Get the fuk outta here with your obama t shirts

[Galadriel]

and how much of that "tax policy" that i gain will be eaten up to pay for UHC and other welfare reforms?

Far less than the amount that you would lose if you had cancer or some other serious illness/injury/accident etc. Meanwhile you're supporting Republicans... they actually spend FAR more money, can't balance the budget at all, and instead of spending our money on health and education here at home they give it away in a free-for-all bonanza in Iraq. Literally billions of tax dollars has just disappeared, now lining the pockets of corporate executives and other cronies. You would rather spend your money on that? Why don't you just mail a check to Dick Cheney (who made money off of Halliburton during his time as VP) or Donald Rumsfeld (who also kept defense related investments that went through the roof during the war) instead? Personally, I'd rather spend my money on me. I like me. If you want to give your money away to billionaires, please don't involve me in it.

[celticgrafix]

next to the toilet paper, ull find them

[chefmike]

next to the toilet paper, ull find them

Aren't you late for a Mensa meeting, zippy?

[celticgrafix]

next to the toilet paper, ull find them

Aren't you late for a Mensa meeting, zippy?

damn get off my dick, what do u respond to all my posts, do something better with ur time

[PapaGrande]

I guess theft is justified if you are going re-distribute to the masses?

A large number of these "evil rich" people making $250k+ you and Obama want to screw are small business owners. People who have often put their own life savings, home, and great personal sacrifices on the line in order to create a successful small business. Have any of you owned your own business?

Under Obama 2/3 of small business income will be taxed at 50%, you think this will have no negative effects on the economy?

Under Obama almost 50% of income earners will pay no taxes, up from th e current 40%. So tell me again how its fair that the top 50% pay all the taxes (with most of it coming from the top 25%) and the bottom 50% paying almost nothing?

"The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.

Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.

Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate's tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits."

None of you Obama supporters have no moral/ethical grounds to stand on when it comes to tax policy. Just admit the truth, you believe in might makes right, as is a majority punishing the minority, because you can, not because there is anything moral about it. Wealth envy, greed, and ignorance about sums it up.

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103..._emailed_month

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...670_Page2.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm

http://www.american.com/archive/2008...2019s-tax-plan

I always have to add this, I am not a Republican and I am not voting for McCain. It sad I even have to say that criticism of Obama doesn't make one a Republican, but I guess that is a difficult concept for people to grasp.

[Cuchulain]

Carly Fiorina, McCain's favorite ex-CEO and a top surrogate for his campaign. For example, she had this to say recently:

"When Barack Obama blithely says only the wealthiest are going to be taxed, he is ignoring the fact that 23 million small businesses file as individuals and those small businesses are the only growing sector of the economy right now."
Here's the problem. Yes, 23 million small businesses file as individuals. But Obama is proposing to raise taxes on individuals making over $250,000. And according to the Tax Policy Center (as reported by Politico) only 1.4 percent of small business owners make the cut. "Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income," said Eric Tolder, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

For a breakdown of how McCain and Obama's tax plans would affect you, see this video. http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...n_fiorina.html

McCain's Small-Business Bunk
July 14, 2008
He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.
Summary
McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.

We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.

McCain's 23 million claim is a bogus figure.

Outdated, Inflated, Inapplicable
To justify the 23 million figure, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers referred us to a press release by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which refers to "23 million small business owners" without citing a source. That is actually an outdated count of all the businesses in the United States, produced by the U.S. Census for 2002, when the Economic Census counted a total of 23,343,821 business firms of all sizes. Of those, 16,845 firms employed 500 persons or more, which still leaves just over 23.3 million classified as "small" by the widely accepted definition that we will use here.

That figure is six years out of date. The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy estimates the total number of "small" firms with fewer than 500 workers reached 26.8 million in 2006. That's the most recent estimate. But it is also inflated. Since the total U.S. population was just under 300 million in 2006, it would mean that one in every 11 Americans – men, women and children – is a "small-business owner."

It turns out, SBA's estimate includes more than 20 million "nonemployer" firms, an unknown number of them sideline or hobby businesses run by persons who actually make their living some other way. Census and SBA count as a "small business" anyone who reported as little as $1,000 of business receipts. By that very broad definition, John McCain himself is a "small-business owner," because his tax return shows Schedule C income from book royalties. For that matter, Barack Obama would also be a small-business owner, by virtue of his book income. As would President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as we pointed out in 2004. Of the 26.8 million that SBA counts as "small businesses," fewer than 6 million are actually "employer firms" with any payroll.

From this, we must conclude that to arrive at his 23 million figure, McCain is counting mostly "business owners" with no workers, including those who simply report small amounts of income from sideline or freelance work. McCain is arguing that Obama's tax increase would "destroy jobs," but he's counting mostly firms that don't produce any.

That in itself is seriously misleading. If McCain wants to focus on the effects of Obama's plan on employment, he would do better to confine his count to employers – the just under 6 million firms that actually have workers. And even that figure wouldn't be applicable because Obama's tax increase wouldn't fall on all employers, only on those in the top two income tax brackets

McCain's Non-explanation
McCain cannot justify his 23 million claim. We asked McCain spokesman Brian Rogers for substantiation and received the statement that we reprint here. We find it simply won't do.

Rogers starts by saying that Obama's health care proposal to provide coverage for uninsured workers would amount to a "tax," either in the form of higher costs for covering employees or "cash to the government." But McCain was talking about income tax rates, not higher business costs. That's not justifying McCain's claim; that's trying to change the subject.

Furthermore – as we've just seen – the vast majority of those that McCain is counting as small-business owners have no employees and wouldn't encounter any added costs for covering workers. Obama's plan wouldn't apply to every small employer, either. It says: "Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt." Also, after Rogers sent his message, Obama announced July 13 that he is proposing to grant $6 billion per year in tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance plans, covering up to half the cost of premiums paid to cover employees.

As for actual income tax rates, which is what McCain keeps talking about, Rogers says "if they make over $250,000 and file as individuals ... their taxes go up." But this leaves out all but a very small fraction of those McCain counts as small-business owners. Rogers also says taxes will go up if small-business owners "have capital gains or dividends," but Obama's proposal would not increase rates on capital gains or dividends for couples making under $250,000, or singles making under about $200,000, regardless of whether they are classified as small-business owners or not.

How Many Would Actually Pay More?
McCain is right about one thing. Many small-business owners would indeed see their taxes go up if Obama is elected and raises the top income-tax rates. According to a survey from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, about eight out of 10 small-business owners responding to the poll report that they are organized legally in a way that would require them to pay taxes on their business income as individuals, rather than as a corporation. But since Obama's plan wouldn't affect those making less than $250,000 for couples, or about $200,000 for singles, we need to estimate how many would fall into those high-income categories.

Obama's plan, according to his economic policy director Jason Furman, would return the top two federal income-tax rates to what they were before Bush lowered them. In addition, Obama would adjust the income-tax brackets to ensure that no married couple making under $250,000 or single filer making under $200,000 would pay the top rates.

The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. Based on the number of taxpayers who now report any sort of business income on their returns, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,608 taxpayers with business income, or business losses, will fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009, when any Obama tax changes would first take effect. Not all of those can properly be called "small-business owners," however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business.

It is also not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers. In 2004, the Tax Policy Center found that hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers who had business income from partnerships or subchapter-S corporations (whose owners pay taxes as individuals) did not claim any tax deductions for employee expenses. For all these reasons we judge that the actual number of small-business employers who would face higher tax rates under Obama is probably far below 663,608, and certainly a far cry from McCain's ridiculously inflated 23 million figure.

Lower Taxes for Many
While Obama's plan would raise rates at the top, it also would grant what he calls a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. Since this credit would not begin to phase down for couples making less than $150,000, we judge it likely that many, if not most of the 23 million that McCain counts as "small-business owners" would likely get tax reductions http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ness_bunk.html

[hippifried]

"Small business" = 500 employees or less

Small businesses account for nearly 80% of employment in the US.

Most small business employers are incorporated. Even if the stock isn't publicly traded, they still incorporate for tax & other liability purposes. It keeps the owners separated from the business.

A trucking firm with a fleet of 100 rigs would probably fall under the category of small business because they wouldn't have more than 500 employees, even with the office & maintenance staffs. But an independent trucker with one tractor, who does all his/her own maintenance & paperwork, would also be a small business. So is the person down the block with the notary public sign on their door, most construction subcontractors, law offices, doctors, accountants, some banks, most credit unions, investment & real estate brokers, & a myriad of independant trades. It's the number of employees on the payroll that defines small business, irrespective of how much money comes through the business. You can't lump all small business together as if it's a single industry. Anybody who tries to do that is lying to you.

When "the economy" is mentioned, talk usually turns to the stock market. Why? That's not the economy. 70+% of the total economy is consumer spending. "Consumer" = just about everybody. Anyone who tries to tell you that distributing the national wealth downward is a bad idea has no clue how things actually work.

All this yak about flat taxes or VATs is just more BS to force money to the top & keep it there. Consumer spending, remember? Poor people spend ALL their money as consumers. The middle class spends most of their money as consumers. It's not necessary to dwell on the supply side because it's DEMAND that drives the economy. As long as consumers have money to spend, there'll be demand. As long as there's demand, you can't stop supply if you wanted to. Supply side economics is anathema to a free market because it promotes consolidation of industries, cornered markets, & monopolies. A few large corporations buying & selling each other doesn't do anything for anybody. Taxing consumer goods just drives the tax burdon down to those with the least amount of disposable income & interferes with their ability to spend their money on consumer goods. It takes money out of circulation so it can't grow. It's a dumb idea.

[AZ15]

and how much of that "tax policy" that i gain will be eaten up to pay for UHC and other welfare reforms?

Far less than the amount that you would lose if you had cancer or some other serious illness/injury/accident etc. Meanwhile you're supporting Republicans... they actually spend FAR more money, can't balance the budget at all, and instead of spending our money on health and education here at home they give it away in a free-for-all bonanza in Iraq. Literally billions of tax dollars has just disappeared, now lining the pockets of corporate executives and other cronies. You would rather spend your money on that? Why don't you just mail a check to Dick Cheney (who made money off of Halliburton during his time as VP) or Donald Rumsfeld (who also kept defense related investments that went through the roof during the war) instead? Personally, I'd rather spend my money on me. I like me. If you want to give your money away to billionaires, please don't involve me in it.

The dems have had control of both houses for over two years now and I have not seen a decrease in spending, nor have I seen them end the war like they promised.

[Cuchulain]

The dems have had control of both houses for over two years now and I have not seen a decrease in spending, nor have I seen them end the war like they promised.

American Politics 101: The Dems have 51 seats in the Senate, counting Bernie Sanders and Joe LIEberman. It takes 60 votes to break a fillibuster. The Rethugnicans have fillbusted more in the last two years than any Senate EVER. They've admitted that their plan is to block everything and accuse the Dems of being a 'do-nothing' Congress.

[Cuchulain]

Btw, in the prior, Repub controlled Senate, the Repubs were so outraged by the Dem use of filibusters ( and again, the Dems used it far less than the Repubs are doing now) they threatened the 'nuclear (or nucular if you're a Bush/Palin fan) option' - the removal of the filibuster as a tool.