Yeah, and now put Obama in there to raise taxes
Posted By: and bankrupt what is left..nightmare.nm on 2008-10-14
In Reply to: Some of this is a rescue caused by those buying - houses they could not afford! Thanks Americans.nm
nm
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
What the chart shows is that Obama is going to raise taxes on the people....
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.
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.
Obama has said repeatedly he will RAISE
xx
Yeah, they dont want to pay their own taxes,
nm
yeah, of higher taxes for all -kind of change we can
nm
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?
yeah, and Obama isn't qualified to be in the top
nm
Yeah, that was on the news. Obama almost
nm
Yeah, I would NEVER trust Obama to be our
nm
Yeah, and they never seem to try to refute Obama's
nm
Yeah, how can you vote for Obama? How could you
nm
Yeah, Biden just knows that Obama needs
nm
Yeah, and the guy who just endorsed Obama...
that would be Colin Powell, believed that same "bad intelligence" and sold it to the world in the UN. But of course...since he is endorsing Obama...he is absolved of all wrongdoing? LOL, GP. Sorry.
WWJD? J wouldn't vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and I sure don't think J would be walking this earth telling people go ahead and have an abortion because the government shouldn't be in your personal life. Forget the government! Is being a Christian part of your life? If it is, then I don't know how you can vote for Obama or condone abortion in any way, shape, or form.
Killing babies is wrong, it doesn't matter WHO does it. If the mother decides to terminate it, fine. If a man sticks a knife in her belly and kills her and the baby, he is guilty of a double murder. And you can justify that in your mind...how? Simply that the mother has the right to kill it and the man didn't? What would J think of that?
Yeah, well, unfortunately, with Obama in office,
nm
Yeah, isn't Obama the great example for us to
nm
Yeah, but it was Obama who yammered
Wutta mutt.
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.
Yeah, and Obama is so darn smart, yet does not
nm
Yeah, Obama's executive experience
nm
Yeah, I don't trust Obama's character
nm
Yeah, I don't care for Obama, but I am not "proud"
nm
Yeah, even scarier that you will vote for Obama
nm
Yeah, and Obama used to be ACORN's lawyer
nm
Yeah, and the "honest" response from Obama
nm
Yeah, trying to hide Obama's answer, which is the
nm
Yeah, Obama also keeps changing his definition
nm
Yeah, what's wrong with that - only stated what Obama
x
Yeah, well it would be nice if Obama could find an
nm
Yeah, think things are bad with Obama? Imagine
nm
|
