Last minute doubts for Obama

[jreeves]

Right....

Bush bears no responsiblity for the war in Iraq or anything that's happened the last eight years.

Nice strawman, I never stated Bush didn't bear responsibility for the Iraq war. I stated that Obama's extremist policies are wrong for this country. Taking from hard working Americans to spread the wealth is wrong.

 

[jreeves]

The only "last minute doubts" are the desperation and attempts by the GOP to scare people into not voting for Obama.

This article is highly biased.

This article finds something wrong with Obama asking the media to leave him and his daughter/daughters alone when they went trick or treating?

Are you kidding me?

It's a biased article because its critical of Obama's plans.

 

[Chris]

Nice strawman, I never stated Bush didn't bear responsibility for the Iraq war. I stated that Obama's extremist policies are wrong for this country. Taking from hard working Americans to spread the wealth is wrong.

I hope they tax the shit out of you.

All Obama is proposing is raising taxes for the top 2% to the level they were at during the Clinton years.

Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS

The BBC reported startling economic equality figures in a recent documentary: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion. But what is more striking to many is a close look at the economic inequality in the homeland of the "American Dream." The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth — the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation's wealth.

 

[Modbert]

It's a biased article because its critical of Obama's plans.

No, a great if not most of it is based on the fact it's calling him unamerican because he may of not had lived his entire life here in America. Or the fact he lived in Hawaii. Which is pathetic by the writer of the article.

So let me ask YOU Jreeves, what do you consider "socialist" about Obama?

His raising the tax rate for the rich? Do tell me since we have time.

 

[jreeves]

I hope they tax the shit out of you.

All Obama is proposing is raising taxes for the top 2% to the level they were at during the Clinton years.

Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS

The BBC reported startling economic equality figures in a recent documentary: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion. But what is more striking to many is a close look at the economic inequality in the homeland of the "American Dream." The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth — the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation's wealth.

Striking difference between the Mccain tax plan and the Obama tax plan...

Under 19k income group----Mccain tax break $19
Obama tax break $567

112-161K income group-----Mccain tax break $2614
-----Obama tax break $2204


Who deserves tax relief more, the people receiving tax credits and tax refunds already or the people who fund those tax credits and tax refunds?

 

[jreeves]

No, a great if not most of it is based on the fact it's calling him unamerican because he may of not had lived his entire life here in America. Or the fact he lived in Hawaii. Which is pathetic by the writer of the article.

So let me ask YOU Jreeves, what do you consider "socialist" about Obama?His raising the tax rate for the rich? Do tell me since we have time.

See my prior post....

 

[Chris]

Striking difference between the Mccain tax plan and the Obama tax plan...

Under 19k income group----Mccain tax break $19
Obama tax break $567

121-161K income group-----Mccain tax break $2640
-----Obama tax break $2200


Who deserves tax relief more, the people receiving tax credits and tax refunds already or the people who fund those tax credits and tax refunds?

The people already receiving the tax credits.

 

[Modbert]

Striking difference between the Mccain tax plan and the Obama tax plan...

Under 19k income group----Mccain tax break $19
Obama tax break $567

121-161K income group-----Mccain tax break $2640
-----Obama tax break $2200


Who deserves tax relief more, the people receiving tax credits and tax refunds already or the people who fund those tax credits and tax refunds?

Where do you get this information from I wonder?

And so you consider it Socialist that the rich get less under Obama then McCain's plan and the poor get alot more under Obama's plan then McCain's?

You really don't want to take a look at those marginal tax rates if you think the rich pay plenty now.

Unless your willing to call a certain time period "socialist".

 

[jreeves]

The people already receiving the tax credits.

I knew you would think that someone who is already taking tax refunds and doesn't pay any federal income taxes should receive hard working Americans money, should be the one to receive even more of hard working American's money. Afterall, your head is shoved so far up Obama's ass all you can see is your ponytail.

 

[Chris]

I knew you would think that someone who is already taking tax refunds and doesn't pay any federal income taxes should receive hard working Americans money, should be the one to receive even more of hard working American's money. Afterall, your head is shoved so far up Obama's ass all you can see is your ponytail.

No, I see single working mothers who receive tax credits and what it means to them in helping raise their kids.

Conservatives have no empathy.

 

[jreeves]

Where do you get this information from I wonder?
And so you consider it Socialist get less under Obama then McCain's plan and the poor get alot more under Obama's plan then McCain's?

You really don't want to take a look at those marginal tax rates if you think the rich pay plenty now.

Unless your willing to call a certain time period "socialist".

Tax policy center and CNN.....

How's this suit you...
The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%
The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups. Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.

Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in 2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.

The IRS data includes all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 90.6 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 42 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here.


Obama wants to spread the wealth by laying even more of the tax burden on the middle class. In order to give the under 19k income group an extra $567.

 

[Modbert]

Tax policy center and CNN.....

How's this suit you...
The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%
The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups. Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.

Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in 2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.

The IRS data includes all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 90.6 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 42 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here.


Obama wants to spread the wealth by laying even more of the tax burden on the middle class. In order to give the under 19k income group an extra $567.

How much of the wealth does the top 1% have however?

The bottom 40% of this country have 4% of the wealth. The BOTTOM 40%.

The top 1% make more then the bottom 90% many times over I'm sure.

Like for example: A company CEO on average makes about 400 times more then the average worker.

 

[Modbert]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

The Top Marginal Income Tax Rates from 1913 to 2003.

Notice the sharp decline from 1981 to 1989?

69.125 to 28%. Mind telling us all who was in office at the time Jreeves. Unless I'm wrongly mistaken, it was one Ronald Reagan who was a Republican with his piss on err excuse me Trickle down economics.

Notice the rate increase by Bush 41 to 28 to 31% Was it Socialism then? No

Clinton 31 to 39.6% increase socialism? No

Notice how Bush from 2001 brought it up from 39.1% to 35%.

 

[SwingVoter]

Borrowed $700 billion from China to fund the invasion of Iraq.

Even worse was Bush borrowing $8 trillion of my kids and grandkids' taxes to give old people subsidized prescription drugs. Most Socialist thing done in this country in 40 years.

 

[SwingVoter]

A company CEO on average makes about 400 times more then the average worker.

Maybe he's worth 400 times more.

 

[jreeves]

How much of the wealth does the top 1% have however?
The bottom 40% of this country have 4% of the wealth. The BOTTOM 40%.

The top 1% make more then the bottom 90% many times over I'm sure.

Like for example: A company CEO on average makes about 400 times more then the average worker.

Why because your envious? Your showing your age, people work their whole lives in order to obtain a little success. Sometimes they work 12 hour days, just for the off chance that they can give their children a little better life than themselves. Now tell me how it is right for the government to come in and snatch away 40% of that person's income, so that they can make things balanced.

 

[bk1983]

this socialist argument is lame, taxes are always a redistribution of wealth. When you tax you take wealth from the earner and spread it to fund social programs,defense spending etc. The rich also protect their money and avoid the higher tax brackets by investing in stocks and thru capital gains. Have you guys ever heard of warren buffet? He is one of the richest men in the world and pays a 17% tax rate while his middle class secretary pays nearly 30%. Most of you monkeys are clueless, what is social security? It is a socialist program. I dont see any of you protesting publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government-funded universities which are considered socialist operations. It is funny that you spread fears on topics you know nothing about. Whatever the label of the week is, McCain can count on a small minority (not all) of his supporters to repeat it. If McCain is so opposed to socialism why does he use the medicare system? Is it ok to be socialist when it benefits him? What is most funny is, you guys are fearing something we already our, this is a socialist nation. Can anyone of you explain to me how any tax is not a redistribution of wealth?

 

[nia588]

Anybody who is against Barack Hussein Obama is labeled a racist.

that's not neccsarly true. i have no issue if people are against Obama. it's their right and their choice. but you have to admit there is an alarming number of McCain supporters or anti-Obama peopel who are racist.

just take a look at some of the stuff that was going on at McCain/Palin rallies. i mean at one rally there was a man with a monkey. and then at another these people were going around saying stuff like "he's an arab" or "of course he's a terrorist it's in the bloodline" and my favorite one "Obama is a communist Muslim".

And let's not forget about that lovely woman that stood up and said to McCain "he's an arab" .

And these are just a few things i've mentioned. there have been tons of McCain supporters who have said some pretty racist things.

 

[editec]

www.dcexaminer.com >> Melanie Scarborough
Lines are going to be long at the polls tomorrow, so maybe there will be time to ask Barack Obama's supporters to clarify a couple of things.

For one, I'm confused by their notion of "economic justice." Last week, in defending his plan to "spread the wealth around," Obama said that "when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month -- then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money. They decide, 'Maybe I can afford a new car; maybe I can afford a computer for my child.' They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling, and everybody is better off."

Everybody, that is, except the person who earned or saved the money that was redistributed.

Consider the retired gentleman who told me he took a brown-bag lunch to work every day to save the money it cost to eat out. If he saved an average of $5 every day, he accumulated more than $50,000 by the end of his 43-year career. By whose lights is it fair to redistribute those savings among individuals who chose to spend their money in restaurants?

His money will NOT be redistrubed. It's savings not income.

I'd also like one of Obama's supporters to explain why they're eager to elect as president a man who says the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

Becasue we agree with him.

Given that when a president takes the oath of office, he vows to do only one thing -- "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- doesn't Obama's willingness to take that oath make him either unprincipled or dishonest?

No. Not unless he plans on changing that consitution by unconsitutional means like Bush II and that idiotic Congress has done.

Perhaps I'll bump into one of the people who claim to be voting for Obama as a repudiation of George W. Bush and ask if they don't detect the same arrogance in Obama.

You do that.

We've already seen him toss off his campaign plane reporters from newspapers that endorsed John McCain. His campaign instructed supporters to jam the phone lines of radio stations that give air time to Obama's critics.

I hear he poisoned the village wells just to kill all the white children, too.

On Halloween, Omaba got angry at being photographed while taking his daughter trick-or-treating and ordered the press to "leave us alone" and "get back on the bus." Monarchs can banish the media from their presence; presidents are supposed to tolerate coverage.

Oh no, crucify him.

Most of all, I would like to know if Obama's supporters truly aren't the least bit concerned about electing as president a man with so little understanding of -- and perhaps even contempt for -- Americans' traditional way of life.

Maybe they have the same contempt for what you imagine is the only acceptable American way of life?

I know, I know; we're not supposed to talk about such things, but the facts speak for themselves. Only one of Obama's parents was an American, and she lived well outside the cultural mainstream.

Good for her!

Obama spent his grade-school years in his stepfather's native Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country. While his contemporaries in the United States sat in classrooms adorned by pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and performed school plays about the founding fathers -- perhaps even took a field trip to Washington, D.C. -- Obama recalls "puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer."

Excellent. He is not a xenophobic nitwit like Bush II. that can't be a bad thing.

A child growing up in Indonesia would be unfamiliar with experiences common to youngsters raised in the United States: Trick-or-treating, Thanksgiving pageants, the Pledge of Allegiance, Fourth of July traditions.

Of course then he lived in Hawaii, so he became familiar with that life, too. Did you forget that?

It is remarkable that out of 300 million Americans, about the only one not steeped in Americana is likely to be our next president.

What's even more remarkable is this straw you're clutching at.

Obama spent his teenage years being raised in Hawaii by grandparents -- hardly a typical arrangement. He moved to the mainland only after he was grown, settling in Chicago.

So people raised in Hawaii aren't REAL AMERICANS?

What could Obama possibly know of the nation's heartland -- of the small towns sustained by small businesses where most Americans live? No wonder people in rural and suburban areas are such an unknown quantity to him that he described them as "bitter" individuals who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...as a way to explain their frustrations." He doesn't understand them at all.

I live in one of those small American towns. He knows them quite well.

So…Obama is critical of both capitalism and the Constitution; he's not too keen on the First Amendment; his experience with small-town America is almost non-existent -- and what he knows of it, he doesn't like.

Poppycock.

Any comments Obama supporters?

Yes.

I am fully aware that I can't teach a pig to sing.