Wow, sendhillshntr, you must not know absolutely anything about Barack Obama.
That's really impressive. Where have you been the last year or two?
That's really impressive. Where have you been the last year or two?
bighoppa67
offline
offline
Originally posted by Admerylous
Wow, sendhillshntr, you must not know absolutely anything about Barack Obama.
That's really impressive. Where have you been the last year or two?
Seriously. The tax confiscation will be at least 39%. If you're going to be a right wing nutjob, please research a little. You make the rest of us look bad.
Wow, sendhillshntr, you must not know absolutely anything about Barack Obama.
That's really impressive. Where have you been the last year or two?
Seriously. The tax confiscation will be at least 39%. If you're going to be a right wing nutjob, please research a little. You make the rest of us look bad.
Admerylous
offline
offline
First of all, I believe you meant to call me a left wing nutjob.
Secondly, take your current tax rate. If your family pulls about 65 grand a year, take 2.5% off. Single parents with mediocre jobs, take about 4.0% off. Up to about just over 200k, take almost 2.0% off.
This is where some people begin to get fucked under Obama's plan (and with the level of idiocy I see out of most of the conservatives on this forum I am fairly certain none of them are pulling this kind of dough...) If you're making under 600k a year, you will see virtually no change. If you're benching over it, you're going to see 9.0-11.5% increase. Ouch.
McCain, however, cuts rates for everyone -- and even cuts Bush's tax rates for the top even further.
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif
Now, I'd like you all to start doing some real research before you open your giant gaping assholes and start allowing the shit to fall all over the keyboard.
Secondly, take your current tax rate. If your family pulls about 65 grand a year, take 2.5% off. Single parents with mediocre jobs, take about 4.0% off. Up to about just over 200k, take almost 2.0% off.
This is where some people begin to get fucked under Obama's plan (and with the level of idiocy I see out of most of the conservatives on this forum I am fairly certain none of them are pulling this kind of dough...) If you're making under 600k a year, you will see virtually no change. If you're benching over it, you're going to see 9.0-11.5% increase. Ouch.
McCain, however, cuts rates for everyone -- and even cuts Bush's tax rates for the top even further.
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif
Now, I'd like you all to start doing some real research before you open your giant gaping assholes and start allowing the shit to fall all over the keyboard.
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Originally posted by Admerylous
First of all, I believe you meant to call me a left wing nutjob.
Secondly, take your current tax rate. If your family pulls about 65 grand a year, take 2.5% off. Single parents with mediocre jobs, take about 4.0% off. Up to about just over 200k, take almost 2.0% off.
This is where some people begin to get fucked under Obama's plan (and with the level of idiocy I see out of most of the conservatives on this forum I am fairly certain none of them are pulling this kind of dough...) If you're making under 600k a year, you will see virtually no change. If you're benching over it, you're going to see 9.0-11.5% increase. Ouch.
McCain, however, cuts rates for everyone -- and even cuts Bush's tax rates for the top even further.
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif
Now, I'd like you all to start doing some real research before you open your giant gaping assholes and start allowing the shit to fall all over the keyboard.
That's an informative link. However, we're not all arguing out of ignorance of how tax policies will affect us. Some people look beyond themselves when they consider the wisdom of a given policy. You and I may disagree, but I at least try to give you the benefit of the doubt in this area.
Also, even after McCain's cuts, I believe the tax code would have remained progressive and therefore redistributive. FWIW.
First of all, I believe you meant to call me a left wing nutjob.
Secondly, take your current tax rate. If your family pulls about 65 grand a year, take 2.5% off. Single parents with mediocre jobs, take about 4.0% off. Up to about just over 200k, take almost 2.0% off.
This is where some people begin to get fucked under Obama's plan (and with the level of idiocy I see out of most of the conservatives on this forum I am fairly certain none of them are pulling this kind of dough...) If you're making under 600k a year, you will see virtually no change. If you're benching over it, you're going to see 9.0-11.5% increase. Ouch.
McCain, however, cuts rates for everyone -- and even cuts Bush's tax rates for the top even further.
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif
Now, I'd like you all to start doing some real research before you open your giant gaping assholes and start allowing the shit to fall all over the keyboard.
That's an informative link. However, we're not all arguing out of ignorance of how tax policies will affect us. Some people look beyond themselves when they consider the wisdom of a given policy. You and I may disagree, but I at least try to give you the benefit of the doubt in this area.
Also, even after McCain's cuts, I believe the tax code would have remained progressive and therefore redistributive. FWIW.
Last edited Nov 5, 2008 16:35:19
bighoppa67
offline
offline
Actually Admerylous, I was referring to sendhillshntr. It's ok though. I know you're a sensitive boy.
BTW, since Congress is allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, everyone gets the shaft. Also, what Obama has said and what he will do won't necessarily be the same thing. Clinton claimed he would only raise taxes on the 'rich' making more than 200k, but that changed when he got in to office and two people making 45k a year were considered rich, because that's where he drew the line.
Dems don't cut taxes. Period. Obama especially can't cut taxes with all the new spending he's proposed.
Edit: I also like how republicans are the party of big business and rich elites etc. etc. but the dig is always "I doubt any of you republicans are pulling down enough that you'll be in such and such tax bracket." Why the hell am I a republican then?
In closing let me just say it is always difficult for the party of a sitting president to win election, and McCain didn't do us any favors this cycle. We've survived bad presidents before, and I think we'll survive this one. Conservatives now have a chance to take back our party and make it stand for the beliefs it espouses. A return to Regan conservatism would be nice, but I don't see any of the current gen of Republicans being that face. Now it is our turn to hope for change, and hope that Obama doesn't do any (what we see as) irreversible damage to the country. My big hope is that he leads more from the center than his writings, speeches and history would suggest. Although I heavily disagree with the man on many issues, he is now my president, and that's something liberals would never say about Bush.
BTW, since Congress is allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, everyone gets the shaft. Also, what Obama has said and what he will do won't necessarily be the same thing. Clinton claimed he would only raise taxes on the 'rich' making more than 200k, but that changed when he got in to office and two people making 45k a year were considered rich, because that's where he drew the line.
Dems don't cut taxes. Period. Obama especially can't cut taxes with all the new spending he's proposed.
Edit: I also like how republicans are the party of big business and rich elites etc. etc. but the dig is always "I doubt any of you republicans are pulling down enough that you'll be in such and such tax bracket." Why the hell am I a republican then?
In closing let me just say it is always difficult for the party of a sitting president to win election, and McCain didn't do us any favors this cycle. We've survived bad presidents before, and I think we'll survive this one. Conservatives now have a chance to take back our party and make it stand for the beliefs it espouses. A return to Regan conservatism would be nice, but I don't see any of the current gen of Republicans being that face. Now it is our turn to hope for change, and hope that Obama doesn't do any (what we see as) irreversible damage to the country. My big hope is that he leads more from the center than his writings, speeches and history would suggest. Although I heavily disagree with the man on many issues, he is now my president, and that's something liberals would never say about Bush.
Last edited Nov 5, 2008 20:16:25
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Admerylous got muted for trashtalking, for the record. I don't think it was a long one though.
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
To be honest, being involved in a war and having an economy crash is pretty much a guarantee that the incumbant will lose. In any election. Couple that with a captivating candidate on the other side, and you get the blowout we saw last night. But this is as much a result of circumstances as of a nationwide shift left, imo.
brownryango
offline
offline
Originally posted by tjking82
To be honest, being involved in a war and having an economy crash is pretty much a guarantee that the incumbant will lose. In any election. Couple that with a captivating candidate on the other side, and you get the blowout we saw last night. But this is as much a result of circumstances as of a nationwide shift left, imo.
it was a blowout, but i truly believe that if obama spoke the same way, made the exact same speeches word for word, had the same policies, everything the same...and he was white, the blowout would have been even bigger. i'd add NC and MO to the states he gets giving him 26 more electoral votes for sure.
To be honest, being involved in a war and having an economy crash is pretty much a guarantee that the incumbant will lose. In any election. Couple that with a captivating candidate on the other side, and you get the blowout we saw last night. But this is as much a result of circumstances as of a nationwide shift left, imo.
it was a blowout, but i truly believe that if obama spoke the same way, made the exact same speeches word for word, had the same policies, everything the same...and he was white, the blowout would have been even bigger. i'd add NC and MO to the states he gets giving him 26 more electoral votes for sure.
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Originally posted by brownryango
Originally posted by tjking82
To be honest, being involved in a war and having an economy crash is pretty much a guarantee that the incumbant will lose. In any election. Couple that with a captivating candidate on the other side, and you get the blowout we saw last night. But this is as much a result of circumstances as of a nationwide shift left, imo.
it was a blowout, but i truly believe that if obama spoke the same way, made the exact same speeches word for word, had the same policies, everything the same...and he was white, the blowout would have been even bigger. i'd add NC and MO to the states he gets giving him 26 more electoral votes for sure.
Maybe. It's hard to say. I mean, he did pull 95% of the african american vote in a lot of states...that's more than Dems usually get. The only people who are racist enough to vote against a black man because he's black are voting republican either way *facepalm*
But my point was that this wouldn't have been nearly such a blowout if we weren't in a war and a recession. That's pretty much a guarantee of a regime change imo.
Originally posted by tjking82
To be honest, being involved in a war and having an economy crash is pretty much a guarantee that the incumbant will lose. In any election. Couple that with a captivating candidate on the other side, and you get the blowout we saw last night. But this is as much a result of circumstances as of a nationwide shift left, imo.
it was a blowout, but i truly believe that if obama spoke the same way, made the exact same speeches word for word, had the same policies, everything the same...and he was white, the blowout would have been even bigger. i'd add NC and MO to the states he gets giving him 26 more electoral votes for sure.
Maybe. It's hard to say. I mean, he did pull 95% of the african american vote in a lot of states...that's more than Dems usually get. The only people who are racist enough to vote against a black man because he's black are voting republican either way *facepalm*
But my point was that this wouldn't have been nearly such a blowout if we weren't in a war and a recession. That's pretty much a guarantee of a regime change imo.
brownryango
offline
offline
true, black turnout might have been lower nullifying the racist effect.
but yeah, war and recession (especially recession) worked in the democrats favor.
but yeah, war and recession (especially recession) worked in the democrats favor.
sndhillshntr
offline
offline
Originally posted by Admerylous
Wow, sendhillshntr, you must not know absolutely anything about Barack Obama.
That's really impressive. Where have you been the last year or two?
I was being a bit sarcastic...
I voted for the O man
Wow, sendhillshntr, you must not know absolutely anything about Barack Obama.
That's really impressive. Where have you been the last year or two?
I was being a bit sarcastic...
I voted for the O manbighoppa67
offline
offline
I still like how everyone has been bandying about 'recession' since the start of the year and we have yet to have a single quarter with negative growth in GDP. It's slowed for sure, but there is still growth. This fourth quarter will see negative growth but that is one quarter not three consecutive quarters, which is the definition of a recession. To badly paraphrase, "Just because all the talking heads on the movin' pikchur bawks say it's a recession, doesn't make it so."
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Originally posted by bighoppa67
I still like how everyone has been bandying about 'recession' since the start of the year and we have yet to have a single quarter with negative growth in GDP. It's slowed for sure, but there is still growth. This fourth quarter will see negative growth but that is one quarter not three consecutive quarters, which is the definition of a recession. To badly paraphrase, "Just because all the talking heads on the movin' pikchur bawks say it's a recession, doesn't make it so."
O RLY?
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+recession&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I still like how everyone has been bandying about 'recession' since the start of the year and we have yet to have a single quarter with negative growth in GDP. It's slowed for sure, but there is still growth. This fourth quarter will see negative growth but that is one quarter not three consecutive quarters, which is the definition of a recession. To badly paraphrase, "Just because all the talking heads on the movin' pikchur bawks say it's a recession, doesn't make it so."
O RLY?
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+recession&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
bighoppa67
offline
offline
Yes, RLY. Your own link betrays you young Skywalker...
About the fifth one down and I have the number of quarters off by one, but...
"As reflected in the gross national product, a decline in economic activity in at least two consecutive quarters."
www.thrasherfunds.com/learn/glossary.htm
GDP (or GNP, whichever your prefer) Is still showing growth as of the last report. Like I said, this current quarter will be the first shrinkage of GDP since 2001.
About the fifth one down and I have the number of quarters off by one, but...
"As reflected in the gross national product, a decline in economic activity in at least two consecutive quarters."
www.thrasherfunds.com/learn/glossary.htm
GDP (or GNP, whichever your prefer) Is still showing growth as of the last report. Like I said, this current quarter will be the first shrinkage of GDP since 2001.
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Originally posted by bighoppa67
Yes, RLY. Your own link betrays you young Skywalker...
About the fifth one down and I have the number of quarters off by one, but...
"As reflected in the gross national product, a decline in economic activity in at least two consecutive quarters."
www.thrasherfunds.com/learn/glossary.htm
GDP (or GNP, whichever your prefer) Is still showing growth as of the last report. Like I said, this current quarter will be the first shrinkage of GDP since 2001.
So basically you were right, other than that no definition extends to three quarters of economic activity, your definition. Got it.
Yes, RLY. Your own link betrays you young Skywalker...
About the fifth one down and I have the number of quarters off by one, but...
"As reflected in the gross national product, a decline in economic activity in at least two consecutive quarters."
www.thrasherfunds.com/learn/glossary.htm
GDP (or GNP, whichever your prefer) Is still showing growth as of the last report. Like I said, this current quarter will be the first shrinkage of GDP since 2001.
So basically you were right, other than that no definition extends to three quarters of economic activity, your definition. Got it.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
