Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why I am voting for John McCain

2456

Comments

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247

    Old daddy,

    you REALLY think Obama's tax plan is the same as McCain? 

    Are you shitting me?

    you said there was no real difference between them, are you serious?

     

    JFK even knew you lower taxes as fast as you can when economic shit hits fans.  Guess what?  it's splattering aLL OVER the place right now..

    Barney Frank already talking all kinds of pork spending for shit we don't need or want, and JUST because he thinks the dems will be in control to do what they want.  THAT is good enough reason to vote for McCain, despite any other issues.

     

  • declaredemerdeclaredemer Member Posts: 2,698

    All of this "spread the wealth" talk is interesting because wealth has been spread UP and it is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.  And there are ways to not pay taxes.  You have people, like, living in small homes and living paycheck-to-paycheck, playing the lottery (a tax on the poor) who honestly, and sincerely, believe they will "get rich."  It is their "American destiny" or "American dream" or something like that.  These people vote.  It is like the anti-gay bigots who will Amend their own constitutions to retrict rights.  Shame on them.  And they are the product of an educational system that prevents them from "getting rich. 

     

     

    It is ALL ironic and amusing.  It is wickedly funny when you start to think about poor bigots thinking "wealth is going to get spread around" and using words like "socialism" without knowing what it is.

     

     

    We are no longer a serious country in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and the Constitution (spirit of liberty, enterprise, community). 

    We have become an country that willingly Amends our Constitution for our disdain of gay people; believe we will all "get rich" so hate "socialism" without understanding what socialism is; but eagerly bail-out bankers pre-crash and post-crash.

    This is red-level ignorance.*

    *Take their social security.  Take their homes.  Take their Constitution - Amend it.  Take it ALL.  They ain't got a clude today. L M F A O.  Just take it. What will they do?  You have hillbillies worried about "socialism" for Obama when we have socialism for bankers.  How did these people survive high school?   LOL.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by DailyBuzz

    Originally posted by xpyrofuryx



    Taxes.This is a big one, this is probably the most important things about McCain versus Obama for me. In general McCains policy is tax breaks for everyone, wether smaller or bigger breaks depending on your income. In some areas it might rise but the most important is tax breaks for businesses, especially small businesses. Obama on the other hand is going the "Spread the wealth" way. He wants tax cuts for the middle-class and lower-class and tax raises on the high-class and especially businesses. He wants to raise the taxes on small businesses to 50.3% from its current 37.9%. This is absolutely poposturous. I cant even fathom how he could think about doing this. That means for every dollar a small business earns it can only keep 49cents. . .

    I have to admit, I wasn't looking forward to reading your wall of text, but I goaded myself into searching for the method to your madness. I was incredibly pleased that you gave me a reason to stop reading so early on.

    Fact:

    Because the Obama plan preserves existing tax rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, nearly 99 % of small business owners won’t see any tax increase under the Obama plan. Instead, these small firms and business owners are likely to get a tax cut under the Obama plan, which eliminates capital gains taxes for small businesses, provides a new 50% tax credit for health care, and helps lower health care costs to make small businesses competitive.

    There are no capital gains for small businesses, so there are no capital gains taxes to cut. A capital gain is a tax on the money maide on the sale of an asset.

    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business. By his definition and usage, he is only taxing BIG business, but that's just an arbitrary determinant.

    Plus,  why do you believe anything he says? What record does Obama have for doing what he says with regards to taxes? None. In fact, quite the opposite.

  • declaredemerdeclaredemer Member Posts: 2,698
    Originally posted by Fishermage
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business

     

    That is not true. 

     

    This is getting ridiculous.

  • LibertasplzLibertasplz Member Posts: 221

     People who vote for McCain who are not super religious or rich bewilder me.  

    Luckily this is all moot Obama has this sucker wrapped up.

     

     

  • fulmanfufulmanfu Member Posts: 1,523

    i quit caring along time ago.

    but i will vote republican for the first time in my life because i just feel bad for how hard they are trying to destroy palin.

    the latest put me over the edge.

    sarah palin killed a goalie! sarah palin killed a goalie!


    ignore the fact that they roll out these carpets for every tom dik and harry who drops a puck or sings an anthem, sarah palin is the devil and killed a goalie! well tried to anyway.

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by Faxxer


    Old daddy,
    you REALLY think Obama's tax plan is the same as McCain? 
    I really think neither one has a clue what a tax plan should be. A tax plan should be designed solely to raise money to operate the government, not for "off book" government subsidies or economic stimlus, or special tax breaks for special constituents. At one time in the history of this country taxes were used SOLELY for operations of the federal government.
    Neither candidate is a "Maverick" or "Change" to go back to those roots.
    Tax plans are the most inefficient way of passing on incentives for certain sectors. Take the research tax credit, for encouraging research by US corporations. Gary Gygax of TSR claimed the reseach tax credit for research done in writing "Dungeons and Dragons". It was such a poorly written law, luckily the Federal Courts determined that it was contrary to the intent of Congress and he lost his case.
    You want to stimulate alternative energy technology you provide a direct subsidy to those business actively engaged in the type of research you wish to encourage.
    Are you shitting me?
    No, you are shitting me by telling me that McCain understands tax policy decisions. He doesn't, his Senatorial experience is in foreign affairs.
    you said there was no real difference between them, are you serious?
    Absolutely. Both policies will fail to stimulate American business and the American economy. Both policies are window dressing that are more of the same from both parties, and will fail to address the underlying problems. 
    JFK even knew you lower taxes as fast as you can when economic shit hits fans.  Guess what?  it's splattering aLL OVER the place right now..
    Guess what, it takes a lot lower tax rate to operate the federal government without special tax rates and incentives (off balance sheet spending) for every Tom, Dick, and Harry lobbyist. For each and every one of those special tax breaks, someone else pays.
    Barney Frank already talking all kinds of pork spending for shit we don't need or want, and JUST because he thinks the dems will be in control to do what they want.  THAT is good enough reason to vote for McCain, despite any other issues.
    Barney Frank, you mean that guy sitting in Congress that is part of the problem? The guy that, like McCain, voted to increase the size of the Federal Budget deficit by giving a bailout to AIG, the savings and loan industry, and the auto companies? Yea, McCain is quite the maverick cutting spending, just like Bush is quite the maverick cuting spending. Throw money at the problem, then walk away and campaign for re-election. Let the market decide how to spend the bailout money. It's working great. I'm sooooo impressed.
    Oh, by the way, the auto companies are going back to the trough for more. GM burns through $1 billion a month, and the Big 3 combined only got $25 billion. You know whats holding up the GM acquisition of Chrysler from Cerebus? Cerebus wants 100% of GMAC and cash, the cash will come from the US Treasury in the form of a bailout of GMAC distressed loans. The only question is how much GM can get from the Treasury, and will it be enough for Cerebus.
    Keep smoking what your smoking, and vote for McCain because he's a "maverick". Just don't be surprised when nothing changes.
    Where is Mitt Romney when we need him? Why did you bimbos go and pick a senile, old, dead man and a bimbo from Alaska?  



     

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by declaredemer



    Also Capitalism runs on one main, very important idea. Incentive. 



     Rich people create businesses and jobs for the middle and lower class.
     

     

    First, I am happy you are voting.

    Second, I am concerned you are basis your decision on inaccurate information.

    1. You can compare Obama's and McCain's tax plan, and you will do better under Obama's.
    2. Obama will give small businesses tax breaks, not increased taxes.  You said, "preposterous."  It is preposterous you think Obama is going to raise taxes on small businesses. 



    "Also Capitalism runs on one main, very important idea.  Incentive."

    Capitalism "main" and "very important" idea is private ownership of property.


    "Rich people create businesses and jobs for the middle and lower class."

     

    I hear this fairly enough, and it makes me sad.  Yes. Sad.  I usually laugh, grin, and just ignore these things when middle-class people say it.

    Most jobs are the result of the employee's skills, talents, energy, discipline, and efforts.  You are in the "trade and business" of your employment. 

    Most small and mid-sized businesses, especially closely held corporations, partnerships, family trusts, limited liability companies, and so forth are not "owned" by "rich" people.

    It is middle-class people, working their asses off, with other middle-class people to supply a product or service for society.

    Examples:

    1. Bakery (family owned).
    2. Accounting and tax firm (ten employees).
    3. Construction company (40 employees). 
    4. Restaurant.
    5. You should, I hope, get the point:  rich people have nothing, at all, to do with this.  They are not "creating" jobs by virtue of their "richness" somehow.  People's skills, abilities, talents, and discipline create their own job.  Rich people are not the "source" and "creating" everyone's jobs.

     

    Atually rich people have everything to do with all of those. The smaller the enterprsie the less they depend on "rich" people (I personally think it is a false class warfare division, but for the sake of argument I'll go along here, for a moment).

    Roch people buy baked goods, and own the property leased by the baker. Those properties are often held by REITs, also owned by "rich" people. They start their bajed business with Loans from Rich people.

    Accounting and tax firms work for rich people.

    Construction companies BUILD for rich people. restaurants depend on Rich and poor alike, depending on the restaurant, for their business. They also depend on rich people as much as the baker.

    Also, all of these things you mention are the PRODUCT of societies that create wealth -- it is the DESIRE to BE rich, that creates all of the things you mentioned. Rich, middle, poor, and everything in between adds to that mix.

    Their "richness" does create jobs, by people spending and investing, but more than that, the possibility of richness for everything is what fuels all this in the first place.

    But since you were just playing a class warfare card where there are no classes really, since America is a mobile society (made less so by socialism, but still very much there), your whole divide is a false dichotomy anyway.

    A simple question answers the class warfare crap: ask ten people what rich is, what middle class is, and what poor is, you will probably get ten different answers.

    You may now ask what do I mean: net income, gross income, and am I accounting for depreciation of fixed cost goods, or any other red herrings you like, before resorting to your usual namecalling

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by declaredemer

    Originally posted by Fishermage
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business

     

    That is not true. 

     

    This is getting ridiculous.

     

    Ahhh, there you go again...

  • Rayx0rRayx0r Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 2,902
    Originally posted by fulmanfu


    i quit caring along time ago.
    but i will vote republican for the first time in my life because i just feel bad for how hard they are trying to destroy palin.
    the latest put me over the edge.
    sarah palin killed a goalie! sarah palin killed a goalie!


    ignore the fact that they roll out these carpets for every tom dik and harry who drops a puck or sings an anthem, sarah palin is the devil and killed a goalie! well tried to anyway.



     

     

    damn, I wonder how many other people in the US value sympathy over policy.

    image

    “"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by Fishermage
    There are no capital gains for small businesses, so there are no capital gains taxes to cut. A capital gain is a tax on the money maide on the sale of an asset.
    I'm impressed, an expert on tax administration policy.
    So tell me, oh guru of tax administartion policy, when a small business sells a capital asset, say land and a building, for a gain, what rate are they taxed at? And when they sell a capital asset at a loss, say land and a building, what rate are they allowed to take the loss at?
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business. By his definition and usage, he is only taxing BIG business, but that's just an arbitrary determinant.
    Well, considering Ford, GM, Chrysler, and a whole host of automotive suppliers are running at tax losses in excess of $100 million per year (GAAP losses are even higher), one does get the idea that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about from a tax administration policy standpoint. However, neither does McCain.
    Plus,  why do you believe anything he says? What record does Obama have for doing what he says with regards to taxes? None. In fact, quite the opposite.
    And name for me what major piece of tax administration has McCain sponsored? What is McCain's record. Why is he such a "Maverick" on taxes?
    All you're doing is arguing who has the better tax proposal, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Neither one knows how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.



     

  • declaredemerdeclaredemer Member Posts: 2,698

     
    Roch people buy baked goods, and own the property leased by the baker. Those properties are often held by REITs, also owned by "rich" people. They start their bajed business with Loans from Rich people.
    Accounting and tax firms work for rich people.
    Construction companies BUILD for rich people. restaurants depend on Rich and poor alike, depending on the restaurant, for their business. They also depend on rich people as much as the baker.
    Also, all of these things you mention are the PRODUCT of societies that create wealth -- it is the DESIRE to BE rich, that creates all of the things you mentioned. Rich, middle, poor, and everything in between adds to that mix.
    Their "richness" does create jobs, by people spending and investing, but more than that, the possibility of richness for everything is what fuels all this in the first place.
    A simple question answers the class warfare crap: ask ten people what rich is, what middle class is, and what poor is, you will probably get ten different answers.
    You may now ask what do I mean: net income, gross income, and am I accounting for depreciation of fixed cost goods, or any other red herrings you like, before resorting to your usual namecalling

     

    Post edited.

    It is not worth it.

    I am just having fun, but I am under no duty to try to explain things.

    One note, though, that the bakery ,the small business is not formed by a "rich person loan." Hehe.

    It is people who work hard, save, and then pursue a dream and provide an efficient service to all of us.

    Many people get loans, if they use loans (you can use equity, etc. to form a business) from a parent, through refinancing, etc.  The level of ignorance is just scary.  I mean, just scary.  Frightening. 

    There is, by far, no better country to be "rich" in than the United States because the general public thinks there is all this mystery and goodness and welfare and beneficence that exudes from you.

    It is spooky, really.


    Codicil

    Do not take my word for it.

    "Rich" people use the bathroom too.

    Believe it or not, they are people.  And they are not the source of all these economic activities. LOL.

    Who is telling you that rich people are necessary to have a bakery, form a business, and grow a company should be prevented from teaching in public schools or from having children.

  • fulmanfufulmanfu Member Posts: 1,523


    Originally posted by Rayx0r
    Originally posted by fulmanfu i quit caring along time ago.
    but i will vote republican for the first time in my life because i just feel bad for how hard they are trying to destroy palin.
    the latest put me over the edge.
    sarah palin killed a goalie! sarah palin killed a goalie!ignore the fact that they roll out these carpets for every tom dik and harry who drops a puck or sings an anthem, sarah palin is the devil and killed a goalie! well tried to anyway.

     
     
    damn, I wonder how many other people in the US value sympathy over policy.



    well that doesn't matter to me because both of their 'policies' suck.

    obama? no thanks. i went to college, i have a job, and can take care of myself like it was meant to be in 'the land of the free'. in other words, im not a blood sucking lazy socialist scumbag.

    mccain, like most of the other republicans, really what democrats used to be. not interested either.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage
    There are no capital gains for small businesses, so there are no capital gains taxes to cut. A capital gain is a tax on the money maide on the sale of an asset.
    I'm impressed, an expert on tax administration policy.
    So tell me, oh guru of tax administartion policy, when a small business sells a capital asset, say land and a building, for a gain, what rate are they taxed at? And when they sell a capital asset at a loss, say land and a building, what rate are they allowed to take the loss at?
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business. By his definition and usage, he is only taxing BIG business, but that's just an arbitrary determinant.
    Well, considering Ford, GM, Chrysler, and a whole host of automotive suppliers are running at tax losses in excess of $100 million per year (GAAP losses are even higher), one does get the idea that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about from a tax administration policy standpoint. However, neither does McCain.
    Plus,  why do you believe anything he says? What record does Obama have for doing what he says with regards to taxes? None. In fact, quite the opposite.
    And name for me what major piece of tax administration has McCain sponsored? What is McCain's record. Why is he such a "Maverick" on taxes?
    All you're doing is arguing who has the better tax proposal, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Neither one knows how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.



     

    Oh, I understand what you are saying insofar as capital gains; but how does that BENEFIT small business? While you are running your business, if doesn't help you at all. To say that he will cut capital gains for small businesses as if it is a good thing is bogus.

    Not sure the point you are making in your second point.

    McCain is a deficit hawk and has a much better record on everything than Obama. He at least wants to FREEZE spending, which will ALLOW him to cut taxes. McCain HAD voted on tax cuts more than Obama, and Obama has voted for tax increases -- AFTER he has perviously said he would LOWER them.

    Obama wants to increase spending and claims that he will lower taxes, which we all know is a lie. I agree, they both suck, and have said so many times; but Obama is far, far worse.

    Remember as I have said MANY times, I'm not a McCain supporter. I just see him as by far the lesser of evils.

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage
    There are no capital gains for small businesses, so there are no capital gains taxes to cut. A capital gain is a tax on the money maide on the sale of an asset.
    I'm impressed, an expert on tax administration policy.
    So tell me, oh guru of tax administartion policy, when a small business sells a capital asset, say land and a building, for a gain, what rate are they taxed at? And when they sell a capital asset at a loss, say land and a building, what rate are they allowed to take the loss at?
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business. By his definition and usage, he is only taxing BIG business, but that's just an arbitrary determinant.
    Well, considering Ford, GM, Chrysler, and a whole host of automotive suppliers are running at tax losses in excess of $100 million per year (GAAP losses are even higher), one does get the idea that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about from a tax administration policy standpoint. However, neither does McCain.
    Plus,  why do you believe anything he says? What record does Obama have for doing what he says with regards to taxes? None. In fact, quite the opposite.
    And name for me what major piece of tax administration has McCain sponsored? What is McCain's record. Why is he such a "Maverick" on taxes?
    All you're doing is arguing who has the better tax proposal, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Neither one knows how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.



     

    Oh, I understand what you are saying insofar as capital gains; but how does that BENEFIT small business? While you are running your business, if doesn't help you at all. To say that he will cut capital gains for small businesses as if it is a good thing is bogus.

    It's called a cheap political trick, promise the masses one thing, then take something else away.

    Not sure the point you are making in your second point.

    My second point is that, based on Obama's statement of over $250,000 of, I presume, taxable income (Obama doesn't seem to know the difference between Total Income, Gross Income, Taxable Income, or GAAP income) being BIG business, then GM, Ford, and Chrysler must be small business. In other words, I totally agree with you that Obama, and by default his current political advisors, are clueless on tax administration policy.

    McCain is a deficit hawk and has a much better record on everything than Obama. He at least wants to FREEZE spending, which will ALLOW him to cut taxes. McCain HAD voted on tax cuts more than Obama, and Obama has voted for tax increases -- AFTER he has perviously said he would LOWER them.

    May I remind you, sir, that McCain just supported a "bailout" bill that contained pork for manufacturers of wooden shafts for childrens arrows, and pork for the wool industry, among others.  That, and as President of the United States he does NOT have the authority to exercise a line item veto and remove pork from ANY spending bill originating in EITHER party.

    That the federal Government has already been operating for two years at the same budget levels because Congress has consistently FAILED to do it's job of passing a Federal Budget. Today the government operates just as it did in 2006, under a continuing budget resolution.

    May I remind you sir that McCain's promise of passing a middle class tax decrease while taxing Americans on their share of employer paid health care is, in effect, a tax increase to working class America. It is the same cheap political gimick that Obama is doing with capital gains for small business.

    It's smoke and mirrors, promise them something and take it away somewhere else.

    Obama wants to increase spending and claims that he will lower taxes, which we all know is a lie. I agree, they both suck, and have said so many times; but Obama is far, far worse.

    Why is it a lie, the Bush administration has done that for eight years. Bush never saw a spending package he didn't like, and he claims to have cut taxes. Is Bush lying?

    America likes borrowing and spending, it is in our life blood. Entire post depression generations have been raised to believe that easy credit is the cure to all life's worries. Obama is one of those generations. Personally, I don't think you should be scared that he's lying, I think you should be scared that he's telling the truth.

    Remember as I have said MANY times, I'm not a McCain supporter. I just see him as by far the lesser of evils.

    Seriously, I am glad you are not a McCain supporter. I begin to worry as I read these forums and see how many people claim McCain is God's gift to humanity, and Obama is the Devil incarnate.

    They are both a couple of losers. Tweedle Dee, and Tweedle Dum. All we argue over is which one is Dum.



     

  • frodusfrodus Member Posts: 2,396

    Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory

     

    Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year

    Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.

     

    Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage
    There are no capital gains for small businesses, so there are no capital gains taxes to cut. A capital gain is a tax on the money maide on the sale of an asset.
    I'm impressed, an expert on tax administration policy.
    So tell me, oh guru of tax administartion policy, when a small business sells a capital asset, say land and a building, for a gain, what rate are they taxed at? And when they sell a capital asset at a loss, say land and a building, what rate are they allowed to take the loss at?
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business. By his definition and usage, he is only taxing BIG business, but that's just an arbitrary determinant.
    Well, considering Ford, GM, Chrysler, and a whole host of automotive suppliers are running at tax losses in excess of $100 million per year (GAAP losses are even higher), one does get the idea that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about from a tax administration policy standpoint. However, neither does McCain.
    Plus,  why do you believe anything he says? What record does Obama have for doing what he says with regards to taxes? None. In fact, quite the opposite.
    And name for me what major piece of tax administration has McCain sponsored? What is McCain's record. Why is he such a "Maverick" on taxes?
    All you're doing is arguing who has the better tax proposal, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Neither one knows how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.



     

    Oh, I understand what you are saying insofar as capital gains; but how does that BENEFIT small business? While you are running your business, if doesn't help you at all. To say that he will cut capital gains for small businesses as if it is a good thing is bogus.

    It's called a cheap political trick, promise the masses one thing, then take something else away.

    Not sure the point you are making in your second point.

    My second point is that, based on Obama's statement of over $250,000 of, I presume, taxable income (Obama doesn't seem to know the difference between Total Income, Gross Income, Taxable Income, or GAAP income) being BIG business, then GM, Ford, and Chrysler must be small business. In other words, I totally agree with you that Obama, and by default his current political advisors, are clueless on tax administration policy.

    McCain is a deficit hawk and has a much better record on everything than Obama. He at least wants to FREEZE spending, which will ALLOW him to cut taxes. McCain HAD voted on tax cuts more than Obama, and Obama has voted for tax increases -- AFTER he has perviously said he would LOWER them.

    May I remind you, sir, that McCain just supported a "bailout" bill that contained pork for manufacturers of wooden shafts for childrens arrows, and pork for the wool industry, among others.  That, and as President of the United States he does NOT have the authority to exercise a line item veto and remove pork from ANY spending bill originating in EITHER party.

    That the federal Government has already been operating for two years at the same budget levels because Congress has consistently FAILED to do it's job of passing a Federal Budget. Today the government operates just as it did in 2006, under a continuing budget resolution.

    May I remind you sir that McCain's promise of passing a middle class tax decrease while taxing Americans on their share of employer paid health care is, in effect, a tax increase to working class America. It is the same cheap political gimick that Obama is doing with capital gains for small business.

    It's smoke and mirrors, promise them something and take it away somewhere else.

    Obama wants to increase spending and claims that he will lower taxes, which we all know is a lie. I agree, they both suck, and have said so many times; but Obama is far, far worse.

    Why is it a lie, the Bush administration has done that for eight years. Bush never saw a spending package he didn't like, and he claims to have cut taxes. Is Bush lying?

    America likes borrowing and spending, it is in our life blood. Entire post depression generations have been raised to believe that easy credit is the cure to all life's worries. Obama is one of those generations. Personally, I don't think you should be scared that he's lying, I think you should be scared that he's telling the truth.

    Remember as I have said MANY times, I'm not a McCain supporter. I just see him as by far the lesser of evils.

    Seriously, I am glad you are not a McCain supporter. I begin to worry as I read these forums and see how many people claim McCain is God's gift to humanity, and Obama is the Devil incarnate.

    They are both a couple of losers. Tweedle Dee, and Tweedle Dum. All we argue over is which one is Dum.



     

    I see very little to take issue with here, but one minor point. Democrats don't USUALLY create deficits -- they want to raise taxes and increase control over our lives,. I will be very amused however, if Obama "goes republican" on us (Deficit spending).

    You could be right, but that would be like earth changing the direction in which it spins.

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage
    There are no capital gains for small businesses, so there are no capital gains taxes to cut. A capital gain is a tax on the money maide on the sale of an asset.
    I'm impressed, an expert on tax administration policy.
    So tell me, oh guru of tax administartion policy, when a small business sells a capital asset, say land and a building, for a gain, what rate are they taxed at? And when they sell a capital asset at a loss, say land and a building, what rate are they allowed to take the loss at?
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business. By his definition and usage, he is only taxing BIG business, but that's just an arbitrary determinant.
    Well, considering Ford, GM, Chrysler, and a whole host of automotive suppliers are running at tax losses in excess of $100 million per year (GAAP losses are even higher), one does get the idea that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about from a tax administration policy standpoint. However, neither does McCain.
    Plus,  why do you believe anything he says? What record does Obama have for doing what he says with regards to taxes? None. In fact, quite the opposite.
    And name for me what major piece of tax administration has McCain sponsored? What is McCain's record. Why is he such a "Maverick" on taxes?
    All you're doing is arguing who has the better tax proposal, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Neither one knows how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.



     

    Oh, I understand what you are saying insofar as capital gains; but how does that BENEFIT small business? While you are running your business, if doesn't help you at all. To say that he will cut capital gains for small businesses as if it is a good thing is bogus.

    It's called a cheap political trick, promise the masses one thing, then take something else away.

    Not sure the point you are making in your second point.

    My second point is that, based on Obama's statement of over $250,000 of, I presume, taxable income (Obama doesn't seem to know the difference between Total Income, Gross Income, Taxable Income, or GAAP income) being BIG business, then GM, Ford, and Chrysler must be small business. In other words, I totally agree with you that Obama, and by default his current political advisors, are clueless on tax administration policy.

    McCain is a deficit hawk and has a much better record on everything than Obama. He at least wants to FREEZE spending, which will ALLOW him to cut taxes. McCain HAD voted on tax cuts more than Obama, and Obama has voted for tax increases -- AFTER he has perviously said he would LOWER them.

    May I remind you, sir, that McCain just supported a "bailout" bill that contained pork for manufacturers of wooden shafts for childrens arrows, and pork for the wool industry, among others.  That, and as President of the United States he does NOT have the authority to exercise a line item veto and remove pork from ANY spending bill originating in EITHER party.

    That the federal Government has already been operating for two years at the same budget levels because Congress has consistently FAILED to do it's job of passing a Federal Budget. Today the government operates just as it did in 2006, under a continuing budget resolution.

    May I remind you sir that McCain's promise of passing a middle class tax decrease while taxing Americans on their share of employer paid health care is, in effect, a tax increase to working class America. It is the same cheap political gimick that Obama is doing with capital gains for small business.

    It's smoke and mirrors, promise them something and take it away somewhere else.

    Obama wants to increase spending and claims that he will lower taxes, which we all know is a lie. I agree, they both suck, and have said so many times; but Obama is far, far worse.

    Why is it a lie, the Bush administration has done that for eight years. Bush never saw a spending package he didn't like, and he claims to have cut taxes. Is Bush lying?

    America likes borrowing and spending, it is in our life blood. Entire post depression generations have been raised to believe that easy credit is the cure to all life's worries. Obama is one of those generations. Personally, I don't think you should be scared that he's lying, I think you should be scared that he's telling the truth.

    Remember as I have said MANY times, I'm not a McCain supporter. I just see him as by far the lesser of evils.

    Seriously, I am glad you are not a McCain supporter. I begin to worry as I read these forums and see how many people claim McCain is God's gift to humanity, and Obama is the Devil incarnate.

    They are both a couple of losers. Tweedle Dee, and Tweedle Dum. All we argue over is which one is Dum.



     

    I see very little to take issue with here, but one minor point. Democrats don't USUALLY create deficits -- they want to raise taxes and increase control over our lives,. I will be very amused however, if Obama "goes republican" on us (Deficit spending).

    You could be right, but that would be like earth changing the direction in which it spins.



     

    ROTFLOL......Well, Obama is promising "change". Do we really know what the hell he's talking about?

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by olddaddy

    Originally posted by Fishermage
    There are no capital gains for small businesses, so there are no capital gains taxes to cut. A capital gain is a tax on the money maide on the sale of an asset.
    I'm impressed, an expert on tax administration policy.
    So tell me, oh guru of tax administartion policy, when a small business sells a capital asset, say land and a building, for a gain, what rate are they taxed at? And when they sell a capital asset at a loss, say land and a building, what rate are they allowed to take the loss at?
    He will still tax small business income. He gets that 99% false figure because he choose to determine that anything over a certain amount (250K) s a BIG business. By his definition and usage, he is only taxing BIG business, but that's just an arbitrary determinant.
    Well, considering Ford, GM, Chrysler, and a whole host of automotive suppliers are running at tax losses in excess of $100 million per year (GAAP losses are even higher), one does get the idea that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about from a tax administration policy standpoint. However, neither does McCain.
    Plus,  why do you believe anything he says? What record does Obama have for doing what he says with regards to taxes? None. In fact, quite the opposite.
    And name for me what major piece of tax administration has McCain sponsored? What is McCain's record. Why is he such a "Maverick" on taxes?
    All you're doing is arguing who has the better tax proposal, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Neither one knows how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.



     

    Oh, I understand what you are saying insofar as capital gains; but how does that BENEFIT small business? While you are running your business, if doesn't help you at all. To say that he will cut capital gains for small businesses as if it is a good thing is bogus.

    It's called a cheap political trick, promise the masses one thing, then take something else away.

    Not sure the point you are making in your second point.

    My second point is that, based on Obama's statement of over $250,000 of, I presume, taxable income (Obama doesn't seem to know the difference between Total Income, Gross Income, Taxable Income, or GAAP income) being BIG business, then GM, Ford, and Chrysler must be small business. In other words, I totally agree with you that Obama, and by default his current political advisors, are clueless on tax administration policy.

    McCain is a deficit hawk and has a much better record on everything than Obama. He at least wants to FREEZE spending, which will ALLOW him to cut taxes. McCain HAD voted on tax cuts more than Obama, and Obama has voted for tax increases -- AFTER he has perviously said he would LOWER them.

    May I remind you, sir, that McCain just supported a "bailout" bill that contained pork for manufacturers of wooden shafts for childrens arrows, and pork for the wool industry, among others.  That, and as President of the United States he does NOT have the authority to exercise a line item veto and remove pork from ANY spending bill originating in EITHER party.

    That the federal Government has already been operating for two years at the same budget levels because Congress has consistently FAILED to do it's job of passing a Federal Budget. Today the government operates just as it did in 2006, under a continuing budget resolution.

    May I remind you sir that McCain's promise of passing a middle class tax decrease while taxing Americans on their share of employer paid health care is, in effect, a tax increase to working class America. It is the same cheap political gimick that Obama is doing with capital gains for small business.

    It's smoke and mirrors, promise them something and take it away somewhere else.

    Obama wants to increase spending and claims that he will lower taxes, which we all know is a lie. I agree, they both suck, and have said so many times; but Obama is far, far worse.

    Why is it a lie, the Bush administration has done that for eight years. Bush never saw a spending package he didn't like, and he claims to have cut taxes. Is Bush lying?

    America likes borrowing and spending, it is in our life blood. Entire post depression generations have been raised to believe that easy credit is the cure to all life's worries. Obama is one of those generations. Personally, I don't think you should be scared that he's lying, I think you should be scared that he's telling the truth.

    Remember as I have said MANY times, I'm not a McCain supporter. I just see him as by far the lesser of evils.

    Seriously, I am glad you are not a McCain supporter. I begin to worry as I read these forums and see how many people claim McCain is God's gift to humanity, and Obama is the Devil incarnate.

    They are both a couple of losers. Tweedle Dee, and Tweedle Dum. All we argue over is which one is Dum.



     

    I see very little to take issue with here, but one minor point. Democrats don't USUALLY create deficits -- they want to raise taxes and increase control over our lives,. I will be very amused however, if Obama "goes republican" on us (Deficit spending).

    You could be right, but that would be like earth changing the direction in which it spins.



     

    ROTFLOL......Well, Obama is promising "change". Do we really know what the hell he's talking about?

     

    Yup, his idea of "change" is "faster and more" of the same. Just like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter (I could keep going back, all the way through FDR and Wilson, but you get the idea), he wants to make government bigger and our freedom smaller.

    The "change" is merely the rate, which he wants to increase.

  • zethcarnzethcarn Member UncommonPosts: 1,558

    I want my time back after reading that retarded wall o text.  TC is pretty clueless.  But wait....he's a computer technician so he must be pretty smart, right?

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    Originally posted by xpyrofuryx

    Originally posted by Draenor


    Welcome back Pyro....glad to hear that you're making as informed a decision as one could hope a voter to make.
     
    I'm putting together a computer right now...waiting for the power supply to arrive (the first was a dud) and then I'll just have to buy vista and I'll be set to go.

     

    Thank you for the welcome! I'm glad to hear that about teh computer (except the dud PSU thing lol) what are the details/specs of it?



     

    GPU- VGA XFX PVT98GYDLU 9800GT 512M RT

    CPU- AMD|PH X4 9850 BLK2.5G 65N R

    MEM- 2Gx2|CORS TWIN2X4096-6400C5 R

    MB- ECS A780GM-A AM2+ AMD780G RT

    Those are teh central components anyway...Got the case, monitor, speakers, and power supply as well all for under a thousand dollars from Newegg...Gonna buy Vista tomorow

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • SioBabbleSioBabble Member Posts: 2,803
    Originally posted by zethcarn


    I want my time back after reading that retarded wall o text.  TC is pretty clueless.  But wait....he's a computer technician so he must be pretty smart, right?



     

    I was working at my local public access ISP in the mid 90s when a confused user called me up asking a lot of very basic questions, and not being able to process the answers.

    The guy was a physician.

    So clueless is a relative thing.

    Yes, agreed that gigantic walls of text are a sure way NOT to communicate your point.

    CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.

    Once a denizen of Ahazi

  • devilisciousdeviliscious Member UncommonPosts: 4,359
    Originally posted by qazyman


    I agree with every thing you said,"except the black Frenchman part" that was just wrong.

     
    What you fail to realize is that your being lied too. After 8 years it is painfully clear that the republicans have absolutely no desire to reduce the size of government or cut taxes on the working people of this country.
    Taxes come in many forms my friend 14 hundred billion to bail out Iraq and wall street is a pretty big tax(Don't even get me started on the socialism aspect of this). Remember, with effective leadership not a dime of that money would need to be spent.
    It comes down to accountability; I'm sure you can appreciate that. Failure on this scale must be punished. Add to this, the Democrats are the only people in the last two decades to actually balance a budget and show a surplus, and at the same time reduce the size of government. Well, It's pretty clear they have earned there chance. Notice the word EARNED there, I thought you might like it.
     



     

    1. There was nothing "wrong or derrogatroy with what I said. I have had many conversations with my friends who happen to be Black and they are pretty sick and tired of the way people walk around saying" dark skinned" or "African" or whatever else they are trying to call them rather than just calling them Black, that is what they prefer to be called. My friend has said countless times to people "I have never been to Africa I am not an "African" So yes he takes offense to being called an "AFRICAN AMERICAN" . It is like  when I am called a "skinny white girl" am I offended ? No that is being overly sensitive. I am white, my friend is Black, and there is nothing derrogatory about it.

    DO I care that they  black? no, that has no bearing at all, it is simply a descriptive term. To make it into anything esle is ridiculous. Do I have a problem with the french? not at all 2 of my  friends in Highschool were french exchange students, J'adore francais! they gave us our statue of liberty, they helped us win our freedom and create this wonderful country we have here. They are the dear friends of the US that wrote our national anthem. You need to quit being so uptight, stating that he was a "Black french guy"  was because people seem to think that all blacks support Obama and all Europeans support socialism, and that simply is not true.

    Oh no, I am fully aware that we have been lied to, by both sides not just republicans, and you need to open your eyes and see who has been passing what in our DEMPCRAT majority congress.  YEs, we have been at war of course we will be spending too much when we go to war it would be completely ignorant for us to think that we would not be spending alot more while we are at war. WIll Obama stop the war? hell no, he has already been discussing how we must spend more money not less, Not by talking about money, but talking about how we don;t really have a choice with Pakistan. SO what does it mean to send more troops to Iraq and Pakistan? MORE MONEY NEEDED FOR THE WAR. Oh yea we will be on another front very soon as well, when Isreal attacks Iran, not much we can do about it they are our ally and they have been threatened by Iran to be wiped from the face of the earth, so IT IS OUR RESPONSIBLITY to defend our ally, which we will.

    We are still paying off WW2 debt, yes our grandchildren will still be paying off debt from this war as well. NONE of our current democrats have ever balanced anything, nope not these guys,  the current batch we have right now have done nothing but help create this economic meltdown we are currently in. I am not a republican or a demcrat, I leaned more democrat prior to this election.

    I have seen what both sides have done here and do not follow any party blindly. You can not give an entire party credit or blame for the actions of the individuals. If Democrats really wanted someone that fixes things, they should look for candidates like Marcy Kaptur among their ranks, instead of throwing her out of their insider trading meetings, they should  put her in charge so she can boot the corrupt criminals within her own party and put things the way they should be.  It is not "democrat or republican" there are good and bad in both parties, we need to boot the bad and put the people who really care about this country back in charge of it.

     

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081

    One of my BIGGEST reasons to vote for McCain this year is that Democrats will likely have filibuster proof majorities in the house and senate this year. If that happens AND there is a democratic president.... if you thought Bush was bad, you'll have a democratic rubber stamp process for at least 2 years.

    And then there is Barney Frank the other day saying they will cut 25% of defense spending......... sorry, can't allow that kinda crap to go down.

  • declaredemerdeclaredemer Member Posts: 2,698
    Originally posted by hazmats


    One of my BIGGEST reasons to vote for McCain this year is that Democrats will likely have filibuster proof majorities in the house and senate this year. If that happens AND there is a democratic president.... if you thought Bush was bad, you'll have a democratic rubber stamp process for at least 2 years.
    And then there is Barney Frank the other day saying they will cut 25% of defense spending......... sorry, can't allow that kinda crap to go down.

     

    1. Democrats need a "super-majority" to fix (1) government, (2) wars, (3) economy, and (4) politics.  I did not even touch health care, the tax code, infrastructure, or education.
    2. Defense is NOT troops.  Defense is defense contractors.  I am 100% behind the U.S. military.  I love our military, the value system, and how it works for America's best interests.  The Defense contractors are for-profit institutions.  
    • The amount of fraud, waste, and "lost" money in Iraq and at the Pentagon is extraordinary.
    • There are not enough auditors to "find" the money (it is stolen).  

    Codicil

    For YOUR benefit I have attempted to show the revolving door of bankers and government.

     

    The people approving defense contracts leave the military and get great jobs. 

     

    There is more fraud in "defense" than anywhere else I am aware of in the - world.

Sign In or Register to comment.