Jerry Bowers said:
Mike:Under the Obama tax plan you are so excited about
How in the hell is Obama going to provide medical care for everyone, fix social security, cut military spending, create jobs and support the poor of the world without raising taxes on everyone? Wait I see, all independent business will be gone and everyone will work for the democrats. It’s impossible!! I’m not real happy with McCain, but I won’t vote for Obama just so McCain will loose, thats just ignorant.
Come on folks open your eyes, do your research, read whats out there that the liberal media won’t report.
John
BTW keep your powder dry you may need it.
John Neal said:
Come on folks open your eyes, do your researchJohn
…never mind a bunch of money (and innocent lives lost) wasted on an illegal war.
How many billions were “given” to Haliburton without a transparent tender process?
mike omalley said:No one is as blind as he who will not see, as deaf as he who will not hear... (not mine, but I wish it was)Steve Featherkile said:Oh--when did Barney Frank announce he was running for President? The subject was Obama's tax plan, not Barney Frank. But I can see how you got confused--one is a cngressman, the ther is a senator, one is running fo president, the other is not, one is gay, the other is straight, one is from Massachusetts, the other from Illinois...
Yesterday, Barney Frank called for a 25% cut in the DOD budget, with the proceeds going to welfare projects.
Quote:He can't, but neither can McCain. The basic reality is that the "out-go" outpaces the "income," and that's not a healthy model. You either decrease the "out-go" to match the "income," or vise versa. Given that Social Security, health care, and other items on the agenda really need to be addressed--and will definitely cost money--then the only option really is to increase the income. That means higher taxes, period. There's no getting around it, and both candidates know that full well. (At least neither are fool-hearty enough to say "no new taxes.")
... How in the hell is Obama going to provide medical care for everyone, fix social security, cut military spending, create jobs and support the poor of the world without raising taxes on everyone?
The trick is to structure the taxes in such a way where you increase your revenue without having those being taxed feel the difference. It’s like funding your 401(k). There’s often a point at which you can increase your deduction and actually end up with more in your net pay because your tax withholding changes. (How that washes out at the end of the year depends on your other deductions, but at least your net pay is increased.)
How do you do that? Quite simple (in concept). Tax everyone at a higher rate, BUT make it easier for them to lessen their tax burden through deductions. It’s like a mail-in rebate. Manufacturers know they can advertise fantastically low prices on their products “after rebate,” and only a fraction of the consumers will actually bother to send in for the rebate. The result–more people pay what amounts to full price for the product when they really don’t have to, but still think they’re getting a bargain. Make more things deductible either as pre-tax deductions or itemized deductions after the fact, and it’s up to the people to take advantage of the shelters. This is exactly what the wealthy do… They’re taxed initially at a very high rate, but have small armies of accountants and tax lawyers to “maximize” their deductions. You’ve got to close the high-end loopholes, but if you make it easier for everyone to take these deductions without employing expensive CPAs, then you’ll get the working class behind it.
Conversely, you lower the tax rates, but start eliminating deductions. For instance, you lower business taxes, but businesses can no longer write off certain expenses such as advertising or office equipment. Lower personal income taxes, but eliminate the child tax credit. Put more money in people’s pockets up front, at the expense of not being able to get as much back as they used to.
Both models have merit. Their success depends on which consumer mindset you want to tap into. The former takes advantage of the “hey, I’m getting a great deal because I’m getting all this money back” mindset. If you shop based on coupons, rebates, and other such “money back” discounts, then you’ll find that one most appealing. It’s up to you to take the initiative to take advantage of them, though. The latter is more of the Sam’s Club model. Prices are fairly inexpensive, but you have to make concessions (membership fees, no bags, etc.) to take advantage of them.
Later,
K
The problem is McCain wants it both ways. He wants to lower taxes and at the same time increase the child tax credit.
Much like our current administration who cut revenue while increasing spending.
Cutting taxes does not create jobs. Just ask the 100’s of thousands who lost their jobs in the last 8 years. Only so many of them could go to work at WalMart.
Nobody likes to pay taxes. But I’d rather pay taxes and have a healthy economy. Without a job…it really doesn’t matter what the tax rate is, does it?
Ralph
TonyWalsham said:
..............never mind a bunch of money (and innocent lives lost) wasted on an illegal war.How many billions were “given” to Haliburton without a transparent tender process?
That maybe what you want to have down in “OZ” but not here, thank you very much. Depending on who is in the White House will decide whether they are here or there! Think that one through!
Tell me sir, was WWII another 'Illegal war"?
Paul
E. Paul Austin said:Right, but NONE of them were in or from Iraq
Mr. Walsham, please explain to me and the rest of American, how we are conduction an illegal was? Let me see, on September 11, 2001 we were attacked 'again' by the 'Terrorists' from another part of our world (the same people who are peace loving, accoding to BHO).
mike omalley said:Mike, Unless Mr. Austin has been living in a cave he is well aware of that fact. Just a detail of no importance, I guess. RalphE. Paul Austin said:Right, but NONE of them were in or from Iraq
Mr. Walsham, please explain to me and the rest of American, how we are conduction an illegal was? Let me see, on September 11, 2001 we were attacked 'again' by the 'Terrorists' from another part of our world (the same people who are peace loving, accoding to BHO).
E. Paul Austin said:TonyWalsham said:
..............never mind a bunch of money (and innocent lives lost) wasted on an illegal war.How many billions were “given” to Haliburton without a transparent tender process?
Mr. Walsham, please explain to me and the rest of American, how we are conduction an illegal was? Let me see, on September 11, 2001 we were attacked ‘again’ by the ‘Terrorists’ from another part of our world (the same people who are peace loving, accoding to BHO). This was not their first attack nor will it be their last, I would much rather fight them in their streets than in my streets, thank you very much. I am not hot on my family or friends getting killed so they (the terrorist) can go to where ever they think they are going.That maybe what you want to have down in “OZ” but not here, thank you very much. Depending on who is in the White House will decide whether they are here or there! Think that one through!
Tell me sir, was WWII another 'Illegal war"?
Paul
I did say War and not wars.
Iraq had nothing to do with the heinous attacks of 9/11.
The USA had every right to react and go after the people who did participate in 9/11. Hence the “justifiable” war in Afghanistan. Although there were no Afghanis taking part in 9/11. Afghanistan did gave sanctuary to Bin Laden.
If memory serves me correctly the attackers involved in 9/11 were Saudis, Yemenis and Pakistanis. Not Iraqi’s.
GWB told outright lies to get an excuse to invade Iraq.
Those excuses were.
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Not true.
Iraq was involved with Al Queda even if they didn’t actually take part in 9/11. Again not true.
What Iraq did have was a sea of oil.
Sure Iraq was being run by bad guys. The same bad guys who were once the friends and clients of the USA.
I take it you have seen the video of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, when the USA was supplying arms and WMD’s to Iraq to use against Iran.
So the question remains. Why get involved in a two front war?
Normally it is a recipe for failure to fight a war on two fronts.
GWB sucked himself into a two front war meaning he will (sadly) likely lose on both fronts.
Kevin Strong said:Quote:He can't, but neither can McCain. The basic reality is that the "out-go" outpaces the "income," and that's not a healthy model. You either decrease the "out-go" to match the "income," or vise versa. Given that Social Security, health care, and other items on the agenda really need to be addressed--and will definitely cost money--then the only option really is to increase the income. That means higher taxes, period. There's no getting around it, and both candidates know that full well. (At least neither are fool-hearty enough to say "no new taxes.")
...How in the hell is Obama going to provide medical care for everyone, fix social security, cut military spending, create jobs and support the poor of the world without raising taxes on everyone?The trick is to structure the taxes in such a way where you increase your revenue without having those being taxed feel the difference. It’s like funding your 401(k). There’s often a point at which you can increase your deduction and actually end up with more in your net pay because your tax withholding changes. (How that washes out at the end of the year depends on your other deductions, but at least your net pay is increased.)
How do you do that? Quite simple (in concept). Tax everyone at a higher rate, BUT make it easier for them to lessen their tax burden through deductions. It’s like a mail-in rebate. Manufacturers know they can advertise fantastically low prices on their products “after rebate,” and only a fraction of the consumers will actually bother to send in for the rebate. The result–more people pay what amounts to full price for the product when they really don’t have to, but still think they’re getting a bargain. Make more things deductible either as pre-tax deductions or itemized deductions after the fact, and it’s up to the people to take advantage of the shelters. This is exactly what the wealthy do… They’re taxed initially at a very high rate, but have small armies of accountants and tax lawyers to “maximize” their deductions. You’ve got to close the high-end loopholes, but if you make it easier for everyone to take these deductions without employing expensive CPAs, then you’ll get the working class behind it.
Conversely, you lower the tax rates, but start eliminating deductions. For instance, you lower business taxes, but businesses can no longer write off certain expenses such as advertising or office equipment. Lower personal income taxes, but eliminate the child tax credit. Put more money in people’s pockets up front, at the expense of not being able to get as much back as they used to.
Both models have merit. Their success depends on which consumer mindset you want to tap into. The former takes advantage of the “hey, I’m getting a great deal because I’m getting all this money back” mindset. If you shop based on coupons, rebates, and other such “money back” discounts, then you’ll find that one most appealing. It’s up to you to take the initiative to take advantage of them, though. The latter is more of the Sam’s Club model. Prices are fairly inexpensive, but you have to make concessions (membership fees, no bags, etc.) to take advantage of them.
Later,
K
Ralph Berg
Quote:Start with the Clinton years Ralph and see how it all started, then on to the Democrats including Obama, I am not real happy with Bush as he could have changed a lot of the outcome is he the problem? No but not the solution either. I don't have the answers and am just as frustrated as the rest. This is going to be a nightmare Nancy Pelosi running Congress , who isn't fit to be a Girl Scout den Mother and Barack Husain Obama running the White House.
Just what I've been doing. I opened my eyes. But it appears I'm not seeing the same things you are. I see record deficits, failed financial institutions, nationalization of private corporations and a massive loss of jobs. What do you see?
Tony
Quote:How many Tony? Keeping track of Halliburton is not one of my priorities. How many companies are there worldwide that can actually take on this task.
How many billions were "given" to Haliburton without a transparent tender process?
Fire the next pair
John Neal said:Perhaps you should keep track of the money Haliburton has been "given" without any tender process taking place.
TonyQuote:How many Tony? Keeping track of Halliburton is not one of my priorities. How many companies are there worldwide that can actually take on this task. Fire the next pair
How many billions were "given" to Haliburton without a transparent tender process?
If the Iraq war had not taken place then this would not even be an issue.
TonyWalsham said:John Neal said:Perhaps you should keep track of the money Haliburton has been "given" without any tender process taking place.
TonyQuote:How many Tony? Keeping track of Halliburton is not one of my priorities. How many companies are there worldwide that can actually take on this task. Fire the next pair
How many billions were "given" to Haliburton without a transparent tender process?If the Iraq war had not taken place then this would not even be an issue.
John.
If you cannot be bothered to do your own research why should I do it for you?
TonyWalsham said:I thought you would have a source of information you are quoting as factual, evidently not. Good night.
John. If you cannot be bothered to do your own research why should I do it for you?
John Neal said:I do have sources. I was hoping you couldbe bothered finding them yourself. Apparently not, so here goes with three.TonyWalsham said:I thought you would have a source of information you are quoting as factual, evidently not. Good night.
John. If you cannot be bothered to do your own research why should I do it for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
http://www.metafilter.com/35445/US-Army-to-Rebid-Halliburton-Contracts
http://halliburtonwatch.org/news/bid_rigging.html
Your turn??
Steve Featherkile said:Well Steve, We all socialize with Tony and HJ here on LSC. By your logic, we are all Socialists and Atheists. Welcome to the club, Steve. Ralph
Interesting article. [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/]"I choose my friends carefully" - Barack H. Obama[/url]
It stands to reason that a person can associate with whomever he wishes, building on their good characteristics and beliefs, and having the intelligence to dismiss the bad. I have many good friends with whom I have philosophical differences. Such differences allow me to better understand and define my own personal beliefs. It doesn’t make me “right” or them “wrong,” or vise versa. They are merely differences of opinions and beliefs.
As for Obama being likened to Carl Marx for wanting to “redistribute wealth,” I offer this: It was noted last night on the networks (except, perhaps, Fox), the “Earned Income Credit” currently in the U.S. tax code is a form of wealth redistribution whereby the “have nots” get financial help from the “haves” through tax credits. Sounds like “from each…, to each…” to me. The mastermind behind that plan? The Grand Poobah of the GOP, Uncle Ron. Who knew–after all those years of fighting communisim, he was a Marxist at heart? 
Maybe that’s why so many democrats voted for him.
Or, it could just be that certain forms of wealth redistribution actually do help the economy by getting money into the hands of people who “have not,” and will gladly support the economy in order to “have.” Wasn’t that the intent of the economic stimulus? To get more people buying stuff, which will create more jobs, which will generate greater revenue? Once we get the economic engine turning again, we can concentrate on tailoring our vital programs such as health care, education, etc., to where they benefit all, not just those in the most need.
Later,
K