Patterico's Pontifications

10/13/2008

Obama’s 95% Tax Cut Illusion

Filed under: 2008 Election,Economics — DRJ @ 8:18 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Wall Street Journal analyzes Barack Obama’s promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans: Obama redefines tax cuts as tax credits and that results in a massive redistribution of taxpayer money.

Here is a list of Obama’s 7 proposed tax credits:

“- 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.”

The clean car credit is the only tax credit that must offset actual money paid. The other 6 credits are “refundable” because they can be claimed even if you have no income-tax liability. These are income transfers intended to redistribute money from one American to another.

Thus, under Obama’s tax plan, millions of Americans will get government payments in excess of what they pay in taxes, making this a massive redistribution of income far beyond what welfare ever paid:

“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.

The WSJ editorial also addresses the impact of Obama’s tax plan on marginal tax rates and explains how they adversely affect lower- and middle-income workers. I addressed that topic here but the WSJ explains it better.

We used to talk about Welfare-to-Work but this is Welfare-that-Won’t-Work. And it’s massive.

H/T M.

— DRJ

132 Responses to “Obama’s 95% Tax Cut Illusion”

  1. Since most of my income is tax exempt, maybe I should be supporting Obama. I look at his proposals and they all seem to benefit me. Unfortunately, I don’t believe him.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  2. Redistribution of wealth is such a grand idea … The Leftists push this every chance they get.

    JD (f7900a)

  3. BTW, great post, DRJ.

    JD (f7900a)

  4. My family would probably benefit from universal health care but economies don’t benefit from income redistribution. So what looks good in the short-run will hurt us all long term.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  5. Hey, I think this is great.
    It will be a wonderful companion to $10.95 Big Macs!

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  6. It was all WSJ, JD, but thank you. (Also, I hope you followed through on your stock purchases last week, given today’s market.)

    AD: Heh. Or the $15.00 Whopper and beer at Burger King.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  7. I did, DRJ. Another day like that and we may actually have made enough to go ahead and sell, and then reinvest. I am sure Baracky will try to take some of it. Or rather, a lot of it.

    JD (f7900a)

  8. Yeah but Drew the McRib will be subsidized, out of “fairness.”

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  9. No offense but I’m hoping we don’t have too many more days as volatile as the past week or so.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  10. Well, of course Jack. It’s PORK!

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  11. No shit, DRJ. I tend to rarely ever invest short term, and now I know why. My hair was graying and thinning naturally last week. I can not count my remaining hairs, and they are all grey.

    I am sure that it is racist of me to not want grey hair …

    JD (f7900a)

  12. Yeh, you just don’t want to be mistaken for some old guy running for President.

    Bigot!

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  13. Um.

    All the actual meat-containing-items (or “meat”, whatever) from McDonald’s would fall under the auspices of Global Warming Czar.

    Beef is quite high on the list of naughty behavior.

    Al (b624ac)

  14. Al – They will have to pry my bone-in ribeyes, prime rib roast, porterhouses, t-bones, sirloins, top round, skirt steak, ground beef, new york strip, kansas city strip, insert other cuts here … from my twitching, soon to be stiff fingers when I am dead.

    JD (f7900a)

  15. Arent all changes to tax rates that don’t change the budget (or are offset elsewhere) redistributions?

    imdw (20f608)

  16. I’ll be on the post-election Central Texas BBQ Tour. Rudy’s. County Line, Salt Lick, Louie Mueller’s, the whole nine yards, baby!

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  17. So, by giving 44% of people “free” money, they only have to convince another 6% of actual taxPAYERS to vote democrat. They probably get that much from NY/CA/IL liberals, so this populist nonsense may win them national elections. Then the check will come due and hopefully we have a true leader waiting….

    How Obama gets away with claiming the debt will go down is really beyond me. The media is so in the tank it’s just pathetic. I know, I know…tell me something I don’t know.

    Cankle (59a78a)

  18. imdw – I will ignore the fact that you are either being willfully obtuse, or exceedingly ignorant. Refundable credits are more redistributionist in nature, because they are given regardless of the tax burden, or lack thereof, in which case, they become free money from someone else. In the post, DRJ outlines potentially in excess of $10,000 in tax credits. DRJ thoroughly laid out how the marginal tax rates on the vast majority of people will go up, so to offset, Baracky is buying votes with the actual taxpayers money. If this isn’t wealth redistribution, which Barack told the Ohio plumber was his plan, I do not know what is.

    JD (f7900a)

  19. imdw,

    In my view tax money has historically been monies paid to the government for projects that benefit the public welfare, not for redistribution to Americans in the form of individual welfare payments.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  20. “Refundable credits are more redistributionist in nature, because they are given regardless of the tax burden, or lack thereof, in which case, they become free money from someone else.”

    I buy that they can affect more people, but in terms of amount they distribute, I dont see why its more or less redistributionist than the equal amount in say, effective changes in tax rates, or having deficit financing.

    imdw (45d14f)

  21. JD, speaking of obtuse…
    Have you noticed a lack of participation from a certain amourous MMVIII individual since the jharp got banned?

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  22. Why not just increase the standard deduction for dependent children to levels comparable to where they were in the 1940s? That would be a meritorious argument and a whopping plus for those of us who are raising kids at confiscatory tax rates. The standard deduction, even with some recent upgrades, still is a far cry from what is was back then. The greedocrats who have run Congress for most of the past half-century used bracket creep to rob us blind.

    bob (466a1d)

  23. Why not just increase the standard deduction for dependent children to levels comparable to where they were in the 1940s? That would be a meritorious argument and a whopping plus for those of us who are raising kids at confiscatory tax rates. The standard deduction, even with some recent upgrades, still is a far cry from what is it was back then. The greedocrats who have run Congress for most of the past half-century used bracket creep to rob us blind.
    Whoops.

    bob (466a1d)

  24. AD – When did harpy get banned? And more importantly, why? Given what he has written before, it had to be a doozie to get him banned.

    imdw – If you do not see how taking money from the increasing shrinking class of actual taxpayers, and giving automatic tax credits to people with no income tax burden, where they have a net negative income tax burden, is not pure redistribution … well, it is not surprising in the least.

    JD (f7900a)

  25. “In my view tax money has historically been monies paid to the government for projects that benefit the public welfare, not for redistribution to Americans in the form of individual welfare payments.”

    Thats nice. But any changes in how these tax moneys are collected are going to be redistributionist. If you’re taking from peter and paul, and then switch to taking the same amount from peter, paul AND mary, you’ve redistributed the burden. Or if you’re taking from peter and paul, and then just cut how much you’re taking from both, and finance your spending with borrowing, you’re redistributing that burden to future taxpayers.

    I guess I’m saying you can distribute negatives as well as positive, you can distribute burdens as well as benefits.

    imdw (6bcf34)

  26. JD…Don’t know the reason, just saw a post by Patterico directing DRJ to shovel jharp’s posts off to the outhouse, and her affirmative response.
    It happened today after the blog dug itself out from that Ditto-Lanche.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  27. “imdw – If you do not see how taking money from the increasing shrinking class of actual taxpayers, and giving automatic tax credits to people with no income tax burden, where they have a net negative income tax burden, is not pure redistribution”

    Oh I think its redistribution.

    imdw (20f608)

  28. There are three major issues with the Refundable credits;

    1) The effective marginal rate through out many income levels is often 40-70% due to the combination of the phase outs and increase in marginal tax rates. A severe marginal cost to becoming more productive. The same is true for Social security recepients between the ages of 62 and 65, who want to work, the approximate marginal rate if they earn over $13k is approx 90%.

    2) This creates a larger and perpetual non-productive class – similar to the former welfare class – Though Obama intends this class to be much larger than the welfare class.

    3) Lastly, as a policy matter, it is never a good policy choice to remove a large segment of the population from tax rolls either in the form of an income tax or a payroll tax, because, those individuals no longer have any incentive to have a responsible attitude regarding the governments fiscal policy – if nothing else, creating perpetual leaches. As Ted Kennedy said during the debates over welfare reform. “We cant cut off those that dont want to work”

    Joe - Dallas (d7c430)

  29. Thats nice. But any changes in how these tax moneys are collected are going to be redistributionist.

    BBBBZzzzzzzzzttttttttt. Wrong. Progressive taxation, yes.

    JD (f7900a)

  30. Good post! McCain has to communicate this as succinctly and forcefully as possible.

    gp (4db77f)

  31. Oh thanks a lot for banning JHarp, now the idiot is back on Riehl World View.

    Susie (481c78)

  32. “BBBBZzzzzzzzzttttttttt. Wrong. Progressive taxation, yes.”

    I think you have this idea that redistribution can only go one way. If I make the tax code more or less progressive, both of those things will have redistributive effects.

    imdw (20f608)

  33. Comment by Susie — 10/13/2008 @ 9:29 pm

    Though I don’t go there, I’m sure some will appreciate the warning.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  34. Wrong again, imdw. If someone is paying into the system more than they are taking from it, the redistribution is a one-way street.

    JD (f7900a)

  35. If someone is a net negative income tax payer, where the government is paying them, whether or not someone else’s tax rate goes up or down makes no difference to them. It is still a one-way street.

    JD (f7900a)

  36. “Wrong again, imdw. If someone is paying into the system more than they are taking from it, the redistribution is a one-way street.”

    So lets say I’m paying 10 dollars in taxes and joe is paying 20, and we’re getting the same services. Then it gets changed so i’m paying 15 and joe is paying 15. The burdens have been redistributed. Same if it gets changed to me paying 5 and joe paying 25. Well, not same, it’s redistributed in the opposite direction.

    imdw (dfd808)

  37. imdw – That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about Baracky’s tax credits which can result in literally thousands of dollars of refundable tax credits to people, thus increasing the number of people who are actual taxpayers. But you know that, which is why you are attempting to divert the topic, and creating tangents to argue against.

    JD (f7900a)

  38. I can see where you see redistribution as a 2 way street. There is a giver, and a taker, involved.

    JD (f7900a)

  39. Good night, all.

    JD (f7900a)

  40. imdw – The marginal tax rates distribute the overall tax burden. Things like the tax credits described above and welfare programs redistribute income. One represents money flowing to the government the other represents money flowing from the goverment. The net effect is a redistribution.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  41. “imdw – That is not what we are talking about.”

    I know. You’ve picked one sort of distribution. The one Obama is promoting. I’m saying any of these sorts of changes will have redistributionist effects. The ones mccain promotes, obama, bush, pelosi, etc…

    imdw (c4e053)

  42. I note that a good many people will not qualify for a number of these tax points. No kids – no increased tax credit. No kids in college – no tax credit. No alt fuel car – no tax credit. Very selective. Note that these credits won’t help retirees much at all.

    LYNNDH (66e68f)

  43. JD – imdw is all about parsing words. Reminds me of Stef that way.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  44. In the socialist system, retirees aren’t supposed to benefit, they are supposed to die, since they have ceased being beneficial to the larger society, and are a drain on resources.
    That is why medical care is rationed in National Health Care Systems. The closer you are to the end of the actuarial table, the lower the priority you rate for health care.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  45. I wonder what has to go UP to pay for all this.

    Social Security cap, gone! Another 6.35% (and another 6.35% on the employer).

    Capital gains tax up to 30% from 15%, or just taxed as income.

    Top bracket up to 50%.

    Phaseout of all deductions at a lower level.

    Full enforcement of AMT.

    But look, $7K off if you buy a Prius.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  46. So, a conservative think tank (via the appallingly liberal media outlet WSJ) somehow came to the conclusion that Obama’s 95% tax cut is an “illusion.”

    My, how credible.

    Tom (1e141b)

  47. #40: “…One represents money flowing to the government the other represents money flowing from the goverment. The net effect is a redistribution…

    So, do you characterize the recent bailout similarly?

    Tom (1e141b)

  48. Tom @46 – If 40% aren’t paying any tax to begin with there isn’t anything to cut is there? How can it be anything other than a myth? Care to explain rather than criticize?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  49. Tom @47 – I’m not a fan of the bailout, but the exact shape of the bailout as opposed to Obama’s tax plan is unclear. If the bailout is in the form of loans or equity investments, the government has a chance for sa return.

    How would you characterize it?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  50. @48-49: To be honest, I don’t know enough about economics or tax policy to evaluate the veracity of what is being claimed here. Via my BS detector, I do find it curious that the only source to pick up on this “illusion” so far is the American Enterprise Institute – which clearly has a stake in a McCain victory in November. Given their bias (which, just as curiously, isn’t mentioned in the WSJ), I’m not sure why I, in my admitted ignorance, should trust the analysis of a conservative think tank more than, say, the Daily Kos daily tracking poll.

    Tom (1e141b)

  51. Tom – AEI is by far the only one to have picked up on the bullshit claim of Obama’s. Obviously the MSM is hesitant to publish articles critical of him, so where else would you expect to find them? The 95% claim is ludicrous on its face to anyone familiar with how the tax burden is shared in this country.

    What Obama’s plan achieves is essentially undoing the welfare reform jointly completed by Clinton and the Republican Congress in the 1990s, but through the tax code.

    The bailout also differs from Obama’s tax plan at least so far in that funds will be directed to businesses instead of individuals. If the bailout is used to start modifying mortgages, though, all bets are off.

    Does it make you feel superior to challenge the veracity of posts before confessing that you don’t know anything about the underlying subject matter? Seems sort of dickish to me.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  52. It’s pretty simple, Tom:

    The righties are saying that getting a tax credit isn’t a tax cut, but losing a tax credit is a tax increase!

    It’s as silly as you thought.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  53. DRJ, if you think that’s bad, wait until all of those no-bid contracts and welfare payouts to companies like Halliburton, from which Cheney still accepts money, cease to exist because Obama has decided to pay the American citizens instead of those corporations and individuals who’ve been cheating the tax payers all of these years. I LOVE Obama. Damn, it’s hard not to love him because he is redistributing the wealth from the top 6% to the other 94%, so that everybody can live nicely. Praise GOD!!!!! Hallelujah! You can’t stop a person who is blessed by God. Read the Bible and you will learn that! Many people’s prayer’s are finally being answered.

    I submit to you that after 8 years of an Obama presidency, your views may not change, but you’ll be living a heck of a lot better than you are now. You are gonna benefit even while you’re cursing his plans. Isn’t that something? Well, that’s just the way things are.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  54. Now that we have received a message fron an alternative universe, control of your monitor will be restored to you….

    TO SERVE MAN!

    Another Drew (767298)

  55. Who is doing the parody of Da Bombz Diggity? Kudos.

    JD (f7900a)

  56. I do appreciate the switch to discussion of actual policies for a change, rather than guilt-by-association character assassination.

    The marginal tax rate increase argument would work better if more people actually expected their incomes to increase over the next four years, though. For someone who is just hoping to make about the same amount next year, or the year after that, high marginal tax rates are meaningless.

    But good start. Now get Republicans talking about the real impact of McCain’s health care plan. Even if it doesn’t push McCain over the top, maybe it’ll inspire Obama to adopt it instead of blundering along with his own plan.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  57. I tell you, Obama is a genius.
    Taking even more of my money and giving it to people who don’t work will just be incentive for me to work harder.
    Its like his 90 day freeze on evictions, soon to be 1 year, its just more incentive from the home owner or renter to make payments.

    Obama, the genius.

    ML (14488c)

  58. Taking even more of my money and giving it to people who don’t work will just be incentive for me to work harder.

    Are you saying that 44 percent of the U.S. population “don’t work”?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  59. There is no parody. Don’t be a playa hater! I’m Da Queen B! I’m just informing you of the other side of the argument. I think that Obama is a different kind of politician. Hopefully, he represents a new trend in politics, where politicians work to solve the inequalities that exist among people so that we will never experience, for example what we’ve been experiencing with the financial markets recently. While every politician has certain convictions, I truly believe that sometimes those convictions must take a back seat if there are others within the population that are experiencing life differently. I used to be very limited in my world view. Only believing that the conservative christian values must be imposed upon everyone. After maturing a bit, I’ve come to realize that my values are mine and may not be shared by everyone else. I see politics as a large scientific (socratic based) experiment. Based on certain observations, a politician might be led to a hypothesis, which will be used to devise an experiment which will be tested and yield results. But today’s politicians treat a hypothesis or ideology as the result, all policies are born from their ideology rather than the facts on the ground. We must treat politics socratically rather than impulsively using our gut feelings. I feel this way because sometimes are gut feelings are wrong and therefore unsubstantiated. Everything about the failed and disastorous Bush presidency exposes this reality. For example, I would love for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but it is my estimation that many others don’t feel the same or are not ready for what that would mean. Well, Obama as well as other clergy have suggested that we focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies, which will consequently reduce the numbers of abortions. It is my hope that after successfully implementing such policies, we will in the future have enough consensus, desire, and willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade. The transition however should be fluid rather than abrupt.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  60. guilt-by-association character assassination.

    I think the proper phrase is guilty-by-participation with … And pointing out facts is now character assassination. Kind of like how telling the truth about someone is a smear …

    where politicians work to solve the inequalities that exist among people

    Say hello to your new socialist overlords.

    I used to be very limited in my world view. Only believing that the conservative christian values must be imposed upon everyone.

    Moby

    JD (f7900a)

  61. Phil – I think that he meant at least 44% of the population does not have to pay income taxes already, not that 44% does not work. I could be wrong.

    JD (f7900a)

  62. Oh, JD, I misunderstood him when he called them “people who don’t work.” Maybe he didn’t mean they actually don’t work.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  63. So helping to rid our nation of inequalities that exist because a few people who have all of the power have unfair advantages is socialist, but the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street proposed by the Bush Administration and the recent plan to nationalize banks with the 250 million dollar check stolen from Americans is not socialism? Sure. Trying to get equal the playing field is necessary to our national security and thriving democracy because we should believe that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or did I miss the memo? Using your logic, it was perfectly democratic that, for example, once slaves were freed, they deserved no repayment for their four centuries of enslavement and work because that would be socialist. Sure.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  64. # 58, Phil

    No, I wasn’t trying to imply that. I used a poor choice of words, like JD said I was speaking of those who don’t pay taxes already.

    Its absurd to think they would get money back, when they didn’t even pay.
    You would never take that guy to lunch.

    Also according to the tax foundation, Obama would let the 2 top tax rates roll back to pre 2001 levels of 33 and 35 percent and those would increase to 36 and 39.6, that will kill small business and everyone else.

    ML (14488c)

  65. Da Bombz – All men are created equal?

    I keep forgetting that for Democrats what matters is equality of outcome whereas I believe Republicans are more focused on equality of opportunity, which is more in keeping with the spirit of the Founders.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  66. I was speaking of those who don’t pay taxes already.

    I’m with you on lowering rates wherever we can. I don’t have much of a problem with redistributive credits, though, as opposed to any other sort of government program. Once the government has our money, and is going to use it for something, giving it to the poor to spend is as constructive as anything else.

    There’s long-term concerns about class stagnation, incentives, and that sort of thing arising out of welfare, obviously. But one thing’s for sure — those tax credits are going right back into the U.S. economy, because those people aren’t sticking their money in the bank.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  67. Once the government has our money, and is going to use it for something, giving it to the poor to spend is as constructive as anything else.

    Comment by Phil — 10/14/2008 @ 8:54 am

    No it isn’t.

    Constructive would be to give it back to the people who paid it in the first place where it would go “right back into the U.S. economy.”

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  68. All men are created equal, we are just not taxed equal.

    From 2005.
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1111.html

    ML (14488c)

  69. McCain volleys

    * Suspend rules mandating that investors must begin to sell off their IRAs and 401(k)s when they reach 70 1/2 years old.

    * Cut the tax rate for retirement-account withdrawals to 10%.

    * Reduce the tax rate on capital gains to 7.5%.

    * Reduce the reduce the federal business tax rate from 35% to 25%.

    * Eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  70. Da Bombz – All men are created equal?

    Until tax day …

    giving it to the poor to spend is as constructive as anything else.

    All evidence to the contrary … those Great Society war on poverty programs have been a smashing success.

    JD (f7900a)

  71. All the actual meat-containing-items (or “meat”, whatever) from McDonald’s would fall under the auspices of Global Warming Czar.

    Beef is quite high on the list of naughty behavior.

    Comment by Al — 10/13/2008 @ 8:51 pm

    Al – They will have to pry my bone-in ribeyes, prime rib roast, porterhouses, t-bones, sirloins, top round, skirt steak, ground beef, new york strip, kansas city strip, insert other cuts here … from my twitching, soon to be stiff fingers when I am dead

    I can hear Denis Leary:

    You see, according to [Obama’s] plan I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder – “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener”.

    Horatio (783c7d)

  72. What is ‘illusory’ about his 95% tax break? The breakdown of how this will happen makes Obama’s tax plans even better and truer than he himself has explained it.

    If people finally understood that McCain is only interested in pandering to the top 5% of the country he’d be about twenty five points behind in the polls instead of ten.

    When is America going to realise that the Repubs have only *ever* been interested in serving the top 5% of the population?

    In three weeks hopefully…..

    GMJH (0779c1)

  73. The breakdown of how this will happen makes Obama’s tax plans even better and truer than he himself has explained it.

    If the reality is even “truer” than Baracky has explained it, does that mean he has been less than honest to this point? Will it hit the actual taxpayers even harder than he has stated? Confiscate more earnings and redistribute them to more people? How is it actually better and truer than what we have been told?

    JD (f7900a)

  74. realise

    I love it when the concern trolls are not even Americans.

    JD (f7900a)

  75. JD, it’s better and more true than Obama has stated because it benefits a greater majority of the US populace in tax cuts/credits than even he has stated. It’s not a matter of a lack of honesty, it’s a matter of him not being clear enough as to just how much *most* of the population will benefit.

    as to ‘realise’, I’m UK born and have been living in the US for a couple of years. Your country had decided that I am eligible to pay taxes (on UK earnings which have nothing to do with the US)_ but that I do not have the right to vote. So I have just as much right to comment on taxes as anyone.

    Besides, the word ‘realise’ is part of the English Language which you adopted/corrupted for yourselves, as you’ve done with many aspects of *our* English language.

    G

    GMJH (0779c1)

  76. Reducing taxes for 95% of all Americans…

    Hell, if they were interested in fairness, and growing the economy,
    they would be front-and-center on repealing the 16th Amendment –
    let’s get rid of the income-tax for 100% of Americans!

    Another Drew (767298)

  77. #What is ‘illusory’ about his 95% tax break?

    Comment by GMJH — 10/14/2008 @ 10:23 am

    That 44% don’t even pay taxes.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  78. All evidence to the contrary … those Great Society war on poverty programs have been a smashing success.

    Compared to other government programs of such a scale, I’d say the Great Society is about average. Expensive, inefficient, lots of unintended effects.

    I would prefer that the government take our money and use it for its own purposes as infrequently as possible, for that very reason — government programs do not work very well.

    However, as long as the governmnet is going to be taking our money anyway, I would prefer it distribute that money as tax credits, to be spent by private citizens on what they think they need, rather than use that money to make government bigger.

    And I’m equal-opportunity about this. That’s why I support McCain’s tax-credit-funded health plan over Obama’s plan, which attempts to improve the healthcare system by adding more rules (and thus more government).

    Finally, in these trying economic times, being stringently fiscally conservative regarding tax policy toward the poor is a pretty cold-hearted perspective unless you’re out there screaming and complaining about all of the socialism for the rich going on right now.

    Otherwise, it starts to look like you’re scapegoating the poor for our problems (something the Republican party has a tendancy to do at times, especially now).

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  79. However, as long as the governmnet is going to be taking our money anyway, I would prefer it distribute that money as tax credits, to be spent by private citizens on what they think they need so private citizens can spend other private citizen’s monies on their own wants and needs.

    There, fixed that for you.

    G – You should be happy. Baracky will move us towards the Euro progressive socialist models of confiscatory taxation.

    JD (f7900a)

  80. Since there are vast differences among the public as to what gov’t should do with tax money, the easiest solution to this problem is to repeal the 16th Amendment, and force gov’t to live within our means.
    With the vast amount of world trade today (much greater than it was pre-16th) it seems very conceivable that the gov’t could finance itself quite nicely on import/export duties of very modest levels that could be imposed within current treaty limitations.

    Another Drew (767298)

  81. Racist

    JD (f7900a)

  82. So, it’s fair to state only the all men are created equal part, but to negate the other part of the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t have equality without the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So taxing someone who has unequally profited from the economy the same as someone who is bearing the brunt of the economy is fair? For example, someone born in the inner city or rural america who has had to work very hard to make a living should be taxed the same as George W. Bush who was born into his riches and has never had to work as hard to keep afloat is in keeping with the Declaration of Independence? The whole reason why Jefferson and the other founders departed from England was because they were in defiance of the “Divine Right of Kings”. But you seem to think that Kings should be allowed to stay Kings, and trump others so that no one else has a chance to compete. So tax everyone equally so that the little person will never have a chance to get a loan to start his/her own business or obtain an education or pay his/her own medical bills or care for his/her ailing parents. I find that undemocratic and a departure from the ideals of the founding fathers, bless their souls, and our democratic ideals. Maybe you should leave America and live with Kings. You can’t possibly tax everyone equally when the CEO of Exxon Mobil makes his millions of dollars a year because 200 million drivers are consumers of the gas industry. If those 200 million people decided to ride bikes everyday, the CEO of Exxon Mobil would probably be making minimum wage.

    Da Bombz Diggity (6cc032)

  83. So taxing someone who has unequally profited from the economy the same as someone who is bearing the brunt of the economy is fair?

    Then make your case for that. Asserting it does not make it so. Progressive confiscatory taxation is your position. Defend it.

    JD (f7900a)

  84. I wish it were not true, but every time one of the moonbats drops their little bon mots about equality and fairness, it inevitably is followed by taking from one and giving to another. It is not even thinly veiled socialism.

    JD (f7900a)

  85. Your problem is that it is you were are tring to decide who has “unequally” profitted, regardless of any disparity of effort put into the economy.

    I have found that most people are rewarded pretty close to a straight line to what amount of effort they expend in whatever type of endeavor they are engaged in. Those that just wish to “get by”, are rewarded at one level, those that want to excell, are rewarded appropriately.

    You want the big check, put in the big hours.

    Another Drew (767298)

  86. Phil about government programs: “Expensive, inefficient, lots of unintended effects.”

    This is actually the entire core of the “lower taxes” argument. Thanks for stating it so succinctly Phil.

    Al (b624ac)

  87. This is actually the entire core of the “lower taxes” argument. Thanks for stating it so succinctly Phil.

    Absolutely. The reason Obama’s tax credits don’t cause me to vote for McCain is that Republicans have made it clear they’re going to spend just as much as Democrats — they’re just going to spend it on invading/occupying other countries, giving sweetheart contracts to their rich corporate croneys, and controlling private citizens’ lives.

    So given a choice, if they’re going to steal from me anyway, I’d rather government just gave my money to the poor.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  88. So – filing a yearly tax return with the IRS is purely voluntary, isn’t it?

    /sarc

    mojo (8096f2)

  89. I told my mom that she better start stuffing her mattress if Obama gets elected.

    Now I hear the Dem’s want to limit the size of homes that people want to buy. WHAT??? Now the Dem’s are going to tell people what we can and can not buy? I thought this was Free America not Communist Russia. Next thing you know we’ll all have to share our homes with other families….4-6 people to a room.

    I’d like to know if there is anyone in Hollywood that would be willing to do that? And if the’re to dumb know what I mean….Just watch Dr. Zhivago.

    Jennifer (6aecda)

  90. ….Just watch Dr. Zhivago.

    Another one of those inconvenient truths.

    Another Drew (767298)

  91. Ignoring the pros and cons of his proposal, are the Obama supporters here in favor of him describing his tax program accurately or continuing with the fiction that he is giving 95% of working Americans a tax cut?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  92. Reducing taxes for 95% of all Americans…

    Hell, if they were interested in fairness, and growing the economy, they would be front-and-center on repealing the 16th Amendment – let’s get rid of the income-tax for 100% of Americans!

    Bravo! Well said!

    Now if only we had voted for Dr. Ron Paul en masse during the GOP primaries… we might have had a reasonable chance at that.

    Instead, we shall only get from Resident-Select Obama a “levy en masse”.

    seekeronos (c5383c)

  93. Do not speak the name of Nor Laup.

    JD (f7900a)

  94. I’d rather government just gave my money to the poor.

    I have a much better idea, Phil – why don’t you voluntarily give more to the government than your yearly tax bills require, in order to help those you claim you care so much about. How ’bout it?

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  95. Dmac, you are obviously not getting the jist of my post. I don’t want the government taking my money, and if they said “we want to take your money and give it to the poor” I’d say “let me do that myself, it’ll be cheaper.”

    But they’re taking my money no matter what. I just have to choose between a (1) party that wants to take my money to salvage its pride in the middle east, fund government spying operations, further militarize domestic law enforcement, and make sweetheart deals with big contractors and (2) a party that wants to take my money for no end of bleeding-heart projects that won’t be very effective, and could be done a lot better by the private sector. (This is really just a sliding scale, since the either party will do all those things. Democrats just promise more (2) and less (1) and Republicans promise more (1) and less (2))

    Not a pretty choice either way, but the point is, I don’t get to keep my money in any case.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  96. Phil – Do you think Obama should accurately describe his tax plan or continue with the fiction that it is a tax cut for 95% of working Americans?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  97. See, if there were no taxes, there would be no way to fund any government/state programs like guaranteed low interest rate loans for college or unemployment funds or free public schools or police departments or fire departments or jails or food for the homeless or reduced apartment rental costs for those on fixed and low incomes or minimum wage. Seriously, I wouldn’t be nearly as successful as I am today if those programs did not exist. A minority of people are selfish and dread paying dues so that we all can fulfill our civic duties and live near harmoniously in our socially connected nation and world. I don’t see how any one individual can thrive in today’s world without fulfilling certain social duties. These ideologies of free-market fundamentalism or socialism are extremes and don’t adequately describe where the individuals within our nation should stand in our thriving democracy. We need a balance of recognizing that we are socially connected, yet are free to make our own choices and lead our own lives. But, there’s a delicate balance. For example, the stock market, in an ideal world, should be completely free. But not everyone sticks by the same morals when interacting with the market. Some people are cheaters, liars, greedy, and selfish, so in order to protect everyone’s investments, everyone must agree to the same set of rules. Socially, we must come together and agree to a certain set of regulations, so that everyone involved can have a fair shot at obtaining wealth. McCain and many republicans have favored deregulation of the markets. In fact, they also favored privatizing social security. Well, as a result of their efforts to increasingly deregulate the markets, many trillions of dollars have been lost.

    Another example is opting in to health insurance. I worked minimum wage at a convenience store during the early years of my life. I was not offered any health plans to opt into. I was young at the time, so I didn’t need a health plan. I never went to the doctor. If I was sick, I dealt with it unless I had no choice. Other employees who worked with me, were decades older than me, had families, and were making minimum wage. I wondered how they were able or if they were able to take their children to the hospital or dentist. Having the federal government take taxes out so that even if adults have no money for healthcare, their children will be taken care of is compassionate and necessary. To say to a child that even though your parents can’t afford healthcare for you, we will not help you is sad. We should realize the ideals of the founding fathers and realize that all citizens young or old, have the right to life, liberty, happiness. Sacrificing some of your cozy lifestyle so a kid can have his/her teeth cleaned or health cared for shouldn’t be so threatening to you. Have some compassion.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  98. Obama says you better share the wealth or else —

    Obama Takes McCain into Custody

    Michael Asher (304b5e)

  99. Da bombz

    So according to you “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” must now include cheap health care, what will you include next, cheap brand-new car or something else?

    No American is denied health care, we don’t even deny illegal aliens health care. Now you may have to pay for it and in that case welcome to my club. But nobody is saying to any child in America, “sorry you ate to many twinkies while playing video games, but we cant help you, so off you go”.

    Giving the money I worked for to someone who made less so we are somehow equal is communism, the ditch digger makes the same as a Doctor, they have different educations and talents, but they get the same amount of cash for doing vastly different things.

    That worked real well for the former USSR didn’t it?

    The last thing we need is more government health care, we already have medicare and others and that is enough.

    ML (14488c)

  100. ML, it should have been obvious how confused bomb is when he was listing government expenditures that the Federal government does not fund.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  101. Well ML,

    I believe that you can’t govern people by laissez-faire economics. There is only profit motive when everything is privatized and with every man for himself. That’s why we had the depression, and the market is on the verge of collapsing today because the money has been held and kept in the hands of the few. So, you are okay with the top 5% of this country to hold 90% of the wealth. 95% of this country is now feeling the hurt of a failed economy due to the selfish 5% and others who wish to worship the top 5%. Bush has already said that his changes to government would be a whole heck of a lot easier if this were a dictatorship. As I have said before, you can’t convince me that the top 5% holding and keeping the majority of the wealth is going to help everyone pursue happiness. Wall street was not supposed to get the trillions of dollars in a bailout from Bush. But, Bush is kissing the a$$ of the 5% and screwing over the rest of this nation. Then, AIG members can go get massages for $500,000 on the bill of the tax payers. No, I don’t think so. I can’t wait until Obama becomes President. He is one of the 95%. Not the top 5%. He and his wife just recently paid off their student loans. They are what Thomas Jefferson, the most brilliant man of his time, envisioned. There will be no divine right. The top 5% better move on over, because finally the 95% is moving on in baby! The remaining 95% of the population only hold 10% of the wealth and also overwhelmingly voted Bush into office. Over the course of 8 years, taxes supposedly went down, but the 95% feel even more stretched and in debt than when under Clinton. This is why Obama will beat McCain. This is why Obama will win. People remember how they felt under Clinton versus how they feel under Bush. When 95% hold the majority of the wealth, they will keep the money in this nation. We will not leave this country and live somewhere else or start businesses elsewhere because we will not have enough money to do that. We will stay and support our nation. The top 5% will get that money and leave the US just to make more money and take 90% of the wealth with them. Then, we have problems with the collapse of our infrastructure. It will not be allowed anymore. So, ML, you’re going to give up money and I don’t feel sorry for you.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  102. I love walls of text.

    JD (f7900a)

  103. and the market is on the verge of collapsing today

    No, it is not.

    I can’t wait until Obama becomes President. He is one of the 95%.

    This might be one of the most unintentionally funny things you have written. Baracky is wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. He is no more a regular person than any other multi-millionaire walking around.

    Da Bombs could have just screamed “I hate actual taxpayers” and save a shit-load of pixels.

    JD (f7900a)

  104. “…When 95% hold the majority of the wealth,…”
    You have a very poor nation.

    Another Drew (767298)

  105. “So, you are okay with the top 5% of this country to hold 90% of the wealth. 95% of this country is now feeling the hurt of a failed economy due to the selfish 5% and others who wish to worship the top 5%.”

    Da Bombz – Links Please.

    “He and his wife just recently paid off their student loans.”

    Kind of strange they were able to scrape the dough together to buy a condo before they paid off their student loans wasn’t it? I think they just wanted to keep grifting off those low interest rate student loans for as long as possible myself. Not a great example for people to follow.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  106. “Then, AIG members can go get massages for $500,000 on the bill of the tax payers.”

    Da Bombz – Only members of Congress get happy ending massages courtesy of the taxpayers, or Katrina victims. Check your facts.

    Have you ever worked for a living?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  107. As a matter of record, the division of AIG that booked that VERY NICE retreat, did not receive any Fed funding, and is totally solvent, and is regulated by state regulators.
    Very Bad PR, though.

    Another Drew (767298)

  108. Da Bombz – You are just a flat out hater and class warfare enthusiast is what you are. Welcome to the site! We don’t see bigots like you that often.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  109. “…When 95% hold the majority of the wealth,…”
    You have a very poor nation.

    Comment by Another Drew — 10/14/2008 @ 9:36 pm

    Dude, you are too selfish! Look under the years of the Clinton Presidency and then tell me that the nation was as poor as it is now. When 5% hold the majority of the wealth, you have a poor, slave, and undemocratic nation, not the other way around. The 5% who hold the majority of the wealth export it instead of using it on our soil. Even Clinton was helping the rich, but he allowed for 95% of the nation to get a taste of what wealth felt like. That’s why we had a surplus while during his presidency. Bush gave nothing to 95% of the nation. He didn’t take away social security or medicaid/medicare, but the war bogged him down.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  110. Comment by Da Bombz Diggity — 10/14/2008 @ 9:48 pm

    I’ll repeat myself:
    There was no surplus during the Clinton Presidency.
    The National Debt increased every year, for eight years.

    Another Drew (767298)

  111. #108 daleyrocks:

    We don’t see bigots like you that often.

    Unfortunately we have been seeing stupidity like that all too often, lately.

    I waited too late to run for any office this cycle, but I’m thinking of running on a “Stupidity Ought To Be Painful” platform next time around.

    I figure I could use it for just about any elective office…

    EW1(SG) (15fcf2)

  112. Da Bombz – Your bullshit about Bush is worthless. He cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. You can actually verify that – 6% for the average American family. The Democrats wanted to spend more money than the bloated budgets Bush actually submitted, so which way do you want your talking point today? I know, heads I win, tails you lose.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  113. “Kind of strange they were able to scrape the dough together to buy a condo before they paid off their student loans wasn’t it? I think they just wanted to keep grifting off those low interest rate student loans for as long as possible myself. Not a great example for people to follow. Comment by daleyrocks — 10/14/2008 @ 9:38 pm”

    It’s just an example of good judgement and prioritizing. They know how to do a lot with a little. That’s what 95% of this nation does on a daily basis. But, those who have been endowed with riches and have never had to prioritize would never know that.

    As for proof that 5% of the country holds 90% of the wealth, I don’t have to supply links. You just have to look in the mirror. How many cars and houses does McCain have? How many houses and cars do you have? How many houses and cars does Obama have? I have 0 houses and 1 car. I have just listed three groups of people including yourself. Compare and contrast, you were taught that skill in kindergarten.

    “Da Bombz – Only members of Congress get happy ending massages courtesy of the taxpayers, or Katrina victims. Check your facts.

    Have you ever worked for a living?
    Comment by daleyrocks — 10/14/2008 @ 9:41 pm”

    Sorry buddy but you need to check your facts! AIG execs massage away the stress after 85-bln-dlr loan: lawmakers

    Yes, I have worked for a living, I didn’t marry into wealth. That’s why I’m using the internet because I work for a living, unlike McCain who doesn’t know anything about the internet. Because of my computer skills, I was able to put food on my table. The top 5% of our nation do not have to know how to use the internet. They don’t know about working. If they knew about working for a living, they would know how to use the internet.

    “As a matter of record, the division of AIG that booked that VERY NICE retreat, did not receive any Fed funding, and is totally solvent, and is regulated by state regulators.
    Very Bad PR, though.

    Comment by Another Drew — 10/14/2008 @ 9:44 pm”

    No, they are not completely solvent, that’s why they needed the bailout. They should’ve used all of that money spent on the retreat to pay down their debts, just like I am expected to pay down my debts. When I get a loan, I don’t go on know retreat, I pay my bills and I pay off my loans.

    “Da Bombz – You are just a flat out hater and class warfare enthusiast is what you are. Welcome to the site! We don’t see bigots like you that often.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 10/14/2008 @ 9:46 pm”

    I’m not a hater, and I’m not a bigot. I represent the 95% who works hard for my money. I am what I am. If I lose my job, I will be on the street and no government will bail me out with NO interest rate loans. I couldn’t get welfare for temporary assistance. I would have to rely on generous support from family members if I have any. Society has put in the safeguards of welfare, medicaid, unemployment assistance, food stamps etc. for citizens who are down on their luck. That is their bailout. If I left my well being up to daleyrocks, I would have no recourse.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  114. Da Bombz – Honey you are just a lying hater. It comes out in each of your comments. I don’t know why you want to spend your time here spreading lies and insulting people. Most of us are to smart to believe a word you say.

    “It’s just an example of good judgement and prioritizing.” Right – Assembling the big cash down payment.

    “Sorry buddy but you need to check your facts! AIG execs massage away the stress after 85-bln-dlr loan: lawmakers” – Wrong again bombthrower. See that word loan. That means they have to pay it back moron. You check your facts next time. How far ahead was this little conference scheduled?

    “The top 5% of our nation do not have to know how to use the internet.” – Nobody has to know how to use the internet idiot. Most people want to know how to use it.

    “I don’t have to supply links.” I liked this one best of all. Of course you don’t honey. You can make all the wild claims you want. We don’t believe them anyway.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  115. “I’ll repeat myself:
    There was no surplus during the Clinton Presidency.
    The National Debt increased every year, for eight years.

    Comment by Another Drew — 10/14/2008 @ 9:50 pm”

    Once again, I must educate you using techniques that kindergartners know. Let’s COMPARE AND CONTRAST! ALL TOGETHER NOW!!!

    Under Clinton,

    “President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
    From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

    September 27, 2000
    Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion.”

    Under Bush,

    “September 29, 2008, 12:20 PM
    Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt
    Posted by Mark Knoller| 13

    Mark Knoller is a White House Correspondent for CBS News.

    (AP)With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.

    It’s the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

    On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.”

    “Unfortunately we have been seeing stupidity like that all too often, lately.

    I waited too late to run for any office this cycle, but I’m thinking of running on a “Stupidity Ought To Be Painful” platform next time around.

    I figure I could use it for just about any elective office…

    Comment by EW1(SG) — 10/14/2008 @ 9:59 pm”

    EW1(SG), Where are your sources and links to backup the BS coming from your mouth. I am not stupid. You only have personal innuendos and insults to back up your ideas. Anybody with a green pea for a brain can do that. Don’t bother running for office on a stupid platform, we had enough stupidity under Bush/Cheney and other Republican’s leadership.

    “Da Bombz – Your bullshit about Bush is worthless. He cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. You can actually verify that – 6% for the average American family. The Democrats wanted to spend more money than the bloated budgets Bush actually submitted, so which way do you want your talking point today? I know, heads I win, tails you lose.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 10/14/2008 @ 10:04 pm”

    I don’t think so darling, look at the financial crisis. Are you sure that you know what you’re talking about? Look at the crisis that the economy is in today. Look at the jobless rate, forclosure rate, stock market, credit shortage, nationalization of the financial sector.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  116. “Right – Assembling the big cash down payment.”

    The point is, Obama did not inherit any money to pay off his student loans or his condo. So, you need to recognize who is full of $hit. And you might need a shovel to dig yourself out of it.

    “Wrong again bombthrower. See that word loan. That means they have to pay it back moron. You check your facts next time. How far ahead was this little conference scheduled?”

    The terms was not for them to go on a resort. It is supposed be for school expenses. I have worked for the federal government before. I was not allowed to take out a dime, unless it was itemized and fully justifiable for the purpose of fulfilling the mission of the federal government. AIG can follow those rules as well. Because now AIG is requesting more money. If that’s the case, give the Americans a loan so that they can keep their houses. They won’t even give us a loan to keep the roofs over our heads.

    As far as the conference, it doesn’t matter how far ahead it was scheduled, it should’ve been paid for out of the pockets of the executives. When I go on vacation, I have to pay for my own expenses. Those are personal expenses and should be treated as such. It is unethical to spend money so frivolously, when you have asked for a bailout.

    “Nobody has to know how to use the internet idiot. Most people want to know how to use it.”

    THIS IS THE INFORMATIONAL AGE! STUPID! EVERYBODY SHOULD ALREADY KNOW HOW TO USE IT! ARE YOU FROM EARTH?

    “I liked this one best of all. Of course you don’t honey. You can make all the wild claims you want. We don’t believe them anyway.”

    Don’t believe me, but if McCain were President and you get sick, you will not have health insurance. If you lose your job, you will not have a place to live, because McCain will make it possible for you to not get a loan from a bank and he make it possible for all jobs to be shipped overseas. That’s why Obama is offering a tax credit to companies that keep jobs on US soil, so that you can keep a roof over your head and your job and your medical coverage. You lucky Obama is going to be President, because if it were me, you wouldn’t get $hit!

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  117. Da Bombz – Now you’re losing it. Making even less sense.

    The government doesn’t own AIG – yet. They san still spend money the way they want to but if they do it on certain things it may look bad. You claim you’re not stupid but then go on some dumb rant about working for the government as if it had some relevance to this situation. Keep your problems to yourself.

    You still didn’t understand the point about the national debt I can see from #155. If the Democrats actually tried to be bigger spenders than Bush, criticizing him for not spending enough in many areas, over the past eight years isn’t it blazingly hypocritical to turn around slam him for the size of the national debt? I guess not according to brain damaged liberal logic.

    “The point is, Obama did not inherit any money to pay off his student loans or his condo. So, you need to recognize who is full of $hit. And you might need a shovel to dig yourself out of it.” Genius – A lot of federal loan programs have caps on overall size. If the Obamas weren’t selfishly thinking of themselves they might have thought of reducing their student loans to free up capacity for needy students coming behind them instead of using accumulated cash to put a large downpayment on a pricey condo.

    Don’t need a shovel, but I think you need an undertaker. Your talking points are dead, hater.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  118. “The government doesn’t own AIG – yet. They san still spend money the way they want to but if they do it on certain things it may look bad.”

    You are wrong again daleyrocks. We do own AIG. “The Government” Now Owns 80% Of AIG, The Nation’s Largest Insurer. In fact, we are controlling who will be in charge of the company. As I have already said, any money dished out to AIG should be spent only on expenses that help to maintain normal operations for the company not their massages or manicures or whatever other personal activities or things that they see fit. Case closed.

    “You claim you’re not stupid but then go on some dumb rant about working for the government as if it had some relevance to this situation. Keep your problems to yourself.”

    My explanation of my experiences working within the Federal Government is very relevant to this discussion. Being that I was employed by the government, I was under strict guidelines as to how I spent money provided to me by the federal government. AIG has been provided money by the federal government. The federal government needs to strictly limit what that money can be used for, just as they did for me and others who are contractors for the government or receive grants from the government.

    “You still didn’t understand the point about the national debt I can see from #155. If the Democrats actually tried to be bigger spenders than Bush, criticizing him for not spending enough in many areas, over the past eight years isn’t it blazingly hypocritical to turn around slam him for the size of the national debt? I guess not according to brain damaged liberal logic.”

    No, I understood you clearly, but you are wrong. There are a couple of points that are important. Bush and the republican party preached/preach how they were/are so fiscally responsible, but every time we turn around, they are printing more and more bills and running the US into the ground financially. Bush’s Presidency has set the record out of all Presidencies for having the largest increase in the national debt. He managed to nearly double our national debt in only 8 years of his Presidency. This is astounding! Also, Democrats are not trying to be bigger spenders or outspend the Republicans, if they were, Clinton would have doubled our national debt not reduced it. But, history has shown us that BUSH WAS THE BIGGER BIGGEST SPENDER. Lastly, Democrats primarily stand for efficiently taking care of the Nation’s needs. Republicans, on the other hand, are concerned with lining their pockets and spending frivolously. Under Clinton’s presidency, we had a surplus and we were reducing our national debt and we didn’t have problems with infrastructure, increasing jobless rates, insufficient government response to disasters, dissipating retirement accounts, or volatile economy in need of many bailouts.

    “Genius – A lot of federal loan programs have caps on overall size. If the Obamas weren’t selfishly thinking of themselves they might have thought of reducing their student loans to free up capacity for needy students coming behind them instead of using accumulated cash to put a large downpayment on a pricey condo.”

    So, now I have to educate you on acquiring a living space? Firstly, how do you reconcile the Obamas being selfish when obtaining a place of residence? A person who has a job, family, and steady income, has a choice as to where they may live. They could either rent or purchase their own home. Purchasing a home is not a selfish thing to do, it is in fact a necessary thing to do. When an individual or a couple purchase a home they are managing the home and they are receiving the tax credits from the government for that home. A person who rents, most likely pays more money per month than they would if they paid down a mortgage, are not managing the dwelling, and the landlords who they pay rent to receive the tax credits for that dwelling. Secondly, it seems to me that you don’t have experience in aquiring a place to live. If you had experience, you would know that depending on where you live, prices of condos and homes vary dramatically. In Chicago, IL, homes are very expensive as compared to say Charlotte, NC.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  119. We should just start calling Obama the Robin Hood of the modern times. He’s just trying to rob from the rich to give to the poor. Unfortunately, this grand idea is just another example of the leftist illuminati trying to enable those in America who think that they are owed something without having to earn it.

    Jeff (7761ee)

  120. Da Bombz is aggressively mendoucheous.

    I personally thought that the lie about McCain and computers was especially classy, given the reasons why he is not particularly adept on the keyboard.

    JD (f7900a)

  121. Da Bombz – The government does not own AIG. Your link is wrong. It owns warrants to purchase shares of AIG. There is a difference. Look it up. Saying what your experience is and what AIG “SHOULD” do is a tiny bit different than what the rules actually are. Is there an operating agreement in place between the government and AIG? Have you seen its terms? Your opinions about what AIG should and should be not be allowed to do are meaningless to me.

    “Also, Democrats are not trying to be bigger spenders or outspend the Republicans, if they were, Clinton would have doubled our national debt not reduced it.”

    Big yucks here. Do you even think before you comment hater? Clinto faced a Republican House from 1994 on which limited what he could do. I thought you claimed not to be dumb.

    Why do you think it’s right to take away peoples’ hard earned money at way higher rates just because they make more? Why is that “fair?” Do you have something against wealth? It sure seems like you do from your comment. Don’t you believe in the American Dream?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  122. #101, Da Bombz

    Over the course of 8 years, taxes supposedly went down, but the 95% feel even more stretched and in debt than when under Clinton.

    As one of the 95%, I can say Bush did lower my income taxes along with every other Americans, much lower then under Clinton. Under Clinton 40% of my income went to State and Federal taxes, now only 29.8% of my income goes to State and Federal taxes.

    And in reality that 29.8% would be 23.4%, but since now I am self-employed I pay double the normal social security tax which totals around 13-14% over and above the normal federal rate.

    So, ML, you’re going to give up money and I don’t feel sorry for you.

    Da Bombz, you shouldn’t feel sorry for me, “there but for the grace of God go I”.
    And I have been fortunate to have a good career and to still be working in these difficult times, I have personally witnessed a dozen or so people lose their jobs do to cutbacks this year alone.

    Those are the people I have empathy for.

    Why keep calling it the “Bush bailout” when Pelosi and Barney Frank and all the other democrats pushed for it and voted for it?
    Do you not understand how our government works?

    ML (14488c)

  123. “Da Bombz is aggressively mendoucheous.

    I personally thought that the lie about McCain and computers was especially classy, given the reasons why he is not particularly adept on the keyboard.

    Comment by JD — 10/15/2008 @ 6:54 am”

    I do not see myself as JD has claimed. I see myself as self-assured, aware of the axioms from which I formulate views or my perspective of reality, questioning, and yielding when my experiments or research produces results that are contrary to my original hypothesis.

    I am not a liar. John McCain has described himself as computer illiterate.

    “Da Bombz – The government does not own AIG. Your link is wrong. It owns warrants to purchase shares of AIG. There is a difference. Look it up. Saying what your experience is and what AIG “SHOULD” do is a tiny bit different than what the rules actually are. Is there an operating agreement in place between the government and AIG? Have you seen its terms? Your opinions about what AIG should and should be not be allowed to do are meaningless to me.”

    If the government does not own AIG, why has the NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo stated that AIG has violated state law?

    “Big yucks here. Do you even think before you comment hater? Clinto faced a Republican House from 1994 on which limited what he could do. I thought you claimed not to be dumb.”

    You just proved my point. For 6 of 8 years of the Bush Presidency, Republicans dominated both the house and the senate. So, Bush had no limitations on what he could do. Hence, since Bush and Republicans wanted deregulation, they moved closer and closer to it because they had no inhibition. They also nearly doubled our national debt and provided us with a deficit. If you compare what was done by Clinton during his eight years of presidency with republicans limiting what he could do versus what was done by Bush during his eight years of presidency with republicans giving him all that he wanted done, you would see that Clinton reduced our national debt and provided us with a surplus even with opposition. Bush had everything he wanted and provided us with a deficit and a record increase in national debt. Dude, you gotta see the error in your ideas.

    “Why do you think it’s right to take away peoples’ hard earned money at way higher rates just because they make more? Why is that “fair?” Do you have something against wealth? It sure seems like you do from your comment. Don’t you believe in the American Dream?”

    I only think it’s fair to contribute a little more if you’ve received a little more because others in our economy have supported you. A farmer can’t sell crops if he doesn’t have customers. In Economics 101, we learn that the market economy is driven by supply and demand. We work together to supply that million dollar salary for executives, so therefore they must contribute more of their money. We have seen what not being fair can do to our economy. It worsens investor confidence and it causes consumers to not consume and it posts record losses to the markets. The American Dream is based on the tenet that all men are created equal and have the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Didn’t you hear about the 90 year old woman who was nearing foreclosure and tried to commit suicide? That’s not the American Dream. That’s why Biden brought the issue to Congress so that they could help her. The women should age gracefully and happily in her home and not be worried about forclosure. The American Dream is antithetical to the divine right of kings. Kings do not belong here. As an American, you should be proud that others who work hard receive the benefits of their labor. Not that others work hard to continue to line the pockets of rich folk. Slavery lasted for 4 centuries. Those days are over and done with and I’m glad for that. You should be too.

    “As one of the 95%, I can say Bush did lower my income taxes along with every other Americans, much lower then under Clinton. Under Clinton 40% of my income went to State and Federal taxes, now only 29.8% of my income goes to State and Federal taxes.

    And in reality that 29.8% would be 23.4%, but since now I am self-employed I pay double the normal social security tax which totals around 13-14% over and above the normal federal rate.”

    Bush’s economic policies may have been good for you, but the majority of Americans who are not self-employed and have retirement accounts that they are living off of or will soon live off of are not favoring Bush’s economic policies.

    “Da Bombz, you shouldn’t feel sorry for me, “there but for the grace of God go I”.
    And I have been fortunate to have a good career and to still be working in these difficult times, I have personally witnessed a dozen or so people lose their jobs do to cutbacks this year alone.

    Those are the people I have empathy for.”

    I agree. I know many peole myself. People working in the industry for 30plus years with no advanced degrees, being laid off. It’s tough out there.

    “Why keep calling it the “Bush bailout” when Pelosi and Barney Frank and all the other democrats pushed for it and voted for it?
    Do you not understand how our government works?”

    It’s the Bush bailout because Paulson brought to 3 page proposal to Congress and expected them to accept it with no oversight. It is and will be Bush’s bailout. If we had Obama as President with a democratic majority, it would be very different.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  124. Da Bombz

    Being self-employed doesn’t mean I pay less taxes, I pay more taxes then the American worker who works for an employer. So don’t make it sound like I get some kind of extra tax benefits for being self-employed. And I have only been self-employed for the last 2 years, the prior 6 years was also better then Clinton taxes, its simple math.

    Living off a retirement account has nothing to do with taxes and little to do with the president, unless that president is Obama, then it will all crash.

    ML (14488c)

  125. Da Bombz

    Yeah right, don’t be ridiculous.

    Of course Obama’s own website claims 3x the middle class tax relief that McCain/Palin propose, but its all BS, Obama style BS, but BS none the less.

    ML (14488c)

  126. “Being self-employed doesn’t mean I pay less taxes, I pay more taxes then the American worker who works for an employer. So don’t make it sound like I get some kind of extra tax benefits for being self-employed. And I have only been self-employed for the last 2 years, the prior 6 years was also better then Clinton taxes, its simple math.

    Living off a retirement account has nothing to do with taxes and little to do with the president, unless that president is Obama, then it will all crash.”

    I’m not saying that you pay less taxes. I’m saying that you have more flexibility in your self-employment than majority of Americans who work for and rely on an employer and are struggling with higher than usual unemployment rates.

    Da Bombz Diggity (f489d5)

  127. Da Bombz – Why did tou come back for more abuse?

    “If the government does not own AIG, why has the NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo stated that AIG has violated state law?” Read you own link – Hr’s pissed off about debtor/creditor crap. He’s representing the state, not the Feds. Who knows why he’s squawking? It looks like the Feds did the deals with convertible preferred stock instead of the warrants as originally proposed. I WAS WRONG on that. I apologize. The preferred votes like common stock and is convertible into common stock, but that part of the deal can’t be finalized until a stockholders meeting. Os the government running the company – I sure as hell hope not.

    “Hence, since Bush and Republicans wanted deregulation, they moved closer and closer to it because they had no inhibition.” Except for the oversight they tried to put over Fannie and Freddie which the Democrats prevented. Otherwise, did you have a point here?

    “Clinton reduced our national debt and provided us with a surplus even with opposition.” Yhe Republicans provided a check on Clinton’s ambitions, forced him into welfare reform, prevented his meddling with the economy, which resulted in a nice period of growth for the country.

    “Bush had everything he wanted and provided us with a deficit and a record increase in national debt.” Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, suffered the worst terrorist attack in the nations history eight months into his first term and faced an intransigently hostile minority in Congress his first six years in office, which switched to an intransigent majority the last two years. The deficit and debt figures you mentioned would have been worse had the democrats gotten their way and were not helped by the two foreign wars which were approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress. Honey, open your good eye.

    “As an American, you should be proud that others who work hard receive the benefits of their labor. Not that others work hard to continue to line the pockets of rich folk.” I don’t know how you define rich fok, but I work hard to earn what I do. I resent it when some inexperienced socialist Senator says he needs to take a bigger slice of my pie to spread the wealth around. Why doesn’t he spend his time focusing on how to make the whole pie bigger instead of moving slices around. To me, that’s the American way, equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

    His tax cut for 95% of working families is pure bullshit if 40% already pay no taxes. That 40% are getting a straight hand out. He should just call it welfare instead of a tax cut. Why can’t you liberals call things what they are?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  128. struggling with higher than usual unemployment rates.

    Da Bombz – We do not have higher than normal unemployment rates.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  129. Da Bombz

    More flexibility as in I labor weekends when the job needs to be done, or I labor late nights or early mornings sometimes both in the same day just to get the job done.

    I have been on both sides, both have their advantages and disadvantages, take your pick.

    As an employee I had 1 boss, as a sole proprietor I have many bosses as in every client is now pretty much my boss. Answer to 1-guy or answer to 10-guys and that’s only if your “lucky” enough that have that much work. If the company is low on money to bad for you, the employees get paid no matter what, guess you better get a loan or start firing employees, the choice is yours.

    That’s flexibility.

    ML (14488c)

  130. Da Bombz

    Do you even know what LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS is?

    The beauty of America is if you dont like your situation CHANGE IT. Dont like working for an employer… well start a business. You dont need a loan to start one… its called being patient and starting small.

    If you live above your means you become poor. If you use a budget and NEVER borrow money EVER you will succeed.

    Welfare promotes poverty.

    The entrepreneur mentality is what life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all about.

    But liberals like welfare. I like the Comment by daleyrocks

    “I keep forgetting that for Democrats what matters is equality of outcome whereas I believe Republicans are more focused on equality of opportunity, which is more in keeping with the spirit of the Founders.”

    Da Bombz…listen… it is much better for us to keep our liberty. Without it, we are no longer America.

    MikeBruce (20ffe5)

  131. Am I racist?

    MikeBruce (20ffe5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5194 secs.