He must be the freemason candidate , all others who wernt FM's (kennedy,nixon)disposed

Were doomed!!!!!

___________________

Bring on my soundcloud ya!

The media polls are a bloody joke. They want a close race and the ratings that go along with a close race.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I've seen a ton of his ads during the olympics. He is spending big on them. In 2 hours I saw about 5 of those "Obama is gonna raise yer taxes" ads. Utter BS, but sadly it is working.

He's not going to raise taxes????

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss He's not going to raise taxes????

For people making under $250,000 a year, no..

___________________

McCain said we're gonna defeat evil...why would anyone NOT vote for such a fucking genius?




BOOYAKASHA


TAKE THAT EVIL!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

Obama will raise taxes for those earning $250k or more per year. And will be offering a $1000 tax cut for middle and low income people.

It's blatant wealth redistribution and I don't like it much on a philosophical level, but even I recognize that Obama will NOT be raising taxes on the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans will in fact be getting a tax CUT under Obama. It's Robin Hood economics, and you can certainly argue against it from that point, but it is simply wrong to imply he wants to raise taxes on the middle class as Mccain is suggesting.

I hate that rebate idea, combined with his horrible windfall profit tax plan. The most obvious point of all is that the rebates will only give us a one-time relief for the high gas prices, while the new tax will raise the cost of production and delivery for years. Does Obama believe that consumers don’t pay the price for taxation at the pump? And even if that didn’t happen, the 10% margin for the oil industry supports the shareholder price for these companies, in which millions of Americans have money invested through retirement accounts and other investments. Draining the worth of the stock will cost retirement accounts much more than a thousand dollars over the length of the investment.

And what about the capital gains tax increase? That will affect the majority of middle America that put its future into the markets. Over 70% of Americans now invest in stocks and bonds, and therefore have exposure to capital gains tax changes. And he wants to do this out of "fairness"... which translates to massive redistribution of wealth through the least efficient channel... government bureaucracy.

I also consider allwing the Bush tax cuts to expire as a tax raise. I read (cant' find the source at the moment) that Obama promised to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget he'd be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,000 and couples earning I think $63,000 or more.

I think under Obama, the rich will pay what they are meant to pay. The middle class actually pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the upper class.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think under Obama, the rich will pay what they are meant to pay. The middle class actually pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the upper class.

Dammit Krypton... you're making me have to do this again Last month's new IRS data:

"we're told the rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That's true. "The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income." In other words, the tax code's already steeply progressive. Yes, even at 35, 36%. And what this proves is the old adage that when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue. Listen to these numbers.


"In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation's income. They paid 25% of all taxes. In 2000, they paid 37%. In 2005, they paid 39%; and 2006, 40%." So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes. The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%. In 2000, they paid 56%; in 2005, paid 60%. The top 10% now pay 71%. But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes.

It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates, and the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition. But, nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich and it's a figment of their imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003." What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! "No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts.

If you earned at or above $388,000 in 2007, you're in the top 1% of earners. In 2006, you paid 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The top 10% in income, that's income above $108,904, paid 71% of all income taxes. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom. But that's going to be a challenge, because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low of 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1% of all taxes."

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I also consider allwing the Bush tax cuts to expire as a tax raise.

They were never meant to be permanent - the Republicans simply advocate making them permanent after the fact because it's politically popular, not because it's economically sound or solvent.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Dammit Krypton... you're making me have to do this again Last month's new IRS data: "we're told the rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That's true. "The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income." In other words, the tax code's already steeply progressive. Yes, even at 35, 36%. And what this proves is the old adage that when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue. Listen to these numbers. "In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation's income. They paid 25% of all taxes. In 2000, they paid 37%. In 2005, they paid 39%; and 2006, 40%." So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes. The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%. In 2000, they paid 56%; in 2005, paid 60%. The top 10% now pay 71%. But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes. It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates, and the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition. But, nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich and it's a figment of their imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003." What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! "No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. If you earned at or above $388,000 in 2007, you're in the top 1% of earners. In 2006, you paid 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The top 10% in income, that's income above $108,904, paid 71% of all income taxes. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom. But that's going to be a challenge, because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low of 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1% of all taxes."

I'm not saying the richest percentage don't pay the largest block of taxes to the government. I'm saying the middle class pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the upper class. The 35% tax bracket really is a farce because it does not mention the fact that the wealthiest 1% of country makes the majority of their income from unrealized capital gains. They also have numerous tax breaks they take advantage of, of which the middle class can't take advantage of, because the majority of their income is derived from simple salary/wage work..

How do you explain this...?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by adi_hanson He must be the freemason candidate , all others who wernt FM's (kennedy,nixon)disposed Were doomed!!!!!

Obama's supposedly a 32nd degree Prince Hall Freemason, but the source I got that from is a member of irregular Freemasonry (i.e. not under jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in England), so I'm a bit skeptical of the claim. Obama's economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is a member of Skull n' Bones though: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21789

Obama and McCain are both on the Council of Foreign Relations though (check their website), go figure. Make sure your tin foil hat's on really tight.

EDIT: Masonry is kinda dead now though and isn't really a big deal or what it used to be. Anyone can join now, all you have to do is go to your local lodge.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Aug-21-2008 at 09:42