate is because more people aren't getting by on "trickle down" economics.

the 30-40% aren't collecting welfare. they ones here  working illegally.

Audre wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:54pm:

Why are 35-40% of people not paying taxes

I thought I'd answer this part (just cause I like to research stuff)


Quote:

Who Are the Non-Payers? Using IRS data, we are able to create a profile of these individuals who are outside the federal income tax system. As Table 1 shows, those who file as single or head-of-household are much more likely to be non-payers. One-third of single filers pay nothing in federal income taxes, and almost two-thirds of those who file as head of household pay nothing. In contrast, just 22 percent of married filers are non-payers. Why do many single filers face zero tax liability? One reason is that single filers tend to be younger and earn lower incomes than married filers—especially single parents who file as head-of-household. As a result, married taxpayers pay roughly 75 percent of all federal income taxes, despite filing only 40 percent of returns.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:06pm:

is because more people aren't getting by on "trickle down" economics.

Johnny, do you think "trickle up" economics would work better?  Just askin. :-/

Melissa wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:11pm:

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 11:06pm: is because more people aren't getting by on "trickle down" economics. Johnny, do you think "trickle up" economics would work better?  Just askin. :-/

I did the research on that too and I was amazed that the rich got richer and actually increased the net taxes collected while they did. The problem is that the Congress spent it.

I see so many comments here (not yours Mel) that prove to me that folks just aren't educating themselves on what the problems are. Promises of an easy fix are the order of the day when there ain't no such thing.......

Melissa wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:11pm:

-johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 11:06pm: is because more people aren't getting by on "trickle down" economics. Johnny, do you think "trickle up" economics would work better?  Just askin. :-/

well i feel at this point that the cards are stacked against me and i really don't think it what color i am rather  it's the class that i'm in. the working class. how 'bout a more even trickle and then everybody has an even shot. if you work the hell out of something and you do it smart you'll succeed. if you don't succeed you would only have yourself to blame.

Jonny why do you start this political bs, you're gettin everone worked up  ;D and as far as your question goes any ploitical question starting with "do you believe" should be easy to answer.  jmo  Phil [smiley=smokin.gif]

Audre,

to answer your questions,  The public funding of campaigns is from the $3 contribution you make on your Federal Tax Return, NOT from taxes.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what you paid in taxes.  John McCain promised to abide by the limitations put on him by accepting this money AND by abiding by the limitations put on by the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, and he has done so.  Obama said that he would do the same, but then after he won the nomination changed his mind, and decided to forgo the public funding because he knew he could get more from his rich cronies than he could otherwise.  That is why he is able to outspend McCain.  Where he got the money to buy new clothes has nothing to do with anything.  He can use his campaign funds in any way he chooses to.

Where the "welfare" part of it is comes from Obama's plan itself.  Since almost 50% of the US population pays no taxes (I believe the actual number is 47%, but am not positive) the way he will give them a "tax cut" is that they will be given a "refund check" for taxes they didn't pay.  That is not a tax cut, that is a pay out, just like the "earned income credit" started by Jimmy Carter that paid money to those who pay no taxes, or welfare.'

Jonny, the answer to your question is NO!

Jerry

Uh, that would be a big NO, NOT,  NO WAY.
     Bullshit I say.

Marc wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:19pm:

Melissa wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 11:11pm: -johnny- wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 11:06pm: is because more people aren't getting by on "trickle down" economics. Johnny, do you think "trickle up" economics would work better?  Just askin. :-/ I did the research on that too and I was amazed that the rich got richer and actually increased the net taxes collected while they did. The problem is that the Congress spent it. I see so many comments here (not yours Mel) that prove to me that folks just aren't educating themselves on what the problems are. Promises of an easy fix are the order of the day when there ain't no such thing.......

yeah thats true. i can't honestly say that i have every  statistic when i make a decision but i do see allot of symbols that this country is sinking and people are getting greedier. i see allot of money spent on this rivalry. lots of money spent on smearing the other party. i really think it disgusting.

i thought this was interesting

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Callico wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:37pm:

Audre, ............  Since almost 50% of the US population pays no taxes (I believe the actual number is 47%, but am not positive) ............... Jonny, the answer to your question is NO! Jerry

Jerry,

That's 47% of people filing returns - not the genral population. Look back on page 1 of this thread - I put the numbers in.

Johnny,

What you are talking about is not the flat tax, but rather the "Fair Tax" proposed by Rep Linder and Neil Boortz.  I am wholeheartedly in favor of it.  It doesn't punish anyone for making more than another, but only kicks in on what one SPENDS!  It also is set up so that one is not penalized for purchasing the necessities of life by giving a "prebate" to each household according to the number of individuals within the household.  Some say it isn't "progressive" enough, but that is why it is fair.  Is it fair to punish someone because they have worked harder or smarter or improved themselves or invented something?  That is all that an income tax does.  When taxes are raised it removes incentive to do better.  I had a boss one time who got a raise and it COST him $500 because it put him in a higher bracket.  (That was under Carter, before Reagan)  He tried to turn it down, but couldn't because the raise was automatic.  He actually quit and took another job and kept more of his money.

Jerry

Jonny - you're telling me one polictican lied!?!?

I am shocked.

If your new hobby is going to be asking questions about politicans who lie you are gonna be busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.

And if you think McSame didn't lie either your gonna be surprised at how busy you really are going to be. And a good thing Bush is almost out, or you'd have an insurmountable task reporting on him!  ;D

Mel, trickle down never works. Everything works when it is built on a strong foundation. Eliminate all income tax and tax all purchases to pay for the services that rely on them. The our tax system would be "representative" and the stuff that would cost tax money would be basically be "voted" for everytime someone made a purchase.

Basic everyday lif items are low tax or exempt. Luxury stuff, stuff that causes problems or burden elsewhere in the system get taxed very high.

superhawk2300 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:44pm:

Eliminate all income tax and tax all purchases to pay for the services that rely on them. The our tax system would be "representative" and the stuff that would cost tax money would be basically be "voted" for everytime someone made a purchase.

No!  You don't say??? :o

;D ;) :-*

Marc wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:42pm:

Callico wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 11:37pm: Audre, ............  Since almost 50% of the US population pays no taxes (I believe the actual number is 47%, but am not positive) ............... Jonny, the answer to your question is NO! Jerry Jerry, That's 47% of people filing returns - not the genral population. Look back on page 1 of this thread - I put the numbers in.

You're right Marc.  I meant those filing, but got going faster than I could keep up with myself! :)  The point is still that the system is fundamentally unfair.

I have forgotten the year, but it is within my adult lifetime that for the first time in our history over 51% of the population was receiving a check from the US Government, either a paycheck or welfare.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:44pm:

Johnny, What you are talking about is not the flat tax, but rather the "Fair Tax" proposed by Rep Linder and Neil Boortz.  I am wholeheartedly in favor of it.  It doesn't punish anyone for making more than another, but only kicks in on what one SPENDS!  It also is set up so that one is not penalized for purchasing the necessities of life by giving a "prebate" to each household according to the number of individuals within the household.  Some say it isn't "progressive" enough, but that is why it is fair.  Is it fair to punish someone because they have worked harder or smarter or improved themselves or invented something?  That is all that an income tax does.  When taxes are raised it removes incentive to do better.  I had a boss one time who got a raise and it COST him $500 because it put him in a higher bracket.  (That was under Carter, before Reagan)  He tried to turn it down, but couldn't because the raise was automatic.  He actually quit and took another job and kept more of his money. Jerry

thank you.

Quote:

I have forgotten the year, but it is within my adult lifetime that for the first time in our history over 51% of the population was receiving a check from the US Government, either a paycheck or welfare. Jerry

Jerry,

I've been looking for a reliable source for THAT number. I even posted it as a question on page 1 of this thread!

Any idea where that number came from? It's REALLY important that folks understand the ramifications of so many working for so few...........

I recall when Econ 101 taught that anything over 25%-30% was a clear and present danger.

Melissa wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:10pm:

Audre wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:54pm:  Why are 35-40% of people not paying taxes I thought I'd answer this part (just cause I like to research stuff) Quote: Who Are the Non-Payers? Using IRS data, we are able to create a profile of these individuals who are outside the federal income tax system. As Table 1 shows, those who file as single or head-of-household are much more likely to be non-payers. One-third of single filers pay nothing in federal income taxes, and almost two-thirds of those who file as head of household pay nothing. In contrast, just 22 percent of married filers are non-payers. Why do many single filers face zero tax liability? One reason is that single filers tend to be younger and earn lower incomes than married filers—especially single parents who file as head-of-household. As a result, married taxpayers pay roughly 75 percent of all federal income taxes, despite filing only 40 percent of returns. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

it's how much people don't know that vote

[/url]START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE[/url]

Marc,

I'm wanting to say it was in the late 70's or early 80's, but I cannot say for certain.  

Bear in mind, I am not saying that over 50% got their entire livelyhood from the Government, but they got a check.  It could have been from employment, welfare, AFDC, Earned Income Payments, etc.  

I'll try to come up with an answer too, but am not really sure where to even look at this point.

Jerry

edit to add:  I got the info from the news at the time.  It was a big deal that for the first time in history more were getting from the government than weren't.

Jerry,

I've heard the same thing, but it was all of their paycheck including ALL forms of Government: Municipal, County, State & Fed. This would of course include Military, police, fire, teachers, etc., etc.

I simply cannot find a solid source to point at, so I can't wave that flag!

Marc

Marc,

You may be correct on the all forms of Gov't.  It has been to long for me to say for certain, but even so, that is still preposterous.

Jerry

Marc,

I agree it's important to understand, but ideological goggles prevent people from seeing the facts even when you present them in clear terms.  People would rather believe the insanity than try to understand how they are being manipulated, for that would force them to admit they were fooled by the Messiah and his adoring media.

'Course, that's my opinion, as seen through my own goggles.

-Shawn

No.  He can't without cutting spending on a masive scale and he will not cut spending.  What people don't realize is the motherload of tax income the government gets comes from the middle class.  

Poor people do not pay income tax and despite what the spin Dr.'s say about rich people, there just are not enough of them to foot the enormus bill that comes from government spending.  If a person truely believes Obama-nation will cut your tax....they are a fool.  He is the new liberal (read Socialist) that will change direction like the French army cought in a three way war.

-P.

Marc,
The guys a little nutty but his facts are right:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Click on the "Other Charts" drop down to see all the charts for a catagory.

Alos look at the energy link and you'll see the only way to end foreign oil dependance is to change cars.

That's NOT exactly what Obama's PLAN says (check the plan) - that's what McCain says it says.... McCain's plan would RAISE taxes MORE for the middle class -- Obama's would LOWER them for the MIDDLE class (forget Plumber Joe - that's been blown way out of proportion).

And YES I would!!

I took BOTH plans and applied them to my son's last years return and by Obama's plan he'd come out with better -- With McCain's he'd pay more.  -- Did it with a couple of small businesses and they came out way ahead hiring a couple of employees. Not really scientific (who knows what else might change, but them is facts as they stand right now).

The Welfare, as you put it is Earned Income Credit -- Peep play that one BIG Time -- it has been worked to death and until it's changed it WiLL be played.

Insofar as public funds go -- get the whole story on that one (fact check is a good place to start -- there IS a whole story about that - Obama said he would "consider it"). That was another one that was blown out of the ball park.

Oh and while ya'll are at it google YPM - that's interesting too... Guy just got arrested in CA for that one... Makes ACCORN look mild...

Hugs BD

I don't believe anything Barack Obama. He's a real charismatic man and as a friend, boss, or my daughter's teacher...I'd probably get along great with him. But as President...I'd sooner vote George Bush in again. (and this is coming from a lifelong Democrat).

He doesn't have any experience...is way too liberal or should I say socialist and he will lie through his teeth to achieve his goal.

Why do you think he's getting all of those donations??? Because the fatcats know he will be in their pocket come January.

I'm not a big McCain fan either...but's he's definitely the lesser of the two evils.

Everybody that's thinking of Obama...please look at his record. Don't vote for him cause he seems like a "good guy". This is your Country we're talking about and you're children's and grandchildren's future. Do some research!!!

Jimmy

To answer Jonny's question, I think if Obama's tax plan is put into effect I will see lower taxes for myself.

Now, I first of all don't think they will be put into effect given the economic situation.  Second, if thay are put into effect we will see higher unemployment and the fiscal situation will be made worse.  Third, if they are put into effect we will eventually see them changed and higher taxes levied to pay for the stuff he wants to implement (and so some people can buy more 40 ouncers).

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:10pm:

Seeing that 35-40% of Americans pay no taxes at all, do you really believe when Obama says that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of us, that YOUR taxes will not go UP.... to give welfare to those that dont pay taxes? Thats it, one question! ;) I dont care what your answer is, I just care that you are aware!  8-)

Nope, not for a second.

Thanks for caring Jonny.  ;)

Beth

Not by me!  ;)


Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.


When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.   I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.


At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.


I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA..............or just a fools game !!

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

What was the question.. ;D ;D ;D ;D
thebb ;)

wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:01pm:

REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA

ding ding ding ding ding

GET THAT MAN A PRIZE!

It's sad to me that it's boiling down to the "have" vs. the "have-nots".  Everyone wants their "fair share" to be based on what other people have.

I met a wise and honorable man in Georgia who said: “I’m glad there are rich guys out there. That’s why I have a job making good money. If my boss stops getting rich, I won’t have a job.”

If a certain Clusterhaed reads this, she may be surprised that I recall this conversation with her husband so vividly. Thank you, Buddy.  :)

Marc

Marc wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 8:29pm:

It's sad to me that it's boiling down to the "have" vs. the "have-nots".

I worked my way to beat a major drug addiction of many drugs in my twenties, I started a business and have been through good times and bad since money wise. Why should I give my money to some fat fucking baby making machine that just sits one her ass?.....Someone tell me why?

If these upper highs want to give a fucking mortgage to people on welfare or unemployment and get fucked in the ass........Enjoy it, but dont put it on me!, damn it! >:(

I work seven fucking days a week and I do it for one reason, to better my life!....I will break the fuck out of the law to keep mine, nobody is going to take it from me!

Ted Kennedy and all these rich fucks are hiding their money off shore, they make the laws that dont apply to them.

THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW!

But, tell us how you really feel Jonny - and don't hold back this time  ;D

Bob P wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:07am:

Marc, The guys a little nutty but his facts are right: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Wow, Bob. As much as I've looked around on the web, I must say that old Ross boiled it down to clean little package.

I think that the historical data should be mandatory. Pretty basic, yet sooo potent. I thank you, Sir.

Marc

Marc wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 9:11pm:

But, tell us how you really feel Jonny - and don't hold back this time  ;D

Its sad that more us dont feel like this!  :-/

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Jonny,

I may not be as eloquent as you, but I agree with you 100%.  If we're REALLY LUCKY, a lot of voters will see the light before they cast their vote.  I'm afraid MArc is right... it is boiling down to class warfare, and no matter how you slice it there are more have-nots than haves.  With virtually all of the media in the tank for Obama, a lot of Americans believe the lies and think they are doing themselves a favor by voting him in.  When they find out that they are part of the soon to be punished 'rich' folks, they'll wonder why they fell for it.  I am not falling for it.

-Shawn

So Warren Buffett and Colin Powell are backing a socialist.       START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 12:10am:

So Warren Buffett and Colin Powell are backing a socialist.       START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Charlie

Yes.

Suggested reading before the election:  Gibbons, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire".

The Roman government lost control when they started giving bread to the poor who flocked to the cities because of the free meals, then because of having no worthwhile occupation grew restless.  They then had to be given more and more, plus entertained ie "amused" (a-to "not" muse- to "think").  This led to the "games" which then led to gladiators fighting in the arenas, and then to the killing of the political scapegoats, Christians, much the same way Hitler used the Jews as a diversion from what he was doing.  There are other examples throughout history as well.  One more reason history is not taught much beyond 30 yrs ago in our school systems any more.

Jerry

wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:01pm:

Not by me!  ;) Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.   I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA..............or just a fools game !!

Price of meal-~$15, price of lost tip $10...........Reading this post, PRICELESS!!!

Eloquent Jonny!

-P.

It is fortunate to not have to have "history" interpreted from a political thread.