Quote Originally Posted by khronik
You're exaggerating. A lot. There's more wrong here, but I'll get to that later.
Looking forward to it.

This whole article is pretty good, but this page covers the tax cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ma...l?pagewanted=5
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.

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.

The windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, so that can't be entirely accurate, no matter who says it.
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.

You're confusing corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are taxes on money gained through investments in things like stocks and bonds. Corporate taxes are the taxes levied on businesses.
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.

Fine. Everyone's been labeling me a liberal, and it's pissing me off too. But I never accused you of supporting the war in Iraq, or anything like that.
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.
And I would disagree. And Warren Buffet would disagree. And plenty of others would disagree.
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'm not, I'm merely stating that my investment account did far worse under Bush than say, Clinton. And I imagine that that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too.
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 could list all the services governments provide, but you should be able to figure them out yourself.
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.

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.

That means that we were paying for other people, we'll say you for example, to take advantage of these benefits.

That sir is a form of socialism and is the opposite of what our nation stands for.

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.


He was also in the Illinois state senate for six years. And he's actually been in the US senate for less than a term.
So I stand corrected. He has LESS experience than I originally was led to believe.


Too much work.
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.


First of all, he's not a US senator, he's a Texas state senator. Second, just because he's acting like a deer in the headlights on national TV, doesn't mean Obama hasn't accomplished anything. The guy did an interview later where he listed a bunch of Obama's accomplishments.
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?