awe c'mon, we know you can't even wipe your own ass yet.
Printable View
awe c'mon, we know you can't even wipe your own ass yet.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewforum.php?f=13
You're welcome, crybaby.
where can i buy one?
the president doesnt make alot. and considering you cant play the market while your in office its a relativly low paying job in comparison to any other office that is held. $400,000 a year is nothing to those guys. the weak book deals after cant even make up for what they would have made if they didnt take the oath. I also have a john stewart shirt because he was the first black green lantern. your mom should have swallowed
Quote:
Originally Posted by worthy2
now this sounds like a real CRYBABY ASS BITCH.....ive got two different type of obama shirts on order right now and its because I actually support him for what hes said and believes in....so in the words of a disney movie with a little addition of my own word IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYTHING NICE TO SAY THEN SHUT THE HELL UP...............:)
You sound like that idiot Geraldine Ferraro. It's funny how some whites constantly accuse blacks of playing the race card, but I think whites (i.e worthy2) can be way worse at times. AOL and Youtube threads are running rampant with these types. They never want to give an African-American credit for anything and will undermine everything we do. Mostly, because life hasn't panned out the way they like it, so they must minimize someone else's success to fell better about themselves. Sure, Obama isn't some 30 yr U.S Senator, but neither was Bill Clinton. He was actually younger than Barack, when he got elected and so was John F Kennedy. Being a good President is more about one's inate leadership and diplomacy skills, than how many times they got elected. Your V.P and cabinet can show you the ropes on technical issues, but the question is can you lead. Hillary actually had less experience as an elected politician than Barack did. He was an Illinois State Senator for 8 years and U.S Senator for a little over 2 years. Hillary was a U.S Senator going on 6 years. However, I won't discount her experience as First Lady or trickle down experience from Bill Clinton's Presidency and will give her the nod on experience. However, my main issue with Hillary was her willingness to be a borderline "hawk" during most of the war, to appeal to conservatives, moderate Democrats and suburban Upstate New Yorkers. Now that the war is unpopular, she's on this "no way, no Bush" stuff. Hillary is more apt to make decisions for political reasons, than Barack is. That nonsense with the oil tax rebates was a perfect example. He stood his ground, in spite of the backlash from poor blue collar types, saying it was a waste of time and political grandstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by worthy2
P.S: The only place your bytch @ss would wipe your yourself with an Obama T-Shirt is locked in your own bathroom. Don't get your shyt pushed in trying to be Edward Norton's character from "American X".
new Obama ad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_121105.html
You know I think this is an example of one of those comments that "it says more about the person that makes the statement than it does about whoever he is talking about." In this case, you are the one who sees Obama merely as a "black person." To you, apparently, he has no other dimensions and no other aspects to his personality or his background. Then you project that point of view on others; since Obama is nothing more than a black person, others only support him because he is black, after all there is nothing more to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by worthy2
For myself, my support from Obama comes partially from his success at Harvard. He was chosen as editor-in-chief (a major accomplishment) even though he was quite liberal; the reason is that between the liberals and conservatives they were fairly deadlocked on who to pick... but Obama he was good at making the conservatives feel comfortable with him because he sat down and listened to them and really talked to them. Now, I don't think he changed his position much, but he made them feel like he was really taking their views into account, so in the end the conservatives decided that if they couldn't have one of their own then they would rather support Obama. It's a smart way of governing, so to speak, and it's important that everyone's view is heard. Sorry that doesn't fit your "black dude for president" mentality.
Your making yourself sound like a 12 year old, C'mon men don't be so consumed about little things. Then again u say that people wearing thise T-shirts are voting for him coz he's black, how about all those who aren't going to vote for him just because he's Black
Don't worry too much about T-shirts
Go out and get yourself a Noboma T-shirt and wear it prouldly.
I have one for you Alyssa,and I deliver..Quote:
Originally Posted by Alyssa87
I saw an add for an Obama t-shirt that looked like it was done in that old, 1950's super hero style (the text and everything). Said something like, "Get my mama--I'm voting Obama."
If only I'd taken a picture of it when I saw it last. :|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA YES LETS VOTE FOR OBAMA CAUSE HE WAS THE EDITOR OF A STUDENT NEWSPAPER!! Funniest shit I've heard all month.
Let's vote for Obama because he'll CUT TAXES for 95% of all working families.
So he saysQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
what people fail to realise is that, by not extending the bush tax breaks, 100% of people's taxes will actually increase, either directly or indirectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
morons...
well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by beatmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShow52
Holy shit... you're describing the Harvard Law Review as a "student newspaper"!? Do you have any idea how much the Law Review is leaned upon in actual court cases? Do you know how much this "newspaper" affects the legal system in the United States? Being the president of H's Law Review guarantees you will have an important position in the legal system for life... like five or so supreme court justices were previous editors.
Dude, this comment just shows off how little you know about civil society and American politics. :roll:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubgirl
No, what you fail to realize since you listen to nothing but Republican spin instead of thinking for yourself (or just doing like 5 mins of research) is that Obama has a tax policy that accounts for what middle-class families lose by cutting out the Bush tax cuts and replacing them with a new tax cut in which the greater amount of tax rebates goes to people further down the tax bracket (incomes below $250,000):
"The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found." - Chicago Sun-Times
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...-tax30.article
and how much of that "tax policy" that i gain will be eaten up to pay for UHC and other welfare reforms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubgirl
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.
next to the toilet paper, ull find them
Aren't you late for a Mensa meeting, zippy?Quote:
Originally Posted by celticgrafix
damn get off my dick, what do u respond to all my posts, do something better with ur timeQuote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
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.
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
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Very good points, Cuchulain.
The only sane thing for you Obama fanboys out there, hell, anyone, would be to vote for Ron Paul.
Here, have fun reading through this:
http://apscuhuru.org/issues/election2008/index.xhtml
Obama isn't for 'change'. Obama is for more bullshit, this time in Democrat flavor.
Ron Paul is a fucking flake with some dangerously right wing views. You pauloholics crack me up.
I'm no pauloholic. And speaking of dangerously fascist views, just take a look at McCain and Obama. As it is, Paul is the lesser of 3 evils, and the one candidate that benefits the majority of Americans, not just right wing looneys and big business. He's also - going by his track record, the LEAST right wing of all current candidates, democrat or republican, so what gives mike?
LMAO...oh yeah, Dr. Paul is quite the progressive...SMDH...Quote:
Originally Posted by circ
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/16/153755/091
The fact that the dangerous Dr. Paul is in bed with Alex Jones and his batshit crazy ship of fools also comes as no surprise.
Paul believes in freedom and limited, non-invasive government. You are really stretching here Chef.