OBAMA is a socialist!!!!
-
tjamz;244157 wrote:
I think it is funny the other way around that I can debate successfully a message board full of conservatives that somehow think the world would be better with zero taxes and zero social programs.
were did i say zero taxes and social programs? i stated before that i dont want my taxes to go up.... and under the obama plan they will.... you cant argue that... there are always going to be programs to help the less fortunate..... but i dont want to see people that can be working getting free fucking handouts with my damn tax money... and i dont think that someone that dosent pay takes should get anything back.... -
DelSlow;244161 wrote:
Communism > Democracy.Uhhhh....no
-
tjamz;244147 wrote:
They've only been wrong 1 time that I'm aware of....and that was when a newspaper mistakenly said that someone else won the election
HAHA -- Irony -- There's a newspaper that has already published an Obama win.. Since they only publish like twice a month or so (IIRC) they published Obama as the winner..
Google it for more info., but it was out there.. On CNN not too long ago.
Could be another Dewey/Truman result HAHA
-
-
-
Im voting for Obama in hopes that parker has to pay more taxes next year.
-
MisterCMK;244169 wrote:
Chuck, you are a conservative.Shh....don't go wrecking my image....
-
Back on topic a bit, the reason people are thinking Obama is a socialist isn't because of the numbers he's claiming in his tax plan, it's because of what he's said (spreading the wealth, etc). If he was given free reign of the tax plan what do you think he would set up? When Reagan was president he was only able to lower the tax rates a certain amount, but if he had free reign over it what do you think he would have done? Huge changes in our system are not possible due to the checks and balances, the problem is that things keep creeping toward socialism slowly, and before you know it there we are.....
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Except under Obama's tax plans, he (last I heard) was going to allow the current tax cuts to expire, reverting back to tax brackets from the year 2000. Since he's not actually CHANGING anything himself by signing off on something, he doesn't consider this a tax increase. In fact, a single person earning $50,000 a year will end up paying ~$1,000 more annually in taxes starting in 2010 under his plan. Let me see if I can go find the article again...
Also you guys are throwing out the 250K number, haven't you heard that there is speculation that the bracket might be down to 150K now?
Some of you also seem to conveinently forget that democrats are generally pro union, which in large part is behind the failing of the airline and auto industires. The idea behind lowering taxes on corporations may seem retarded at face value but when you look at the goal of it you'd see how smart it is. Right now it is cheaper for a company to build it's next plant overseas because profits made overseas are NOT TAXED AT ALL BY US and taxed at a much lower rate by the country they are located. If we closed this tax code loophole AND lowered our taxes stateside, there would be a LARGE incentive for companies to build their next plant right here in the good ol US of A. Unfortunately every time something like this is considered, dem's cry OH WHY LOWER TAXES ON CORPORATIONS!?!?!? Now, lowering taxes on the corporations alone won't do nearly as much as lowering taxes on them AND starting to tax their overseas profits. This would create more jobs in the country and (feasibly) bring over $500 Billion back into the country as well. Doesn't sound so bad after all now does it?
-
StangerBanger96;244203 wrote:
Except under Obama's tax plans, he (last I heard) was going to allow the current tax cuts to expire, reverting back to tax brackets from the year 2000. Since he's not actually CHANGING anything himself by signing off on something, he doesn't consider this a tax increase. In fact, a single person earning $50,000 a year will end up paying ~$1,000 more annually in taxes starting in 2010 under his plan. Let me see if I can go find the article again...Also you guys are throwing out the 250K number, haven't you heard that there is speculation that the bracket might be down to 150K now?
Some of you also seem to conveinently forget that democrats are generally pro union, which in large part is behind the failing of the airline and auto industires. The idea behind lowering taxes on corporations may seem retarded at face value but when you look at the goal of it you'd see how smart it is. Right now it is cheaper for a company to build it's next plant overseas because profits made overseas are NOT TAXED AT ALL BY US and taxed at a much lower rate by the country they are located. If we closed this tax code loophole AND lowered our taxes stateside, there would be a LARGE incentive for companies to build their next plant right here in the good ol US of A. Unfortunately every time something like this is considered, dem's cry OH WHY LOWER TAXES ON CORPORATIONS!?!?!? Now, lowering taxes on the corporations alone won't do nearly as much as lowering taxes on them AND starting to tax their overseas profits. This would create more jobs in the country and (feasibly) bring over $500 Billion back into the country as well. Doesn't sound so bad after all now does it?
People making less than $250,000 will not see their taxes increase, and people making less than $200,000 will receive some type of tax cut. Those in the $200,000 to $250,000 range will see zero change.
Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increaseWhat I have highlighted in red up above is pretty much what I've been saying all along.
I'm pro-workers rights (40 hour work weeks, etc...) and I think that although unions provide a lot of benefits for the workers, it also sets up a line of worker responsibility and a solid course of corrective action that in some cases makes it easier to terminate an employee than in non-union environments...IOW if the guy is a fuck up, write his ass up on 3 legit problems and terminate him.
-
source= fat kid w/ fro
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
Here is the article I read yesterday...take it for what it's worth...I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
-
StangerBanger96;244226 wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
Here is the article I read yesterday...take it for what it's worth...He has only stated that he will allow the taxes to reset on those above 250,000, those under that amount would stay the same AND have new tax cuts for those below $250,000 (actually, below $200,000...the $200,000 to $250,000 stay the same).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login