Quotes

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Excellent point William.

The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010, and both Pelosi and Obama have said that they have no intention of renewing them. That's a tax increase right there and the Democrats don't have to do a single thing (which they're exceedingly good at) to make it happen.

Oh, and remember that $600 or $1200 stimulus check you got back in March? You can kiss those goodbye too.

[oldksnarc]

Barack Obama has voted along party lines 97% of his time in office.

Yet, accuses McCain of voting with the President (or along party lines) only 90% of the time. That would indicate to me which one more often reaches across the aisle.

[wtnhunt]

Excellent point William.

The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010, and both Pelosi and Obama have said that they have no intention of renewing them. That's a tax increase right there and the Democrats don't have to do a single thing (which they're exceedingly good at) to make it happen.

Oh, and remember that $600 or $1200 stimulus check you got back in March? You can kiss those goodbye too.

If Obama gets in, those tax cuts will never make it to expiration Mike. From what I am taking of what he is saying over and over, he has every intention of repealing those tax cuts.

People need to remember too here that it has been the dems who twisted Bush's arm when the proposal for rebates were in the works. Bush wanted to give only working people those rebates, the dems would not have it and the rebates had to go to those who did not even pay anything in order for it to make it through. Wonder where Obama voted on those issues, if he did not vote "present".

[AceArcher]

Guess what, my wife and I did not get a tax rebate check. Sounds like you enjoyed that $1,200 check? Did any of you call that socialism when Bush mailed those checks out? Did I complain? If someone can explain the difference in that and a middle class tax cut then I would love to hear it. The phase out was between $150,000 to $175,000. Anyone over $175,000 got zilch...what a socialist policy...taking my hard earned tax dollors and returning it to bums only makes $60,000 per year!! This is the great thing about the Repulican party. They convince the masses to vote to their own detriment...simply brilliant in my opinoin. Wealthy people are usually wealthy for a reason...b/c they are smarter and more willing to take from others. Sure the Republicans will throw you a bone every once in a while and call it a stimulas. But when a democrate offers to lessen the taxen burden in lasting way it is labeled as socialism.

[wtnhunt]

Guess what, my wife and I did not get a tax rebate check. Sounds like you enjoyed that $1,200 check? Did any of you call that socialism when Bush mailed those checks out? Did I complain? If someone can explain the difference in that and a middle class tax cut then I would love to hear it. The phase out was between $150,000 to $175,000. Anyone over $175,000 got zilch...what a socialist policy...taking my hard earned tax dollors and returning it to bums only makes $60,000 per year!! This is the great thing about the Repulican party. They convince the masses to vote to their own detriment...simply brilliant in my opinoin. Wealthy people are usually wealthy for a reason...b/c they are smarter and more willing to take from others. Sure the Republicans will throw you a bone every once in a while and call it a stimulas. But when a democrate offers to lessen the taxen burden in lasting way it is labeled as socialism.

Taking money from those who work to give it to everyone including those who do not work is not the same as taking money from those who work and giving it back to them. Those checks were intended to stimulate the economy("economic stimulus checks"). The phase out, I guess to put in perspective a person earning $175,000 is likely probably not hurting as bad as the person making $40,000, and that person at that level of income likely is still able to spend money to put back into the economy where the person making $40,000 is barely scraping by and that $600 or $1200 check may make a difference for them. Bush's plan was to give back to the taxpayers their own money, hardly socialism; it was the democrats who objected and would not have it without also giving to those who did not pay a dime.

[AceArcher]

Best check your facts. Here I will do it for you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singles

Determine Eligibility:

If you earned less than $3,000 - unfortunately you’d get nothing.

If you earned more than $3,000 but paid no taxes, you’d get $300.

If you earned more than $3,000 and paid taxes, you get $600.

If you have children, add $300 per.

Determine Phaseout Reduction:

The phaseout levels begin at $75k and end at $87k, at a reduction of 5% per $1,000 over the lower limit. If you earn above $87k, you’re over and thus get nothing regardless of the math.

Couples

Determine Eligibility (appears to be the same as singles):

If you earned less than $3,000 - unfortunately you’d get nothing.

If you earned more than $3,000 but paid no taxes, you’d get $600.

If you earned more than $3,000 and paid taxes, you get $1,200.

If you have children, add $300 per.

Determine Phaseout Reduction:

The phaseout levels begin at $150k and end at $174, at a reduction of 5% per $1,000 over the lower limit. If you earned above $174k, you’re over and thus get nothing regardless of the math.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly Bush's plan gave $300 tax credit to those paying $0 in income taxes. This is clearly "socialism" under your difinition. Now comes Obama's plan. Here is what the Repulicans are talking about and all of you have keyed in on. Obama plans to give a tax credit of $500 indivudually or $100 per family to 95% of all workers and their families. Some people making very little would effectvly pay no tax and recieve a check from the government (about 15 million). This no different than the 2008 stimulas package. I am really not that concerned about someone makeing $10,000 or less getting a $500 check. Read the plan yourself..

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Bye the way, my grandfather will recieve the check...he is a 83 year old marine veteran who fought on Iwo Jima. He supports Senator Obama and believes in his own words "John McCain seems to be best qualified to crash airplanes....they guy is completly clueless when it comes to economics" Pretty tough assesment but I guess he has the right to say pretty much whatever he wishes.

[oldksnarc]

taking my hard earned tax dollors and returning it to bums only makes $60,000 per year

Bums don't make $60,000 a year - the ones making less than $10,000 are the ones not motivated, i.e. more bum-like.

I'm surprised if you make $175,000 a year you'd even consider voting for socialism. His $250,000 level is political rhetoric. Mark my words, His limit will drop from $250k down to the bums making more than 30 or 40k. He'll say "circumstances have changed and we need everyone to be more patriotic than we first envisioned."

Your arguments don't gel with the facts. But, a lot of people have bought into the hype without checking the facts for themselves or making their own minds.

But, still, welcome to the forums.

[oldksnarc]

my grandfather will recieve the check...he is a 83 year old marine veteran who fought on Iwo Jima.

Thank your grandfather for his service.

"John McCain seems to be best qualified to crash airplanes...

And Obama accuses McCain of not being able to operate a computer. But, can Obama land a jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier? And, McCain won't be the only pilot to have crashed a plane (or more than one). Depends on the conditions at the time. Heck, I've wrecked patrol cars. Doesn't make me less qualified to be a cop.

[wtnhunt]

Best check your facts. Here I will do it for you.......

..........

Clearly Bush's plan gave $300 tax credit to those paying $0 in income taxes. This is clearly "socialism" under your difinition.

I am pretty well aware of the facts, not too sure what you are questioning with this comment. You might want to research back on the 2005 stimulus package and on the compromise by Bush to get it passed. This past stimulus(2008) did indeed go to filers who did not pay in anything, which I had said in my previous reply. Kind of looks like you are in part agreeing with me. Stimulus checks and tax cuts are two totally different issues though.

I do not recall defining socialism, think someone did that here not too long back in another thread though http://www.realtree.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77424.

[oldksnarc]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'

She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy courses, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.' Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

[AceArcher]

I think we are fully agreeing on one thing. That this middle class needs a break that that people making hundreds of thousands of $'er per year are not the ones who are worring about clothing their children, putting gas in their vehicle, or paying thier gas bill. We can all agree that the middle class needs some relief. Some people made poor desicions...keeping up with the Jones' or overbuying a home...but hindsight is 20/20. John McCain used to agree that giving the lions share of benifit to wealthy Americans was not only wrong but the "height of irresponsibility."

"Despite the recent successful war in Iraq, which highlighted the bravery and sacrifice of our military, the conferees provided nothing for them in this so-called growth bill. The only thing growing will be the tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens of this country. And in a time where we are also facing growing deficits and must also pay for the cost of the war, what the conferees did in the interest of "getting a deal'' was the height of irresponsibility.Despite the recent successful war in Iraq, which highlighted the bravery and sacrifice of our military, the conferees provided nothing for them in this so-called growth bill. The only thing growing will be the tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens of this country. And in a time where we are also facing growing deficits and must also pay for the cost of the war, what the conferees did in the interest of "getting a deal'' was the height of irresponsibility."

--John McCain -- Senate Floor - May 23, 2003

Now that the 2008 version of John McCain has decided that tax cuts should dispoportionalty favor the wealthy and do nearly nothing for the middle class. What changed I ask??

I am not going to get bent out of shape if a few people who file a tax return end up getting back $500 more then what they paid in. If this means that the vast majority of the middle class will have a $1500 to $3000 of extra cash then that is great. The might even spend a little of the money on a realtree camo jacket or t-shirt.

[AceArcher]

And one last point. Some may say...but President Obama will not actually implemnt the tax cuts that he talks about...what will end up happening is that the $250,000 will become $40,000.

Here is the thing...you have one choice of a man who says that I will do A,B & C to help you and the rest of the middle class but you arn't sure if you believe him.

You have another who says I will do nothing to help you and actually bye the way I will tax your health benifits as regular income. (this is an entirely different issue that we could start a string on) and you decide to vote for the guy who is to your detriment because you aren't sure the other guy will follow through on his promise he made to you.

That just isn't very logical to me. I take a man at his word if his ideas make sense and agree with my values. This is just how I was raised.

[oldksnarc]

Spin. Spin. Nothing but spin. No matter how many times it is in bold.

And how many times has the O re-invented himself? Especially in the last few months when people started opening their eyes to His hype.

And, it's not the middle class that will benefit from the stipends the democrats may dole out. The middle class are not the ones defaulting on their mortgages. Don't fool yourself that Obama is interested in helping the middle-class. He's interested in confiscating from one group and giving to another group. From the haves and to the have nots. From the middle and upper class, who have worked for it, to the ones who won't work.

I would prefer to keep most of my $40-some-k per year and determine who I share it with than give it to some socialist politician (and Obama is a socialist no matter how one spins him) who will decide who it goes to. If you want to spread the wealth - write an extra check each month and send it to Obama. But, don't vote to raise my taxes or confiscate my money.

[AceArcher]

Who then is defaulting on mortages? Its not spin...its the truth brother.

I have to go to bed so I can get up and hunt in the morning we can continue this later.

Also...look at my post in the main area. Please take a little time to write th NJ Gov in order to try to make a difference for this guy.

later.

[wtnhunt]

Who then is defaulting on mortages? Its not spin...its the truth brother.

I have to go to bed so I can get up and hunt in the morning we can continue this later.

Also...look at my post in the main area. Please take a little time to write th NJ Gov in order to try to make a difference for this guy.

later.

People who bought above their means or people who have lost their jobs and who did not have the personal accounting sense enough to have something to fall back on to prevent them from getting in those situations. McCain did warn of this and push for reform which was held up by who? Pretty sure there are actual video clips that have been shown to support that McCain made attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie, although I am guessing that as of recent that the mainstream media likely has neglected to give those clips any airtime in hopes we all have forgotten about this.

about...what will end up happening is that the $250,000 will become $40,000.

Here is the thing...you have one choice of a man who says that I will do A,B & C to help you and the rest of the middle class but you arn't sure if you believe him.

You have another who says I will do nothing to help you and actually bye the way I will tax your health benifits as regular income. (this is an entirely different issue that we could start a string on) and you decide to vote for the guy who is to your detriment because you aren't sure the other guy will follow through on his promise he made to you.

That just isn't very logical to me. I take a man at his word if his ideas make sense and agree with my values. This is just how I was raised.

That in bold is simply not true. Might want to take a look here for a better explanation without all the hype or spin http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122031215585888783.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.

This thread has gotten a bit off topic but also in the discussion was the topic of income taxes, here is another link to take a look at comparing the taxes scales under Clinton versus under Bush http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html. Which party of recent years has better supported the country as a whole in giving tax relief, who will better support the working class Americans who drive this countries economy?

[nativetexan]

Gentlemen, one thing we keep forgetting. This country is not run by one person alone. When we keep focusing solely on one person and their flaws, we are in fact incenuating that one person runs the show. That would be a dictatorship. Let's remind ourselves that if Obama takes office, it will not only be him that brings his socialist values to the table, but all of his constituents in Congress, those on his cabinet, and the numerous followers that believe that something for free is a good thing. Often times, you may benefit, but the fallout from receiving your few paltry dollars to help out the little guy, will come at too great a price in the long run. That my friends is selfish. Not responsible. I am middle class, I don't need or want any "breaks" from the government. What I want is for the government to shrink and start placing the responsibility of surviving in this country back in the hands of the people. Because really, if you need help from this government and live with the guise that a few extra bucks is really going to make a dent in whatever sorry financial situation you have gotten yourselves in, then you live in a dream world. I mean really...Since we are talking quotes...Let me throw one out for ya..."Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

We can all throw facts, figures, tables, historic actions, whatever out in an attempt to get our point across. In essence, we are already paying the price for those few extra bucks we may receive, and for some, lose. Friendships will be lost, families will turn against one another, hate instead of unity and responsibility to keep this country alive with the ideals it was founded upon will be the new mentality. This country was based on "freedmen." The last time I checked, there was no reason to change this. Some say they would like the U.S. to have a more "worldly" attitude. This country was founded upon the complete opposite of that mentality, and those who settled it and fought and died for it, certainly had more passion about escaping the "worldly" ideals than we do. I wouldn't dare desecrate the memory of those great people because I want a few extra bucks a month. To do so is greatly irresponsible and portrays a selfishness that makes me so nauseated I feel the need to carry a bucket with me everywhere I go.

One last note...I am surprised at how cheap and shameless we are when we see a dollar sign in our eyes. A vote for Obama and his cronies is selling your freedoms to the government for a measly tax break, and the "HOPE" that someone will step in and help you. Why don't you try helping yourselves? If you don't believe me, I am sure there are plenty of resources on the various threads around here that will prove that.

[oldksnarc]

Native - some very good points and comments.

This country is not run by one person alone.

However, the liberals would have you believe President Bush is responsible for all the ills of this country - and now the world. The recession he inherited 8 years ago, 9/11, terrorism, the weather, global warming, Katrina, the housing/financial crisis, the economy, unemployment, ad nauseum. Rather the blame should go to congress, the business community, industry, radical religion, world reliance on fossil fuels, and so on and so on.

Personally (and I'm sure this will start a whole new dialog and argument), I believe history will look back and realize President Bush wasn't as bad as they make him out to be. Not since FDR has a president had to respond to as much turmoil and chaos as had President Bush. Has there been mistakes? Yes. Was he perfect? No. But, neither was FDR, Kennedy or the great Reagan. Reagan was a good president but he was viewed as a bumbling idiot while he was in office. He didn't become the 'great' president he's viewed as now until he became a figure of history.

But, President Bush made decisions and stood by them - good or bad. He didn't flip-flop or change because the polls changed or because of who he was talking to at the time.

Why don't you try helping yourselves?

When we provide for those who are capable of providing for themselves we enable them to continue in that pattern of behavior. On the other hand, if we require them to pull their fair share they improve their own lot in life.

Look at the differences between Katrina and the last one in Galveston. NOLA was a state of welfare. People stood around demanding others come in and fix it for them. You haven't heard all the whining and moaning during the last one like Katrina. Were there problems. Surely. But, the difference is in the attitude of the people. Do it for us versus we'll do it ourself.

[Dawg]

Just one quick question here.........................can my ranking be changed to "60K Bum" instead of 10-pointer?:D:D:D:D:D:D

[wtnhunt]

Just one quick question here.........................can my ranking be changed to "60K Bum" instead of 10-pointer?:D:D:D:D:D:D

Sure it can.

Wondered if anyone would comment on that. Around here a $60k income would be a decent income for a family, not hardly that of a bum.

[Dawg]

Sure it can.

Wondered if anyone would comment on that. Around here a $60k income would be a decent income for a family, not hardly that of a bum.

CHANGE IT!!!!!!

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

...When exactly will America be finished and why? Please do tell.

As I said earlier, things like this are extremely difficult to predict. But if we elect Obama, and he actually carries out these plans, I'd say that it WILL be the beginning of the end for America.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM’s off hair-trigger alert.”

You can watch the video of him saying it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

[AceArcher]

CHANGE IT!!!!!!

I find it hard to beleive that you could not read into the sarcasim of the "$60k bum" comment. The median household income in the U.S. is about $50k or so. The truth is that it is diffucult to raise a family on that and the middle class needs tax relief. This was in response to earlier postings saying that the tax policies being proposed by Obama/Biden are a "redistibution of wealth" or "socialism." I don't really care how you vote but realize that if you are making $60K, own a home, and have children your tax bill will be cut drastically more under Obama than under McCain. Vote how you may but at least take solace in the fact that even if you hate Obama...you will be better off financially under his tax policies. Take a look for yourself.

www.taxcutfacts.org

[wtnhunt]

I find it hard to beleive that you could not read into the sarcasim of the "$60k bum" comment. The median household income in the U.S. is about $50k or so. The truth is that it is diffucult to raise a family on that and the middle class needs tax relief. This was in response to earlier postings saying that the tax policies being proposed by Obama/Biden are a "redistibution of wealth" or "socialism." I don't really care how you vote but realize that if you are making $60K, own a home, and have children your tax bill will be cut drastically more under Obama than under McCain. Vote how you may but at least take solace in the fact that even if you hate Obama...you will be better off financially under his tax policies. Take a look for yourself.

www.taxcutfacts.org

There is a whopping $3 difference in our income bracket between McCain and Obama according to the Obama sponsored site you provided, but it does not break down where the difference is and also does not show where McCain's doubles the credit for dependent children.

Like Clinton, Obama is making promises with what he is telling us that he will not be able to keep. Just listened yesterday as Obama said we will have to make sacrifices over the next 4 years. Guessing those sacrifices are only meant to be for those 5 percent making over $200,000, but his speech he clearly said "WE".

[Dawg]

I find it hard to beleive that you could not read into the sarcasim of the "$60k bum" comment

All in good humor my friend...........

Even if it wasn't sarcastic, it would matter little to me.

[Hoosierbuck]

Here is my beef..

I take a man at his word if his ideas make sense and agree with my values. This is just how I was raised.

I was raised that there are things more important than my own wallet. Things like letting babies be born and live lives rather than being jerked out prematurely and tossed in a biohazard bucket. Things like keeping freedom as in tact as possible in this day and age. Things like pride in earning your own way through life.

Just for the sake of agrument, let's pretend Obama has a cogent economic plan with a chance for success. Great. Is that a legacy I want to leave my kids and grandkids if it comes part and parcel with all the moral turpitude and deprivation of liberty that Obama, working with Pelosi and Reid, will foist upon my country? NO WAY. Dollars come and go, freedom and respect for life are enduring VALUES that I will chose over dollars every last time.

HB