posted October 17, 2008 05:05 PM            

Poverty under Democrats and Republicans: contested without merit

Anyone can look up the stats for the past 50 years, and see that Democratic administrations have easily done better on the poverty front than Republican administrations have. It's been discussed here in GU on multiple occasions, so it's suprising to see such a denial.

Handouts: "Who knows what you think you're going to get from an O'Bomber administration acoustic?"

Ummm, I do, and I named some of them...and they're nothing close to what you've proposed, are they? When we got the economic stimulus package (Republican welfare), I was the first to speak against it, not you. You clearly don't know me too well.

Krugman: No argument still

Republicans still the party of the rich: No argument still

Your credibility is in tact you say? Good one.

The truth is that a Democratic candidate could espouse Republican economic theory, and you'd still be here characterizing it as Marxist, Socialist, whatever, blah blah blah. You're not talking about Obama when you talk economic policy. You're talking anyone who runs as a Democrat. Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton...you'd say the same thing.

quote:

---

You should try reading it...and get in step with America. That means getting out of step with O'Bomber the Marxist.

---

I know you like to keep yourself in a state of constant embarrassment , but I'll go ahead and remind you that every measure of American opinion favors Obama on the economy. Even the wealthiest person in the whole world backs Obama...but I'm sure he's just out to rid the U.S. of jobs even as he snatches up tons of cheap U.S.-based stock.

quote:

---

Defending O'Bomber with a comment that he hasn't been convicted of a crime shows just how low you set the threshold for voting for a candidate, low indeed.

---

Didn't I already show how idiotic a statement that was in my last post?

quote:

---

Hahaha, O'Bomber did give $832,000 to ACORN and then attempted to hide the purpose for which it was given.

---

Still feeling cocky about this untrue claim? Really? You want to bet on criminal activity linked back to Obama's payment of $832,000 to a group associated with ACORN? I like my odds on that one.

quote:

---

Now, you're free to say whatever you wish about McCain/Palin. Say away. So far, all I've seen is the trivality of your argument against McCain. "Someone took his cellphone away". Wow, that's very, very, very significant.

---

posted October 17, 2008 05:08 PM            

quote:

---

In response to McCain's statements during the debate, Obama said only 2 percent of small businesses would be subject to the tax.

It seems likely that Obama is right, according to data and an analysis from the experts at the Tax Policy Center.

Obama's plan is to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top two tax brackets. In practice, this means that people with income above $200,000 for single people and $250,000 for couples would see taxes increase.

Now what does this mean for small businesses? It's not as easy as you might think to identify small businesses via the tax code. But there are several typical ways that small business owners pay their taxes, usually by declaring business income on their individual tax returns. Many people who declare business income are small businesses, though the group also includes professionals like lawyers, authors, or public speakers.

Looking at all the tax filers who report any business income at all, the Tax Policy Center confirms that about 2 percent will see their taxes increase under Obama's plan.

In an effort to focus more effectively on small business owners, the Tax Policy Center did an additional analysis where they looked at people who reported business income that accounted for at least 50 percent of their income. This means people who derive a significant living off their business income.

In 2007, about 2 percent of those tax filers would have made enough money to see a tax increase under Obama's plans.

There is a small bit of uncertainty in the best data available; it includes some people who we would not think of as traditional small business owners. But still, Obama's statement during the debate that "98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000" matches the findings of a respected, non-partisan group of tax analysts. For that reason, we rate Obama's statement True.

---

posted October 17, 2008 05:46 PM            

Those are all very good points. There are those who we should be calling the "entitlement crowd". Those who consider themselves entitled to a free ride at someone Else's expense. It never occurs to them that the government doesn't create the wealth it proposes to hand over to them. It also never occurs to them that in order to dispense all those goodies, government creates a monstrous bureaucracy which rips off up to 70% of income taxes collected to solve this or that problem. It's not their problem because they're not paying for it.

My problem with Obama is his background and buried in that background and in his present are some of the most radical leftists in the United States. They don't have America's best interests at heart and I don't believe for a second that Obama does either.

You're right again. If Obama loses it's going to be cast as evidence of American incipient racism when it's nothing of the sort.

The press and the Obama campaign are already tooling up that excuse. Last 2 elections were lost because Republicans stole the elections...so they say. It couldn't possibly be because Americans rejected their candidates when we found out what they really stood for. Nope, that's impossible.

In this election, the press has been hiding the facts about Obama, his background, his associates, his university transcripts, his health records and are not asking Obama any of the questions which might enlighten voters. They've circled the wagons around their guy and only respond when it's no longer possible to ignore other voices outside the MSM. It stinks to high heaven and it might well be the final nail in the coffins of the print and broadcast news.

Your concerns are the same as mine. If a leftist congress and a leftist president team up, they will take America in a new direction and one most Americans won't approve of at all...even if their intent is benign...which I would dispute right now..there's always another election with a different cast which might not be so benign.

That's one of the reasons I oppose a one world government. To whom do you go for redress?

posted October 17, 2008 07:00 PM            

Also we now know why he refused McCain for town hall meetings , because few more people like Joe the plumber would have showed up and his responses to him would have exposed him in the beginning.

Jwhop, I once dismissed one of the book on 'liberal facism' as an absurd idea. But in America it might take a new turn with Obama's wins. I heard business owners revolting saying they will lay off employees and perhaps even close business if Obama wins. I also agree that walmarts are killing local jobs and hurting small businesses. But then I feel glad that atleast chinese people are making some decent living. Theres plenty of wealth still to be created if only cockroaches like Obama and his minions are sent to Timbaktu. Let go of America you roaches.

Government itself is becoming like an big employer. Did you hear Idi Amin 2 asking for people who don't have insurance to be included in government health plan?

McCain had a slip of tongue in the debate, but he was right when he called Obama "Senator Government"

posted October 17, 2008 10:42 PM            

quote:

---

I keep reminding myself how many people are not polled. How especially the elderly, the largest voting demographic, aren't anywhere on the poll map in the MSM. How "mainstream Americans" really are only big city dwellers according to the MSM. And, in the event that Obama does not win this election even with the dead, the illegal, and the fictional voting for him, how easy it will be for the MSM to turn this into another "stolen" election. Because your tv says that Obama is in the lead with the majority of Americans ... so he must be. And when your tv says that it is impossible that McCain could have won the election fairly, you'll just nod your head. Either all those "idiots" and "brainwashed" people voted for him and America is screwed because of our "ignorant average citizens" or because, duh, the vast right wing conspiracy has just proven itself again. The idea that maybe Obama is transparant for that many or that he is really that distasteful to that many won't even cross some minds unless it's touted as a distracting "republican ploy".

---

posted October 18, 2008 02:20 AM            

Not every democrat really likes Obama. He is left of everyone known so far and they all know well he is an elitist. Hillary proposed a modest capital gains tax , but Obama was too punishing. This will impact people who invests in stocks and many other things.

Good people in his own campaign may vote with a conscience and love of their country first at the voting booth. And they don't have to fear because no one will come to know who they finally voted for

I get a feeling that the rightists here understands these things well compared to the leftists.

posted October 18, 2008 10:55 AM            

"Poverty under Democrats and Republicans: contested without merit

Anyone can look up the stats for the past 50 years, and see that Democratic administrations have easily done better on the poverty front than Republican administrations have. It's been discussed here in GU on multiple occasions, so it's su(r)prising to see such a denial....acoustic"

Why didn't you look up the stats you're yapping about and post them right here, instead of posting a statement you can't back up acoustic. The truth is that after throwing trillions of dollars at poverty programs we produced more people below the poverty line. That's the fact and the very reason the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" were both scrapped. These programs didn't put people to work. These programs put people on the welfare rolls. These programs didn't make people better off. These programs made people dependent on government for everything. All in all acoustic, you don't know what you're talking about.

These programs distorted markets, raised prices for everything in the US...especially health care and contributed to the Carter era 21% interest rates, the Carter 10+% unemployment rates and the Carter 15% inflation rates. After 4 years, the American people coudn't wait to throw Jimmy Carter out of the White House. These Marxist programs always fall apart at some point in the future and destroy the economy.

"Handouts: "Who knows what you think you're going to get from an O'Bomber administration acoustic?"

Ummm, I do, and I named some of them...and they're nothing close to what you've proposed, are they...acoustic?"

How about if you name them again acoustic and put them all in a row in a single response. Let us all see what you think are going to be the economic benefits of an O'Bomber administration. Everything O'Bomber says about the economy contains a giveaway program, a handout at taxpayer expense for those who pay no income taxes at all. While you're at it acoustic...because you're so up on economic policy...says you...how about explaining how some one..about 40% of Americans who pay no income taxes...are going to get a TAX CUT from an O'Bomber administration?

"When we got the economic stimulus package (Republican welfare), I was the first to speak against it, not you. You clearly don't know me too well....acoustic"

Is that right acoustic. I seem to recall devoting a thread to the subject of the so called stimulus package and called it "The Congressional Seat Protection Act of 2008 ". The date was February 2, 2008. Perhaps you just "missed it", another whiff for you because I didn't see any response from you on that thread. So acoustic, were you the 1st to speak against it...or not?
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003795.html

Now acoustic, as for congressional bail outs and stimulus packages in general...

Wasn't it Republicans who held up the bailout package in the House of Representatives? Oh, now I remember, it was Republicans who voted against the package and it was demoscats who wholeheartedly embraced bailing out the crooks, thieves and brain dead in the Congress of the United States. Now, Nancy Pee-lousi...you remember Nancy Pee-lousi, don't you acoustic..well this brain dead moron, the most stupid Speaker of the House in American history...has just proposed an additional 300 BILLION stimulus package.

While you yip and yap about legislation acoustic, I take direct action against legislation I don't like.

Wall Street Bailout
Thursday, October 2, 2008 4:24 PM
From: jwhop Add sender to Contacts
To: billyoung@congressmanbillyoung.com

Congressman Young,

I urge you to not vote to bail out the crooks, thieves and incompetents in the financial sector and in the congress of the United States.

Senator Mel Martinez voted to spend 700 billion dollars of US taxpayer money on this so called bailout bill and I just promised Senator Martinez to get ahead of the curve and apply for his permit to lobby because I'm going to work hard to get him defeated in his next election.

I also pointed out to Senator Martinez that Wall Street responded to the Senate bailout vote by taking a 350 point dive the day after.
jwhop
Madeira Beach, FL

"Krugman: No argument still...acoustic "

There is no possible defense for Paul Krugman. He's simply a nutty putty journalist and so called economist who no one with 2 brain cells to rub together ever listens to...or quotes. There's not enough bandwidth on the internet to explain all that's wrong with Krugman's economic thinking..or in Krugman's case...non thinking.

"Republicans still the party of the rich: No argument still..acoustic"

We covered this argument...in depth some time ago acoustic...and as usual, you lost the argument. Republicans are not the "Party of the Rich" demoscats are. It's particularly striking that demoscats claim to be for the little guy but they've done all in their power to destroy the Middle Class in America; mainly by taxing them into oblivion. Part of their Marxist Economic policy as espoused by the leftist economist John Maynard Keynes who posited that the Middle Class must be destroyed in order for Socialism to succeed. It's the Middle Class who oppose the welfare state and who oppose the Socialist nonsense of redistribution of wealth through taxation. Now, we see that's the exact policy being pushed by THE ONE, Barack Hussein O'Bomber.

Wake up acoustic and at least try to pay attention when someone is attempting to educate you. Otherwise, you'll remain a leftist, bereft of knowledge and unable to analyze the most simple set of facts.

"Party of the Rich"
Limousine liberals are upgrading to Lear jets. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmE4NWY3Yjc4YmJmMDJmOGU0ZmQwNGE0MjNlMDJiZTY=

"The truth is that a Democratic candidate could espouse Republican economic theory, and you'd still be here characterizing it as Marxist, Socialist, whatever, blah blah blah. You're not talking about Obama when you talk economic policy. You're talking anyone who runs as a Democrat. Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton...you'd say the same thing....acoustic"

demoscat candidates are NOT espousing Republican Conservative economic theory. They have and still are pushing Marxist Socialist economic theory which has failed around the world and will continue to do so.

"You should try reading it...and get in step with America. That means getting out of step with O'Bomber the Marxist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you like to keep yourself in a state of constant embarrassment , but I'll go ahead and remind you that every measure of American opinion favors Obama on the economy. Even the wealthiest person in the whole world backs Obama...but I'm sure he's just out to rid the U.S. of jobs even as he snatches up tons of cheap U.S.-based stock....acoustic"

Let me remind you acoustic that it's you and O'Bomber who are out of step with America and Americans who oppose redistribution of weath through taxation..or other means by a margin of 84% to 16% and that cuts across all political parties, genders and ages. I know you didn't do the reading assignment or you wouldn't be making an ass out of yourself with your redistribution of wealth as espoused by O'Bomber nonsense.

As a special favor to you acoustic, let me post the link to the Gallup Poll...so this time perhaps..and that's a BIG perhaps..you can read it and finally get it right. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy. aspx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Defending O'Bomber with a comment that he hasn't been convicted of a crime shows just how low you set the threshold for voting for a candidate, low indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't I already show how idiotic a statement that was in my last post?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha, O'Bomber did give $832,000 to ACORN and then attempted to hide the purpose for which it was given.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still feeling cocky about this untrue claim? Really? You want to bet on criminal activity linked back to Obama's payment of $832,000 to a group associated with ACORN? I like my odds on that one...acoustic"

My neighbor hasn't been convicted of a crime either acoustic but I wouldn't vote for him for President...or Pinellas County Dog Catcher either....because he's not been convicted of anything. You set a new low for reasons to vote for someone. He's not a felon...yet. What he is acoustic, is a Marxist now.

Other than that acoustic, O'Bomber did give ACORN $832,000 from campaign funds and ACORN has been filing fraudulent voter registrations...for demoscats. In the process, ACORN is being investigated by cities, counties, states and now by the FBI for criminal activity. Lots of ACORN activists are already convicted and are in prison for voter fraud.

Now acoustic, if you have different information, feel free to post that conflicting information right here. Hint, a comment from the O'Bomber campaign isn't going to fly. I doubt there's a felon in prison who doesn't deny their guilt.

"Now, you're free to say whatever you wish about McCain/Palin. Say away. So far, all I've seen is the trivality of your argument against McCain. "Someone took his cellphone away". Wow, that's very, very, very significant.

Oh NOW it's ok to talk about McCain/Palin. Thanks for your permission after your prolonged whining about them getting attacked on this site...acoustic"

How about this time...you and others here at least attempt to attack McCain and Palin with the truth, with facts...instead of the steady diet of lies and personal attacks posted on this site up to and including the present on the Astrology Forum? Think you can do that acoustic?

My personal opinion is that leftists can't resist the lies and run to lies and personal attacks at every opportunity. Leftists here and everywhere always live up to my expectations for them for lying, pettiness and unprovoked personal attacks.

posted October 18, 2008 05:13 PM            

quote:

---

It's no secret that the Reagan era tax cuts which leftists called "trickle down economics" produced the biggest and longest peace time economic boom in the history of the United States.

---

The actual longest economic boom was under Clinton.

quote:

---

Why didn't you look up the stats you're yapping about and post them right here,

---

They've been posted here in the past. Do you suddenly have a short memory?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty07/pov07fig03.pdf

And here's why it's important: www.gao.gov/new.items/d07344.pdf

quote:

---

Let us all see what you think are going to be the economic benefits of an O'Bomber administration.

---

I didn't name any economic handouts I'd receive.

quote:

---

We covered this argument...in depth some time ago acoustic...and as usual, you lost the argument.

---

The way I recall it, you posted an article that said Democrats were the party of the rich, and I laughed in your face, because if your article was correct that meant that Democrats were the superior Capitalists, which destroys many of the stereotypes you love to cling to. Even now, if you really want to hold out on this idea that Republicans are the party of the poor, than it would make sense that you'd like Obama's idea of taxing the rich [Democrats], and giving to the poor [Republicans].

But, as usual, you may not be altogether correct in your assumption that Democrats are richer.

quote:

---

Let me remind you acoustic that it's you and O'Bomber who are out of step with America and Americans who oppose redistribution of weath through taxation

---

So you're saying that Obama's going to fund tax cuts with rich people's money then? I don't think that's possible. I think we'll still be going to the Chinese tap for government money, and I think that'll happen under either Presidency.

quote:

---

As a special favor to you acoustic, let me post the link to the Gallup Poll...so this time perhaps..and that's a BIG perhaps..you can read it and finally get it right. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy. aspx

---

I noticed it the first time, and I wasn't surprised...but then I also noticed that Americans favor Obama on the economy, so logic would dictate that people don't see Obama's plan as wealth redistribution. Get it?

quote:

---

My neighbor hasn't been convicted of a crime either acoustic but I wouldn't vote for him for President...or Pinellas County Dog Catcher either....because he's not been convicted of anything. You set a new low for reasons to vote for someone. He's not a felon...yet.

---

Do you really think repeating yourself makes your point any less idiotic? C'mon really?

quote:

---

I doubt there's a felon in prison who doesn't deny their guilt.

---

You do? Are you that uninformed?

quote:

---

How about this time...you and others here at least attempt to attack McCain and Palin with the truth, with facts

---

I've never spoken a lie about McCain or Palin as far as I recall. Can you cite a single one?

quote:

---

My personal opinion is that leftists can't resist the lies and run to lies and personal attacks at every opportunity. Leftists here and everywhere always live up to my expectations for them for lying, pettiness and unprovoked personal attacks.

---

posted October 19, 2008 11:31 AM            

The right deserves to sit on the right hand of God. They are the newest party and the largest party in America until 2004. Truth does make people want to follow it. Always stay right , right

quote:

---

Lawyers(like Obama) go to lawschool because they are bad with numbers and are mathematically challenged. You will not see any computational problems on the Bar Exams in any states.

---

posted October 20, 2008 11:12 AM            

Even at the WSJ, some don't seem to understand the economic expansion which reached through the administration of Kommander Korruption began in the administration of Ronald Reagan. While these wizards tend to attempt the use of numbers from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER, the NBER attempts to use a different definition of "recession" than the official definition...which is "2 consecutive quarters of negative growth of the Gross Domestic Product.

We do not have a recession in the US economy simply because the growth rate of the GDP has slowed or even fallen. We have an official recession when we have 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth...one quarter GDP is lower than the previous quarter of GDP and the next quarter GDP is lower than last quarter GDP...as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis..(BEA), an arm of the US Department of Commerce.

How to explain to the Intellectually Incapacitated that Kommander Korruption wasn't President in March of 1991? And yet, the II's attempt to give Kommander Korruption credit for the economic growth cycle they say started in 1991...when George H.W. Bush was President. Go figure.

Indeed, how to explain anything at all to the Mentally Disabled is a problem rational, logical and reasonable people have grappled with through the ages. Perhaps one day science will find a cure but in the present, wouldn't it just be better if we tattooed MD or II on their foreheads so we don't waste our valuable time attempting reasonable discussion with them?

Those who attempt to quote US poverty numbers which is a constantly changing statistic with income levels ever rising? Poverty in the US means fat children, wearing $100 per pair tennis shoes, talking on their cell phones but in any case, the poverty line and those who are said to be at or below that line is NOT a measure of how the general population of the US is actually doing. How to explain that to the II's?

How to explain to the II's and MD's of America that O'Bomber...in his own words has said he intends to fund hand-outs in money stolen from the productive members of the US work force through taxing them into oblivion..the classic Socialist model of wealth redistribution?

How to explain to the II's and MD's that when they raise an issue...an issue like..well, O'Bomber hasn't been convicted of a crime...that serves as a ringing endorsement for voting for O'Bomber?

How to explain to the II's and MD's that felons in prison almost universally deny their guilt? "They was all framed".

How to explain to the II's and MD's that there have been a constant stream of lies posted to both this forum and on the Astrology forum..about Bush, about Cheney, about McCain and about Palin?

How to explain to II's and MD's that at least 50% of small businesses are Sub Chapter S Corporations. How indeed to even begin to explain to II's and MD's WHAT a Sub Chapter S Corportation is. How to explain to the II's and MD's that hundreds of thousands of small businesses will get hit with the taxes O'Bomber claims will only tax the upper 5% of income earners? How to explain to II's and MD's that raising taxes on small businesses...which create more than 70% of all new jobs in the US WILL cause layoffs as they struggle to meet O'Bomber's additional tax load?

Probably best to not talk to II's and MD's because it's a total waste of time and TIME is a valuable commodity in itself.

posted October 20, 2008 11:39 AM            

1. He wrote of his fear that conservatives would start "assassinating" their political opponents.

2. He insists to this day that a full manual recount of Florida would have given the election to Gore in 2000 - this despite the fact that the New York Times participated in a consortium of media outlets who used 4 different criteria for counting the votes - Bush won three of those recounts while Gore won one of them by 3 votes.

3. He blamed "conservative ideology" what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

4. He said at a book signing event, that there would be a"mega—Watergate" scandal to uncover a far—reaching right—wing conspiracy, going back forty years, to gain control of the U.S. government and roll back civil rights..."

October 13, 2008
New York Times Unhinged Columnist wins Nobel Prize in Economics
Rick Moran

For the past several years, the American Thinker has catalogued some of the looniest and most disgusting examples of Bush Derangement Syndrome flowing from the vituperative pen of Paul Krugman.

It pains me to announce that the Nobel Committee has seen fit to give this loutish, brutish, ignoramus the Nobel Prize in Economics.

A serial exaggerator, a hater, an inveterate clown of the left, Krugman's over the top, hysterical screeds against Bush, against Republicans, and especially against conservatives have been fodder for this site for many years.

Some of his more infamous columns.

1. He wrote of his fear that conservatives would start "assassinating" their political opponents.

2. He insists to this day that a full manual recount of Florida would have given the election to Gore in 2000 - this despite the fact that the New York Times participated in a consortium of media outlets who used 4 different criteria for counting the votes - Bush won three of those recounts while Gore won one of them by 3 votes.

3. He blamed "conservative ideology" what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

4. He said at a book signing event, that there would be a"mega—Watergate" scandal to uncover a far—reaching right—wing conspiracy, going back forty years, to gain control of the U.S. government and roll back civil rights..."

This seems about par for the Nobel Committee whose recent awards seem to go to those with the most outrageous things to say about America and Bush while paying less attention to any actual accomplishments achieved by their selectee.

Ed Lasky adds:

This has to be the most politically-motivated award in history (including the Peace Prize award given to Jimmy Carter). If we thought he was insufferable before, imagine now. Are we really to belive this has nothing to do with his 8 years of anti-Bush, anti-Republican diatribes?

posted October 20, 2008 12:58 PM            

I wrote similar in another post. Cumulative effects? Pinpointing the origin of a problem?

Also, though Oprah is not exactly one of my favorite celebrities she has my respect for quite a number of reasons. I do recall when she was under attack for opening her school for girls in Africa instead of in the US. Her reasoning that got her so much hatred? Well, she went to the inner cities. And spoke with the poor. And saw how they had brand new, expensive sneakers and cellphones, etc. but yet did not have the right materials for school. But the parents aren't to blame. And when she told them she was there to help, instead of being grateful for an EDUCATION they wanted to know what THINGS they were going to get from rich Oprah. Meanwhile, in Africa, the girls were lining up with tears in their eyes for the chance to learn and prepare for their futures. I'm sure people will want to blame America for that. Just like with Bill Cosby daring to share his opinions on personal responsibility and parental guidance. I grew up on the poverty line and I can assure you the message I got from my family was very different than the messages many of my peers got. And neither could we afford new shoes or cell phones or much else. But I did have my books, second hand. Guess my parents were somehow "priveleged", too. And since America has to be the problem, immigrants like my family obviously don't have anything to be thankful for here.

Anyway, mini-rant off. Anyone with the ability to read can look up precisely who will be affected by these taxes, also. But you have to do the research. And redistribution of wealth IS stealing, plain and simple. Unless you are going to suggest that the poor in your community have the given right to waltz into your home and take whatever of your possesions/money they want without a word. How can you not see the difference between that STEALING and you willingly parting with what you are able, when you are able and to whom you wish to aid? How can you say that the government or anyone else has the right to tell you that you cannot keep what you earn? How does that translate to the poor who do end up making more money later in life? Hey, glad you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps but you didn't earn it. We'll take half so that way those who don't have as much don't feel as bad. Now you're all equal. Equally poor, that is. Hooray! Good heavens these plans don't even include a foreseeable period of resolution wherein we won't NEED this ludicrous taxation because people won't be poor anymore ... which is supposed to be the goal! Of course they can't include that because they CANNOT make it happen like this and I'm sure they already know that. Anybody feeling the pre-WWII Germany vibe? I'll save you, children! Give me all your power (and all your money) and I promise to raise up this war ravaged nation to the true glory it deserves. Only I can be your saviour, btw. And if we have to suppress some speech here and there, so be it. If we have to indoctrinate your children in our progressive mindset, it's for the best. And if your leaders are better equipped to make your decisions for you, it's only for your own protection. Traditional, old fashioned, conservative, religous, rich people? They're the REAL ENEMIES. We'll just wipe them out and then us true lovers of our nation will spread our good over the whole world!

PUKE PUKE PUKE

posted October 20, 2008 01:14 PM            

quote:

---

How to explain to the Intellectually Incapacitated that Kommander Korruption wasn't President in March of 1991? And yet, the II's attempt to give Kommander Korruption credit for the economic growth cycle they say started in 1991...when George H.W. Bush was President. Go figure.

---

One would have to be "II" or "MD" to tribute economies to Presidents (not the most brightest notion in the first place) and fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of that boom happened under Clinton's watch. (Not only so, but I seem to remember that H.W. Bush raised taxes, didn't he?)

quote:

---

Those who attempt to quote US poverty numbers which is a constantly changing statistic with income levels ever rising? Poverty in the US means fat children, wearing $100 per pair tennis shoes, talking on their cell phones but in any case, the poverty line and those who are said to be at or below that line is NOT a measure of how the general population of the US is actually doing. How to explain that to the II's?

---

You can't explain it, because you can't find an explanation for why the number of poverty level people goes up under Republican administrations.

quote:

---

How to explain to the II's and MD's of America that O'Bomber...in his own words has said he intends to fund hand-outs in money stolen from the productive members of the US work force through taxing them into oblivion..the classic Socialist model of wealth redistribution?

---

"Taxing them into oblivion"?? Really? Are we feeling particularly dramatic this morning?

I think he'll follow the Republican spending route: lower taxes -> borrow -> spend
He'll probably still manage to spend less than Bush, but that's not really a difficult proposition, is it?

quote:

---

How to explain to the II's and MD's that when they raise an issue...an issue like..well, O'Bomber hasn't been convicted of a crime...that serves as a ringing endorsement for voting for O'Bomber?

---

How many times do you suppose you have to say this before it becomes true? ...Just curious. You're going to vote for someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime, and so am I. Imagine that.

quote:

---

How to explain to the II's and MD's that felons in prison almost universally deny their guilt? "They was all framed".

---

Perhaps instead of trying to figure that out, you could figure out the truth for yourself, because the truth is they don't "almost universally" deny their guilt. The best place a criminal can learn his/her trade is in prison.

quote:

---

How to explain to II's and MD's that at least 50% of small businesses are Sub Chapter S Corporations. How indeed to even begin to explain to II's and MD's WHAT a Sub Chapter S Corportation is. How to explain to the II's and MD's that hundreds of thousands of small businesses will get hit with the taxes O'Bomber claims will only tax the upper 5% of income earners? How to explain to II's and MD's that raising taxes on small businesses...which create more than 70% of all new jobs in the US WILL cause layoffs as they struggle to meet O'Bomber's additional tax load?

---

posted October 20, 2008 01:47 PM            

We often see the same things in this society or others or have, by direct observation come to similar if not the same conclusions.

When I see or hear about families or individuals, like your family, who have come to America to join America or escape a murderous tyranny, I'm more determined than ever to trade 10 of our America hating, accidential Americans for each and every would be immigrant who in their hearts and minds are already "Americans".

Of course we should help those who have come here get acclimated. Of course we should help with public assistance because we know that the second generation of those same immigrants, their children are going to be self sustaining successes. We also know their parents have the right work ethic to be successful in their own right and those characteristics are passed on to their children.

To me, socialist demoscats are offering people the earth, moon and stars...to buy their votes and among these people are the same people who have always ridden in the wagon and never got out to help themselves or anyone else.

That's a generalization but overall, I think it's a fair assessment.

posted October 20, 2008 02:13 PM            

McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Sat Oct 18, 11:59 am ET

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it.

"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," McCain said in a radio address. "They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

McCain, though, has a health care plan girded with a similar philosophy. He proposes providing individuals with a $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance. He would pay for his plan, in part, by considering as taxable income the money their employer spends on their health coverage.

McCain leveled his charge before a pair of appearances aimed at restoring his lead in critical battleground states. In both North Carolina and Virginia, where McCain was to speak later in the day, his campaign has surrendered its lead to Obama in various polls. President Bush, a Republican, won both states in 2004.

During a rally outside Charlotte, N.C., McCain returned to the socialism theme, although he did not use the more tart language of his radio address.

He also was sharply critical of the Bush administration, saying it should be more aggressive in buying up the home mortgages of those trapped by high interest rates and falling housing values.

"The administration is not doing it. The secretary of the Treasury is not doing it," McCain told the crowd. "We need to buy up these mortgages, give you a mortgage that you can afford, so you can pay your mortgage and realize the American Dream of owning your home."

McCain stoked the crowd by accusing Obama and his fellow Democrats of assuming they will not only win the White House but expand their congressional majority.

"Did you happen to see that Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi anticipates a 250-seat majority" in the House, the senator asked. "My friends, we can't let that happen. My friends, taxes will increase, spending and they'll concede defeat in Iraq."

The last Democratic candidate to win North Carolina was Southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976, when the Republicans were reeling from President Nixon's resignation following the Watergate scandal. Virginia has not voted for a Democratic nominee since President Johnson's landslide victory in 1964.

McCain's drop in the state polls follow larger national trends that have given Obama a lead following Wall Street chaos that focused the race on who is best equipped to restore the economy.

On Sunday, McCain was to travel to Ohio, where he might appear with "Joe the Plumber," the Holland, Ohio, plumber Joe Wurzelbacher whom the senator has been portraying as emblematic of people with concerns about Obama's tax plans.

Wurzelbacher became the focal point of the final presidential debate after he met Obama earlier in the week and said the Democrat's tax proposal could keep him from buying the two-man plumbing company where he works. However, reports of Wurzelbacher's annual earnings suggest he would receive a tax cut rather than an increase under Obama's plan.

Obama has said his tax policies would cut payments for 95 percent of working Americans, while increasing them only for families making more than $250,000 a year. McCain has argued that 40 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes, either because they are seniors or don't meet minimum earnings thresholds, so the only way to cut their taxes is to give them various credits.

"In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in the radio address.

posted October 21, 2008 12:02 PM            

SUMMARY: So how many people don't pay taxes? We answer that question and more.

In an interview with Fox News, John McCain was asked about Barack Obama's claim that 95 percent of Americans will not see their taxes go up under Obama's proposals.

"You spent a lot of time in your debate dealing with that. Is that honest? Is that truthful?" commentator Sean Hannity asked in an Oct. 12, 2008, interview.

"Well, first of all, it's not truthful in the respect that 50 percent or 40 percent of the American people — of taxpayers — American citizens don't pay taxes, federal income taxes," McCain said. "So right there, that obviously is wrong. And maybe that means that he just wants to give them a check. But I don't know if you could interpret that as a quote, 'tax cut.' "

First of all, we wanted to know how many people don't pay federal taxes because they qualify for enough credits or exemptions that they don't owe any taxes. Common credits include the earned income tax credit for low-wage workers, the child tax credit, education credits, and credits for child care expenses. Common deductions include medical and dental expenses, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, educational expenses and business expenses.

Many credits are refundable, which means the government sends a check if the taxes owed are less than zero. Deductions generally reduce taxes owed to zero, with no check sent if the tax bill is less than zero.

We consulted the nonpartisan experts at the Tax Policy Center. They said that the percentage of tax filers with zero or negative individual income tax liability will be 38 percent in 2009. That's pretty close to 40 percent, the low end of the range McCain said. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

We should also point out that Obama's policies do not provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans — it's actually about 81 percent of all tax filers.

But if you consider only people who work, that number goes up, because part of Obama's plan is a tax credit to offset payroll taxes. If you look only at workers, or "working families," as Obama likes to put it, it turns out that 95 percent of workers receive a tax cut under Obama's plans. We looked at that claim on Sept. 18, 2008, and ruled it True. Since then, the Tax Policy Center has published additional research specifically confirming our ruling: They found the Obama plan provided a tax cut for 94.8 percent of workers.

We also got reader e-mail pointing out that many people don't pay taxes and asking how that would affect some of our rulings on Obama's tax policy. Several readers asked us about a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that disputed Barack Obama's claim that he provides "a tax cut for 95 percent of all working families." The article cited the number of people who don't pay taxes, and concluded the 95 percent number was inflated.

Part of the article's argument is that Obama should not be able to claim he's giving tax cuts to people who don't actually pay taxes, and McCain has recently reiterated this argument.

Obama "believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans," McCain said in Belton, Mo., on Oct. 20, 2008. "You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?"

Whether people who owe no income taxes now should get refunds is a more of a philosophical question than a question for factcheckers. But we do want to answer reader questions about what happens to Obama's numbers if you don't count people who don't owe taxes. Would 95 percent of the workers who do pay taxes still see a reduction in taxes owed, or would that number decline?

We found the percentage drops, but only very slightly: It drops about 3 percentage points, from 95 percent to 92 percent.

We were surprised the change was that small. But it's easy to prove with a simple thought experiment. Here's how it works:

Let's say we're considering 100 workers. We know from the Tax Policy Center that five of them will not get a tax break under Obama's plan, and conversely 95 of them will. We also know that 38 of those workers do not owe any taxes thanks to credits and deductions.

So let's take the 38 workers who owe nothing and send them away. For the sake of our thought experiment, we're going to assume that all 38 got a tax cut under Obama's plan in the form of even lower tax liability. We should state clearly that this may not be the case — a few people with low incomes, depending on their specific circumstances, might not receive additional tax cuts under Obama's plan. But just to give the extra benefit of the doubt, we'll stipulate here that all 38 receive a tax cut.

So that leaves us with 62 workers who do pay taxes. If five of them don't get a tax cut under Obama's plan, that means 57 of 62 workers will get a tax cut. That's 92 percent.

posted October 21, 2008 01:33 PM            

When America just won freedom the conservatives were willing to pay higher taxes to cover for the revolutionaries who fought the war. So no one is averse to paying higher taxes. Most people are concerned about government wastage.

Its ignorant to blame Bush for 10 trillion debt. Clinton left 5 trillion debth and even in good times (internet boom and all that) he only paid back 250 billion towards debt. Sept 11 happened in Bush's presidency. Billions of dollars of buildings got destroyed. Osama was successful and did an intelligent planning. Wall street stands for symbol of capitalism. He took a direct hit at that. Now Obama jumps in with a socialist agenda. Joe the plumber made him speak his real agenda. Katrina (act of Nature) was so strong, that it took everyone by surprise.... etc etc...Gore says its because of global warming and that Bush ain't doing enough. The people there have not blamed Bush but Nagin for his failures.

Times are different now. Obama wants to increase tax so that elitists like him and his cronies could run this country with a more bigger government. Too much wastage is what I hate. Government is already too big. Big does not mean effective. Efficiency is need of the day.

I don't mind paying taxes to bring down the growing debt, but not for Obama whose party has encouraged irresponsibility by allowing low downpayments and low interest mortgage rates, to high risk individuals. Our Constitution generally says life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the rights granted by the proverbial 'God'. But heh, since when is staying in your own home a right? I stayed in rental home for 25 years. Why can't these people? The government could have sponsored public housing as opposed to passing it on to corporates and now the corporates are back on to governments books. What a waste and so socialist.

He is further proposing nationalizing health care. It was a disaster in Hawaii. Don't give me this crap that "That one (the messiah)" will do it better.

These socialists who are poor in maths and always dream big that they can solve the problems of the country. But they are idiots.

I would not categorize Obama as socialist yet because he has not done any real job in the government and acted socialist.

But his economic plan is liberal or progressive per modern definitions. Not individualistic like the conservatives nor collectivists like the socialists, but in between. The transformative force that Powell talks about is this infact in my humble opinion. The conservatives(individuals) can't figure out anymore what needs to be done. The collectivistic (All) is an world of Utopia. It is but an imaginary place. Those in power will tell you it is a great place. Obama will say tax the rich. But isn't it infringement on the rich's liberty rights granted by the constitution? I am against it. Doesn't it require common sense which is so uncommon these days to understand it?

Clinton and others in government has already nationalized 1 percent of the banks. That is socialism to me. Bush had a choice to act conservative and let financial market go to dust, but he clearly acted socialist by bailing out the banks. People will talk about it for a long time. Was America life in the main street so threatened? Constitution does not have laws in them to dicate if America must go socialist or communist or capitalist. May be it does prohibit the country to go Anarchist as in Tolstoy's world or Gandhi's world I think. [Have to test my last conjecture] So no one really could blame the government for acting out of such choices.

No one knows Obama that well. We do know that he voted for tax increase in the past for families earning even 42k per year. He is silent on how much fine his government will impose on small businesses who do not provide health insurance to their employees. There are too many unknowns in his economy plan. All he cares about is your vote and he is desperate to get into the white house.

posted October 21, 2008 01:50 PM            

O'Bomber lied through his teeth and he's still lying through his teeth with his bullshiiit he's going to give 95% of America an income "Tax Cut". No amount of leftist spin can spin O'Bomber's lies into truth.

O'Bomber's so called income tax cut is no income tax cut at all for more than 50% of small businesses who file Sub Chapter S income tax returns. Too bad the O'Bomber crowd don't even know what a Sub Chapter S Corporation is.

Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

posted October 21, 2008 04:02 PM            

Sen. McCain has been quick to point out that Sen. Obama's tax increases (most notably those in the top two income tax brackets) would hurt small business. Sen. Obama has responded that his tax plan would only affect a small fraction of small businesses. So who is right? Well, it depends.

While Sen. Obama is technically correct to point out that only a small fraction of small businesses would be hit by his tax hikes, that's not really a relevant statistic on this matter. Assuming taxes on small business activity are especially important, we need to answer the question, "How much would each candidate change the taxation of business-source income?" And the answer to that question is that Sen. Obama's tax hike would not be minor.

Also worth noting is that in the previous debate, Sen. McCain was technically incorrect when he said that Sen. Obama would raise taxes on over 50 percent of small business income. True, tax returns with small business income that have some of their income taxed at the top two marginal rates would pay more, and they make about 56 percent of small business income. But even among those businesses, much of their business income is being taxed at lower rates currently in law that would not change under Sen. Obama's tax plan.

posted October 22, 2008 12:04 AM            

History shows the republicans always gave money back to the people and the Dems have always lied about their promises.

Little bit of debt is always healthy in the same way some mortgage on your home is healthy.

posted October 22, 2008 09:51 AM            

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2101.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda08-09.cfm