What Presidential Candidate Are You Supporting at the Polls in November? (Bristol: how much, wedding)

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by reztrop

Here is a side by side comparison of McCain and Obama's tax plans:



If you make less than $100,000 a year, you'll get more in tax savings from Obama's plan than you would under McCain.

Obama supports clean coal, which is good for Pennsylvania coal workers. Burning coal in its solid form would be bad for our environment. But turning coal into gas first and burning the gas is much cleaner for our environment. That is the kind of coal that Obama supports.

Obama supports nuclear power as long as we find ways to properly store and dispose of nuclear waste. Nuclear power has huge potential, and it carries huge risks as well. We should include nuclear power in our energy platform, but proceed cautiously because of its risks. Solar and wind should also be included.

Obama is for nuclear but... he is for coal but... he is for off shore drilling but. And I assure you when he gets in office those buts will trump. One more thing. After setting up every one to go out an defend his tax cuts, he comes out and says never mind, I won't be doing it because of the bail out. WTH?

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Obama is for nuclear but... he is for coal but... he is for off shore drilling but. And I assure you when he gets in office those buts will trump. One more thing. After setting up every one to go out an defend his tax cuts, he comes out and says never mind, I won't be doing it because of the bail out. WTH?

Naturally, with the bailout, that changes some things -- but don't think McCain's plan is somehow above that. As much as taxpayers are fearful of adding an even more gargantuan amount to our obscene national debt, we are in for some serious trouble if nothing is done. Warren Buffett again just reiterated the need for governmental action, or we're really in for some rough times. As an unfortunate result, both Obama AND McCain would have to revise their tax plans accordingly, as the money has to come from somewhere. However, both have mentioned how the taxpayers would be reimbursed once the market, God willing, starts to stabilize.

As for energy policy, again, Obama supports all of the sources mentioned, but he wants us to TRANSITION into a cleaner energy society, which is no doubt more stable for our economy (i.e., Gas prices shooting up with hurricanes interrupting oil production. How does that make offshore drilling an appealing alternative when the Gulf Coast seems to be getting hit on a regular basis?). Coal and oil are non-renewable resources, meaning they are going to be exhausted at an increasingly quick pace. Even drilling in ANWR -- using the most optimistic of estimates -- will give us no more than a few years worth of extra oil at our rate of consumption. I'm going with the plan that uses a more comprehensive strategy without too much dependence on dirtier, less safe methods, and that's certainly not McCain.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by reztrop

Here is a side by side comparison of McCain and Obama's tax plans:



If you make less than $100,000 a year, you'll get more in tax savings from Obama's plan than you would under McCain.

I can't believe people fall for this and never look beyond the sound bites:

Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary

Obama's change could cost big bucks | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/14/2008 (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080914_Obama_s_change_could_cost_big_bucks.html - broken link)

All you are going to get is a $500 stimulus check. There is no permanent "tax cut".

Also who already pays the taxes in this country:

According to the IRS as of 2004:

The top 50% of wage earners paid 96.7% of all Federal Income Tax
The top 10% of wage earners paid 68.19% of all Federal Income Tax
The top 5% of wage earners paid 57.13% of all Federal Income Tax
The top 1% of wage earners paid 36.89% of all Federal Income Tax

The bottom 50% of all wage earners paid only 3.3% of all Federal Income Tax in 2004.

Those numbers are freely available on the irs website in an excel spreadsheet.

People should be informed as to who pays for what in this country. It isn't the bottom 50% of wage earners.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

I can't believe people fall for this and never look beyond the sound bites:

Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary

Obama's change could cost big bucks | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/14/2008 (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080914_Obama_s_change_could_cost_big_bucks.html - broken link)

All you are going to get is a $500 stimulus check. There is no permanent "tax cut".

Also who already pays the taxes in this country:

According to the IRS as of 2004:

The top 50% of wage earners paid 96.7% of all Federal Income Tax
The top 10% of wage earners paid 68.19% of all Federal Income Tax
The top 5% of wage earners paid 57.13% of all Federal Income Tax
The top 1% of wage earners paid 36.89% of all Federal Income Tax

The bottom 50% of all wage earners paid only 3.3% of all Federal Income Tax in 2004.

Those numbers are freely available on the irs website in an excel spreadsheet.

People should be informed as to who pays for what in this country. It isn't the bottom 50% of wage earners.

It's not rocket science to understand that the top 1% of wage earners are going to pay an extremely disproportionate chunk of all federal income tax because they make SO much more than middle-class Americans.

Think about it theoretically. A CEO of a major corporation making $30 million a year compared to a $50,000/year salaried secretary. If both pay a flat 18% in federal income taxes, the CEO will have paid $5.4 million and the secretary $9,000. Take a total of $5,409,000 and you get a proportion of roughly 99.8% of those taxes paid by the CEO and roughly .2% paid by the secretary. Who is affected more, however, when your corporate CEO salary remains at $25 million and the secretary $41,000? I apologize if I am left with no sympathy for the corporate CEO with inflation at 20 year high and housing values plummeting.

Thus, those figures are also misleading because it only provides the percent of income tax paid by the top 1% americans proportional to ALL income taxes paid by the rest of America. That is NOT the same as the percent that the top 1% pays as a PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME. For all we know, the they could be paying less taxes on a percentage of income compared to American's making between 50-75K a year and still pay upwards of 40% of the nations income tax. So, again, those figures mean absolutely nothing.

As for getting a tax credit, how is this a bad thing? Didn't Bush authorize stimulus checks? I'm not seeing the downside if middle-class Americans are still -- even through reimbursement -- paying less taxes with an Obama Administration than a McCain Administration.

[JHG722]

FairTax plz.

[Christian2003]

As for getting a tax credit, how is this a bad thing? Didn't Bush authorize stimulus checks? I'm not seeing the downside if middle-class Americans are still -- even through reimbursement -- paying less taxes with an Obama Administration than a McCain Administration.[/quote]

Because the middle class won't be paying less with Obama, he wants you to think so! Look at the facts and don't listen to the lies.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Christian2003

Because the middle class won't be paying less with Obama, he wants you to think so! Look at the facts and don't listen to the lies.

Oh, so Obama is just deliberately lying about his tax plan and McCain is the purveyor of truth and champion of the middle-class who will stick it to Wall Street even though he has former finance lobbyists running his campaign?

Sorry. Not buying it.

[Christian2003]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Oh, so Obama is just deliberately lying about his tax plan and McCain is the purveyor of truth and champion of the middle-class who will stick it to Wall Street even though he has former finance lobbyists running his campaign?

Sorry. Not buying it.

Yep!, Just like the one: I didn't know my pastor was preaching all that hate America stuff, even though I went to his church for 20 yrs., was married by him, had him baptize my kids, wrote a book with phrases taken from his sermons.

Or: I have nothing to do with William Ayres (weatherman underground bomber and unrepentant domestic terrorist).
Or: Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American)
Or:Michael Pfleger (Renegade Catholic priest, anti-gun crusader, socialist)

All backers of Obama, gee, why would I think he would lie about something.

Following are backers of Osama:
These guys are vouching for him:

William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist)

Frank Davis (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama)

Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor)

Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing)

Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American)

Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization)

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization)

Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin)

Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua)

Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Cuba)

Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party)

Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party)

The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization,
anti-American and racist)

Michael Pfleger (Renegade Catholic priest, anti-gun crusader, socialist)

They're enemies of America and supporters of Barack Obama!

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Even drilling in ANWR -- using the most optimistic of estimates -- will give us no more than a few years worth of extra oil at our rate of consumption.

Talking points. They said the same thing about Prudhoe Bay and the North Slope oil fields. We should have run out long time ago and it was too small to matter. If you are consistent then do without any Alaska oil, present or future. Why was it a good idea in the 70s and bad idea now?

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Christian2003

All backers of Obama, gee, why would I think he would lie about something.

You can dig up everything you want on Obama and all of his past "associations." However, that really doesn't hold water in this election with me and it shouldn't hold water with anyone. There's too many issues at stake right now to be concerned about digging up trash on each candidate. The same goes for McCain, too.

In short, we need to be concerned about substantive issues, and the more we're concerned about the various "connections" each candidate has to other people, the less attention we put on solving everyday issues. Smear campaigns do a huge disservice to the democratic process.