it isnt a tax cut for ANYONE. It is a check in the mail, from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster. All RARE exceptions aside. This is textbook socialism.
The tax cut Obama refers to applies to people who PAY NO FED INCOME TAX in the first place!
By this logic, any individual who makes under 250,000 dollars a year (those individuals who would receive a tax cut according to the Obama plan) pay no federal income tax at all, that everyone making under that amount is a "non-ass-buster." That's just blatantly false.
By this logic, any individual who makes under 250,000 dollars a year (those individuals who would receive a tax cut according to the Obama plan) pay no federal income tax at all, that everyone making under that amount is a "non-ass-buster." That's just blatantly false.
your premise is incorrect. people making under 250k, allegedly under his plan, wil not see their taxes INCREASED. get your facts straight.
and i'll let all the other twisting of words pass...
"The Obama plan will reduce taxes for low-income and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers."
So already your premise is wrong; Obama WILL cut taxes according to his proposal on low and moderate income families. You're telling me your friends which make a combined total of 100,000 fit solely into the top quintile? Figure 2 shows you they will benefit, and their income will increase, more significantly under Obama's plan then McCain's.
According to that chart, which measures projected cash income percentiles after the two proposals would be put into action, Obama's significantly benefits the middle-class, while McCain benefits the bottom four quintiles slightly and then benefits the top 1% significantly. No, if you believe in that type of economics and tax plan, fine, let's debate that, but don't misrepresent Obama's plan in doing so.
EDIT: I should say you are mostly wrong. You're right in saying that although no one under 250,000 will see their taxes increase, not everyone under that income will see a tax cut. You're wrong in making a blanket statement that people making under 250k will "not see their taxes increased", and that would be the only benefit. Most WILL see a tax cut.
"The Obama plan will reduce taxes for low-income and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers."
So already your premise is wrong; Obama WILL cut taxes according to his proposal on low and moderate income families. You're telling me your friends which make a combined total of 100,000 fit solely into the top quintile? Figure 2 shows you they will benefit, and their income will increase, more significantly under Obama's plan then McCain's.
According to that chart, which measures projected cash income percentiles after the two proposals would be put into action, Obama's significantly benefits the middle-class, while McCain benefits the bottom four quintiles slightly and then benefits the top 1% significantly. No, if you believe in that type of economics and tax plan, fine, let's debate that, but don't misrepresent Obama's plan in doing so.
Yeah, this looks great for the middle class at first glance, but this is a detail oriented argument you present. Heres the big picture.
the bottom line is the top line, where it says:
McCain would cut taxes by 4.2 large, while Obama's plan cuts taxes by 2.9 tril.
1.3 more trillion free, undebased and uninflated currency in the market benefits everyone. Period. Sadly for some, it does benefit rich people as well. But they are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes, so they should receive the bulk of the relief.
If you want to bemoan the fact that the rich get richer, I'd say that's a sad reality of life. But that's a different argument. I'd say, rare exceptions aside, it's the choices you make...
Yeah, this looks great for the middle class at first glance, but this is a detail oriented argument you present. Heres the big picture.
We seem to run into this problem a lot. You're once again changing the argument to something other than what we were talking about in the first place. The claims you made were...
"It's a check from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster."
"The tax cut (with rare exceptions) applies to people who pay no FED INCOME TAX in the first place."
and of course...
"People making under 250K will not see their taxes increased." (i.e. there will be no tax cuts for those under that.")
None of these are true; you were misrepresenting Obama's tax plan, and now you want to say we were debating the validity of trickle-down economics. Different argument entirely. If you want to talk about how the tax plans will lead to cash in hand, it should be noted that Obama's tax plan will put more income in the hands of the middle-class, so they will not scrimp and save, not lower their confidence in investments, etc. etc. etc; they'll be willing to invest their income back into society. All cliches aside, if the financial confidence of the middle class is sacrificed to make sure the big pockets have available assets, then our system will be hurt.
However, none of that has to do with the argument you were making. I'm not a big fan when people try to frame the debate as something different than it was entirely in the first place. With that information, surely you'll have to admit that the Obama proposal means a tax cut for the majority of individuals, families and businesses that make under 250,000 a year.
again, i would ask you...how are we going to pay for the wars we are in, the bailout, etc?
Thanks for keeping an open mind on that.
that's a whole separate issue.
My view, for what it's worth: Partisan reps passing legislation on a do-for-me basis. But solving that prob is another thread in my view.
We seem to run into this problem a lot. You're once again changing the argument to something other than what we were talking about in the first place. The claims you made were...
"It's a check from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster."
"The tax cut (with rare exceptions) applies to people who pay no FED INCOME TAX in the first place."
and of course...
"People making under 250K will not see their taxes increased." (i.e. there will be no tax cuts for those under that.")
None of these are true; you were misrepresenting Obama's tax plan, and now you want to turn it into the validity of trickle-down economics. Different argument entirely. If you want to talk about how the tax plans will lead to cash in hand, it should be noted that Obama's tax plan will put more income in the hands of the middle-class, so they will not scrimp and save, lower investments, etc. etc. etc. All cliches aside, if the financial confidence of the middle class is sacrificed to make sure the big pockets have available assets, then our system will be hurt.
However, none of that has to do with the argument you were making. I'm not a big fan when people try to frame the debate as something different than it was entirely in the first place. With that information, surely you'll have to admit that the Obama proposal means a tax cut for the majority of individuals, families and businesses that make under 250,000 a year.
I took your report and showed you my big picture view. like it or not.
increasing the money supply without inflation is an overall benefit to our economy. that is the result of NET income tax relief, in this case. So I don't see how that's irrelevant.
And, more specifically, your charts do not adequately point out the imbalace of the tax system as it is. Meaning, these "wealthiest" pay all on those taxes, while the "lowest" pay very little, by reative comparison. your argument provides no relative comparison to the burden as it exists. We can throw graphs around all day long.
And back to the plumber. You make great debate, but if Obama could say what you are saying, he would have said it. that's what this thread is about.
I've read Obama's tax plan, his economy plan, AND his small business plan, for the record. On his website
But Biden and news servies are smearing him. Why? Because he supports McCain?
I love how the Repubs look at the facts being brought to light as a "smear". Says alot about the state of the party. They tried that shit when the facts, i mean smear campaign, began on palin. What a bunch of whiner babies.
I took your report and showed you my big picture view. like it or not.
increasing the money supply without inflation is an overall benefit to our economy. that is the result of NET income tax relief, in this case. So I don't see how that's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because it wasn't the argument you were making. The argument you were making was that there was not tax relief for people making incomes under 250,000 (i.e. your argument that Obama's plan only amounted to no tax 'increases' for those 250,000, with no cuts, and you told ME to get my facts straight). Your argument was that Obama's plan amounted to giving tax relief to those who don't pay income tax, which is false. Like I said, you're now trying to argue that trickle-down economics whereas earlier you were arguing that Obama's plan does not benefit the middle class by granting tax relief.
So if you were willing to objectively look at the facts, you would have to say that the majority of people under 250,000 WOULD get tax relief under Obama's plan. You would not try to change the argument because the facts contradicted your position.
further more: the very lowest quintile on your graph pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL. They are also getting THE BULK OF THE REFLIEF.
If you can think clearly, this will mean that the lowest quintile will get A CHECK IN THE MAIL SIMPLY FOR EXISTING. WTF is that?
And let's look at your 250k...what If my business generates an adjusted income of 240K? Say I wanna grow my company, but a whole 5% growth means that now I will no have increased taxes. Which means, I would have to experience, say, a 20% growth to see any real benefit to busting my ass to expand (depending on time investment, monetary investment, risk, and the new taxes i am burdened with). Maybe now i don't want to expand, buy equipemtn, hire more people...
See where this is going? THIS IS BAD FOR US... THIS LIMITS GROWTH. this is just not a great argument, this 250K business. Cutting taxes OVERALL is the better plan, not giving poor people checks to buy china-made crap from wal-mart.
further more: the very lowest quintile on your graph pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL. They are also getting THE BULK OF THE REFLIEF.
If you can think clearly, this will mean that the lowest quintile will get A CHECK IN THE MAIL SIMPLY FOR EXISTING. WTF is that?
And let's look at your 250k...what If my business generates an adjusted income of 240K? Say I wanna grow my company, but a whole 5% growth means that now I will no have increased taxes. Which means, I would have to experience, say, a 20% growth to see any real benefit to busting my ass to expand (depending on time investment, monetary investment, risk, and the new taxes i am burdened with). Maybe now i don't want to expand, buy equipemtn, hire more people...
See where this is going? THIS IS BAD FOR US... THIS LIMITS GROWTH. this is just not a great argument, this 250K business. Cutting taxes OVERALL is the better plan, not giving poor people checks to buy china-made crap from wal-mart.
Once again; YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE. You said there would be no middle-class tax relief, that Obama's plan did not include tax cuts. The plan says otherwise. Independent analysts say otherwise. There's no arguing with someone who changes the argument when the facts don't support it. If you think people in the lower quintiles didn't "earn" their relief, good for you, that's your opinion. But that's not what we were talking about.
EDIT: That being said, I guess we've reached an impasse on this argument.
Once again; YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE. You said there would be no middle-class tax relief, that Obama's plan did not include tax cuts. The plan says otherwise. Independent analysts say otherwise. There's no arguing with someone who changes the argument when the facts don't support it.
Obama said: if you make under 250k, you will not see one penny increased taxes. That's what the guy keeps saying, not me.
You are the one who keeps saying that the middle class benefits more from Obama's tax cut. You are the one siting this graph or that from the report.
I am presenting analysis of the entire report in rebuttal to what you're claiming. Which is precisely the point. SO YOU stop dancing. People can read the report and make up their own mind who is better served. I am making the conservative case, deal with it.
Obama said: if you make under 250k, you will not see one penny increased taxes. That's what the guy keeps saying, not me.
You are the one who keeps saying that the middle class benefits more from Obama's tax cut. You are the one siting this graph or that from the report.
I am presenting analysis of the entire report in rebuttal to what you're claiming. Which is precisely the point. SO YOU stop dancing. People can read the report and make up their own mind who is better served. I am making the conservative case, deal with it.
It's impossible to make an argument when the opposing side will not concede where they were wrong. I conceded that I was wrong to say that everyone under 250,000 dollars will get a tax cut. You've refused to concede that you were wrong in saying that people getting a tax cut under Obama's plan pay income tax, and that when you refuted my point about tax cuts under Obama's plan you were wrong. It's hard to find credibility in an argument and the person making it when he or she will not concede the points where they were mistaken when the facts show they were. "It isn't a tax cut for ANYONE." You said that, not me. That was YOUR argument. I've shown you otherwise, and there's no point in debating someone who tries to shift the argument, who will not defend the argument they've made but change it. I appreciate your viewpoints and your arguments, but that kind of response is not a debate, it's a dodge.
So what he asked Obama about his policies. That is all he did. He did not call Obama a terrorist or spit on him or anything else. He asked him about his tax plan.
He lied dude, the business he wanted to buy, isnt even worth 250K....Under Obama's plan he's getting a tax cut.
hahaha, no of course not. I feel the McCain case is a little underepresented here at 10c. It's not that I don't like Obama overall. Who doesn't like to hear the guy speak? Who doesn't want to cross a HUGE bridge in the racial divide by voting in a black president? What a great day that will be. Very inspiring stuff.
He's a good man, a family man, a har working man. I respect that
It's impossible to make an argument when the opposing side will not concede where they were wrong. I conceded that I was wrong to say that everyone under 250,000 dollars will get a tax cut. You've refused to concede that you were wrong in saying that people getting a tax cut under Obama's plan pay income tax, and that when you refuted my point about tax cuts under Obama's plan you were wrong. It's hard to find credibility in an argument and the person making it when he or she will not concede the points where they were mistaken when the facts show they were. "It isn't a tax cut for ANYONE." You said that, not me. That was YOUR argument. I've shown you otherwise, and there's no point in debating someone who tries to shift the argument, who will not defend the argument they've made but change it. I appreciate your viewpoints and your arguments, but that kind of response is not a debate, it's a dodge.
Here, It's been a nice debate, you're very intelligent, your data supports your argument very well. As it should coming from one who debates well.
There is considerable room for interpretation in the report you cite, in my view, including an examination of the report itself in the light of basic econimic principles.
That's my point, I guess.
Just quickly, I would point out that the graphs do not include Obama's 2%(.4 tril.) payroll surcharge tax on emplyees of companies netting over 250k (unless i misread that), while they do include the 1 tril cost of McCains simplified tax system.
At the end of the day, the report shows me McCain's plan has a net positive effect on everyone, including the bottom line: 1.3 tril more un-debased, un-inflated currency in the money supply.
Here, It's been a nice debate, you're very intelligent, your data supports your argument very well. As it should coming from one who debates well.
There is considerable room for interpretation in the report you cite, in my view, including an examination of the report itself in the light of basic econimic principles.
That's my point, I guess.
Just quickly, I would point out that the graphs do not include Obama's 2%(.4 tril.) payroll surcharge tax on emplyees of companies netting over 250k (unless i misread that), while they do include the 1 tril cost of McCains simplified tax system.
At the end of the day, the report shows me McCain's plan has a net positive effect on everyone, including the bottom line: 1.3 tril more un-debased, un-inflated currency in the money supply.
I'm not looking for a pat on the back; I find it frustrating when people try to change the arguments they're making. I see Obama's people and McCain's people do it all the time, and it is frustrating then as well.
Now, two points, although I'm no economist and things get sticky here. First of all, you've expressed outrage that people will be getting a "check in the mail" who do not pay taxes, those free-loaders! The problem with this argument is that it's not a "check in the mail" for everyone in the lowest quintile. Figure 2 measures the increase in income which will happen as a result of Obama's tax plan, not the amount of money received from the federal government. All of his "tax credits" and "tax cuts" are based upon the notion that you pay taxes; how you can you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes at all? The results show that the lowest quintile will still benefit, and if anyone of them do pay federal income taxes (i.e. self-employed, etc) they will see the appropriate tax cut. But this notion that everyone in America is getting a check in the mail is unfounded. Show me the check in the mail in Obama's plan! It's not there; the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, college credit, you need to OWE taxes for these credits to be applicable. That's what makes a tax credit a tax credit in the first place. The only exception I see is if you are an undergraduate student in the 4,000 college affordability tax credit, in which you receive the credit as the dependent of another individual (who, surprise, must be a taxpayer). And tax cuts don't mean extra money; they mean you don't have to pay the money that was originally necessary by law. Again, where is this "check in the mail" you keep talking about? I made 800 dollars as a student last year and did not pay taxes; would I be getting that 'check in the mail?' Of course not. The Tax Policy Center shows, however, that I would benefit under Obama's plan, simply because in their view it is a better plan. A credit is the closest thing to the check in the mail, but those receiving the credit will be taxpayers. So how do non-taxpayers benefit directly?
Secondly, from Obama's website; "families making more than 250,000 dollars will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s." Now, let's take this policy at its' word for the sake of argument. You've called Obama's tax policies "socialist." Was Clinton, therefore, similarly socialist? Their tax policies are not significantly divergent, and seem to err on Obama's positions being less "tax-friendly." How does this work with your "Obama's a socialist! An Obama presidency is unacceptable!" According to these figures, we went through worse than that ten years ago.
you're running me in circles a little bit here, back to the 90's stuff included.
We could go on for four more hours about all that.
I'll let my last comments rest on the issue of the report, and get back to hig-fiving joe the "plumber."
I was mainly trying to figure out why you thought those people who pay no taxes would be able to receive those checks in the mail, considering the tax credits and reductions that are a part of an Obama plan go to taxpayers (i.e. "cut" those people's taxes and give them "credit" on taxes they owe).
joe the plumber exposed Obama for the left-wing elitist that he is. listen very carefully to Obama's response. Carefully disguised socialism...
LOL. Yea except he's not a plumber, his name isn't Joe, and he's not intent on buying said business. The only one "exposed" was him. Ok but we know that. I do anyway. Are you aware that we are already in early stages of socialism? We've essentially nationalized the banking industry with the buyouts of Washington Mutual, Wachovia and others. Don't forget the bailout that's costing every taxpayer thousands of dollars. These are forms of socialism. The difference between us and other socialist countries is we've socialized debt, they socialize good things like healthcare, education, etc.
Socialism carries a negative connotation because many people incorrectly associate it with communism. That's actually wrong. There are many non-communist countries in Europe who institute forms of socialism. Canada is the same way. Heaven forbid we have positive socialism in this country. We wouldn't want people having free health care and free education would we? That would just be awful.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
Unfortunately for the people who believe this, an Obama presidency is imminent.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
There are many non-communist countries in Europe who institute forms of socialism. Canada is the same way. Heaven forbid we have positive socialism in this country. We wouldn't want people having free health care and free education would we? That would just be awful.
Thanks for poitning out your socialist point of view. Why dont you move to Canada or Europe?
Socialism may be rising in America, thanks to left-wing elite globalists.
I'm not sure why socialists try to pollute our free society. I wonder why they do not prefer to just go to a more socialist country, and leave this free country alone.
But i'll be there to fight Fugawzi, SCB or any other socialist or communist in the way of my freedom. Thease ideas are enemies to the state. Treasonous.
In my view.
So he asked Obama a Hypothetical question then. Does it matter? Politicians lie all the time. He owes 11 hundred in taxes big deal. That gives the press to smear him?
Personally i don't give a rats ass about joe the plumber who is not really a plumber.
Who cares about 'Joe the Plumber'? Senator McCain.
Thanks for poitning out your socialist point of view. Why dont you move to Canada or Europe?
Socialism may be rising in America, thanks to left-wing elite globalists.
I'm not sure why socialists try to pollute our free society. I wonder why they do not prefer to just go to a more socialist country, and leave this free country alone.
But i'll be there to fight Fugawzi, SCB or any other socialist or communist in the way of my freedom. Thease ideas are enemies to the state. Treasonous.
In my view.
A free country for anyone that chooses to live here, whether they agree with your views or not. Toughen up princess. It's not your way or the highway.
I didn't say they HAD to go, just wondering why I have to fight this fight, I mean, the are countries that better fit the ideology. It would be BETTER for them. I'm lookin' out for them. Becuase I care.
I didn't say they HAD to go, just wondering why I have to fight this fight, I mean, the are countries that better fit the ideology. It would be BETTER for them. I'm lookin' out for them. Becuase I care.
I think there are better countries that might fit these peoples ideologies too. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
But i don't think i'll ever get my wish and that they will leave anytime soon.
Get my point?
I didn't say they HAD to go, just wondering why I have to fight this fight, I mean, the are countries that better fit the ideology. It would be BETTER for them. I'm lookin' out for them. Becuase I care.
In regards to the original topic of discussion, I think its pathetic and disgusting that the news (and the two possible presidents to be) decided to focus more on some fucking plumber and even went to the lengths of going to his house to interview him when immediately outside the debate there were veterans being abused for peacefully protesting and trying to bring veterans issues to the forefront of the debate since neither candidate seems to give a shit about them. This is the state of our country, men and women can bleed for our so called "freedom" but as soon as they're done fighting our war, we're done with them...
"In this cause I too am prepared to die. There is no cause for which I am prepared to kill" -Gandhi
Probably not for this thread, no disrespect intended.
but the "plumber" got Obama to perfectly define his economy platform as socialism. That's a pretty big story. Unfiltered from the horse's mouth.
Let me repeat that, a textbook definition of Socialism is "spread the wealth around."
It is so significant that it may turn the election, although socialism is so deeply entrenched into our institutions already that it may not matter much. We'll see.
Comments
By this logic, any individual who makes under 250,000 dollars a year (those individuals who would receive a tax cut according to the Obama plan) pay no federal income tax at all, that everyone making under that amount is a "non-ass-buster." That's just blatantly false.
they have a combined income of well over 100k.
Wanna know what that gets ya in brea?
about a 1bed/1bath rental, with 1 car payment for a Scion or maybe a Jetta if youre lucky.
They actually make enought to pay fed income tax
There will be no tax reduction (at best) for them under Obama's plan.
spread the wealth around my ass.
An Obama presidency is unacceptable.
your premise is incorrect. people making under 250k, allegedly under his plan, wil not see their taxes INCREASED. get your facts straight.
and i'll let all the other twisting of words pass...
False. According to the Tax Policy Center, check out page 2 and Figure 2...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf
"The Obama plan will reduce taxes for low-income and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers."
So already your premise is wrong; Obama WILL cut taxes according to his proposal on low and moderate income families. You're telling me your friends which make a combined total of 100,000 fit solely into the top quintile? Figure 2 shows you they will benefit, and their income will increase, more significantly under Obama's plan then McCain's.
According to that chart, which measures projected cash income percentiles after the two proposals would be put into action, Obama's significantly benefits the middle-class, while McCain benefits the bottom four quintiles slightly and then benefits the top 1% significantly. No, if you believe in that type of economics and tax plan, fine, let's debate that, but don't misrepresent Obama's plan in doing so.
EDIT: I should say you are mostly wrong. You're right in saying that although no one under 250,000 will see their taxes increase, not everyone under that income will see a tax cut. You're wrong in making a blanket statement that people making under 250k will "not see their taxes increased", and that would be the only benefit. Most WILL see a tax cut.
Yeah, this looks great for the middle class at first glance, but this is a detail oriented argument you present. Heres the big picture.
the bottom line is the top line, where it says:
McCain would cut taxes by 4.2 large, while Obama's plan cuts taxes by 2.9 tril.
1.3 more trillion free, undebased and uninflated currency in the market benefits everyone. Period. Sadly for some, it does benefit rich people as well. But they are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes, so they should receive the bulk of the relief.
If you want to bemoan the fact that the rich get richer, I'd say that's a sad reality of life. But that's a different argument. I'd say, rare exceptions aside, it's the choices you make...
We seem to run into this problem a lot. You're once again changing the argument to something other than what we were talking about in the first place. The claims you made were...
"It's a check from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster."
"The tax cut (with rare exceptions) applies to people who pay no FED INCOME TAX in the first place."
and of course...
"People making under 250K will not see their taxes increased." (i.e. there will be no tax cuts for those under that.")
None of these are true; you were misrepresenting Obama's tax plan, and now you want to say we were debating the validity of trickle-down economics. Different argument entirely. If you want to talk about how the tax plans will lead to cash in hand, it should be noted that Obama's tax plan will put more income in the hands of the middle-class, so they will not scrimp and save, not lower their confidence in investments, etc. etc. etc; they'll be willing to invest their income back into society. All cliches aside, if the financial confidence of the middle class is sacrificed to make sure the big pockets have available assets, then our system will be hurt.
However, none of that has to do with the argument you were making. I'm not a big fan when people try to frame the debate as something different than it was entirely in the first place. With that information, surely you'll have to admit that the Obama proposal means a tax cut for the majority of individuals, families and businesses that make under 250,000 a year.
Thanks for keeping an open mind on that.
that's a whole separate issue.
My view, for what it's worth: Partisan reps passing legislation on a do-for-me basis. But solving that prob is another thread in my view.
I took your report and showed you my big picture view. like it or not.
increasing the money supply without inflation is an overall benefit to our economy. that is the result of NET income tax relief, in this case. So I don't see how that's irrelevant.
And, more specifically, your charts do not adequately point out the imbalace of the tax system as it is. Meaning, these "wealthiest" pay all on those taxes, while the "lowest" pay very little, by reative comparison. your argument provides no relative comparison to the burden as it exists. We can throw graphs around all day long.
And back to the plumber. You make great debate, but if Obama could say what you are saying, he would have said it. that's what this thread is about.
I've read Obama's tax plan, his economy plan, AND his small business plan, for the record. On his website
McCain Palin '08.
I love how the Repubs look at the facts being brought to light as a "smear". Says alot about the state of the party. They tried that shit when the facts, i mean smear campaign, began on palin. What a bunch of whiner babies.
It's irrelevant because it wasn't the argument you were making. The argument you were making was that there was not tax relief for people making incomes under 250,000 (i.e. your argument that Obama's plan only amounted to no tax 'increases' for those 250,000, with no cuts, and you told ME to get my facts straight). Your argument was that Obama's plan amounted to giving tax relief to those who don't pay income tax, which is false. Like I said, you're now trying to argue that trickle-down economics whereas earlier you were arguing that Obama's plan does not benefit the middle class by granting tax relief.
So if you were willing to objectively look at the facts, you would have to say that the majority of people under 250,000 WOULD get tax relief under Obama's plan. You would not try to change the argument because the facts contradicted your position.
If you can think clearly, this will mean that the lowest quintile will get A CHECK IN THE MAIL SIMPLY FOR EXISTING. WTF is that?
And let's look at your 250k...what If my business generates an adjusted income of 240K? Say I wanna grow my company, but a whole 5% growth means that now I will no have increased taxes. Which means, I would have to experience, say, a 20% growth to see any real benefit to busting my ass to expand (depending on time investment, monetary investment, risk, and the new taxes i am burdened with). Maybe now i don't want to expand, buy equipemtn, hire more people...
See where this is going? THIS IS BAD FOR US... THIS LIMITS GROWTH. this is just not a great argument, this 250K business. Cutting taxes OVERALL is the better plan, not giving poor people checks to buy china-made crap from wal-mart.
Once again; YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE. You said there would be no middle-class tax relief, that Obama's plan did not include tax cuts. The plan says otherwise. Independent analysts say otherwise. There's no arguing with someone who changes the argument when the facts don't support it. If you think people in the lower quintiles didn't "earn" their relief, good for you, that's your opinion. But that's not what we were talking about.
EDIT: That being said, I guess we've reached an impasse on this argument.
Obama said: if you make under 250k, you will not see one penny increased taxes. That's what the guy keeps saying, not me.
You are the one who keeps saying that the middle class benefits more from Obama's tax cut. You are the one siting this graph or that from the report.
I am presenting analysis of the entire report in rebuttal to what you're claiming. Which is precisely the point. SO YOU stop dancing. People can read the report and make up their own mind who is better served. I am making the conservative case, deal with it.
It's impossible to make an argument when the opposing side will not concede where they were wrong. I conceded that I was wrong to say that everyone under 250,000 dollars will get a tax cut. You've refused to concede that you were wrong in saying that people getting a tax cut under Obama's plan pay income tax, and that when you refuted my point about tax cuts under Obama's plan you were wrong. It's hard to find credibility in an argument and the person making it when he or she will not concede the points where they were mistaken when the facts show they were. "It isn't a tax cut for ANYONE." You said that, not me. That was YOUR argument. I've shown you otherwise, and there's no point in debating someone who tries to shift the argument, who will not defend the argument they've made but change it. I appreciate your viewpoints and your arguments, but that kind of response is not a debate, it's a dodge.
He lied dude, the business he wanted to buy, isnt even worth 250K....Under Obama's plan he's getting a tax cut.
hahaha, no of course not. I feel the McCain case is a little underepresented here at 10c. It's not that I don't like Obama overall. Who doesn't like to hear the guy speak? Who doesn't want to cross a HUGE bridge in the racial divide by voting in a black president? What a great day that will be. Very inspiring stuff.
He's a good man, a family man, a har working man. I respect that
He's just not the better man, in my view.
McCain/Palin '08.
Here, It's been a nice debate, you're very intelligent, your data supports your argument very well. As it should coming from one who debates well.
There is considerable room for interpretation in the report you cite, in my view, including an examination of the report itself in the light of basic econimic principles.
That's my point, I guess.
Just quickly, I would point out that the graphs do not include Obama's 2%(.4 tril.) payroll surcharge tax on emplyees of companies netting over 250k (unless i misread that), while they do include the 1 tril cost of McCains simplified tax system.
At the end of the day, the report shows me McCain's plan has a net positive effect on everyone, including the bottom line: 1.3 tril more un-debased, un-inflated currency in the money supply.
I'm not looking for a pat on the back; I find it frustrating when people try to change the arguments they're making. I see Obama's people and McCain's people do it all the time, and it is frustrating then as well.
Now, two points, although I'm no economist and things get sticky here. First of all, you've expressed outrage that people will be getting a "check in the mail" who do not pay taxes, those free-loaders! The problem with this argument is that it's not a "check in the mail" for everyone in the lowest quintile. Figure 2 measures the increase in income which will happen as a result of Obama's tax plan, not the amount of money received from the federal government. All of his "tax credits" and "tax cuts" are based upon the notion that you pay taxes; how you can you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes at all? The results show that the lowest quintile will still benefit, and if anyone of them do pay federal income taxes (i.e. self-employed, etc) they will see the appropriate tax cut. But this notion that everyone in America is getting a check in the mail is unfounded. Show me the check in the mail in Obama's plan! It's not there; the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, college credit, you need to OWE taxes for these credits to be applicable. That's what makes a tax credit a tax credit in the first place. The only exception I see is if you are an undergraduate student in the 4,000 college affordability tax credit, in which you receive the credit as the dependent of another individual (who, surprise, must be a taxpayer). And tax cuts don't mean extra money; they mean you don't have to pay the money that was originally necessary by law. Again, where is this "check in the mail" you keep talking about? I made 800 dollars as a student last year and did not pay taxes; would I be getting that 'check in the mail?' Of course not. The Tax Policy Center shows, however, that I would benefit under Obama's plan, simply because in their view it is a better plan. A credit is the closest thing to the check in the mail, but those receiving the credit will be taxpayers. So how do non-taxpayers benefit directly?
Secondly, from Obama's website; "families making more than 250,000 dollars will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s." Now, let's take this policy at its' word for the sake of argument. You've called Obama's tax policies "socialist." Was Clinton, therefore, similarly socialist? Their tax policies are not significantly divergent, and seem to err on Obama's positions being less "tax-friendly." How does this work with your "Obama's a socialist! An Obama presidency is unacceptable!" According to these figures, we went through worse than that ten years ago.
We could go on for four more hours about all that.
I'll let my last comments rest on the issue of the report, and get back to hig-fiving joe the "plumber."
I was mainly trying to figure out why you thought those people who pay no taxes would be able to receive those checks in the mail, considering the tax credits and reductions that are a part of an Obama plan go to taxpayers (i.e. "cut" those people's taxes and give them "credit" on taxes they owe).
LOL. Yea except he's not a plumber, his name isn't Joe, and he's not intent on buying said business. The only one "exposed" was him. Ok but we know that. I do anyway. Are you aware that we are already in early stages of socialism? We've essentially nationalized the banking industry with the buyouts of Washington Mutual, Wachovia and others. Don't forget the bailout that's costing every taxpayer thousands of dollars. These are forms of socialism. The difference between us and other socialist countries is we've socialized debt, they socialize good things like healthcare, education, etc.
Socialism carries a negative connotation because many people incorrectly associate it with communism. That's actually wrong. There are many non-communist countries in Europe who institute forms of socialism. Canada is the same way. Heaven forbid we have positive socialism in this country. We wouldn't want people having free health care and free education would we? That would just be awful.
Unfortunately for the people who believe this, an Obama presidency is imminent.
Thanks for poitning out your socialist point of view. Why dont you move to Canada or Europe?
Socialism may be rising in America, thanks to left-wing elite globalists.
I'm not sure why socialists try to pollute our free society. I wonder why they do not prefer to just go to a more socialist country, and leave this free country alone.
But i'll be there to fight Fugawzi, SCB or any other socialist or communist in the way of my freedom. Thease ideas are enemies to the state. Treasonous.
In my view.
Who cares about 'Joe the Plumber'? Senator McCain.
A free country for anyone that chooses to live here, whether they agree with your views or not. Toughen up princess. It's not your way or the highway.
I got-cher socialism right here, pally!
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
But i don't think i'll ever get my wish and that they will leave anytime soon.
Get my point?
Yeah, heaven forbid any country should progress, adapt or change in a way that would actually benefit it's citizens.
Though, I bet you're happy to have your civil liberties being raped in your so-called "free country". Masochist.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
Iraq Veterans Against the War
www.ivaw.org
but the "plumber" got Obama to perfectly define his economy platform as socialism. That's a pretty big story. Unfiltered from the horse's mouth.
Let me repeat that, a textbook definition of Socialism is "spread the wealth around."
It is so significant that it may turn the election, although socialism is so deeply entrenched into our institutions already that it may not matter much. We'll see.