I don’t see any reason to believe McCain anymore than Obama, except that Obama has generally been more consistent, or when he has changed a position, it has been with good reason.
The piece I read was a CNN analysis of ‘the numbers’, it was not directly from Obama. It was comparing McCain and Obama’s tax plans, and the comparison showed that Taxes under Obama, for people making under 100k would be lower than they would under McCain.
Double-checking the specifics(as they are now, and we all know with presidential campaigns specifics are subject to change) If you are in a household making under 250k, your bush tax cut is not getting repealed.
Whether or not that is lower than they are now, is kind of irrelevant given the fact that it will be McCain or Obama.
Whether or not it actually pans out that way, well, we’ll have to see. I don’t see anything productive in assuming that either candidate is simply out to screw us over, especially not for a discussion on the topic.
On an aside. How is it that the pro-war people are also the most anti-tax? How does that make any sense?
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
On an aside. How is it that the pro-war people are also the most anti-tax? How does that make any sense?[/quote]
Because we think more clearly.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
On an aside. How is it that the pro-war people are also the most anti-tax? How does that make any sense?
Because we think more clearly.[/quote]
Of course, Someone else will pay for it, not our responsibility right?
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
On an aside. How is it that the pro-war people are also the most anti-tax? How does that make any sense?
Because we think more clearly.
Of course, Someone else will pay for it, not our responsibility right?[/quote]
We are also for massive spending cuts and for “entitlement” reform.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
So some numbers have come out with regard to Obama’s Tax plans versus McCains. Under Obama the majority of Americans would pay less in taxes than they pay now. If you make over 100k a year, you’ll pay slightly more(but not significantly more) and if you make over 3 million a year then you will end up paying a helluva lot more.
I wager most of the posters on this forum would end up paying less taxes under Obama than McCain. However, if some of you are making over 3 million dollars a year… well… can I be your friend?
And you believe his numbers?
Now that you know he’s actually cutting taxes for most folks, it just can’t be true.
But McCain is really going to cut spending right?
Yet he is repealing tax cuts but he does not consider that a tax increase. His entire campaign is built on double talk on almost every issue. Only a fool would expect a tax cut from this man.
I just figured out what Obama really means by “change”.
That’s all we’ll have left in our pockets after the tax hike: CHANGE.
[/quote]
This is frustrating (I’ve never worked with special-ed people before)
But if you are factually getting 3x more back with Obama than McCain, then what would McCain leave in your pocket?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
On an aside. How is it that the pro-war people are also the most anti-tax? How does that make any sense?
Because we think more clearly.
Of course, Someone else will pay for it, not our responsibility right?
We are also for massive spending cuts and for “entitlement” reform.[/quote]
Or for Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge Increases in spending and entitlement.
Either way you are for it so long as the guy is a Republican.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
So some numbers have come out with regard to Obama’s Tax plans versus McCains. Under Obama the majority of Americans would pay less in taxes than they pay now. If you make over 100k a year, you’ll pay slightly more(but not significantly more) and if you make over 3 million a year then you will end up paying a helluva lot more.
I wager most of the posters on this forum would end up paying less taxes under Obama than McCain. However, if some of you are making over 3 million dollars a year… well… can I be your friend?
And you believe his numbers?
Now that you know he’s actually cutting taxes for most folks, it just can’t be true.
But McCain is really going to cut spending right?
Yet he is repealing tax cuts but he does not consider that a tax increase. His entire campaign is built on double talk on almost every issue. Only a fool would expect a tax cut from this man.
I just figured out what Obama really means by “change”.
That’s all we’ll have left in our pockets after the tax hike: CHANGE.
This is frustrating (I’ve never worked with special-ed people before)
But if you are factually getting 3x more back with Obama than McCain, then what would McCain leave in your pocket?
[/quote]
Why would we believe his “plan”? Campaign economic plans are fictitious. We do know he will rollback the existing tax breaks. We do know he will raise taxes on oil companies, which will be paid by the consumer, making it a regressive tax. All the other bullshit is smoke and mirrors.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
On an aside. How is it that the pro-war people are also the most anti-tax? How does that make any sense?
Because we think more clearly.
Of course, Someone else will pay for it, not our responsibility right?
We are also for massive spending cuts and for “entitlement” reform.[/quote]
Entitlement reform, so, wanting something (in this case, a war), but wanting someone else to pay for it? Sounds good.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
On an aside. How is it that the pro-war people are also the most anti-tax? How does that make any sense?
Because we think more clearly.
Of course, Someone else will pay for it, not our responsibility right?
We are also for massive spending cuts and for “entitlement” reform.
Entitlement reform, so, wanting something (in this case, a war), but wanting someone else to pay for it? Sounds good. [/quote]
As in social security. I don’t see how national defense is an “entitlement” program.
I don’t see how wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it makes you fiscally responsible.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I don’t see how wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it makes you fiscally responsible. [/quote]
What are you talking about? This is a total strawman. I am for drastic spending cuts. I am not for elimination of taxes.
I asked how you can be for a war, but staunchly against any and all tax increases. It doesn’t make sense. You are asking for something(a war) while simultaneously eschewing the understood mechanism to pay for it.
Instead, you are happy with cutting taxes but you are also in favor of increasing spending(on this war), which can only work if you are also okay with operating in a growing deficit. I.e. getting someone else to pay for it.
Cutting domestic spending is a part of the equation, but the war effort has been counted in trillions, and cutting all of our domestic spending would not be enough to cover it.
Why is it too much to ask the citizenry to help pay for the war? especially if they wanted it in the first place? Why is it okay to be in favor of this incredibly expensive project and also be opposed to paying more money to the government to pay for it?
And how does it make any sense at all to consider yourself fiscally conservative but still be in favor of a trillion dollar humanitarian project? that may or may not provide any financial returns to you?
If you could show me how this trillion dollar project is not just pissing money away, and will actually provide a financial return in the long run, then I’d be more in favor of it. But as it stands, it is just bad economic policy.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I asked how you can be for a war, but staunchly against any and all tax increases. It doesn’t make sense. You are asking for something(a war) while simultaneously eschewing the understood mechanism to pay for it.
Instead, you are happy with cutting taxes but you are also in favor of increasing spending(on this war), which can only work if you are also okay with operating in a growing deficit. I.e. getting someone else to pay for it.
Cutting domestic spending is a part of the equation, but the war effort has been counted in trillions, and cutting all of our domestic spending would not be enough to cover it.
Why is it too much to ask the citizenry to help pay for the war? especially if they wanted it in the first place? Why is it okay to be in favor of this incredibly expensive project and also be opposed to paying more money to the government to pay for it?
And how does it make any sense at all to consider yourself fiscally conservative but still be in favor of a trillion dollar humanitarian project? that may or may not provide any financial returns to you?
If you could show me how this trillion dollar project is not just pissing money away, and will actually provide a financial return in the long run, then I’d be more in favor of it. But as it stands, it is just bad economic policy.
[/quote]
Because some people don’t mind paying for the war, but don’t like paying for bullshit social programs. I don’t see how it can get any clearer.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I don’t see how wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it makes you fiscally responsible. [/quote]
isn’t this wha liberals want? Don’t they want the working class to pay out of pocket to the system with the most inneficient means of accomplishing something, the government?
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Because some people don’t mind paying for the war, but don’t like paying for bullshit social programs. I don’t see how it can get any clearer.[/quote]
The war cannot be afforded by cutting social programs entirely. We do not spend trillions of dollars on social programs, never have and never will. The cost of the war is being deferred to our deficit. We our borrowing money to pay for it. Because our “Republican” leaders deemed it unnecessary to ask the citizenry to pay extra to support the war(Tax increase).
Meanwhile, the same people that advocate going to war, and worse still, staying there(bleeding money) are the most vocally opposed to any form of tax increase.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
I don’t see how wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it makes you fiscally responsible.
isn’t this wha liberals want? Don’t they want the working class to pay out of pocket to the system with the most inneficient means of accomplishing something, the government?[/quote]
So why do you trust the government to be efficient at accomplishing a war if you have no faith in their domestic competence? why would you trust your money to be used for domestic programs in Iraq(rebuilding efforts) when you don’t trust it to be used here?
How is the government spending money in Iraq to provide roads, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, jobs, water lines, power lines, and security for Iraqis different than the Government spending money to provide those things for Americans?
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
I don’t see how wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it makes you fiscally responsible.
isn’t this wha liberals want? Don’t they want the working class to pay out of pocket to the system with the most inneficient means of accomplishing something, the government?
So why do you trust the government to be efficient at accomplishing a war if you have no faith in their domestic competence? why would you trust your money to be used for domestic programs in Iraq(rebuilding efforts) when you don’t trust it to be used here?
How is the government spending money in Iraq to provide roads, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, jobs, water lines, power lines, and security for Iraqis different than the Government spending money to provide those things for Americans?
[/quote]
Me? personally I don’t support the war, but if you do who else is going to fight it? Not wanting solialized healthcare when there’s a free market alternative is totally different then people wanting troops in the M.E.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
I don’t see how wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it makes you fiscally responsible.
What are you talking about? This is a total strawman. I am for drastic spending cuts. I am not for elimination of taxes.[/quote]
But also for dramatic spending increases too!
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
I asked how you can be for a war, but staunchly against any and all tax increases. It doesn’t make sense. You are asking for something(a war) while simultaneously eschewing the understood mechanism to pay for it.
Instead, you are happy with cutting taxes but you are also in favor of increasing spending(on this war), which can only work if you are also okay with operating in a growing deficit. I.e. getting someone else to pay for it.
Cutting domestic spending is a part of the equation, but the war effort has been counted in trillions, and cutting all of our domestic spending would not be enough to cover it.
Why is it too much to ask the citizenry to help pay for the war? especially if they wanted it in the first place? Why is it okay to be in favor of this incredibly expensive project and also be opposed to paying more money to the government to pay for it?
And how does it make any sense at all to consider yourself fiscally conservative but still be in favor of a trillion dollar humanitarian project? that may or may not provide any financial returns to you?
If you could show me how this trillion dollar project is not just pissing money away, and will actually provide a financial return in the long run, then I’d be more in favor of it. But as it stands, it is just bad economic policy.
Because some people don’t mind paying for the war, but don’t like paying for bullshit social programs. I don’t see how it can get any clearer.[/quote]
You mean domestic social programs. You’re all for paying for Iraqi social programs.