Your taxes under an Obama administration:

 

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

And I'm sorry, but if there's a bigger "instant celebrity" right now than The Hockey Mom, I haven't seen him or her.

From unknown to the cover of every magazine on the planet in 3 days.

Your taxes under an Obama administration:

 

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

 

Nice. When Obama's cut gives you more, it tells you how much more in taxes you'd have to pay under McCain. When McCain would cut your taxes more, no mention of that at all!

Nice. When Obama's cut gives you more, it tells you how much more in taxes you'd have to pay under McCain. When McCain would cut your taxes more, no mention of that at all!

You're making that kind of money?

Nice. When Obama's cut gives you more, it tells you how much more in taxes you'd have to pay under McCain. When McCain would cut your taxes more, no mention of that at all!

 

Not to mention it leaves out increases in things like social security, capital gains, gasoline etc...

Not to mention it leaves out increases in things like social security, capital gains, gasoline etc...

An overwhelmingly large proportion of America could care less about capital gains. That's for the elitists. And Obama is proposing an elimination of income tax for seniors making less than $50K.

You're making that kind of money?

 

Not today (I've only been out of school and in the work force for a little over a year), but hopefully some day. I was just curious to see what the calculator said with the various input options.

 

I'm sure there are others here that are making that kind of money ($100k+).

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by StrangeSox

Obama's proposing a gasoline tax hike?

Obama's proposing a gasoline tax hike?

If you run his carbon trading system the way he's proposed it, there would be a moderate increase in gas taxes (which could well be offset by decreasing the gasoline tax with some of the revenue).

 

The McCain plan would have the same effect, raising gas prices, although the extra funds raised would go to energy companies instead.

An overwhelmingly large proportion of America could care less about capital gains. That's for the elitists. And Obama is proposing an elimination of income tax for seniors making less than $50K.

Not sure if you realize this, but, if you increase cap gains tax, it WILL effect basically everyone in the country. Just because you don't pay that tax bill, doesn't mean the bill won't be passed down to you indirectly.

 

Not sure if you realize this, but, if you increase cap gains tax, it WILL effect basically everyone in the country. Just because you don't pay that tax bill, doesn't mean the bill won't be passed down to you indirectly.

I realize that but the average American doesn't know squat about investing in the markets.

Not sure if you realize this, but, if you increase cap gains tax, it WILL effect basically everyone in the country. Just because you don't pay that tax bill, doesn't mean the bill won't be passed down to you indirectly.

So let me give the standard reply. We cut the tax on capital gains significantly early in the Bush administration from a higher level during the Clinton years. I'm going to push you guys back on to this every time...either the capital gains tax simply isn't nearly important enough to overwhelm other effects on the economy at the levels under Clinton and Bush, or cutting the tax is a bad thing in general because the economy performed much worse after Bush's CG tax cut than beforehand.

 

Every tax has some impact on economic growth. But pretending that there's not a corresponding benefit to things like a closer to balanced federal budget or additional spending programs is the issue that keeps being missed.

I realize that but the average American doesn't know squat about investing in the markets.

 

Well, they really, really should learn instead of blowing their money on consumer garbage. Then maybe they will understand the capital gains tax and why it effects virtually everyone instead of just whining about evil "elitists" who invest money.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by StrangeSox

An overwhelmingly large proportion of America could care less about capital gains. That's for the elitists. And Obama is proposing an elimination of income tax for seniors making less than $50K.

 

Last I saw somewhere around half of the country owns stock.

Last I saw somewhere around half of the country owns stock.

There's a difference between owning stock and doing anything with it. I own a couple shares, but that's because my aunt gave them to me when I graduated. I haven't yet had the financial ability to actively do more than just owning those, and probably a majority of those shareholders are in a similar boat; they rely on someone else to make their decisions.

There's a difference between owning stock and doing anything with it. I own a couple shares, but that's because my aunt gave them to me when I graduated. I haven't yet had the financial ability to actively do more than just owning those, and probably a majority of those shareholders are in a similar boat; they rely on someone else to make their decisions.

 

Also, a lot of that stock might be tax-deferred accounts (401(k)'s, IRA's, etc.).

So let me give the standard reply. We cut the tax on capital gains significantly early in the Bush administration from a higher level during the Clinton years. I'm going to push you guys back on to this every time...either the capital gains tax simply isn't nearly important enough to overwhelm other effects on the economy at the levels under Clinton and Bush, or cutting the tax is a bad thing in general because the economy performed much worse after Bush's CG tax cut than beforehand.

 

Every tax has some impact on economic growth. But pretending that there's not a corresponding benefit to things like a closer to balanced federal budget or additional spending programs is the issue that keeps being missed.

Not sure who you are arguing with here. I've said on here I am all about a balanced budget - I'd even favor a constitutional amendment (with a war exemption). And I certainly never said that changes in cap gains tax would "overwhelm" other economic factors.

 

Its is AN economic factor, and an important one.

 

I'd even favor a constitutional amendment (with a war exemption).

I 200% agree with that.

LINK

 

How Did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans? Let me count the ways…

by: Jon Soltz

Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:12:44 AM EDT

Last week's Republican convention sure made every superficial effort to come off as pro-Troop and pro-Veteran. And, of course, the media ate it up, not challenging a single thing. But to those of us who did serve, it was offense after offense after offense. Let's count the ways:

 

McCain Didn't Mention Veterans' Care: Maybe it's because he has a terrible record, but not once in John McCain's speech did he talk about taking care of those who served their nation in the military. With exploding rates of PTSD, suicide, homelessness among veterans. With ridiculous wait times for veterans seeking care, and a VA that every major vets group says is woefully underfunded. With administrators dumping vets out of the veterans care system by diagnosing them with a lesser mental injury than they have. Not. A. Single. Word. And, with the shame of...

 

Walter Reed: What a slap in the face. The first photo that John McCain stood in front of was Walter Reed. Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Chalk it up to someone in the campaign not knowing the difference between the two, but what I find even more offensive is this: At some point John McCain asked his campaign what was going to be on the screen behind him. And someone told him the first picture would be Walter Reed Army Medical Center. John McCain didn't object - even though he voted against closing tax loopholes to help fund military hospitals like Walter Reed. But that wasn't the only bit of fake imagery....

 

"Phony Soldiers": For the amount that Rush Limbaugh likes to rant on "phony soldiers," there was a big silence and others from the mainstream media on the fact that the McCain campaign used stock footage of actors pretending to be soldiers in a video, intended to show how pro-military McCain is. It's actually kind of fitting - phony soldiers to promote a phony record on military and veterans' issues.

 

Speaking of phony: Remember that faux-outrage from the McCain campaign when General Wesley Clark dared to point out that being a POW isn't a qualification for being Commander in Chief? Boy, the McCain campaign wouldn't let up on that. Where were they when Fred Thompson said the same exact thing?

 

Real outrage: But, there were some things to be angry about. First, Sarah Palin repeatedly saying that her son was deploying for Iraq on September 11. First, not only is this not exactly true, but if she sincerely believed it to be true, she would be knowingly violating Operational Security (OPSEC), which says you should never tell the enemy when people and units are going to be landing in Iraq. Thankfully, Palin was fudging the truth, and not endangering the troops. So, she either knew she wasn't telling the truth, or she thought she was and thought violating OPSEC was worth the political points. Second, there's the fact that right after the Republican convention, the party produced a bunch of flags that they stole from the Democratic convention in Denver, in an attempt to "prove" the Democrats were throwing out the flag. In fact, workers in Denver were collecting all the flags left at Invesco Field, to send to community events around the country, where other patriotic Americans might want to wave the flag. So, to promote a complete fabrication, Republicans stole flags that some five-year old kid might have wanted to wave on Main Street. Stay classy...

 

It's things like this that caused those troops deployed to donate to Obama by a 6-1 ratio.

 

Though many in the media may lap up the lies, the distortions, and fake representations, troops certainly don't. We know the difference between fantasy and reality.

 

And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."

 

Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.

 

But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose. Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."

 

In short, Bush knew that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.

 

And that, perhaps, was the biggest insult to those of us in the military, out of many, coming from the Republican National Convention.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by BigSqwert

I 200% agree with that.

 

but what is war in the 21st century?

but what is war in the 21st century?

Note that I didn't get into specifics - it was slightly off topic.

 

I know, it was slightly hypothetical. But the definition of war has changed so much, who knows if we will ever again be "not" at war.

I know, it was slightly hypothetical. But the definition of war has changed so much, who knows if we will ever again be "not" at war.

There are various ways you could approach that. Anyway, there is no real support in any Congress for such a thing, so its moot. These guys want to spend-spend-spend (both parties) and not raise taxes. The last thing they want is to be held responsible (with some exceptions of course - talking broadly here).

 

There are various ways you could approach that. Anyway, there is no real support in any Congress for such a thing, so its moot. These guys want to spend-spend-spend (both parties) and not raise taxes. The last thing they want is to be held responsible (with some exceptions of course - talking broadly here).

 

To a point I agree, however, after George H.W. Bush signed BEA of 1990 into law, it really did give punishments and set the tone for the better fiscal spending by Congress and President Clinton through out that decade. After that, we seem to have inherited a tone of "deficits don't matter" by the current administration, and with 2 wars and a slow economy, spending went up while revenues were down. Now the great call is to start cutting earmarks, but that accounts for such a small portion of the budget, allbeit a portion of it. Now, clearly medicare and SS are the problems that need to be tackled for us to balance the budget consistently. Congress will eventually take a bipartisan commission that will come up with at least a 25 year solution to solving these problems. After that, I think balancing the budget is a reality for us for a number of years. But I hesitate to make it a consitutional amendment that the budget HAS to be balanced unless times of war, as there have been times in this country that weren't wars that I think it was necessary to run deficits.

THis is bad ass...