Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

What the chart shows is that Obama is going to raise taxes on the people....

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-03
In Reply to: interesting - ReaderCN

who employ the people in the other brackets. Trickle down will not be beneficial. What is wrong with giving the middle class a break? They are already supporting most of the lower class anyway. THe lower class already pay next to nothing in taxes. Oh I forgot...economic parity, redistribution of wealth....good old Marxist values.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

F: Obama is going to raise MY taxes...
DH and I don't work hard to give to those who can't/don't/won't.
Problem is, the taxes Obama does raise
nm
Yeah, and now put Obama in there to raise taxes
nm
He will raise taxes for us all.
No way to set up these government programs of his without taking money from all of us.
He HAS to raise taxes, no way around it
All those programs will not appear out of thin air. He will grow government bigger than ever...new departments, more employees for those departments, more of my tax money blown to heck and back. People actually believe ALL this can be done with TAX CUTS!! They are in total denial.

This man have voted REPEATEDLY to NOT NOT NOT cut taxes every darn time it has come up and has pushed for tax INCREASES. For those nonbelievers, all they gotta do is go look at his voting record. It's there for the scrutinizing.

Read his lips.....

He knows people are running scared and he can zoom in and steal their good sense with telling them he will cut taxes. BUT, as soon as he is in office, it won't happen and who will he blame then? Everybody but himself!!! He will not take any responsiblity for that either.
That is exactly what he said. He wants to raise taxes...
on those making $250,000 or more so he can give a check to lower income folks...and a modest tax cut (while letting the Bush tax cuts expire) to the middle class. Have you looked at what we are going to lose if he lets those tax cuts expire? A whole lot more than his little tax cut will make up. He also needs the added taxation to try to help pay for all he wants to do...

The checks he is going to dole out are NOT for everyone. And they will even go to people who pay NO taxes.

THAT is rewarding laziness. That is NOT trying to help people better themselves. Would it not be better to get them a JOB than a one-time gimme check??
YES HE DID VOTE TO RAISE YOUR TAXES
@
Bottom line....O will raise DH and my taxes, sorry, it's not for

those who are lazy. Try working hard for a change and not expecting the gov't to give you a handout for once. WAAAH, please pay for my healthcare, pay for my kid's college, help me out because I don't want to take responibility for myself, I would rather let the gov't do it all and then when it doesn;t work out, I can blame them too. When O wins I can't wait to see this board in a year with all the people complaining about the broken promises, higher taxes, etc. It will be worth the wait.


McCain and Obama Tax Proposals (chart)
//
Obama has said repeatedly he will RAISE
xx
You don't think those people know what MORE taxes
xx
the last tax rebates went out to people who did not pay taxes.
And before I get attacked--yes, I understand that this was a Bush thing. Did I agree with it--no. It seems to me that the entire government thinks that if they keep digging, the whole will get shallower. It's silly. I just happen to think that McCain carries a smaller shovel.
they went out to people who paid taxes, too.
x
People who earn $40,000 a year don't pay any taxes.

According to the Republican Speaker of the House.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/hastert-no-taxes/


I'm saying that a lot of people are not paying taxes now that work -
they owe taxes, but the EIC is enough to wipe out that amount they owe already. It would be the same with the credit he is proposing. He is not saying that only certain people are getting that credit. It is just going to be enough to wipe out what some people owe. Say a person owed $800 and he gave her $1000 - she would get $200 back. But say a person owed $1800 and he gave her $1000, she would then owe only $800.

That's why I say you are just trying to argue - you know what it means... it will do the same thing it does now, only it will cover a larger number of people than it does now.
How is giving "tax cuts" to people not paying taxes
nm
I think it shows character on Obama's part and I pray for her comfort and healing if that is God&
and for comfort and peace for her family.
Mormon Web site shows Obama's mother as baptized after death

by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/05/2009 0500 PM


A Provo, Utah newspaper has confirmed our earlier story - a Mormon geneological Web site does in fact list President Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as having been baptized into the Mormon faith after her death (and presumably without her, or her son's, consent). The Mormon church has yet to confirm to numerous reporters' inquiries whether they did in fact baptize the President's dead mother last year in the middle of the presidential campaign. If true, and it's looking increasingly likely, this could cause the Mormons quite a bit of trouble politically and in the public relations sphere.


Still unanswered is whether the Mormons also baptized Obama's father.


More from the Provo Herald Extra:


At the same time that Barack Obama sealed the Democratic nomination for president last year, someone in the Provo LDS Church temple was performing a baptism and temple rites for his dead mother.


The move is a serious breech of protocol for church members, who in the past have been criticized for performing such proxy baptisms for victims of the Holocaust.
"Church members are specifically instructed not to submit the names of persons not related to them," reads a statement on the LDS Chuch Web site. "Before performing temple baptisms for a deceased family member born within the last 95 years, members are instructed to get permission from the person's closest living relative."


Officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have yet to confirm the incident, but records on their FamilySearch.org genealogical site clearly show that Stanley Ann Dunham received proxy rites in the Provo temple on June 4 and June 8 of 2008. The birth and death dates of the person for whom the rites were performed match those of Obama's mother.


Yes, everyone will pay more taxes under Obama...



By Ned Barnett,

I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.


Three more tax Lies at the link: http://www.americanthinker.com.....ncrea.html

Or Obama's 3.5 trillion in taxes
xx
MQ pays tons for those taxes of Obama's

They certainly must for so many MTs to be all atwitter over this plan.  Fred Thompson said it perfectly last PM. 


So those "moneybags" need to stop griping about MQ and how crappy it pays.  You think you have less in your pockets now?  You think this crap he's promising is free?  How ignorant!


Gee, you must be a millionaire if you are worried about Obama and taxes.
Tdd
Compare your taxes under McC and Obama plans
I just did mine and I pay less taxes under Obama.

http://www.electiontaxes.com/
obama's voting record on taxes
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
Obama says he hates paying taxes
++
It's called "trickle down taxes"....all of Obama's plans....sm
in the end, will RAISE the price and cost of all those businesses who offer services and practices to all of US.....his raising THEIR taxes will RAISE what we spend out of our pockets....not to mention every other TAX which may not be INCOME TAX, will skyrocket, under Obama.


Geez....do all your reserach and do the math
McCain would start new jobs, Obama new taxes.nm
x
President Obama=bigger taxes, bigger government, and a profound change in society and culture


Raise the cap for SS deductions.
.
because they did not raise him and shape him into what he is -
nm
Does this mean Sarah gets another raise?...LOL

*Unlike President George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the two bills when they came up in the last session of Congress, President-elect Barack Obama has embraced them.*


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_co/pay_equity


I can't wait to see who all opposes this bill.  I hope they plaster them all over the news.


The UN is not trying to tell anyone how to raise their kids.
in the idea of addressing global poverty. BTW, you need to do a little boning up yourself on the purpose of the United Nations, what it is, how it works and who benefits before expecting anybody anywhere to engage you in any serious debate on this subject. You have been spending way too much time hanging with the fringe. Trust me on this. There is life after fringe.
it doesn't take a union to get a pay raise
puhleez lighten up. I do not and will not support unions. At first unions were good. then they got too large and too powerful, corrupt and greedy, and unions were no longer a good thing. They stopped working for the people they were supposed to represent and started working for the benefit of the union itself. My father worked for a company where he had to be in the union. That union wanted more and more of the company (as they always did). Even though many, many of the employees voted against strike, some people did, and the union declared the strike and people walked off their jobs. My dad wanted to work; he was physically assaulted and our car destroyed when he tried to work. Don't call my father a "scab." He was a fine man raising three kids and wanting to work at his own job, which he loved and was proud of. Period. The strike lasted a long time, and the company finally closed its doors when the union would not concede to anything. All of the employees lost their jobs whether they were union supporters or not because of the actions of that union. Now that's why I don't like unions and never will. There used to be a large manufacturing sector here in the midwest. Unions destroyed much of it. They just keep demanding more and more, and many companies simply closed, thus placing 1000s on unemployment. And do you honestly think corruption in the union is okay as long as "he also benefitted American workers?" I never belonged to a union as an MT for 30'some years, and do you think I never got a raise? The hospitals and companies I worked for always paid well and we didn't need a union to do it for us. Actually, I think fear of unions was one of the reasons why. But let's not forget this, union membership is often mandatory so people who work for the organization are forced to be members whether they want to or not. That right there is just wrong. People outside of the union are denied the right to work in many areas. So don't tell me what to "b**ch about." The two items are no mutually inclusive. One can say that their pay has fallen behind and still not want a union involved. Have a little respect for opinions other than yours.

Congress gets a raise - must be nice!

Kudos to Harry Mitchell and the other 34 who at least tried. 


From TheHill.com


12/17/08


A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.


Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.










"

“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”



However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.


Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.


“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”


Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.


Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.


“They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said.


Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill. 


Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.


In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.


In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.


Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.


Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.


“It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress’s salary,” he said. “I don’t think you’re going to find taxpayers saying, ‘Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more’.”


Why do you think that Hillary and McCain did not raise the B/C issue?

Do you think maybe it is because there was no merit to it and everyone knew it?  The people who were most directly affected by it are not saying anything about it - the other presidential candidates...


So, honest opinion, why are they not whooping and hollering?


She cannot possibly raise that child and utilize her master's, though,
Certainly you'd never encourage your daughter to spend time working on a MASTER'S while trying to also raise a child!! You've just bashed another mother for doing something similar, so I don't get it. Or is okay if you only have ONE child or what? Please fill me in on the double standard you uphold.
Roland Burris aknowledes trying to raise money for Blago

He claimed there was nothing going on but he just dropped the bombshell as O was speaking stating he can recall 6 different contacts and is now under investigation.


Guess he's gonna be gone. He may have committed perjury.


 


How about the people who just don't want Obama
because they see him for what he is...not trustworthy, deceitful, secretive.

They don't care for McCain and now have no hopes for Obama. Why do you make everything about McCain when someone doesn't want Obama in office? Your assumptions are quite ignorant.
Exactly! Why cant people see through Obama?
nm
People go to see Obama
hoping to touch the hem of his garment and be healed. 
Obama. He knows the American people
want to see a debate between the two people who are running for president, one of whom will inheret a BIG MESS.  McCain hasn't worried about voting for anything in a looonnnngggg time.  This is all a ploy, and he GOTCHA!  Teehee.
Obama fooling people

I agree with you.  He has not fooled me for 1 minute or my family or friends in our Bible Chapel or the elders in our chapel.  Thank God that McCain has good principles against abortion and against gay marriage.


The will of the people voted Obama in
and the will of the people voted down gay marriage. There is no gray area.
yes, and many people who voted for Obama can think for themselves too

God did not elect Obama. The people did.

Some  the people who voted for O did it because of his promises. Three-quarters of the people  voted for him because of his color.  That's not fabricated, it's the truth.


I, for one, did not vote for him and it was not because of his color. I couldn't care less what color he is. If I did, I'd start posting about how he is half white. That's not the point. I don't know why some people on this board spout racisim just because someone did not vote for him.


I didn't vote for him because of his promises. Like all politicians, he made promises that are impossible to keep. He won the election because most of the voters thought he was sincere and would turn this country around in a heartbeat. I believe there are a lot of voters who will be the first to gripe when it doesn't happen. But then, again, that's just my opinion.  I am willing to give him a chance but I surely don't like being called a racist just because I did not vote for him.


People have to start looking at RECORDS of the people they are voting for; i.e., voting records, any bills they sponsor and why, etc., etc.,  not listening to the spiel. I learned that quite a few years ago and I will not vote for someone who blind sides the public with glorious ideas without a thought as to what could happen down the road.


A president and/or any respresentative of the people has to hold the constiuents thoughts in mind when they are voting. I haven't seen that happen since before Carter. People have to GET INVOLVED in their government by writing to their reps. Otherwise, the reps think everything is honkey-dorey. I, myself, write to my reps a lot.  Sometimes I get a canned reply, sometimes I get a "I will be looking into this" type letter.


Well, I see I just tried to give a lecture, so I'll get off my soap box for now....but remember this: Government is only as good as the people. Keep quiet and they will keep doing the same old, same old. Understand what I'm saying?


 


 


Lots of people have, but Obama
and he may be smart, but no common sense.
What is creepy is people following in lockstep behind Obama...
and not questioning anything about him. HIs associations, his Marxist leanings...none of that seems to matter to any of you. And THAT to ME is creepy.

I have posted several good things about McCain. I am 100% on board with a candidate who says he will appoint Democrats and Independents to his cabinet and try to get Washington working together again and remembering that they work for US, the people, not to promote their careers and line their pockets. You bet I am 100% on board for that. That is all that will fix that stagnation in washington. McCain has tried to do that his entire career. Palin tried to do it in Alaska. I am 100% on board for cutting pork spending, so is he. I am 100% on board for looking at all the entitlement programs and killing the ones that are not working. I am on board for keeping corporate America healthy because they provide 80% of the jobs in this country. I don't have anything against anyone who has worked their way up, had a good idea and it grew into millions (Bill Gates, Windows for instance). I don't think Bill Gates owes me a dime of what he worked so hard to build. But he is also a major philantropist and supports many worthy causes. The government does not need to extract money from him and redistribute it to people who do not pay taxes in the first place, which encourages them to stay where they are in the lowest economic class. If he really cared about those people he would be figuring out ways to elevate them from that class instead of putting his foot on their neck to keep them there. All socialism ends up doing is killing free enterprise and eventually the government controls everything, the middle class disappears forever, and all the money is at the top..in the government, who doles it out to the people like they are children. Cuba has not done so well under socialism. Venezuela has not done so well under socialism. But you are ready to put a man into office who wants that same thing for THIS country. To me, THAT is creepy.

Again with the Bush doctrine. You really need to read up on that. Even Democrat pundits are honest enough to say that was an unfair question.

As to his glasses...if you watched him interview other people...he does not do that. And he does not pull the chairs so close knees touch. That is all orchestrated. And we did not see the whole interview. I would like to see what is on the cutting room floor.

One thing I have to say...when they walked out by the lake, and he was more like Charlie Gibson, a person, talking to Sarah Palin, a person...actually smiling at her...yep, tho he would never admit it...I think Charlie was impressed by her too. lol.

I don't hate Barack Obama. That is ridiculous. You have to know someone to hate them. I think he is probably a nice person; he certainly has a beautiful family. That does not make him ready to be President. I just don't agree with what he wants to do to this country. I think his ideas are wrong for this country. He leans for far left...that yes, it's creepy.

We should all vote according to what we believe is right for the country. Another thing John McCain said that I truly appreciate...Country First. He and palin are the only ones doing so, in my estimation.
There is a smart man. Obama would love people to
nm
Obama supporters are the most clueless people
nm
What if Obama didn't hate people like me? (sm)
I like Obama as a speaker, I think Obama is very intelligent and educated. I think Obama is very attractive. I like a lot of the ideas he has. I just cannot skirt around the issue of those he has associated with and the church he attended for 20 YEARS! I find it hard to believe he is not racist against me, a plain old white citizen. I think it doesn't matter that I have friends of all races, and that I love someone of another race. All that matters to his minister is that I am white and that makes him hate me, and if Obama didn't also hate me, and those like me, then why did he continue to attend that church and listen to the acid spewing from his minister's mouth for 20 years?   While I think it is horrible that our ancestors forced African's into slavery and treated them horribly, I didn't do it! I would never do it!  I love everyone! Why do I have to be a victim of prejudice now, just because I am white?  Why can't prejudice not exist either way?
Right!!! People are so nasty to Palin, yet Obama
nm