Barack Obama will cut taxes for over 95% of American families. (even though more than half of American think he'll raise their taxes) Here's a calculator to see what to expect...created by charlatan on Aug 28, 2008 at 11:14:10 pm Comments: 18
Comments ... #
Yep, the surest way to economic prosperity is taxing and punishing those goddamn successful people.
If the "Bush tax cuts expire", you can expect to pay more regardless of how much you make. A married couple making $60,000/year would see their tax bill go from about $9,000 up to $16,800. A single person making $30,000/year would go from $4,500 up to $8,400. But Obama, who wants to let those taxes expire, only wants to tax the 'rich.'
Obama is lying. Bold faced, no blinking, no hesitation lying. His RECORD, his history, his party and his political ideology prove this to be true. He will not cut taxes. He will not create jobs and he will not make the price of energy go down one cent.
He is a liar. Which, I know, is OK for democrats, but never for republicans. Because morals don't matter to liberals, lying is not therefore, hypocritical.
""liberals (or progressives or whatever you prefer) have to understand that your candidates don't have the luxury of the right-wingers: They can't always say exactly what they believe ? and still get elected."
(Called "the definitive Democratic insider" by The News & Observer of Raleigh, campaign adviser Gary Pearce has worked for several notable North Carolina Democrats, from Sen. John Edwards to four-time Gov. Jim Hunt, former Lt. Gov. Dennis Wicker, and Senate candidate Erskine Bowles (who was White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton and is now the president of the University of North Carolina).
If the "Bush tax cuts expire", you can expect to pay more regardless of how much you make.
That's why Obama is keeping the middle class tax cuts. I think you are the liar.
"Bush tax cuts expire", you can expect to pay more regardless of how much you make
He said you can expect to PAY MORE. He didnt say in taxes. As business owners face more costing, prices will increase, and per his quote, "you will pay more regardless of how much you will make."
Billy, maybe you should read his post again. He was talking about taxes.
From Glenn Beck (I love him)
Arguments against Idiots: Taxes
August 1, 2008 - 12:33 ET
The issue: Taxes
What the liberal whiners say:
1.'The rich don't pay their fair share'
2.'The working class carries the full load in this country, while the rich just keep getting richer, and paying LESS'
3.'How about those 50 hedge fund managers Barack Obama talks about all the time who made $29 billion, but actually paid less in taxes than their $60,000 a year SECRETARIES!'
4.'I'm sick and tired of all the corporate welfare in this country'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1.Really? According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of wage-earners in this country pays nearly 40% of the burden (an 11% INCREASE over 1999, when WHO was President? Oh that's right...Bill Clinton). Not fair? Well, you may be saying, 'that's because they have ALL the wealth!' Wrong again. The top 1% of earners account for just 21% of the total adjusted gross income. Hmm. Come to think of it...you're RIGHT! That really isn't fair. They're paying DOUBLE what they should be. By the way, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the load. When you get all the way down to the top 50% of earners, they account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden. The next 10% pays 3.6%. And the bottom 40% of wage earners...pay NOTHING. That's right, nothing. In fact, they pay nothing, and then often get a "refund" (handout) at years end.
2. Now this argument, to me, is null and void, since it comes straight from the "Communist Manifesto" by our friend, Karl Marx (no, not Richard Marx, the singer with the hair...this is the OTHER Marx brother) Simply substitute the words "working class" for proletariat and "rich" for bourgeousie, and voila! Class warfare, Marxist style. Besides, do you know ANY rich people who don't work hard? Only 2% of this country's rich inherited their money, like the Kennedy's...the rest, earned it.
3. The "50 Hedge Fund mangers' who made a combined $29 billion is one of my favorite Barack Obama campaign stories. It's true of course. At least the part about how much money they made. Legally, by the way. But for a billionaire to pay less in taxes than his secretary, is preposterous at best. It's impossible. I need to see their 1040 form for proof. If they pay a smaller percentage than their secretary did, their accountant needs to be made President of the United States of America, immediately. No campaign, no election. The first ever APPOINTMENT to President in American history...just based on amazing skills.
It's also interesting to note that one of those Hedge Fund managers, of whom Obam speaks, but never names, is....George Soros. $2.9 Billion last year. Keep those Moveon.org ads coming Georgie! being the big-hearted, big government guy he is, it's surprising he hasn't voluntarily written out huge extra checks to the Federal Government to make up the discrepancy.
4. For this, I refer you to yesterday's article on the evil oil companies...who, from 1977-2004 made over $643 billion in profits! But, during that time span, their disgusting "corporate welfare" situation allowed them to pay a paltry $1.343 TRILLION in state and federal taxes. What a free ride.
It doesn't matter who you tax directly. At the end of the day, consumers pay all the taxes. If the government spends more - it means that taxes are raised - for everyone period.
Uh, you mean like the Iraq war spending? So, W raised your taxes?
Leave it to brainiac Glenn Beck to envoke the name Marx, while he forgets to mention that the father of capitalism Adam Smith was a big proponent of progressive taxation (the rich should pay more).
Uh, you mean like the Iraq war spending? So, W raised your taxes?
Yes, Bush raised taxes no doubt about.
So you then agree that Obama will?
Appearently if Bush raised taxes then it isn't bad if Obama does.
Thanks for the personal insult, I expected it from Charlatan, not you.
If you believe Obama's claims he will not raise middle class taxes (middle class by anyone's definition - yes go ahead and use the 5 million red herring) - then you are are either a kool-aid drinker, or refuse to examine the democratic parties history, Obama's voting record, or his economic philosophy.
If you believe in him and his principles, just admit it. I will respect you more.
If you believe Government should take from the successful - whether individual or corporate - and give to the less successfull, just admit it. Change your name to robin-hood marx-slip and stand proud.
Yep, gotta love Obama and his radical left politics. Let's tax the people that actually produce something into oblivion.....let's take half their wages just because we can.....and then let's give it to the people that dropped out of high school and refused to go to college....let's give it to the people that play Playstation instead of reading books. And if you think this is only going to affect the "top 1%" of earners you're a fool. Obama has already proposed collecting FICA over the limits set now....which will capture a lot more than the "top 1%." Of course the people that this will affect won't see any more money when it comes time to collect social security benefits.
That's what obama is at heart, and that's what people don't like. Fortunately for the country most Democrats aren't even as liberl as he is when it comes to tax policy, so many of his proposal may not even make it out of committee in the House, and if they do the Republicans will likely take over again in 2010.
By the way, does this website include FICA taxes? If not then it's a big fat lie because it has listed that people making $10,000 will receive a tax cut. The problem is that no one making that pays a single cent in income taxes currently.
TAHL--yes, I have seen Obama's tax figures and I will get a bigger tax break from his plan than McCain's. It's time to stop the practice of the Republicans' corporate socialist ways. They take from the many and give to the few. As long as McCain follows the supply-side mantra, he'll be a socialist. Palin is the same. Look up her proposal to give $500 million of taxpayer money to a Canadian company for a gas pipeline. Btw--I apologize for the liar remark. It was a cheap shot, and I will try to refrain from this in the future.
Two things I didn't like about your the calculator you offered: 1) Though it referenced the "Tax Policy Center" (whatever the hell that is), as a source for data, I've been to the TPC website and they offer no calculating tool. The calculator was assembled by a group called Alchemy Today. Who knows what the hell the motives of either of these groups actally is. 2) Assuming both groups are sincere and generated accurate data and interpretations thereof, why the hell wouldn't they have done it for the McCain plan? This makes them one or both of the groups suspect.
I couldn't find a link to a calculator for both policies, but here's a link to one of American Great Newspapers, the bastion of truth, The Washington Post, which at least summarizes one plan against the other.
Most people will vote for what benefits themselves, so Obama should be a shoe in. In a democracy, it's only a matter of time until the "have-nots" vote themselves what they don't have. First $ through exended welfare programs, now tax breaks regardless of the actual amounts paid, soon to come paid sick days regardless of weather the industry can support such a benefit or if the person deserves it.