It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


That would be changing his tax policy, and you have said it multiple times on multiple threads. SOMEHOW you missed the comments that EVERYONE has made towards your incorrect analysis.

He has never changed ANY numbers.


Well then you better tell Obama too then because if my pointing out tyhat he DID in FACT use differen't figures as proven in three videos, then I guess that means I wanted to talk with YOU about tax policy.

Ill tell you what, when Obama can come up with a NUMBER and stick with it, then we'll talk

k thnx




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


No, and for the last time, HE DID NOT.

It was 2 figures.

One was for getting a tax cut.

One was getting a tax hike.

Different.

200,000 get a tax cut.

250,000 gets a tax hike.

Different numbers for different classes. I am failing to see what is so complicated about this.


[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
YES HE DID! My God sublime get with the program for petes sake Lead Follow or GET out of THE WAY but don't keep acting like you know what you are talking about when you don't and I have proven it.



ELECTION 2008
Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking?
Confusion abounds as voters hear $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 28, 2008
2:42 pm Eastern


By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


A new video advertisement released by the Obama campaign says the candidate's promised tax cuts are for citizens making less than $200,000 a year, not the widely reported figure of $250,000.

Adding to the confusion, Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, said in an interview yesterday the cuts are for even fewer people, limited to incomes of $150,000 or less.

Depending on the source of information, just who will have their taxes raised and who will have them cut under Obama's plan varies.

The campaign's homepage, for example, accessed today, reads, "Obama said he wanted to give a tax break to all families making under $250,000 per year, which he said was 95 percent of American workers."

Yet in the "Defining Moment" ad released on YouTube last week and viewable below, Obama says the tax cut "for 95 percent of working Americans" is only for those who make less than $200,000 per year.

According to the 2006 IRS statistics published by the National Taxpayers Union, "95 percent of working Americans" only includes those making less than $153,542 per year
www.worldnetdaily.com...






I am failing to see what is so complicated about this.


Not me,, in fact your problem is obvious

[edit on 2-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I was told he's not actually raising taxes and if I read the proposal he was forcing larger operations to pay taxes and not giving them a tax break. A lady I work with said her son makes 12mil a year and pays no taxes on it, now he's ticked because if obama gets in he will have to pay taxes.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
I don't get this line of thinking at all. For the last eight years the middle class have been shouldering the burdon of the corporate tax breaks in the hopes that these corporations would use the money to create jobs. Instead they pocketed the money and shipped jobs overseas. Now it's their turn to shoulder the burdon. That's the bottom freaking line. If you don't like it don't vote for him, which I assume you weren't going to anyway.



Relax, the price of shipping products from overseas has gone up so much because of the price of oil, that those jobs are going to go back to the area of sale. Probably only telemarketing and collections will remain overseas. The price of oil is still dropping, true, and gas will probably go back to $1.50 a gallon, but as soon as Israel nukes Iran and some of their other hostile opponents, the oil will go right back up. But only until it is understood that it does not affect oil production and supply here, that much. Then it will drop again. And when the Demoncrats take over Washington, reguardless of Presidency, they will again do so much damage that people will toss THEM out next election. Hopefully a third party will finally be feasable, because both major parties are a bunch of unAmerican ******.
Interesting times.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


AGAIN, wow. How many times can I say this?

Let me see if I can explain it again. What have you always heard him say?

If you make under $250,000 a year, you will not have a raise in your taxes.

Okay, so over $250,000 a year gets a tax rise.

Now he's said, If you make under $200,000 a year, you'll receive a tax cut.

Now, simple match explains this very easily, and I will attempt to show it to you again, FOR THE LAST TIME.

x = your salary

x > $250,000 = Tax Rise

$200,000 < x < $250,000 = No change

x < $200,000 = Tax cut

 

Is it that difficult to understand? Perhaps Joe Biden got the number wrong, not sure, but Obama has been VERY consistent with the number 250,000. $250,000 is the key number that decides if your taxes are going to go UP!



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


AGAIN, wow. How many times can I say this?

Let me see if I can explain it again. What have you always heard him say?

If you make under $250,000 a year, you will not have a raise in your taxes.

Okay, so over $250,000 a year gets a tax rise.

Now he's said, If you make under $200,000 a year, you'll receive a tax cut.

Now, simple match explains this very easily, and I will attempt to show it to you again, FOR THE LAST TIME.

x = your salary

x > $250,000 = Tax Rise

$200,000 < x < $250,000 = No change

x < $200,000 = Tax cut

 

Is it that difficult to understand? Perhaps Joe Biden got the number wrong, not sure, but Obama has been VERY consistent with the number 250,000. $250,000 is the key number that decides if your taxes are going to go UP!


How can you say this sublime?? What the hell ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THERE WON'T BE A CHANGE? He is going to let the Bush Tax cuts expire and those you say won't have a change most certainly will. Secondly if you are NOT going to view the video of Obama saying exactly what I told you he says VERBATIM! then we got nothing to talk about because that is NOT what he said



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL

How can you say this sublime?? What the hell ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THERE WON'T BE A CHANGE?



Originally posted by Sublime620
x = your salary

x > $250,000 = Tax Rise Change.

$200,000 < x < $250,000 = No change

x < $200,000 = Tax cut Change.


[edit on 3-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if they would be willing to cut that budget of theirs off all the crap that we don't need....and there's alot of crap we don't need eating up the budget! unfortunately, I don't see the social safety net as being that unnecesary. you claim that the people who are using this system aren't working, aren't helping themselves...but funny thing is, didn't they pass a law basically stating that those who are taking part in these programs have to get out and get a job during the clinton years? so, unless they are handicapped, or the elderly, well, they are working.
there's at least three at my shop that are working, their paychecks just aren't coming close to meeting the cost of living. and well, just how is a single mom, who has two kids, another on the way, working 40 hours a week, supposed to help herself, outside getting her tubes tied, which to be honest, I don't think the government pays for.....
it's not like she has the extra time to go to school or anything.

throughout my years, I have run into production workers, clerical workers, bus drivers, resturant managers, waitresses, cashiers, single moms, single dads, married couples, machinists, government workers, families of members of the armed forces and on and on....and they were relying on those handouts to meet their needs! charity doesn't, won't meet that need, if it did, these programs wouldn't have been instituted to begin with. and well, even with all these programs....they had to hand out money to all of us to convince us to spend when our credit ran out through their "stimulus package". they need us spending the money, more money than we are making. and well, look at the other aspect of this.....if tomorrow those resturant workers, production workers, waitresses, ect.....well, if their government funds stopped coming in, what would they do? the first thing I think they would do is go to their company and demand a raise, to help offset their shortage of cash.....how those companies would handle this I am not sure, they might decide to give some their raise, and lay off others, they might decide to give them a raise, and well....decrease the wages of some of the higher paid workers, they might just to say no, and then live with the headaches of underfed, homeless, out of gas can't get to work workers....but, well, things couldn't go on the way they are now, that is for sure!

I don't think they can go on the way it is now anyways, but there has to be a way to manage the transition better than that! and, I think that they could find plenty of other areas to trim before this one. we could start by taking back some of that 700 billion that we are giving to the banks and such....what they hey, we never gave it to them so they could take luxury vacations to great resorts anyways, or so they can buy out their competitors.. from their, we could go on to getting a little hard on the healthcare industry.....they don't need anymore tax funds for their ceo's and upper management bonuses either....and well....there's always the bridges to nowhere, and other lame projects that are mostly insignificant to all but a select few.
and then, we could always pull some of our troops home from the four corners of the earth.....

but, depending on just where this economy goes in the near future, we may just find a need to extend these social programs.....if we cut them instead, we will literally blow our economy up!! those tax funds are addicted and our economy has become an addict!



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
All of our taxes are going up anyway!! Can't people see the writing on the wall? Someone is going have to continue to bail out the crisis that we're in and it won't be the politicians. Do you really think we're going to get any tax cuts?

Inflation is a hidden form of tax, hyperinflation, in addition to increased taxes, is on the way. All of us who feel so financially smug about what we worked for are going to be poor as hell.

Country first, help fellow Americans in extraordinary bad times the way that we would hope to be help once this financial tidal wave ingulfs us all.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


I never said there won't be a "change". I just said he hasn't changed his OWN policy. Remember, I am arguing with you about YOUR position. Have you already forgotten what it was? If so, here's what it is:

Obama can't make up his mind on where his tax plan will cut off.

Your idea is incorrect. You cite two different numbers said by Obama that represent two different cut offs in the same tax plan.

So yes, you are correct, his tax plan will change taxes, but his tax plan hasn't changed. You sir, need to get your story straight.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620

Your idea is incorrect. You cite two different numbers said by Obama that represent two different cut offs in the same tax plan.

So yes, you are correct, his tax plan will change taxes, but his tax plan hasn't changed. You sir, need to get your story straight.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by Sublime620]


No Obama needs to get his story straight and YOU need to quit thinking I am missing the part about the differn't cut offs.



You cite two different numbers said by Obama that represent two different cut offs in the same tax plan.


Yeah and for some reason you can't believe he said that when for the 8th time now I will tell you that is EXACTLY what he has done and said having shown numerous links in addition to Video of him saying it JUST LIKE YOU THINK HE NEVER DID.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Ignorance and stupidity will destroy or country...Not all people who need help right now, especially right now, are stupid and lazy. This stupid, oversimplified, unable to do complex math, kind of thinking is frightening! I could be extremely wrong, but as an independent, the lack of ability to stand back and actually think about what's going on in this country, from within the Republican Party, is outragious! I know McCain is an old man and none to bright but, come on!


The people who have overly simplified beliefs about who is struggling and why they think they are struggling--I hope you lose your jobs, your homes, and your money once the larger economic trauma starts to hit our country. When that happens only the top 5% will be unscathed. Will see then what you feel about people, like yourselves, who will need help. May you and yours reap what you sow, that's my prayer!



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


The next time you meet a rich person, shake his/her hand and say "Thank You". He/she will be the ones funding the "tax cuts".

Since 40% of Americans do not pay taxes, but will be getting a check, the money has to come from somewhere. It will come from the rich.

This is what is called wealth redistribution, one of the basic tenets of socialism.

This also means that the rich will not have the extra money to plow back into the economy in the form of investing in small businesses. Small businesses, the largest component of jobs in America, will suffer.

More Americans will lose their jobs. They will need that extra check to get by next week.

But what happens after that?

As for the discrepancy in the income level that will be taxed, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Take money from corps; they will just increase their prices to cover their costs.

You will end up paying more than the amount you got from your "tax cut".




posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
HELLO? Everyone's taxes are going to go up no matter who is in office...the selfish...I have no compassion for them. I don't mind paying more taxes to help the country in times of crisis.

Spin it any way you want it (redistribution of wealth, socialism, etc.), it's all Republican BS, just spinning these lies to some gullible people, who by the way, will lose this election.

This Country is already employing socialism by taking my money to bail of banks. So stop using "socialism" likes it's a bad word. Your Republican President is Socialist, isn't he?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForPeaceUSA
HELLO? Everyone's taxes are going to go up no matter who is in office...the selfish...I have no compassion for them. I don't mind paying more taxes to help the country in times of crisis.

Spin it any way you want it (redistribution of wealth, socialism, etc.), it's all Republican BS, just spinning these lies to some gullible people, who by the way, will lose this election.

This Country is already employing socialism by taking my money to bail of banks. So stop using "socialism" likes it's a bad word. Your Republican President is Socialist, isn't he?


Naah I think Bush is a fascist, and Obama is a Closet Commie besides other closeted things. Bush did just what he was supposed to do.

Act like the most idiotic Christian he could thereby creating the guilt by association crushing the moral majority and then being the most leftist republican in the history of the party crushing the moral majority's republican base to the point that voter anger would be so desperate for change that when "the one" we have all been waiting for finally arrived after years of grooming by the saul alinsky's Jeremiah wrights and bill ayers of this world, all he would have to do is SAY it, say Change and people started fainting, swooning, getting sweaty palms and their undies in a bunch. Not long after all those Hollywood people on the Black List during the McCarthy era now have proven McCarthy was right all along and Hollywood the media etc WAS full of Communists with an agenda to be agents of change in a conspiracy to convert Americas Bush Fatigued weary and dumbed down republic into a Socialist Government using one of Bush's last and final instructions to announce the hard work Barack Obama and Franklin Rains were doing to wreck the economy and have bush stage a economic meltdown scaring us into fixing the faux financial foul forcing America into a collective nation.

Why they got so messed up that Americans like you actually believe the democrats had nothing to do with it and that Bush was actually a Republican. Whats worse is when you said you hate selfish people when forcing people to be generous doesn't make them any less selfish.

In fact, it breeds a deep burning resentment and an almost viral form of greed, not one of money as there is none, but of our efforts. We withhold our best efforts and our interest in bringing out the best in others will degrade into depravity and dark ideas that even something like holding a door open for someone running into a store while you're walking out, will be as rare an event as someone willing to take a bullet for someone else and die in there place.

We simply stop caring and stop trying as hard as we can at being as good as we can at whatever it is we do. If you thought the greed of Capitalism is bad,, wait till you see what the antithesis of greed Socialism cultivates.

Socialism is bad, in fact it's evil



[edit on 4-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
This is what is called wealth redistribution, one of the basic tenets of socialism.


Not if it comes from the rich.

When it comes from the whole body of workers.

Huge difference.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Here's how I see it.

We're lucky. We live in the US. We have all sorts of opportunities available to us to enable us to succeed, some more than others.

If you're a person or business that's become very successful in good part due to the opportunities living in the US gives you, you have an obligation to give something back to the system that enabled that success in the first place.

I think it's funny (not necessarily just ha-ha funny) when people who say they love this country and love the achievements they've made in this country grumble at being asked to give back a little more to this country, to shoulder a little more of the burden (I hate cliches but that's the only phrase that works) so those who have less to begin with can do more with what they have, and possibly achieve similar successes at some point in the future.

The "I got mine, screw the rest of you" mentality has never sat well with me. This is basically what Obama was trying to say to that Joe the Plumber character - he wants a tax system that draws a little more from the very successful, so that those who are still working their way up will have fewer roadblocks placed in front of them.

It isn't a "punishment" for being successful; it's an obligation to your fellow man, to the betterment of society as a whole. And, in case that sounds too touchy-feely, improving all that can only improve the world around you, which makes your life easier. Also, enabling others with less to keep more should enable them to to spend more, maybe become more successful so they can afford more, and have more disposable income to spend on whatever it is that made you successful in the first place - which should make you more successful.

Get it yet?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


The next time you meet a rich person, shake his/her hand and say "Thank You". He/she will be the ones funding the "tax cuts".

Since 40% of Americans do not pay taxes, but will be getting a check, the money has to come from somewhere. It will come from the rich.


Do you have any official data to back this up? If 40% of americans do not pay taxes then that means we have a lot of people LIVING IN POVETRY!

AFAIK only people living at or below the povetry line get their tax money refunded.


Originally posted by jsobecky
This is what is called wealth redistribution, one of the basic tenets of socialism.

This also means that the rich will not have the extra money to plow back into the economy in the form of investing in small businesses. Small businesses, the largest component of jobs in America, will suffer.

More Americans will lose their jobs. They will need that extra check to get by next week.


Rich people do not start small bussiness. They start medium and large corporations. The middle class is responsible for small bussiness. If the middle class goes under then capitalism GOES UNDER.


Originally posted by jsobecky
But what happens after that?

As for the discrepancy in the income level that will be taxed, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Take money from corps; they will just increase their prices to cover their costs.

You will end up paying more than the amount you got from your "tax cut".


We will pay more taxes to finance the "rescue package" that was forced down our throats by the same people that did nothing to prevent the financial crisis from happening in the first place.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
We simply stop caring and stop trying as hard as we can at being as good as we can at whatever it is we do. If you thought the greed of Capitalism is bad,, wait till you see what the antithesis of greed Socialism cultivates.

Socialism is bad, in fact it's evil

[edit on 4-11-2008 by MAINTAL]


Mild capitalism is good and I am all for giving small bussiness tax-breaks so they can expand. The problem is conservatives are for big bussiness and giving these entities tax breaks is almost a sin.

And your analysis of socialism is wrong. In fact you seem to think socialism equates to communism. Not true!

[edit on 5-11-2008 by EarthCitizen07]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join