Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[SimonM]

We already did that one.

Answer the question, please: How much is a fair percentage to take from someone's annual income?

Already did that, you chose to ignore it.

At least double the tax revenue spent on the military should go to social programs.
If that can't be afforded than you can't afford your precious little wars of anti-muslim aggression.

[1bad65]

True. One is taxed via a payroll tax. How does an income tax cut affect that?

Let's see now; which party wants to cut the payroll tax? Which does not?

Again, yet ANOTHER tax that actually affects the poor more than the rich, but was sold as just the opposite by those proposing it.

[1bad65]

Already did that, you chose to ignore it.

At least double the tax revenue spent on the military should go to social programs.

You actually did. Your the ONLY one. I did show what 70% got us, so I figure your 75% is a recipe for disaster.

Your second sentence shows how naive you truly are.

You wanna talk about a WAR that has been going on way too long and we can never win? One we keep throwing money at? One that has destroyed millions of lives?

Try the 'War on Poverty'. 40 years of that garbage and BILLIONS later not a **** thing to show for it. Is it safe to cut-and-run there? When do we admit defeat in that war?

[1bad65]

If that can't be afforded than you can't afford your precious little wars of anti-muslim aggression.

Are you serious!?!?!?

Dude, you really are screwed in the head.


EDIT: Your Canadian, you have an excuse. Thank God you don't live here.

[Reality_Check]

Don't even. We all know your full of sh!t, but to say I don't back up my statements is bs. And you know it.

So, you provided evidence that the Obama campaign was responsible for the Palin pregnancy smear? I don't recall seeing you back that statement up. Hmm...

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/pre2004/090101pb.pdf

pages 26, 27, 32, and 34 are the main ones.

From page 34:

Percentage of jobs created paying under $7k/yr: Carter 41.77 Reagan 6
Percentage of jobs created paying over $28k/yr Carter -9.9 Reagan 46.1

That really says alot. It shows Carter really created tons of 'burger-flipper' jobs, while Reagan created tons of 'living-income' jobs. Oh, the dollar figures are in 1984 dollars.

Yet, it seems the economy performs better under Democratic Administrations than under Republican Administrations. How do you explain that? BTW, the last link is from one of Senator McCain economic advisors.

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071929

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...244025843.html

[BoulderDawg]

The correlation is that Obama's economic plan is almost exactly what Carter did.

From this statement it's obvious that you don't have a clue what the word correlate means.

Show me where paying taxes leads to all these things you were talking about.

While you're at break down the Carter/Obama economic plans and show me the salient points.

Notice about 99% of this guys comments are "(Fill in blank Democrat) did (Fill in blank whatever). No where does he talk about his candidates. There is a very good reason for that.

[SimonM]

Are you serious!?!?!?

Dude, you really are screwed in the head.


EDIT: Your Canadian, you have an excuse. Thank God you don't live here.

Yes, thank the invisible giant in the sky I am lucky enough not to be stuck in the United States with *******es like you.

1 bad, it's so easy to push your buttons that I don't even have to try hiding that it's what I'm up to.

[BoulderDawg]

Try the 'War on Poverty'. 40 years of that garbage and BILLIONS later not a **** thing to show for it. Is it safe to cut-and-run there? When do we admit defeat in that war?

That's an on going struggle. You are always going to have people down on their luck and struggling. Our worth as a society is what we do for society as a whole. Many families have benefitted from the social programs sprung from the 60s...No ones going to eliminate poverty and hunger but we can work towards...."Admit defeat"...spoken like a true conservative!

By the way last time I checked no one had died in hostile combat fighting the war on proverty.

[Reality_Check]

Let's see now; which party wants to cut the payroll tax? Which does not?

Why, yes, Obama does want to increase the payroll tax, on those making more than $250,000.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/692/

"The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers," the report concluded. "By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase — a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income."

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/697/

[Lucas]

reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers

I dont really care who wins. This is certainly attractive however.


But I sure hope those guys with 7 houses and 18 cars dont get too mad they might have to give up 1 vacation home.......

[1bad65]

Show me where paying taxes leads to all these things you were talking about.

I said high tax rates are bad for the economy. Some taxes are needed, even the Founding Fathers admitted that. So if your gonna ask about something I said, at least make sure I said it first.

[1bad65]

Why, yes, Obama does want to increase the payroll tax, on those making more than $250,000.

But does he want to cut it for poor families?

That's my point. Raising it a few percent on those making over $250,000 is gonna affect them alot less than cutting it for those under the poverty line. It's just another way to increase taxes with the worn out 'make the rich pay' mantra you guys fall for. You wanna make a big difference, cut or eliminate it for lower income people.

[Reality_Check]

But does he want to cut it for poor families?

That's my point. Raising it a few percent on those making over $250,000 is gonna affect them alot less than cutting it for those under the poverty line. It's just another way to increase taxes with the worn out 'make the rich pay' mantra you guys fall for. You wanna make a big difference, cut or eliminate it for lower income people.

He is proposing a $1,000 credit for couples ($500 for singles).

"The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers (see Figure 2). By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase—a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

McCain would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012. But, in sharp contrast to Obama, he would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by more than $125,000, raising their after-tax income an average 9.5 percent."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...es_summary.pdf

[1bad65]

That looks like income taxes. Show me where he proposes to cut payroll taxes. And remember, payroll taxes affect those living paycheck-to-paycheck alot more than 'the rich'.

And again, Obama has NEVER voted for ANY tax cuts. But I'm sure he is gonna slash them if elected.

[1bad65]

He is proposing a $1,000 credit for couples ($500 for singles).

Wait a minute! Hold up!

I remember when Bush first sent out the $600 rebate checks. Wasn't it the Democrats who were holding up mufflers and saying this was too small to really help? That it was only enough money to buy a muffler?

But now Obama's $500 credit is supposed to fix it all now.