Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Ok, thank you for posting it. I have read this and it's nothing new. The amount of money saved saved per American is negligible here.
McCainâ??s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obamaâ??s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings.
That example was given in the article you posted. Wow, a whole extra $700 a year, that amounts to $13/week. I'm reeling in the money now.
To be honest I would rather pay that extra $700 and have my government do some good with it.
Wait... that last part contradicts like everything you've been saying.
Quote:
And by the way, that article was actually really bad at outlining Obama's 'payroll tax' cut. I am confident you could've found a better article as I actually had to go out and search with keywords I found in that article to truely understand what his plan proposed.
What is interesting is what he had to say a year ago about this.
Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.
ABC News: Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike
Now he proposes his cap at 250k.
You realize that the payroll tax cut isn't really a cut but more accurately a shift in who pays the taxes. So you're right, windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, because there's not an actual cut in the payroll tax.
The initial premise of this post was that Obama was planning to use windfall profits tax to fund a tax rebate. Right? I've been assuming that this is referring to his payroll tax cut, maybe I'm mistaken.
Quote:
Last I checked I was talking about capital gains. Matter of fact if you were paying attention I quoted you when you listed the 20-28% figure that obama proposes to raise the Capital gains tax to. So really you seem to be the one that's confused.
Last I checked companies keep their own investment portfolios.. last I checked capital gains still effects big business in more ways than you can imagine.
You are talking about capital gains taxes, but businesses do not pay separate capital gains taxes. A business's capital gains are taxed at the same rate as any other income, so raising the capital gains tax does not affect their taxes. Of course you can and probably will argue that raising the capital gains taxes could lower investment in businesses, but that doesn't change the fact that businesses do not pay capital gains tax.
Quote:
uhh.. that's great because I never accused you of supporting the war either. What are you talking about, you went way out into left field.
You flipped out when I mentioned the Iraq war. I'm still not sure what your problem was.
Quote:
Warren Buffet I would be willing to listen to, but you're a self confessed person who knows nothing about investing. And you're hanging on the words of Obama, even though you don't really understand what he's saying.
I don't know nothing about investing, but I do know that an average knowledge of investing is not enough to necessarily make money. I've known plenty of people who knew a lot about investing but lost their shirts playing the stock market. I'd rather play it safe. But anyway, you said you'd be willing to listen to Warren Buffet:
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett says Obama will bring 'outstanding ideas' to White House - International Herald Tribune
Quote:
Again you realize that the president is not responsible for what the stock market does and is not responsible for your fiscal well being? Who is just about anyone else with invested money.
Since I actually take the time to analyze my stocks and pay attention to what the companies are doing I have not lost any money. My stock portfolio has risen between 15-22% each year for the last 3 years.
I am better at investment than most but you are making a huge assumption by saying "I imagine that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too." Just because you are bad with money does not mean other people are who take the time to understand the market.
I'm assuming that mutual fund managers understand the market better than I do, and probably better than you as well. So if you really are getting those kinds of yields, I'm guessing you're very lucky. Anyway, I've heard all sorts of people say that if you don't know a lot about investing and prefer minimal risk, mutual funds are the way to go. Just because I know someone that doubled his money at the casino, doesn't mean that's a good investment strategy.
Quote:
Last I checked the constitution granted us freedom, not socialized services. Socialized services are services that cost money that you may or may not take part in.
Freedom to not pay taxes? Hardly.
Quote:
For example, I pay medicare... but I do not get to participate in medicare, or medicaid for that matter. I didn't participate for free lunch program at school, I never qualified for any government programs growing up yet my family still had to pay into it.
I take it you went to private school? The police, fire department, and military are all "socialized services" for that matter, in that they are collectively owned. And even though you aren't participating in Medicare or Social Security now, presumably you will some day.
Quote:
That means that we were paying for other people, we'll say you for example, to take advantage of these benefits.
I resent that. I grew up fairly poor, but we never took advantage of government programs for poor people. I know it was just an example, but ditch the condescending attitude, ok?
Quote:
That sir is a form of socialism and is the opposite of what our nation stands for.
We've had government-run charities since the beginning of the country. And who are you to say what this nation stands for? You're just one 300 millionth of it.
Quote:
Honestly I feel that a good majority of the services the government provides should be done away with. It is a waste of our tax dollars. I am not talking about welfare or medicare but our government is notoriously bad with spending our money. Why should we have to pay more money so they can spend more on programs that the majority of the population won't get to use.
I attached a graph of the US Federal discretionary budget. Where do you think cuts should be made?
Quote:
So I stand corrected. He has LESS experience than I originally was led to believe.
Well, 12 years total in elected office by the time he's planning on being president. It's low, but not unprecedented. Our least experienced presidents have been some of our best, ie Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
Quote:
You took the time to obviously read through my long response and try to rebuttal with your own, yet this is too much work?
More like you can't do it, and even if you can you've probably been working the google on your internet machine to try to dig something up. The fact is that in comparison to other senators his list of actual accomplishments is pathetic and just about non existant.
To be honest, I didn't even try. You were demanding me write you an essay, practically. Fuck that.
Quote:
Texas state senator, US congressmen or a city council person. It doesn't matter, this is a guy who went on national TV to endorse Obama. If you are going to say you support someone and that you stand behind them you better have a good reason for doing it.
If you can't name even one accomplishment from that candidate then it raises alot of flags. Why would a state senator support someone he knows nothing about. This doesn't alarm you AT ALL?
It's one guy who went blank on national television. Anyway, here's some stuff he accomplished:
Obsidian Wings: Obama: Actually, I Think We Can
