IDBillzFan Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Talk about hedging. "Obama is gonna raise taxes! Unless he doesn't and actually lowers them, then I'm right because I'm a conservative. Even though I'm betting he won't." Speaking of "hedging," I see Joe Biden has now lowered the tax cut number yet AGAIN, this time to "people making under $150,000/year." In a matter of days it's gone from $250,000, down to $200,000 and now all the way down to $150,000! At this rate, they should be able to hit their magic number of $42,000 just in time for election day. Thank god all the Obama supporters are voting early. (Editor's Note: I understand what Biden is trying to say. The problem is the left has hitched its wagon to the $250,000 crowd because it's such a big, glorious number that screams "elitist rich pigs", and now they are in the unenviable position of trying to explain why this number keeps going down. And the messenger is JOE BIDEN? Please. The first thing Obama needs to do when he moves into the White House is get the Biden's bed ready so he can take a nice four-year nap.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Speaking of "hedging," I see Joe Biden has now lowered the tax cut number yet AGAIN, this time to "people making under $150,000/year." In a matter of days it's gone from $250,000, down to $200,000 and now all the way down to $150,000! At this rate, they should be able to hit their magic number of $42,000 just in time for election day. Thank god all the Obama supporters are voting early. (Editor's Note: I understand what Biden is trying to say. The problem is the left has hitched its wagon to the $250,000 crowd because it's such a big, glorious number that screams "elitist rich pigs", and now they are in the unenviable position of trying to explain why this number keeps going down. And the messenger is JOE BIDEN? Please. The first thing Obama needs to do when he moves into the White House is get the Biden's bed ready so he can take a nice four-year nap.) Just because he listed "people making under 150,000 a year" as middle class? That had zero to do with Obama's tax plans. He was just saying it shouldn't go to millionaires it should go to the middle class. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Please! Bush2 is an extreme version of Reagan. After putting the country into a deep hole by increased spending and cutting taxes, leading to larger deficits, Bush1 had to raise taxes. Now, the budget situation is so extreme because of the republican's idiotic cut taxes and increase spending program2, no matter who is in there, someone has to clean this !@#$ing mess up--a mess that you wonderful conservatives caused. And now your so-called conservatives are acting like socialists bailing out their buddies on Wall Street. Sure, set up Obama as a straw man; but it's your conservative policies that are pushing US to 3rd world status. What a bunch of hypocrites. run up that credit card Georgie! yeah, I'm not sure what that has to do with my post... but, please don't compare Bush2 to Reagan. I doubt anyone on the right puts them in the same category. And one correction - Bush1 didn't raise taxes. At best he was complicit with George Mitchell and the Democrat congress in agreeing to a budget written by George Mitchell - Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate. George Mitchell was responsible for that tax hike and Bush1 didn't realize that his willingness to compromise with congressional democrats was what they needed him to do to ensure his defeat in 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Talk about hedging. "Obama is gonna raise taxes! Unless he doesn't and actually lowers them, then I'm right because I'm a conservative. Even though I'm betting he won't." No, I think congressional democrats are going to raise them and Obama is not going to stand in their way. Some would argue there isn't a difference, but I think there is. Personally, my opinion is that this is what is going to happen. Obviously, I don't know that to be the case. But my point still stands, the fact that we have Republicans and Democrats arguing over who will cut taxes more is a victory for those praying for some sort of governmental restraint. It's now just a matter if they are willing to walk the walk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 No, I think congressional democrats are going to raise them and Obama is not going to stand in their way. Some would argue there isn't a difference, but I think there is. Personally, my opinion is that this is what is going to happen. Obviously, I don't know that to be the case. But my point still stands, the fact that we have Republicans and Democrats arguing over who will cut taxes more is a victory for those praying for some sort of governmental restraint. It's now just a matter if they are willing to walk the walk... So taxes and everything ... bottom line... Do you not think that Obama has the middle/lower class's best interests at heart? If the lower class gets money, they will start spending, and then the economy will start churning again. If the economy gets going, then we'll all have more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Do you not think that Obama has the middle/lower class's best interests at heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 wow - not a single actual comment on the veracity of the article? does this mean it's true? (seriously - i'm asking). I bet my favorite charities hope it's not true...though I'm sure the feds will do a better job with my money than a charity would ..... the guy's first argument is based on a fallacy: that Obama is repealing the Bush Tax Cuts on incomes of $100K. It's simply not true. Only married couple's incomes that exceed $250K and singles that exceed $200K will have those tax cuts backed out to what they were before: From Obama's Tax Plan Page 5 Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000 while continuing to leave their taxrates at or below where they were in the 1990s: Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and 39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. I stopped reading after that, since it was total bullshchit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 No, I think congressional democrats are going to raise them and Obama is not going to stand in their way. Some would argue there isn't a difference, but I think there is. Personally, my opinion is that this is what is going to happen. Obviously, I don't know that to be the case. But my point still stands, the fact that we have Republicans and Democrats arguing over who will cut taxes more is a victory for those praying for some sort of governmental restraint. It's now just a matter if they are willing to walk the walk... Did they eliminate the veto back then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Big Man Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 So taxes and everything ... bottom line... Do you not think that Obama has the middle/lower class's best interests at heart? If the lower class gets money, they will start spending, and then the economy will start churning again. If the economy gets going, then we'll all have more money. Obama has his parties and his own interests at heart. You wanna talk McSame, the same house and senate will be in place no matter who is elected. A Lib/Dem led house and senate will still be the problem .Bush has been giving you money by the thousands year after year. How come the economy isn't churning yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Did they eliminate the veto back then? As I stated in my other post in this tread - he was complicit. But to say "Bush raised taxes" is utterly disingenuous with respect to what happened during that budget showdown. George Mitchell threatened to shut down the govt. if Bush didn't cave into his tax increase proposals. Bush blinked. He tried to work with Democrats and was forced out of office because of it. How the democrats got off the hook for that tax increase is beyond me. From the NYTimes: After weeks of maneuvering, Mr. Bush's statement, which was negotiated with the Democratic leaders in Congress, gave in to their insistence that he be the first to broach the subject of tax increases publicly. It was a position toward which he had been inching since May, when he initiated deficit-reduction talks with Congress by saying all subjects were ''on the table'' without any preconditions. The earlier statement had been widely seen as an implicit agreement at least to discuss tax increases, but the Democrats had held out for today's more explicit language, saying that the Republicans could otherwise savage them as tax raisers in the Congressional campaigns this fall. Congressional Democrats welcomed the statement, and the leadership tried with mixed success to be restrained in the first efforts to saddle Mr. Bush with the tax issue. ''The President has concluded that tax increases are necessary, along with other changes as specified in the statement, and we share the President's view,'' said Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, the majority leader. Instead, they savaged Bush for breaking his pledge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Which goes to show again that bipartisanship in dem speak = BOHICA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 the guy's first argument is based on a fallacy: that Obama is repealing the Bush Tax Cuts on incomes of $100K. It's simply not true. Only married couple's incomes that exceed $250K and singles that exceed $200K will have those tax cuts backed out to what they were before: From Obama's Tax Plan Page 5 * Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000 while continuing to leave their taxrates at or below where they were in the 1990s: * Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and 39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. I stopped reading after that, since it was total bullshchit Thanks for a real response to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Do you not think that Obama has the middle/lower class's best interests at heart? If the lower class gets money, they will start spending, and then the economy will start churning again. If the economy gets going, then we'll all have more money. At some point you should learn about economics. Spending is not what makes the economy thrive. It's not that easy. We are in the mess we are in because the politicians thought like that and they too don't understand economics. They subsidized housing so people could spend on housing to stop the recession and created another bubble and it burst, this time much worse than the recession we would have had without creating a housing bubble. Now we have a bail-out which essentially creates more of the same problem with spend out way out mentality. The problem is we don't have the money to spend and it creates a deficit. Spending has to be in proportion to savings and production, and if savings and production go up then spending can follow to increase. When most of our spending is based on imports than it's not Americans who are reaping the benefits. When they gave the stimulus to spend did it help the economy? Nope, because most people didn't save, instead they went out and bought Chinese electronics at large department stores. Sure that might help keep $8/hr guy employed and help Best Buy, but it doesn't help the overall economy. The strength of an economy is when it's people and country are saving, not by the quantity of cheap Chinese electronics in their house. The WORST thing that can happen to us is not a recession, but destroying the dollar. If we keep spending without any thought for inflation the only thing keeping us alive is other people buying our debt and assets. Eventually they will say they want their money back when we don't have the ability to pay them back. When that happens look at Argentina 2001 and 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 As I stated in my other post in this tread - he was complicit. But to say "Bush raised taxes" is utterly disingenuous with respect to what happened during that budget showdown. George Mitchell threatened to shut down the govt. if Bush didn't cave into his tax increase proposals. Bush blinked. He tried to work with Democrats and was forced out of office because of it. How the democrats got off the hook for that tax increase is beyond me. From the NYTimes: Instead, they savaged Bush for breaking his pledge... Ya, Bush blinked, that's why he was savaged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 The strength of an economy is when it's people and country are saving, not by the quantity of cheap Chinese electronics in their house. But what about all those people that have jobs importing stuff from China? If everyone saves their money no one can have a job that sells crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts