|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Jul 09, 2008 6:16 PM GMT
Quote
If you vote for a democrat you've got some serious issues my friends. Look at what the Speaker of the House is up to!
I'm not happy with the Republicans by a long shot. But this woman, and the liberal idea of "equalizing" incomes ... when in the hell did socialism get this prevalent in the U.S.?????????? My God, the Soviet Union and socialism failed ... haven't the democrats found that yet?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder this country is in the shape that it is, look at the ideates that are running it. Too bad you can't ship people like HER out of the country.
Windfall Tax on Retirement Income
Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darnn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............
Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.
Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Fund s! Alas , it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!
This woman is frightening.
She quotes..." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." ( I am not rich, are you)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'." (Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. "Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it".
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 09, 2008 6:31 PM GMT
Quote
stpete39 saidIf you vote for a democrat you've got some serious issues my friends. Look at what the Speaker of the House is up to!
I'm not happy with the Republicans by a long shot. But this woman, and the liberal idea of "equalizing" incomes ... when in the hell did socialism get this prevalent in the U.S.?????????? My God, the Soviet Union and socialism failed ... haven't the democrats found that yet?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder this country is in the shape that it is, look at the ideates that are running it. Too bad you can't ship people like HER out of the country. I think by "ideates" you mean idiots. Delicious irony! And it appears you've mistaken Senator Obama for being a white woman named Nancy. While I wouldn't complain if he WAS a Nancy, I think assigning Pelosi's actions/beliefs/legislation to Obama is your fundamental mistake. |
|
|
Jul 09, 2008 6:36 PM GMT
Quote
This is completely false. Go to Snopes.com to find out more about this hoax: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp. Oh, and it's "idiots" not "ideates." It's hard to take someone seriously when he can't spell idiots. Or doesn't have a pic. Or anything in his profile. Just more fear-mongering from the radical right. |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Jul 09, 2008 6:59 PM GMT
Quote
OH sorry for the typo. My picture is still being approved btw. Any who she is still saying we need to help the illegals in our country. Why in the hell should we help thme. Ship them back to where they came. They do not have the same rights as you and me. They are NOT americans. Again Obama wants everything to be Socialized. If he becomes president and does not put into place his so called change. I am sure a Good old boy will take care of that. Just like Hillary said.
|
|
|
Jul 09, 2008 7:09 PM GMT
Quote
stpete39 saidOH sorry for the typo. My picture is still being approved btw. Any who she is still saying we need to help the illegals in our country. Why in the hell should we help thme. Ship them back to where they came. They do not have the same rights as you and me. They are NOT americans. Again Obama wants everything to be Socialized. If he becomes president and does not put into place his so called change. I am sure a Good old boy will take care of that. Just like Hillary said. You have no idea what you are talking about. You're advocating having some good old boy assassinate Obama? Are you saying a black man needs to learn his place? Are you for real or are you just trying to start an argument with people here? |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Jul 09, 2008 7:17 PM GMT
Quote
Not at all. Just saying he better deliver what he is dishing out. If not, People are going to be upset. And Mrs Clinton is the one who said it not me. Even though his Change platform is all about Marxism.
|
|
|
Jul 09, 2008 7:39 PM GMT
Quote
Well his opinion should be deleted as well...LOL  |
|
|
Jul 09, 2008 7:44 PM GMT
Quote
That didn't take long!
|
|
|
Jul 09, 2008 11:37 PM GMT
Quote
Wow, that guy was some kinda mutant comic-book Limbaugh Ditto-head. In fact I don't think even Michael Savage, let alone Limbaugh talks like that anymore...
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 11:52 AM GMT
Quote
Eh eh eh. Another white supremacist hit and run. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 11:53 AM GMT
Quote
In all honesty, Barack Obama will only inspire people to bring change rather than him bringing change. Hillary Clinton, don't give up, my thought is always with you.  |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 2:46 PM GMT
Quote
Dance saidHillary Clinton, don't give up, my thought is always with you. Is Hillary reading our forum now? She gets messages via our little gay site? Sweet! Yo! Hil! 'Member that sweater you borrowed? I need it back, beeotch. And stop calling my man. He thinks you smell like Aquanet and mothballs. Call me. Let's do lunch, Tranny. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 3:06 PM GMT
Quote
hafakasi saidI think by "ideates" you mean idiots. Delicious irony!
And it appears you've mistaken Senator Obama for being a white woman named Nancy. While I wouldn't complain if he WAS a Nancy, I think assigning Pelosi's actions/beliefs/legislation to Obama is your fundamental mistake. LOL. You know I make this mistake all the time. I mean they look so much alike they could be twins! |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 3:12 PM GMT
Quote
Dance saidIn all honesty, Barack Obama will only inspire people to bring change rather than him bringing change.
Hillary Clinton, don't give up, my thought is always with you.  I think Hillary already gave up. She is backing Obama! This is a true leader, one that inspires people to change. SO if Obama does this, then he will have succeeded. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 3:14 PM GMT
Quote
You can sort of tell a nutjob by the amount of opinion they try to cram into the subject line of a post.
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Jul 10, 2008 3:17 PM GMT
Quote
None of us really know what Senator Obama or Senator McCain would do if elected president. We all have to use our best guess based on the evidence presented and filtered through our seperate frames of reference. My best guess is that Senator McCain would be the better choice. If you disagree with me, well, fine. I hope that whoever wins the election does a good job.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 3:38 PM GMT
Quote
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 3:50 PM GMT
Quote
When the last Democratic President left office we had money in the bank. Under 8 years under the current Republican President we are in dept some 9 TRILLION dollars.
Clearly the Republicans are spending us into bankruptcy. They talk alot about "less spending, smaller government" but do not back up that supposed philosophy with anything tangible.
You may have issues with the Democrats and that's fine, but don't confuse your own political paranoia with economic reality.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 4:01 PM GMT
Quote
Just take some soma and everything will be better.
Shouldn't you be worrying about Britney anyway and not the state of our nation?
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 4:46 PM GMT
Quote
fitnfunmich saidWhen the last Democratic President left office we had money in the bank. Under 8 years under the current Republican President we are in dept some 9 TRILLION dollars.
Clearly the Republicans are spending us into bankruptcy. They talk alot about "less spending, smaller government" but do not back up that supposed philosophy with anything tangible.
You may have issues with the Democrats and that's fine, but don't confuse your own political paranoia with economic reality. Lest anyone forget, the Congress holds the purse strings for our government and is responsible for our tax dollars. A president can not spend tax dollars without the consent of the Congress. While I do not think GW has been good for our country or a good president, I do not put all the blame on his shoulders. Maybe everyone should take a closer look at the politicians from their own districts and check thier voting records on spending. oh, and just for clarity I did not vote for GW, EITHER time his was elected! As for having money when the last Democratic president left office, I suggest you check your facts. It is true that we had a more balanced budget but it was not the policies of Clinton that did that for us. I think history will show you that was accomplished by the policies of the previous congress and president. Who was that president? Hummmm, I think that was a Republican by the name of Ronald Regan. Don't get me wrong, I am not affiliated with any party. I consider myself an independent but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. Personally, I think that is part of the problem in this country. People get in this rut with supporting one party or another and blindly go where the party leads. WAKE UP! Get the facts and vote for the best canidate. The parties are not that different anymore. As a matter of fact there are more Democrates in Congress that are millionaires than any other party. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 4:50 PM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidNone of us really know what Senator Obama or Senator McCain would do if elected president. We all have to use our best guess based on the evidence presented and filtered through our seperate frames of reference. My best guess is that Senator McCain be the better choice. If you disagree with me, well, fine. I hope that whoever wins the election does a good job. John, I'm shocked. Just shocked. You sounded reasonable in that post. Congratulations...you just made me believe in miracles. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 4:53 PM GMT
Quote
eaglearm saidHummmm, I think that was a Republican by the name of Ronald Regan. Don't get me wrong, I am not affiliated with any party. I consider myself an independent but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. Okay, I checked history, and it's quite clear under the Reagan administration that the budget was not balanced, and he ran up the largest debt (up to that point in history). GWB has beaten him there. Stop making Reagan into a hero. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 4:55 PM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidNone of us really know what Senator Obama or Senator McCain would do if elected president. We all have to use our best guess based on the evidence presented and filtered through our seperate frames of reference. My best guess is that Senator McCain be the better choice. If you disagree with me, well, fine. I hope that whoever wins the election does a good job.
How profound of you. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 5:20 PM GMT
Quote
Eaglearm: Yes there is more to the economy than who holds the Executive Office. But one thing is certain, and that is that it was our President who chose to invade Iraq, and that decision has cost us hundreds of billions that would not otherwise have been wasted.
Personally, I think the President should have resigned immediately when it became apparent that there were no WMD in Iraq, but in any case I would not vote for any candidate who wants to keep our troops there indefinitely. Quite simply, we cannot afford it.
So McCain wants to keep the troops there for another 100 years, and Obama wants them out. The latter is the best decision diplomatically, militarily, and most certainly economically.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 5:52 PM GMT
Quote
eaglearm said
Lest anyone forget, the Congress holds the purse strings for our government and is responsible for our tax dollars. A president can not spend tax dollars without the consent of the Congress. While I do not think GW has been good for our country or a good president, I do not put all the blame on his shoulders. Maybe everyone should take a closer look at the politicians from their own districts and check thier voting records on spending. oh, and just for clarity I did not vote for GW, EITHER time his was elected! By no means am I an expert in economics; however, the Democrats have only had a small majority since Fall 2006, thus being previously outweighed by a strong Republican majority in both Executive and Legislative branches. A weakening of checks and balances, in a way, that would allow the President to steer fiscal policies (per his advisors) to a greater extent than would be possible were there a Democratic Congressional stronghold. Maybe, instead of saying it's W's fault, we could say it's the current administration's policies that have created a rather significant financial tail spin. eaglearm saidAs for having money when the last Democratic president left office, I suggest you check your facts. It is true that we had a more balanced budget but it was not the policies of Clinton that did that for us. I think history will show you that was accomplished by the policies of the previous congress and president. Who was that president? Hummmm, I think that was a Republican by the name of Ronald Regan. Don't get me wrong, I am not affiliated with any party. I consider myself an independent but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. What facts are you referring to, I wonder? I'd be interested in reading where your facts for the above statement comes from...? Here are 2 pieces of information to challenge what you say above: Keeping in mind that Clinton took office in January 1993 after inheriting the policies from Reagan, then Bush, Sr. - 12 years of Republican policies; from: http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_24_155324_2000.html"In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. In fact, the unified budget had a surplus of $237 billion in FY 2000 -- the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation." and, from: http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/2008/2008-06-02fiscal-reversal.pdf The Bush Administration’s Legacy: A Dramatic Fiscal Reversal Administration Policies Have Dramatically Reversed the Fiscal Outlook — This Administration inherited a $5.6 trillion projected ten-year surplus, and has replaced it with record deficits. In all, the Administration’s fiscal and economic policies have led to a deterioration of over $8 trillion – the largest fiscal deterioration in American history. eaglearm saidPersonally, I think that is part of the problem in this country. People get in this rut with supporting one party or another and blindly go where the party leads. WAKE UP! Get the facts and vote for the best canidate. The parties are not that different anymore. As a matter of fact there are more Democrates in Congress that are millionaires than any other party. While some of the above is true, in my opinion, I wouldn't hesitate to say that Obama and McCain differ on quite a number of issues. Relative to a Nader or Barr, however, the two presumptive nominees are more "center." Nonetheless, great idea to be informed about candidates. The only problem is that, thanks to Bush policies, who has the time to inform themselves since minimum wage still sucks ass and lots of people are in huge debt, just like our country!!  (I guess that's why Fox News "talking points" are so attractive!) |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 5:55 PM GMT
Quote
What Speaker Pelosi was referring to was the pay disparity between men and women, and the disparity between people of colour and whites. She does not mean to make everyone's salary "equal". She just wants to make sure that everyone gets paid the highest rate (the standard, sadly, is still what a white male gets paid), fairly. Obama has never spoken in favor of "socialism" nor is he "anti-capitalist". But, remember, there is a MAJOR difference between "free enterprise" and "capitalism". The former promotes equality of opportunity; the latter, crass exploitation for profit and power.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 6:16 PM GMT
Quote
ITS GONNA BE THE JIMMEY CARTER ADMINISTRATION...ALL OVER AGAIN...Bookish, leftism, idealism that sounds good but always goesreally wrong when applied in the real world.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 6:38 PM GMT
Quote
As opposed to the anti-intellectual, war-mongering, corrupt, morally bankrupt, economic and environmental disasters of the last administration? Jimmy Carter would be a welcome reprieve.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 6:41 PM GMT
Quote
Alpha13 saidITS GONNA BE THE JIMMEY CARTER ADMINISTRATION...ALL OVER AGAIN...Bookish, leftism, idealism that sounds good but always goesreally wrong when applied in the real world. Yeah...books are evil. Ideals are bad. Leftism ("progressivism") is blasphemy. Whatever. Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just hauling out labels with nothing to elaborate on? A country that demonizes using your brain is a country that is truly f*cked. Enjoy. |
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 6:50 PM GMT
Quote
I heart Mickey and Rugger! LOL!
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 4:15 AM GMT
Quote
fitnfunmich saidWhen the last Democratic President left office we had money in the bank. Under 8 years under the current Republican President we are in dept some 9 TRILLION dollars.
Clearly the Republicans are spending us into bankruptcy. They talk alot about "less spending, smaller government" but do not back up that supposed philosophy with anything tangible.
You may have issues with the Democrats and that's fine, but don't confuse your own political paranoia with economic reality. Especially with a Republican-controlled Congress during the first six years, it's not difficult to understand why US doesn't confront China as much as they did during Clinton administration... |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Jul 11, 2008 4:47 AM GMT
Quote
you opened up a big can of worms invoking your personal political views in a forum such as realjock.com. The change Obama wants to make will result in just "change" in your pocket. Simply said - he wants to raise taxes and raise more taxes. Get with the program. You want your ability to spend your hard-earned cash diminished greatly because Obama will make you share more of your own money with the govt. on programs you do not agree with?
very simple - raising taxes is a vote of NO.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 5:09 AM GMT
Quote
QUICK!
EVERYONE CREATE NEW FORUM
TOPICS AND START POSTING ON
THEM TO GET THIS SHIT OFF THE
HOME PAGE!!!
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 5:12 AM GMT
Quote
WhiteJock saidyou opened up a big can of worms invoking your personal political views in a forum such as realjock.com. The change Obama wants to make will result in just "change" in your pocket. Simply said - he wants to raise taxes and raise more taxes. Get with the program. You want your ability to spend your hard-earned cash diminished greatly because Obama will make you share more of your own money with the govt. on programs you do not agree with?
very simple - raising taxes is a vote of NO. you should concerned about more than just taxes when deciding who to vote for. One, most ppl do not make 6 figs, which is the group of people he is looking to raise taxes on. furthermore, the bush tax cuts have helped no one but the rich, so the raised taxes is bull. also, u need to think about things like supreme court justices, ur constitutional rights, the war, the state of america now, who has admitted they kno wnothng about the economy. use more details to make an informed decision rather than just saying o he is raisin taxes, that is a no. |
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 5:25 AM GMT
Quote
WhiteJock saidyou opened up a big can of worms invoking your personal political views in a forum such as realjock.com. The change Obama wants to make will result in just "change" in your pocket. Simply said - he wants to raise taxes and raise more taxes. Get with the program. You want your ability to spend your hard-earned cash diminished greatly because Obama will make you share more of your own money with the govt. on programs you do not agree with?
very simple - raising taxes is a vote of NO. I'm afraid Fox News has had their way w/ you for too long, WhiteJock. Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% of the population (read: $603,000 and up), while SIGNIFICANTLY reducing taxes for those of us who make less than $66K when compared to McCain's plan. Which demographic do you fall in, I wonder? I tried to cut and paste, and format, a table of numbers below for you to peruse - hopefully it is still coherent format-wise. From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061003376.htmlMcCain Camp Distorts Obama's Tax Policies, Exaggerates Their Adverse Impact
Sen. John McCain's camp is attempting to convince Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Sen. Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact "the largest tax increase since the Second World War." A surrogate for McCain, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book."AND from: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else. Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups. BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERSHere's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place. MCCAIN OBAMA Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885 $603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974 $227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12 $161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789 $112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204 $66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290 $38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042 $19K-$38K -$113 -$892 Under $19K -$19 -$567 Source:The Tax Policy Center |
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 6:14 AM GMT
Quote
I guess it comes down to what sort of country you want, and Obama hardly seems Marxist -- there are really few of those left, at least as to what the author intended.
I for one am not convinced that the United States can be governed by a small government, or one that does not require support or input in the form of taxes from it's citizens. Honestly to govern a country with the population and complexities of the US, as a country governed by the rule law, requires an extensive government, and without a centralized government we wouldn't be where we are.
That isn't to say that everything should be decided by the federal government, but governmnet is government, and the difference between what is federal or not is philisophical and not what really matters -- you can argue otherwise, but you are still arguing for government and all it's complexities.
We are a complex society that requires complex laws, solutions and points of view, and I'm not arguing here either as a liberal or conservative, but just that people recognize that the nation is not constructed on something more than their personal whims, and that and an advanced society requires structure. I don't know what sort of sociey most want, but if you want one based on rule of law, and one that provides for the large population of a major nation, then it probably won't e a merely localixed set of rules as that won't suffice for a complex civilization based on the rule o law.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 10:18 AM GMT
Quote
I love the rightwing nuts who come out and say...
"I'm not happy with the republicans..."
But your Hidden and deleted ass was sure happy with them
when they were pilferin' the economy
you were happy with them when they were shreddin' the Constitution
and you were happy with them when they were votin' to allow a war criminal to wage and illegal war and turn our country into a nation that tortures
Like John McSame.... Doesn't want to take a picture with Bush but he voted in Congress along with Bush 95% of the time
and his rhetoric goes right along with EVERYTHING that Bush has ever said
So take your lyin' crap and peddle it somewhere else
.... Anything and I mean ANYTHING is better than the republican crew we got stealin' us blind now
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 2:19 PM GMT
Quote
homonculus saidWhiteJock saidyou opened up a big can of worms invoking your personal political views in a forum such as realjock.com. The change Obama wants to make will result in just "change" in your pocket. Simply said - he wants to raise taxes and raise more taxes. Get with the program. You want your ability to spend your hard-earned cash diminished greatly because Obama will make you share more of your own money with the govt. on programs you do not agree with?
very simple - raising taxes is a vote of NO.
I'm afraid Fox News has had their way w/ you for too long, WhiteJock. Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% of the population (read: $603,000 and up), while SIGNIFICANTLY reducing taxes for those of us who make less than $66K when compared to McCain's plan. Which demographic do you fall in, I wonder? I tried to cut and paste, and format, a table of numbers below for you to peruse - hopefully it is still coherent format-wise.
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061003376.html
McCain Camp Distorts Obama's Tax Policies, Exaggerates Their Adverse Impact
Sen. John McCain's camp is attempting to convince Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Sen. Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact "the largest tax increase since the Second World War." A surrogate for McCain, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book."
AND from: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.
BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
Source:The Tax Policy Center
Wow. Even if I follow WhiteJock's (WTF with that name?) rules for voting, I end up voting for Obama. Another $1,290 in my pocket. Woo Hoo! Go Obama! |
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 2:19 PM GMT
Quote
XRuggerATX saidhomonculus saidWhiteJock saidyou opened up a big can of worms invoking your personal political views in a forum such as realjock.com. The change Obama wants to make will result in just "change" in your pocket. Simply said - he wants to raise taxes and raise more taxes. Get with the program. You want your ability to spend your hard-earned cash diminished greatly because Obama will make you share more of your own money with the govt. on programs you do not agree with?
very simple - raising taxes is a vote of NO.
I'm afraid Fox News has had their way w/ you for too long, WhiteJock. Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% of the population (read: $603,000 and up), while SIGNIFICANTLY reducing taxes for those of us who make less than $66K when compared to McCain's plan. Which demographic do you fall in, I wonder? I tried to cut and paste, and format, a table of numbers below for you to peruse - hopefully it is still coherent format-wise.
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061003376.html
McCain Camp Distorts Obama's Tax Policies, Exaggerates Their Adverse Impact
Sen. John McCain's camp is attempting to convince Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Sen. Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact "the largest tax increase since the Second World War." A surrogate for McCain, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book."
AND from: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.
BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
Source:The Tax Policy Center
Wow. Even if I follow WhiteJock's (WTF with that name?) rules for voting, I end up voting for Obama. Another $1,290/yr. in my pocket! Woo Hoo! Go Obama! |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Jul 11, 2008 2:34 PM GMT
Quote
Right, one U.S. President alone is going to change the way the entire U.S. Government functions??? You need to get your mind out of the state of fear it's in and stop scapgoating others in society for the problems 'your little world' cause you're only hurting yourself everytime you fall off you pedistal. Sure you can blame the leaders, that's what their position is all about, but present more facts and do it unbiasedly if you're going to make any sense to anyone. I'm sure you don't even know what you believe.
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Jul 11, 2008 2:35 PM GMT
Quote
stpete39 saidIf you vote for a democrat you've got some serious issues my friends. Look at what the Speaker of the House is up to!
I'm not happy with the Republicans by a long shot. But this woman, and the liberal idea of "equalizing" incomes ... when in the hell did socialism get this prevalent in the U.S.?????????? My God, the Soviet Union and socialism failed ... haven't the democrats found that yet?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder this country is in the shape that it is, look at the ideates that are running it. Too bad you can't ship people like HER out of the country.
Windfall Tax on Retirement Income
Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darnn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............
Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.
Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Fund s! Alas , it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!
This woman is frightening.
She quotes..." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." ( I am not rich, are you)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'." (Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. "Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it". Are you a politician in the closet? To shame. |
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 3:50 PM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidNone of us really know what Senator Obama or Senator McCain would do if elected president. We all have to use our best guess based on the evidence presented and filtered through our seperate frames of reference. My best guess is that Senator McCain be the better choice. If you disagree with me, well, fine. I hope that whoever wins the election does a good job.
Well said, I have followed politics for over 40 years now, and one thing I know for certain, no politician does exactly what they say they are going to do once they get elected. Furthermore, with the world now so interconnected events can change in the blink of an eye (or the pointing of a mouse) that could drastically impact the direction of a country. The best any country can hope for is that they elect a leader who is a LEADER, and is willing to work with other politicians to solve the problems facing the country. |
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 4:00 PM GMT
Quote
WhiteJock said, "you opened up a big can of worms invoking your personal political views in a forum such as realjock.com. The change Obama wants to make will result in just "change" in your pocket. Simply said - he wants to raise taxes and raise more taxes. Get with the program. You want your ability to spend your hard-earned cash diminished greatly because Obama will make you share more of your own money with the govt. on programs you do not agree with? very simple - raising taxes is a vote of NO."
YO, WISEASS. We ARE paying a HEAVY TAX INCREASE! It's called filling up my car every week! After that, my disposable income is quite diminished. GET WITH THE PROGRAM!
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 4:08 PM GMT
Quote
Cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 4:48 PM GMT
Quote
WELL, I'd definately say people need to wake up from the dream that any President, republican or democrat, can or will challange a system thoroughly privy to "corporate citizens," a system which through its love of the "free market" has all but abandoned the ideas of the Enlightenment.
Of course Pelosi is nuts! She (like many of the dems in Congress today) got elected by DOING NOTHING to challange the war, corporate profiteering, and financial speculation. This is because she/they quite rightly assume that the American people still believe there's any difference between the two parties. Never underestimate the power of symbols to Americans.
As far as needing any money for gov. programs which benefit the majority of people in the US who are not the wealthy, that's an easy one: Iraq. Instead of using that money to bomb Baghdad why not upgrade the levees in the Midwest? Or New Orleans? Ugh. Rant over. XOXO
|
