False hope, let me make it clear for you. McCain is going to lose, and thats nothing to do with my stance on Obama its just the plain truth.Originally Posted by EJ25RUN
False hope, let me make it clear for you. McCain is going to lose, and thats nothing to do with my stance on Obama its just the plain truth.
Very well said.
These people cant get it that what "The Wealthy" are is people making over 25k and not 125K. I was making that at 16. Anyways. Prepare for a great depression if world if Obama has his way.
X2
The thing that gets me is that every election year, politicians make all these new promises when the only way to improve our country is to cut spending and stop raising taxes. WE DON"T NEED ANY NEW PROGRAMS!
the first bush raised taxes only by a few percent. This was to make up for the fact that reagan cut tax levels by more than 40% in some brackets. All the first bush did was raise the taxes marginally to balance the economy. At the time people were quite happy with this considering that just 10 years earlier tax rates were double what they were at the time.
Care to comment?
Land Rover LR3 HSE
Maybe some of you should look at this chart. This was before reagan came into office. After reagan the tax brackets were more along the lines of that they are today.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisc...20Brackets.pdf
Land Rover LR3 HSE
I didn't miss the point at all. All kinds of people have handicapped license plates and can therefore park in the handicapped spots for all kinds of conditions. Its not just being unable to walk.
Raising taxes is all about balancing the budget, not "balancing the economy". Wtf is that? There's no way to quantify whether or not the economy is in "balance".
You should just stop posting now like you did in that other thread because you're a retard who has no clue what they're talking about. Drawing a parallel between the 16th amendment and Obama's plan to tax the wealthiest people doesn't really produce a meaningful example of anything except a logical fallacy.
Oh, and why raise taxes on anyone?
Because we're running a record deficit, that's why. Also, lol @ whoever said a lot of good things came out of Bush's term. Weak dollar, dead soldiers, greater mideast instability, economic mediocrity (its not all his fault by any means, but he didn't help)... I'm trying to think of something good. I'm trying really hard.
Last edited by The12lber; 08-04-2008 at 08:51 PM.
Sure, that 40% cut caused a $220 Billion budget deficit which FORCED H.W Bush to increase taxes. Furthermore are you THAT simple to think a "maginal" tax increase balances a budget over $200 Billion in debt????
Regardless, it was a REPUBLICAN that increased TAXES and guess what? It actually worked.
It's pretty simple really.. if you're doing a lot of government spending (as republicans seem to love as much as democrats these days) and taxes are the only way to cover these expenditures I don't think the solution is LOWER taxes. But I guess a simpleton only sees it through their own microscope rather than the big picture. Nobody cares if you have a house and nice car if the economy crumbles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommunismDo you really support the "distribution of wealth" plan that this proposes? You would seriously take from those that have earned it and give it to those in the lower bracket, in turn punishing work ethic? I think the USSR tried that once. It didn't work out so well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Indulge yourself. Really, so there's one less person too dumb to know the difference.
gotta love obama h8ters - thats all they got; not like they can actually give points why mccain is better
gotta love obama h8ters - thats all they got; not like they can actually give points why mccain is better
whats even worse.. everything that obama does that they complain about, McCain does as well.... mainly the topic of this thread..
Luda was right...
---
That first part I explained is very tough stuff. You might want to sleep on it to get it to really sink in there bud.
thanks for making 12 different replies to each sentence I typed. Necessities to some are different to others. Why should it matter what you spend your money on. That doesn't make it right for the government to tax those who work hard to give to those who are looking for handouts.
How do you not understand that taxes have an impact on the budget as well as the ecomony. If taxes are reduced, people have more money to spend, therefore strengthening the economy.
Again, I understand that handicapped applies to other things than being able to walk. My point was that there are people who abuse the "system" and get these handicapped tags as well as disability and other government assistance when they don't really need it.
And tony, yes a marginal tax increase would balance a $200 billion deficit pretty easily. There's 300 million people in the US. Even if only 50 million people contribute to the workforce and pay taxes, it would only cost those 50 million people $4k... Thats not that much considering that the government already takes tens of thousands of dollars from people each year in income taxes. Spread it out over 4 years, and there you have it. I'm not saying taxes should be lowered any more. I'm fine with taxes how they are now. I don't like the idea of taxes being raised though. The problem is that the government has too many programs that waste money. If the government would revise these programs, as well as reducing the amount of money spent on "protecting" our allies and delivering "freedom" to other countries, there would probably be room for some tax cuts.
Land Rover LR3 HSE
you know... you talk really big for a 19 year old. Do you OWN your own house? Do you have a college education? Do you have a real job and work in the career field that you plan on working in for the rest of your life?
If you can answer no to any of these questions your opinion in this matter is not needed.
Until the government is taking 30% of your paychech each week on top of social security, medicare, state income tax, etc you will not understand what my problem with taxes is.
Land Rover LR3 HSE
If the marginal increase worked and it was "marginal" what is wrong with an increase now?
Before the idea of raising taxes is considered the government needs to get rid of things that require a lot of wasteful spending. Being a large country like we are, it is probably a good idea to keep a fairly large defense system in place. However, using that large defense system to help "liberate" other countries from opressors or dictators is really none of our business.
Land Rover LR3 HSE
Our government system was not designed to include political parties. Over the past 200 years parties have started as a way for people with common interests to group together to support those interests. Now it is to the point where people are forced to choose whether they want to be a democrat or republican. Why can't there be a mixture of the two? I'm sure we could all find a common ground for most issues. Its the far right and far left extremists that make it so hard for both sides to agree. Its like when you go out with a group of friends. There's always that one person who wants to go to a certain restaurant and will not give in, therefore forcing everyone else to go there. Politicians like that are the reason why the parties have become so divided.
Land Rover LR3 HSE
How can you call Obama a terrible politician when McCain is just as if not worse? The fact the McCain sounds like a complete buffoon when he speaks brings chills through my body. It would be a sad day if McCain were to win. I personally think he's too old to handle all the responsibilities that come with being the President.
That last part was about the only reasonable thing you've said, except for the "more tax cuts". Defense spending and other bull**** spending similiar to that is a pretty hefty chunk of the budget but not big enough to cut taxes left and right like a nut.
If you are bitching about 30% a year, why are you also bitching about NOBODY deserving a tax hike? There's a national budget, it allows the national government to perform essential functions. Its (ideally) got to be balanced and (definitely) someone's gotta pay for it.
You said you're making 80k a year. Not high enough to be on Obama's tax-hike radar. Maybe you should consider that with revisions in tax structure, YOU, a person with a moderate income, would benefit and the people who are already rolling in money will pick up some of your burden that is more straining on you than he/she.
If you had an elementary understanding of economics, you'd know that's the only way your "30% weekly cut" would be reduced.
Again, however, the capital gains tax increase is unnecessary, stupid and effects everyone (including you). Maybe you should bring that up instead?
The12lber introduced allmotoronly to some straight pwnography. Wow, lmao.
Tony....week by week Obama's campaigns are alienating more and more white people. Especially this latest string of the race card being thrown out at every possibility. And what has that accomplished? It put McCain ahead. Im not a republican or democrat. I stand by what makes sense and Obama just seems as if he is all talk.
McCain is gonna lose you say? We will find that out in Nov.
Your not very bright are you?
Last edited by EJ25RUN; 08-05-2008 at 09:10 AM.
I said I make more than $80k per year, as in between $78,851 and $164,550 (the 4th tax bracket). I didn't say how much I make, and it's none of your business. My point about obama's plan is that within the next 4 years I will be making close to, if not more than $250k/yr. I'm just looking ahead into the future.
I never said I had a firmer grasp than economics than you, I just have a much different perspective since more of my money is paying for all this bullshyt spending than a lot of other people.
Why do you feel that it is the responsibility of people who make more money to pay for all the government programs that support people who make less money? Why should it be my responsibility to make sure that everyone has "adequate healthcare"? I'm not sure if you know this or not, but there are nonprofit hospitals all over the country that offfer services for free or at a reduced cost to the indigent. Just because someone doesn't have money doesn't mean that the hospital will turn them away. I know, since I work at one of these hospitals. I would say that around 80% of the patients who come into the emergency room have no form of insurance, and no money. The hospital covers the cost of all the bills. Most people do not understand that even the poorest person with no insurance and no money can go to a non-profit hospital and be treated. Hell they even treat illegal aliens with absolutely no supplemental insurance (medicare/medicaid) or no money. They will refuse treatment noone. The government only gives minimal funding to these hospitals. Most of these hospitals offer free clinics as well. Every county has health departments which offer a wide range of services.
My point is that there is already an adequate healthcare system in place that is avaliable to anyone who needs it, especially in GA. We have a better system in place that a lot of states. Thats why the states should be in charge of organizing their healthcare systems, not the federal government.
Land Rover LR3 HSE
What race card? Please point me to it
I think its interesting that you mainly pin your tax burden on people that you apparently think are leaching off you (and don't get me wrong, there's undoubtedly people leaching off the government in some way/shape form be it local etc). The military industrial complex gets nearly a third of our budget every year, maybe you should look at the big picture? More over, maybe you should consider that not just the "poor and lazy" leach off the government, but the rich and powerful as well?
I'm gonna cut you in on the bottom line here. The stuff that you could actually cut from the budget isn't going to make a big enough impact on the overall size of the budget to allow for an overall decrease in necessary tax revenue and therefore in overall taxation. We had tax cuts just recently and we're running a deficit now. If anything, overall tax revenue needs to go up (and as stated before, overall taxation by association). The only way you're going to see your rates go down is if some seriously rich people and corporations are taxed a fair rate and not the Government's I <3 Big Business and rich white people rates.
Last edited by The12lber; 08-05-2008 at 11:48 AM.
You're not very bright, are you?
You're the genius who thinks McCain is going to win over Obama. Shows how intelligent you are and how little you know about what's going on in the country you live in. Anyone with a perfectly good set of eyes can see that come McCain will never be President, just because of his lack of speech and horrible ideas for this country.
So please save your assumptions of me and worry about what's in front of you. Contribute to this thread. Show all of us how "bright" you really are.
if mccain wins our economy isn't going to change one bit and after 4 years the US won't have a choice but to put a Democrat in office. atleast if obama gets in i think we will see major changes over the course of the next 4 years.
Alright, let's talk about McCain and sensibility. I'll relate some major policy positions championed by McCain to the appropriate logic.
1)Offshore drilling will help us become more energy independent immediately - a position now held by both candidates, it will certainly be helpful but not appreciably. It will take a long time to put the offshore rigs up and the amount of petroleum they produce isn't going to be anything to get overly excited about. That and a strong hurricane could easily render the rigs inoperable or destroy them. There's also a good chance of an accidental yet disastrous oil spill which will damage already vulnerable ecosystem. The short version: it will definitely allow us to produce more oil domestically, but not nearly enough to make an appreciable difference - especially when one considers increasing foreign demand in the coming years before additional rigs even become operational. When you couple that with the risk of environmental damage, its not anything to get all that excited about.
Offshore drilling has more to do with allowing oil companies to find more revenue and making voters think you're going to make a difference than actually impacting energy prices in any significant way.
2)Gas-tax holiday - would have saved $.18 on every gallon of gas for a short period of time, would have cost the national government, already in a deficit, nearly 10 billion dollars. Pure political pandering and nothing more.
3) Iran - bomb it, maybe invade it and maybe bomb it some more. There's really no need for elaboration here.
4)Taxes - tax cuts (we're already in a deficit).
5)Veteran's affairs/Military affairs -
9/07 Voted against Webb Amendment calling for adequate troop rest time between deployments
05/06 Voted against providing $20,000,000 to the Department of Veteran's Affairs for health care facilities.
04/06 Voted against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran's Affairs for outpatient care and treatment of veterans
03/06 Voted against increasing Veteran's medical service funding by $1.5 billion, to be paid for in full by closing corporate tax loopholes.
03/04 Voted against $1.8 billion dollar increase for Veterans' medical care, to be paid for in full by the closing of corporate tax loopholes.
10/03 Voted to table (basically, kill before bringing to a general vote) a funding bill that would have provided $322,000,000 in safety equipment for U.S. forces in Iraq.
4/03 Compelled other Senators to table a vote to provide $1 billion to the National Guard to make up for a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts and tactical vests.
8/01 Voted against increasing the amount available for Veteran's Health Care by $650,000,000.
Remember, these are the same troops fighting the awesome war he voted for. I guess life is too easy as an Admiral's son (who, if I'm not mistaken, was also an Admiral's son) for him to care what the veterans without the silver spoons in their mouths have to deal with after the war.
^ EJ25RUN your butts gotta hurt now
Haha, he introduced him to some pwnography too. Can't wait to see what he responds with. Thanks for the name change btw.^ ouch your butts gotta hurt now
then go start one
No need, scroll up a few posts and read my long one. I think I forgot to mention that the country he has a boner for bombing is a nation who's leader is unknown to him, despite the information being widely available in all forms of media.
As a side note
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...829354,00.html
"The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand (now) two decades from now."
Related to previous post
Not at all. When i concern myself with the future of this country i could care less about who owns somebody on a forum. I could make a list like that on Obama as well. Anyways, i have considered what Obama, Hilary, and McCain have said and McCain is the best choice for me. If you feel different it's your vote.^ EJ25RUN your butts gotta hurt now
To Tony: Have you seen the latest McCain ad with Paris and Britney? It is a satire of Obama's celebrity but allot of people are saying it is racist because it shows a black male in front of girls that are a disgrace.
(I wont respond to anyone that talks about anything derogatory, if i can keep it civil, so can you)
Then do it, rather than saying "I could do it" as if that was proof positive of an argument.
Heres what I don't understand, PEOPLE say something about race and suddenly Obama is playing the race card. Since when is Obama's campaign responsible for every cry out against race?
Again when did OBAMA play the race card? Not people but the man himself.
He played the race card when he was born half black born 47 years ago.
Look, i'm at work and i can check the site periodically. So im not gonna write an essay. If the only way you can get self assurance is to win an argument on a forum. Then good for you but i'm not that concerned about it.
That's not what i meant. I cant remember his name but a character on msnbc was the one that brought this up. I hope through the times me and you have debated on this that race is a secondary thing to me and i brought that up because it was fresh on my mind cause i saw it yesterday.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
