Obamas new slogan

[85Sooner]

TAX RELIEF for the MIDDLE CLASS.

Yeah right. The American people can be very gullible but I don't think their that gullible. Nevertheless the pubs don't ever take advantage to point out how his proposals and his tax policy are dichotomous.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

He has funny ears.

[Veritas]

Wonder what "middle class" means.

[Hot Rod]

Just as long as it's not "IF YOU SMELL.....WHAT BARACK IS COOKIN'!"

[SoonerTerry]

I heard he has 'Zactly' breath

[LesNessman]

Wonder what "middle class" means.

Probably those earning less than 20-25K per year.

Or better yet anyone not paying income tax already.

[soonervegas]

They put the breakdown of the two tax plans the other night on CNN. Obama's plan would see tax cuts go to anyone making under 250K (as a household). 250K to 600K would stay the same. Anyone over 600K was getting blown up. Like 100K more in taxes more than they already pay. (Which seemed extremely excessive to me) So it appears Barack would define middle class any family unit under 250K.

McCain's tax cuts were more conservative in nature with everyone receiving tax cuts across the board regardless of yearly income. Obviously the more you make the bigger the tax cut.

[OklahomaTuba]

If you own a small business, or work for a business, or buy anything from a business, you are gonna get screwed.

Thank goodness those who don't pay any taxes at all will get a tax cut!

[Veritas]

If you own a small business, or work for a business, or buy anything from a business, you are gonna get screwed.

Thank goodness those who don't pay any taxes at all will get a tax cut!
Yeah, his corporate tax plans are abominable.

[85Sooner]

They put the breakdown of the two tax plans the other night on CNN. Obama's plan would see tax cuts go to anyone making under 250K (as a household). 250K to 600K would stay the same. Anyone over 600K was getting blown up. Like 100K more in taxes more than they already pay. (Which seemed extremely excessive to me) So it appears Barack would define middle class any family unit under 250K.

McCain's tax cuts were more conservative in nature with everyone receiving tax cuts across the board regardless of yearly income. Obviously the more you make the bigger the tax cut.

If he reverses the Bush tax cut, then he is going to increase taxes on everyone who pays income tax. That means about 25,000 or higher NOT 250k.

[LosAngelesSooner]

No.

[Hot Rod]

He should've thought twice about making the comment about "which" country towards McCain's remarks.

[OklahomaTuba]

Hugo may have a suggestion...


****head Yankees, go to hell!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1840732,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

[OklahomaTuba]

If he reverses the Bush tax cut, then he is going to increase taxes on everyone who pays income tax. That means about 25,000 or higher NOT 250k.

It would be the largest tax increase in U.S American history.

EVAR.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

EVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR.

[Harry Beanbag]

Of all the Obama screw ups, gaffes, and blunders that have been made, I think this one is my favorite.



Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

...

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."


http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/785988.html


The most pathetic aspect of him showing his *** here is that he is apparently so clueless that he doesn't realize how much he just screwed up. :D

[Jimminy Crimson]

He has funny ears.

These? :P

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-mic.jpg

[shaun4411]

Wonder what "middle class" means.

he claims 95% of income earners will see a tax cut.

[LosAngelesSooner]

It would be the largest tax increase in U.S American history.

EVAR.
Except for the fact that it wouldn't. :rolleyes:

You guys have no ability to be impartial.

[LosAngelesSooner]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html



Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

The Washington Post is a right leaning publication and even THEY are refuting your talking points. Fred Hiatt is their editor and he is conservative.

Get your facts straight and try to be rational and impartial.

McCain needs intelligent, well informed supporters in order to win this thing. Not Dittoheads.

[lexsooner]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

The Washington Post is a right leaning publication and even THEY are refuting your talking points. Fred Hiatt is their editor and he is conservative.

Get your facts straight and try to be rational and impartial.

McCain needs intelligent, well informed supporters in order to win this thing. Not Dittoheads.

But, he's the AntiChrist, don't you see? Rush said so, and so did Sean Hannity, so it must be true!

[olevetonahill]

Mickey Mouse devorced Minnie Because she was ****in Goofey

[JohnnyMack]

olevet rulz.

[85Sooner]

LA that does not factor in reversing the tax cut and it does not factor in the raise in taxes on people who own corporations, stock holders who have their 401k's etc.... in mutual funds that will see less in returns due to the increase.
Its not a zero sum game.

[LesNessman]

[URL]

The Washington Post is a right leaning publication...

Now THAT'S funny!

[texas bandman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

The Washington Post is a right leaning publication and even THEY are refuting your talking points. Fred Hiatt is their editor and he is conservative.

Get your facts straight and try to be rational and impartial.

McCain needs intelligent, well informed supporters in order to win this thing. Not Dittoheads.


Right on LAS, the right just keeps spouting the McCain/Palin lies without regard to fact. They know the more agressively you tell lies that people will begin to think it is the truth, no matter how outragious it is.

[achiro]

Right on LAS, the right just keeps spouting the McCain/Palin lies without regard to fact. They know the more agressively you tell lies that people will begin to think it is the truth, no matter how outragious it is.

Nobody needs to lie about it. Obama's plan is so bad that even he is starting to back off on some of it. Nothing like a socialistic income redistribution plan(taking money fom the upper end and giving money back to folks who don't even pay taxes) to boost an economy thats in a down turn.:rolleyes:

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The Washington Post is a right leaning publication and even THEY are refuting your talking points. Fred Hiatt is their editor and he is conservative.

You got it backwards.

The Washington Times is the conservative one. The Post is the left leaning paper. It was when I worked up there, and from what all I've read in recent days, nothing refutes that.

Ask G. Gordon Liddy.

[SoonerBorn68]

You got it backwards.

The Washington Times is the conservative one. The Post is the left leaning paper. It was when I worked up there, and from what all I've read in recent days, nothing refutes that.


Exactly. Nice spin attempt LAS.

[LosAngelesSooner]

No refutations.

You guys are such parrots. The facts come up, smack you in the face and you all run to your talking points.

Learn to think for yourselves.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

But, he's the AntiChrist, don't you see? Rush said so, and so did Sean Hannity, so it must be true!Do you believe Rush or Hannity said that, or are you just lying on purpose?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Right on LAS, the right just keeps spouting the McCain/Palin lies without regard to fact. They know the more agressively you tell lies that people will begin to think it is the truth, no matter how outragious it is.
Look at the above delusional posts.

It's sad, but you're right.

I think McCain would be better for the country. God knows he'd be a TON better for MY tax income bracket. But it's funny how the "Right" can convince the very people who their tax plans will be bad for that their plan is the best and that the very people who would HELP them with their economic policies are the people who would hurt them. It's sad how blind they choose to be.

[SoonerBorn68]

Get your facts straight and try to be rational and impartial.

McCain needs intelligent, well informed supporters in order to win this thing.

Pffft. Funny thing is, the target group in that study "the last three" effectively pay no income taxes. In fact, many of those folks get the EIC which means other taxpayers redistribute some of their income to them.

McCain needs allies, not LAS's.

[SoonerBorn68]

Learn to think for yourselves. God dammit you're such a tea sipper. You get hit with the truth & get all defensive.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

No refutations.

You guys are such parrots. The facts come up, smack you in the face and you all run to your talking points.

Learn to think for yourselves.

Tulsa_Fireman's OFFICIAL blind conservative talking points list:

1) The Washington Post has a history of delivering left-leaning articles.

2) The Washington Times has a history of delivering right-leaning articles.

3) The Oklahoman has a history of delivering right-leaning articles.

4) The Tulsa World has a history of delivering left-leaning articles.

5) Repeat points 1-4 ad nauseum as applicable to anything LAS says to frustrate his point-counterpoint.

6) ???

7) Profit.

[LosAngelesSooner]

The editor is a known and respected Conservative.

Keep revising history. Keep with your talking points. I gave you the truth and you guys can't accept it. Can't refute it. Have no facts to support your theory that Obama will raise taxes or that Obama will be bad for the Middle Class. None. Zip. Nada.

There are better issues to support McCain with. This dawg don't hunt.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The editor is a known and respected Conservative.

Their Op-Ed editor may be. Hiatt is the editor of the Editorial section of the Washington Post. The Executive Editor was Leonard Downie, Jr. who resigned in July. Marcus Brauchli now holds the post, but I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with his politics.


Keep revising history. Keep with your talking points. I gave you the truth and you guys can't accept it. Can't refute it. Have no facts to support your theory that Obama will raise taxes or that Obama will be bad for the Middle Class. None. Zip. Nada.

There are better issues to support McCain with. This dawg don't hunt.

For a guy that's all about facts, I figured you'd be all over this, LAS.

Again, the Post is traditionally left-leaning, the Times traditionally right. Brauchli may be changing this very perception. Maybe not. But in my experience with the Post AND Times, this is consistent.

[LesNessman]

The editor is a known and respected Conservative.

Keep revising history. Keep with your talking points. I gave you the truth and you guys can't accept it. Can't refute it. Have no facts to support your theory that Obama will raise taxes or that Obama will be bad for the Middle Class. None. Zip. Nada.

There are better issues to support McCain with. This dawg don't hunt.

Talking points?

No facts to support the theory that Obama wil raise taxes?

How about using your own WaPo graphic?

It clearly shows Obama severly raising taxes on at least the top two income categories, while McCain is reducing taxes for every single American.

With regards to the top 0.1% of taxpayer families, it even says, and I quote:

"While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million."

And he's even said himself he is going to raise capital gains taxes:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_talks_capgains_rate_with_CNBC.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/8/18/did-obama-blink-on-capital-gains-taxes.html?s_cid=rss:capital-commerce:did-obama-blink-on-capital-gains-taxes

That will most certainly hurt the middle class.

How's that for revising history and talking points, or not having facts?

Sheez.

[LosAngelesSooner]

No. It won't.

Lame try, though.

[olevetonahill]

No. It won't.

Lame try, though.

Bros we dont need No Stinkin Lib to Bash US or the Party we Got las.:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

Here. Enjoy a little MORE debunking of those chain e-mails you guys are getting all your info from.

This one covers the supposed IRA taxes and home sales taxes (which are both false claims).

[LosAngelesSooner]

Bros we dont need No Stinkin Lib to Bash US or the Party we Got las.:rolleyes:You got me keeping you honest.

I hold MY party to a higher standard and don't just walk lock-step like a bunch of zombie lemmings.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But he's a conservative!


No. It won't.

Lame try, though.

How'd that go again? No refudiation? Some other big word?

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm still waiting...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Part 1 of 2

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html


Q: Would Obama tax my profits if I sell my home? Would he tax my IRA? Would he tax my water?

I was just sent this and it had 100s of names attached and forwarded over and over – is it real?

Subject: Important read - Taxes


INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

Spread the word.....

This is something you should be
aware of so you don't get blind-sided.
This is really going to catch a lot
of families off guard. It should
make you worry.

Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000
per home (couples) McCain does not
propose any change in existing
home sales income tax.

OBAMA

28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you
will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.

If you are heading toward retirement
and would like to down-size your
home or move into a retirement
community, 28% of the money you
make from your home will go to taxes. This
proposal will adversely affect the
elderly who are counting on the income
from their homes as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

How will this affect you?
If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds,
college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays
or reinvests dividends, you will now
be paying nearly 40% of the money
earned on taxes if Obama become president.

The experts predict that 'higher
tax rates on dividends and capital gains
would crash the stock market yet
do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama your taxes will
more than double!
How does this affect you? No explanation
needed. This is pretty
straight forward.

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you? Many families
have lost businesses,
farms and ranches, and homes
that have
been in their families
for generations because they could not
afford the inheritance tax.
Those willing their assets to loved
ones will not only lose them to
these taxes.

NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA


* New government taxes proposed on
homes that are more than
2400 square feet


* New gasoline taxes (as if
gas weren't high enough already)


* New taxes on natural resources
consumption (heating
gas, water, electricity)


* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least....

* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine
so we can receive the same
level of medical care as other
third-world countries!!!





The above link leads to this (for the lazy peeps).

[LosAngelesSooner]

Part 2 of 2


A: No.

A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false.

Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.


Wachovia Apologizes

Update, Aug. 27:One version of this e-mail was sent around by a financial professional, Robert Jenkins (http://www.agedwards.com/fc/robert.jenkins), a vice president of Wachovia Securities in St. Louis, Mo. Even though Jenkins is an investment adviser and not a tax expert, we thought his endorsement might seem to some readers to give this false e-mail greater credibility. So we attempted to ask Jenkins about the matter. But instead of a reply from him, we received the following message from another Wachovia official, whose identity we confirmed by telephone:
Thank you for contacting Wachovia regarding a recent email regarding "proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 General election." Please know that Wachovia does not endorse any political party, candidate, or initiative, and that our Firm did not endorse or approve the email as it is contrary to our Code of Conduct and Corporate Values.
Members of executive and departmental leadership in Wachovia Corporation and Wachovia Securities have been made aware of the email, and Robert Jenkins has been dealt with appropriately and directly. Every effort has been made to ensure that no additional emails or communications of this nature will be issued by any member of our Firm.
We sincerely apologize for this unfortunate incident.
Cynthia Plackemeier
Assistant Branch Manager
We later contacted William Mannen, a Wachovia vice president for branch administration in St. Louis. He declined to say whether or not Jenkins is still employed by Wachovia.



Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief) and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693) of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links.Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.

Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview (http://www.cnbc.com/id/23835435/site/14081545/page/2/) on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.


Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.


Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000.


Doubled Taxes? The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_middle-income_persons_pay_lower_federal_income.html) in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table.

Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.

The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.

Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.


"New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water."
Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.

The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#reduce-carbon-emissions) to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.

There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf) he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_inflated_health_savings.html) before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.

The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies.

-Brooks Jackson

Sources
“Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf).” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.
(http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf)
“ (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf)Energy and Environment (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#reduce-carbon-emissions). “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.

News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama on CNBC’s “Closing Bell (http://www.cnbc.com/id/23835435/site/14081545/page/2/).” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site.

“Plan to Strengthen the Economy (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief).” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.

Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf),” 20 June 2008.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'll keep smacking you with facts.

You keep pretending you're right on this issue.

[LesNessman]

No. It won't.

Lame try, though.


Talk about a lemming....

[LosAngelesSooner]

Yeah. I'm a lemming.

A Republican who doesn't toe the party line, who researches issues, who stands up against the parrots so much that you lemmings accuse him of being a "dirty Lib."

Yeah. A lemming.

You have no facts on your side. No figures. No reputable sources. Just talking points and passion.

I'll keep the butt whipping going as long as you'd like.

[LesNessman]

Good Lord Almighty.

From YOUR link:

"He (Obama) said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all."

Oh I see. It's not a tax increase, it's just taxes going up from 15 to 20%, but nowhere NEAR 28%.

"Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000."

Again, not another tax increase, just taxes going up from 15 to 20-28%.

"There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now."

How many people do you know think that when your taxes go up, it's simply "just letting some old taxes come back" or "it's tax increase"? Either way YOUR TAXES GO UP.

I guess it depends on what your definitin of "is" is,... er, I mean "new" is.

WHAT PART OF FREAKING TAX INCREASES DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!

[LosAngelesSooner]

61 total posts.

Zero original thoughts.

I'll keep the butt whipping going. Maybe you can see how what you posted just reinforced what I've been saying and the bar graph I already posted 2 pages ago. Thanks for winning my arguments for me, N00b.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'll help you out since you don't even know how to use the quote feature, you probably don't know how to get over to page 1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html



Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

[LosAngelesSooner]

And, for the record ... AGAIN ... I'm still behind McCain. Obama's tax plan would crush me.

[batonrougesooner]

I'll help you out since you don't even know how to use the quote feature, you probably don't know how to get over to page 1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

This deals with the federal tax rate only I believe. What is not mentioned is Obama's plan to continue to tax your income for social security past the first $104,000 earned. You would now pay the tax on every dollar you earn. For a person earning around $300,000 per year for instance, this would result in an extra $12,000 or so a year. Or an extra grand per month, WHICH IS COMPLETELY SEPERATE FROM YOUR MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATE!!!!!

It's f'king robbery.

[LesNessman]

And, for the record ... AGAIN ... I'm still behind McCain. Obama's tax plan would crush me.

Ah...

I see.

Ya got punked by the "nOOb" and now you're backpeddling.

whatever.

wow. I can quote now too!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ah...

I see.

Ya got tired of punking the "nOOb" and now you're bored.

whatever.Fixed.

Yep. Tired of punking you. Tired of pwning you.

And now it's time for Oklahoma football. No more politics until the game is over. Then I'll gladly continue schooling you.

[LosAngelesSooner]

This deals with the federal tax rate only I believe. What is not mentioned is Obama's plan to continue to tax your income for social security past the first $104,000 earned. You would now pay the tax on every dollar you earn. For a person earning around $300,000 per year for instance, this would result in an extra $12,000 or so a year. Or an extra grand per month, WHICH IS COMPLETELY SEPERATE FROM YOUR MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATE!!!!!

It's f'king robbery.
Link?

[Veritas]

Good lord. What is the sound of one person posting?

[Harry Beanbag]

You got me keeping you honest.

I hold MY party to a higher standard and don't just walk lock-step like a bunch of zombie lemmings.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/twgquick/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

[Harry Beanbag]

Yeah. I'm a lemming.

A Republican who doesn't toe the party line, who researches issues, who stands up against the parrots so much that you lemmings accuse him of being a "dirty Lib."

Yeah. A lemming.

You have no facts on your side. No figures. No reputable sources. Just talking points and passion.

I'll keep the butt whipping going as long as you'd like.


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/twgquick/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

[Harry Beanbag]

And, for the record ... AGAIN ... I'm still behind McCain. Obama's tax plan would crush me.


Bruce?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/twgquick/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

[Harry Beanbag]

Good lord. What is the sound of one person posting?


Here (http://www.poopprank.com/fart-sounds/free_fart_sound.htm)

[LesNessman]

Fixed.

Yep. Tired of getting punked by the "nOOb". Tired of being pwned by you.

And now it's time for Oklahoma football. No more politics until the game is over. Then I'll gladly continue getting schooled by you.

Fixed.

So now I gotta play this silly 5th graders game?

I gotta stop wasting my time.

p.s. I do hope you enjoyed the Sooner game.

[LosAngelesSooner]

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/twgquick/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/twgquick/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif
And that's all you've got. :rolleyes:

Yep. STILL no facts. STILL no figures. STILL getting pwn3d.

It's like playing Madden on Rookie mode.

[Harry Beanbag]

And that's all you've got. :rolleyes:

Yep. STILL no facts. STILL no figures. STILL getting pwn3d.

It's like playing Madden on Rookie mode.


No, that pretty much sums up the fact that your posts make me laugh my *** off. Refute that.

[LosAngelesSooner]

No, that pretty much sums up the fact that your posts make me laugh my *** off. Refute that.Well...I probably HAVE made the most money writing comedies...

:D

[Harry Beanbag]

Well...I probably HAVE made the most money writing comedies...

:D


Different kind of humor, but that is funny. :D