Agreed about earning except
Posted By: nana on 2007-12-04
In Reply to: Praying, trusting and respecting leaders? - pxmt
that is on a more personal level. People who come to our country need to respect us because they are our guests. As hosts, we do deserve respect. Anyone who disrespects their host is not welcome again, right? If you can't respect your host, then you need to excuse yourself and LEAVE.
As for our leaders, my personal opinion of Billie Bob C. is very low, in fact so low that it probably could not get any further down there and for reasons that should be self-evident. However, when he was my president I did respect his office, his right to govern, and his decisions in governmental matters. Though he was sadly lacking in integrity, he was the president, had more education than I do, and certainly more knowledge of foreign affairs. I gave him benefit of the doubt because he was the elected president of my country. I did not vote for him. I did not like him. I did not use him for a role model for young people. I was ashamed of him. I did respect his office and that is something that liberals could take a good hard look at in themselves. Do you really believe that everything that our government and president does should have full disclosure in the here and now? Do they need to run everything they do by YOU? That is pretty funny. The posts I see let me know that you believe you should have the final word on everything and that your way is the only way and that you are a one-person catalyst to change. That is admirable, but in order to be effective you need to take a look and investigate things more clearly and quit falling for the BS at the Kos and all those other pathetic sites. Do you ever look further? Do you believe everything everyone tells you? After you research more you may find that you will change a few of your beliefs. Seriously.
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
so those earning more
should just hand it over to someone else? Sorry but I don't work this hard to put money in someone else's pockets. I contribute to the charities I believe in. I do volunteer work with autistic children. I do believe in helping others.......if they CANNOT help themselves but I do not believe in free ride for anyone who can work but chooses not to do so or chooses not make strides to improve their own situation and just thinks those with more money owe it to them, and I do not and will not work so that someone else doesn't have to. I will then sit back, stop earning, and let YOU keep working and share with me!
Any person earning less than $57,490/yr
income earners in the US. We are not taling about skid row bums and deadbeats. Ever heard of the concept of the shrinking middle class? Is that a good thing for the nation? The lower 40% of the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US owns LESS THAN 1% of the total national wealth. This includes a very, very sizeable chunk of the entire middle class. MTs are always complaining about how they are not paid what they are worth. Does it make sense that all persons combined making less than $57,490/yr own less than 1% of the national wealth? Do these people do less than 1% of the work? Does this seem like an equitable distribution of wealth to you? Please answer these questions directly. Yes or no?
"Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k"...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
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.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$10,581
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$10,581
|
$1,350
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$8,293
|
$6,796
|
$6,781
|
$8,293
|
$1,512
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$11,143
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$11,143
|
$1,912
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$9,424
|
$8,189
|
$8,094
|
$9,424
|
$1,330
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$17,923
|
$15,739
|
$15,620
|
$17,923
|
$2,303
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$15,293
|
$12,364
|
$12,219
|
$15,293
|
$3,074
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$18,803
|
$16,083
|
$15,972
|
$18,803
|
$2,831
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$16,424
|
$14,439
|
$14,344
|
$16,424
|
$2,080
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$25,673
|
$22,739
|
$22,620
|
$25,673
|
$3,053
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$22,293
|
$18,614
|
$18,469
|
$22,293
|
$3,824
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$27,515
|
$23,715
|
$23,504
|
$27,515
|
$4,011
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$23,699
|
$20,741
|
$20,594
|
$23,699
|
$3,015
|
* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a DE facto tax increase
Agreed. nm
x
Yes, agreed.
Will ignore them and not read them. I feel better already.
Agreed
Of course not everyone feels the same, but there are a large enough number of current and former military that do feel that way. Not everyone thinks this was/is a valuable effort, and feel the cost is high, both financially and otherwise.
Agreed, but we need to take it one war
If we can't take on a little po-dunk country like Afghanistan and finish the job, then what on earth makes him think we can take on TWO countries simultaneously? (And we'll never finish the job in Iraq, either.) If we'd done what we SHOULD have done to Afghanistan after 9/11, we could have finished the job in a couple of days, and sent a HUGE 'Don't mess with us' message to the rest of the Middle East.
agreed :) nm
yah
Agreed....nm
x
Agreed
If she wants to play in the big leagues, she needs to act like she should be there. She is a total embarrassment and not qualified to be where she is.
Yes, I said that. I never said I agreed with everything...
McCain said. He, in fact, is not as conservative as I would like him to be. I don't agree with every word that rolls out of his mouth (unlike Obama fans). I certainly see there are flaws. However...none of them come minutely close to Obama's flaws. So, yes, I am supporting him. Do I live to hear or hang on every word that falls out of his mouth...no.
You just can't keep from ridiculing can ya? Is it part of your DNC DNA?
Agreed.
that in the 11th hour of the campaign, the conservative base trots out a token black intellectual elitist, the likes of whom out of the Obama camp they have been trashing for weeks now as being socialist/communist, terrorist "elite" (in a 4-letter word context) Anti-American militants. Mr. Sowell makes a mockery of his own credentials by endorsing the gloom and doom Armageddon you have been hawking ad nauseum for months and months, all falling on deaf ears, thrusting McC poll numbers into a deep plunge and turning off their own party members who are defecting over to the other side in droves. You are preaching to the choir here and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that, except to say the ones you need to be "ENERGIZING" would be the undecideds who have resoundingly rejected these scare tactics in a preference to embrace the simple notion of hope...and still you haven't caught on.
Agreed.
But I doubt we will stay out of it. In fact, this act is probably right on schedule to help Bush with his martial law plan. All we "need" is another attack to "help" it along.
I understand the desire of some to never turn our backs on Israel. What if Israel has a corrupt, deadly government that commits heinous deeds that are against everything the Bible stands for? Do we support that kind of government or do we support the people who inhabit the land of Israel?
As we've seen from our own recent election, sometimes there's a big difference between a government and its people.
Just wondering. 
Agreed. (NM)
dd
Agreed!
Of course, all the leftists here will come out of the woodwork to profess how open-minded and non-judgemental they are.
Yet these are the same bitter, spiteful vipers who took tremendous glee in pouncing on Palin and jeering at McCain.
I cannot believe how self-righteous they have turned lately.
The 'bandwagon' has become an armored tank.
Can't wait for the pendulum to swing back to sanity after the next four years of this lousy social experiment.
Agreed...(sm)
Yeah, I was the first to snap during the posted farewell to Bush below. I apologize. Regardless of my opinions of Bush, I should have shown more respect for those who thought differently and should have just not said anything at all. Thankfully, you have shown me what a butt head I was.
I appreciate your post, as should others, from both sides, and I join you in the hope for prosperity for all.
Disclaimer: This does not mean I won't continue the fight...LOL.
Agreed!
nm
Agreed!
nm
Agreed. (nm)
Agreed! nm
nm
I never assumed all agreed with it. sm
But no one condemned it. It's like that movie, the Accused. Those who stood and watched were as guilty as those who raped the girl. It's a comment on today's society in general, no matter what your political persuasian.
I would have agreed with if he had chosen...
Ridge or Lieberman.....but I think he'll do just fine with Gov. Palin.
Agreed. And when it does mislead
nm
Agreed. He'd bury her too. She could
nm
I agreed with your comment....sm
about thinking that the people that are responsible for all this, should pay for it. Like all the people who walked away with millions from these institutions, as well as running them into the ground. But how could they do that?
I hate the fact that the taxpayers will have to pay for it. Did you hear that Nancy Pelosi and the democrats have added something like a 50 million dollar social package to this bill? So their little socialist agenda will be met, and make us pay even more.
I just don't get it sometimes....it goes on and on and on.....
Thanks for the link. I'll go read it later on my break.
Agreed. Just who will be doing the partying....
remains to be seen. lol.
Agreed - I don't particularly care for him either
I only watched last night because Rush was going to be on and I wanted to hear what he had to say. I don't always agree with Rush, but I am interested in hearing what he says.
The thing I don't like about Hannity's show is the panel discussion. Meatloaf and Fran Drescher? Please!!!
Agreed - all this is from the same folks...
who weren't afraid to refer to Bush as Hitler.
I think, though, it has more to do with him being a dem than being black, JMHO.
Agreed - all this is from the same folks...
who weren't afraid to refer to Bush as Hitler.
I think, though, it has more to do with him being a dem than being black, JMHO.
Some of them were surprised, but still agreed and
one even thought he was intelligent...all except that one woman who choked.
I'm not bashing and I never agreed to leave
but I am growing tired of this so that should give you some hope.
Agreed. And anyone who looks at it objectively and not through partisan...
glasses could see it too. Fox has a lot more Democrat contributors and commentators than MSNBC, the major broadcast outlets or CNN. And Fox has more viewers, so apparently it is the choice of a lot of Americans.
And as to the debates...Obama didn't want anything near a town hall before his convention. I read he was going to come up through the floor in a set that looks like a Greek temple to accept his nomination. I thought to myself you have GOT to be kidding. His spokesman didn't deny it, just said it was tastefully done. Okay, a tastefully done temple. Oh my. Well, I reserve any opinion until I see it.
Agreed. That electoral map is lookin'
xoxoxoxo
Also agreed....let's try to find that place...
where we were all Americans and party lines disappeared. If we could get that back without a major disaster to provoke it...therein lies the real hope and change for this country.
Agreed. That is your stipulation...and in fact...sm
can be applied to how the dems view Senator Obama, as well, and to again agree with your words, "ignore any evidence to the contrary" that may be facts.
You know, the fact that Gov. Palin stumbled a little in a few questions, because Charlie tried to trip her up on multiple occasions, just proves that she's human. She still aced the interview in my opinion, and I looked at all the facts.
We think you blindly follow the Obama, and conveniently ignore certain truths about him, his past, and his policies he wishes to institute.
It's much the same for both sides, isn't it.
I still agree to disagree.
Agreed, The stakes ARE high. nm
nm
Agreed....my only regret at the moment...sm
...is the ton of work that just showed up on my desk from my two itsy bitsy GT accts I have, which ain't so itsy bitsy....I won't be able to be around very much for the next week, and there looks like a bunch of new topics up above, which I may have to skim later...
Take it easy....
Agreed. I thought she did great
Not to mention she pointed out all the false statements Biden made and he just stood there with that simpy smirk on his face. He reminds me of a used car salesman, and not a very good one at that!
I agreed with your post! I was referring to the
I'm on YOUR side!
Agreed! Glad we have been safe.
nm
Undecided, my foot. Anyone who agreed with that 98% .....
would not vote for McCain if his/her life depended on it. You were undecided until you took that test? LOL. Pull the other leg now. :-)
Agreed, O is going to be a nightmare. I am stocking
nm
Agreed - I wish that's all I had to worry about in my life.
Wouldn't life be grand to have no problems to deal with and that my only problem would be getting myself in a tizzy over the Palins.
Agreed, it was a loaded question...
and really had no place at this competition. And even if it did cost her the crown, at least she stood by her morals and didn't just give the PC answer.
What I found unbelievable was Hilton's blog after the pageant - calling her a b!tch - grow up Perez! Maybe I live under a rock or something, but I didn't even know who this guy was until he was on The Apprentice a few weeks ago - so I guess his opinion matters very little to me - and should the rest of the country. Another poster put it quite correctly - he is a bottom feeder.
Agreed - and add intelligent to that list. (nm)
*
Agreed - and add intelligent to that list. (nm)
*
There is a time line. It was agreed
by the Iraq government and President Bush that the troops would be out of there by...August 2011. This time line was agreed upon and signed last year, but I can't remember what month.
O really should honor that agreement unless Iraq agrees on an earlier date of departure.
OK, they agreed. Doesn't mean the intelligence was correct, and it obviously
wasn't, hence, no WMDs, no connection to Al Quaeda. Just getting rid of a brutal dictator - hey, I can live with that. So, does that mean we are now the world police?
Clinton has never, I mean never as far as I can recall or read made a connection to Al Quada and Iraq as was done by this admin. Our reasons for attacking Iraq under the Clinton admin. was in response to Saddam not complying with UN sanctions. Two different things.
The links to Al Quada that are operating in Iraq today are there in oposition to the US preemptive military action in Iraq. They simply were not there before this war began. Our president knew there was no connection before we went to war.
Agreed. Problem is that concept consistently
nm
Agreed. It's abuse of power AND a crime
nm
If you agreed with Palin's comments, then - see message
--- take a long, deep breath, and before you get too excited, REMEMBER THIS:
When she talked about increasing or cutting "YOUR" taxes, don't forget that she, as a Republican, was NOT speaking to YOU, she was speaking to the RICH. And the tobacco industry. And the oil industry. And yes, probably to the fat-cat owners of major MTSOs. If you vote Republican, you're just voting to shoulder more and more of the load, while the rich sip mint juleps on their big fat verandas.
|
