Why is Obama's magic tax number falling so quickly?

In regards to Biden, whatever. He makes those goof ups all the time.

The infomercial is peculiar though, assuming it was intentional, because that just messes with the tax plan's credibility.

Why are no news stations covering this? I haven't even heard anything from the McCain camp? Shouldn't they be all over this?SolidSnake2142

You'll probably hear something eventually, but were also only two days away the election so I'm sure both campaigns are squeezing out the last of their pandering.

Up till recently he said $250,000 was the threshhold but in his infomercial it said 200,000 AND then Biden said 150,00. Are these gaffs? Have they really gone from 250 thousand to 150 thousand in a week? Why is no one talking about this? SolidSnake2142

No, they are actually rising. He always had said if you make less than 250,000 then your taxes will not go up. That's still the same. But his policy used to be if you made in between 150 and 250 your taxes would stay the same, now it's if you make between 200 and 250 your taxes will stay the same, but people who make 200 or less will see a drop.

Up till recently he said $250,000 was the threshhold but in his infomercial it said 200,000 AND then Biden said 150,00. Are these gaffs? Have they really gone from 250 thousand to 150 thousand in a week? Why is no one talking about this? SolidSnake2142

biased, liberal media and hes just straight up lying to us, o and by the way he has NEVER voted to cut taxes EVER, so i dont know y people are drinking his kool aid

[QUOTE="SolidSnake2142"]Why are no news stations covering this? I haven't even heard anything from the McCain camp? Shouldn't they be all over this?Sajo7

You'll probably hear something eventually, but were also only two days away the election so I'm sure both campaigns are squeezing out the last of their pandering.

it was on hannity and colmes last night on fox news :-)

[QUOTE="SolidSnake2142"]Up till recently he said $250,000 was the threshhold but in his infomercial it said 200,000 AND then Biden said 150,00. Are these gaffs? Have they really gone from 250 thousand to 150 thousand in a week? Why is no one talking about this? Franklinstein

No, they are actually rising. He always had said if you make less than 250,000 then your taxes will not go up. That's still the same. But his policy used to be if you made in between 150 and 250 your taxes would stay the same, now it's if you make between 200 and 250 your taxes will stay the same, but people who make 200 or less will see a drop.

Well that sums it up I guess.

Bill Richardson said $120,000.

I can't wait to see the voter regret people have for voting for Comrade Obama.

Then again they'll rationalize all the pointless parasitic social programs Comrade Obama enacts.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake2142"]Up till recently he said $250,000 was the threshhold but in his infomercial it said 200,000 AND then Biden said 150,00. Are these gaffs? Have they really gone from 250 thousand to 150 thousand in a week? Why is no one talking about this? Franklinstein

No, they are actually rising. He always had said if you make less than 250,000 then your taxes will not go up. That's still the same. But his policy used to be if you made in between 150 and 250 your taxes would stay the same, now it's if you make between 200 and 250 your taxes will stay the same, but people who make 200 or less will see a drop.

Bill Richardson said $120,000.

I can't wait to see the voter regret people have for voting for Comrade Obama.

Then again they'll rationalize all the pointless parasitic social programs Comrade Obama enacts.

cametall

Bill Richardson said $120,000.

I can't wait to see the voter regret people have for voting for Comrade Obama.

Then again they'll rationalize all the pointless parasitic social programs Comrade Obama enacts.

cametall

[QUOTE="cametall"]

Bill Richardson said $120,000.

I can't wait to see the voter regret people have for voting for Comrade Obama.

Then again they'll rationalize all the pointless parasitic social programs Comrade Obama enacts.

septemberluc

If Obama had Richardson's beard, I'd vote for him twice.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="cametall"]

Bill Richardson said $120,000.

I can't wait to see the voter regret people have for voting for Comrade Obama.

Then again they'll rationalize all the pointless parasitic social programs Comrade Obama enacts.

supercubedude64

If Obama had Richardson's beard, I'd vote for him twice.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake2142"]Why are no news stations covering this? I haven't even heard anything from the McCain camp? Shouldn't they be all over this?GerrywithaG15

You'll probably hear something eventually, but were also only two days away the election so I'm sure both campaigns are squeezing out the last of their pandering.

it was on hannity and colmes last night on fox news :-)

*Sarcasm has been used* Well we all know FOX news is the most reliable news. *Sarcasm has 10 min cooldown*

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake2142"]Why are no news stations covering this? I haven't even heard anything from the McCain camp? Shouldn't they be all over this?GerrywithaG15

You'll probably hear something eventually, but were also only two days away the election so I'm sure both campaigns are squeezing out the last of their pandering.

it was on hannity and colmes last night on fox news :-)

[QUOTE="GerrywithaG15"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake2142"]Why are no news stations covering this? I haven't even heard anything from the McCain camp? Shouldn't they be all over this?paradigm68

You'll probably hear something eventually, but were also only two days away the election so I'm sure both campaigns are squeezing out the last of their pandering.

it was on hannity and colmes last night on fox news :-)

*Sarcasm has been used* Well we all know FOX news is the most reliable news. *Sarcasm has 10 min cooldown*

Yeah we all know that NBC, with their staggering number of zero conservative reporters, is the most fair news station.

Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.septemberluc

yea about 10% or less of Obama's wanted budget

[QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.septemberluc

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.Buddha_basic

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

But see Bush was in office during a war, whereas Clinton was not.

Obama's tax plan is still the same as it's always been. The way it works is that if you make over 250,000 dollars your taxes will go up. If you make between 200,000 and 250,000 then your taxes are going to remain the same. And if you make less than 200,000 you will be getting a tax cut.

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

But see Bush was in office during a war, whereas Clinton was not.

You make that comment like this war was the only option, and was executed perfectly. I beg to differ.

because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.shoeman12

True. Once elected, he'll probably increase taxes for everyone after he realizes he won't have enough money to support his half-baked plans.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.jubino

True. Once elected, he'll probably increase taxes for everyone after he realizes he won't have enough money to support his half-baked plans.

Just curious, which half baked plans?

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.jubino

True. Once elected, he'll probably increase taxes for everyone after he realizes he won't have enough money to support his half-baked plans.

yea he will. I'm surprised not many people realize it yet though.. I mean, how many people are still waiting for clintons tax cuts?

because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.shoeman12

Obama's tax plan is still the same as it's always been. The way it works is that if you make over 250,000 dollars your taxes will go up. If you make between 200,000 and 250,000 then your taxes are going to remain the same. And if you make less than 200,000 you will be getting a tax cut.-Sun_Tzu-

because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.shoeman12

You know you'd be right if that was true but it's not. There has been a flip flopper this election though. He's voted for that 700 billion bailout and wants to buy up all the bad mortgages then turns around and cries how his opponent is a socialist. In fact you even have a picture of him in your sig.

[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.Buddha_basic

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

But see Bush was in office during a war, whereas Clinton was not.

You make that comment like this war was the only option, and was executed perfectly. I beg to differ.

What other option was there? The U.N. said there would be consequences if Saddam Hussein didn't come clean about his development of WMD's. And I never said it was managed perfectly but that's not all Bush's fault. We went into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein to help the Iraqi people. If we just left after we overthrew him then Al-Qeada would've overrun the place and all our efforts would've gone too waste.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.-Sun_Tzu-

You know you'd be right if that was true but it's not. There has been a flip flopper this election though. He's voted for that 700 billion bailout and wants to buy up all the bad mortgages then turns around and cries how his opponent is a socialist. In fact you even have a picture of him in your sig.

And yea thats antoehr thing. The republican party is yelling "socialist" when thats clearly not even true. Its just a scare tactic and it goes back to mccarthyism back in the 50's.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.Buddha_basic

You know you'd be right if that was true but it's not. There has been a flip flopper this election though. He's voted for that 700 billion bailout and wants to buy up all the bad mortgages then turns around and cries how his opponent is a socialist. In fact you even have a picture of him in your sig.

And yea thats antoehr thing. The republican party is yelling "socialist" when thats clearly not even true. Its just a scare tactic and it goes back to mccarthyism back in the 50's.

Really because redistribution of wealth is a socialist tenet, so how is Obama not a socialist?

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

But see Bush was in office during a war, whereas Clinton was not.

You make that comment like this war was the only option, and was executed perfectly. I beg to differ.

What other option was there? The U.N. said there would be consequences if Saddam Hussein didn't come clean about his development of WMD's. And I never said it was managed perfectly but that's not all Bush's fault. We went into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein to help the Iraqi people. If we just left after we overthrew him then Al-Qeada would've overrun the place and all our efforts would've gone too waste.

What was the reason to invade iraq in the first place? I dont think anyone in their right mind today would say it was a good decision. And there actually was a report (20/20 or dateline or something) following genearl Raymond Odierno who had just taken over command from patreus. They specifically asked Iraqi citicens if they wished the americans were gone at the cost of Saddam still being in power. They said yes, because at least they had simple amenities (water, electricity).

The truth is, we had terrorist forces going INTO iraq, to fight americans, after we invaded. Its not the other way around.

LOL

Obama's a socialist.

Apparently that's all a Republican supporter can say even though it's not true.

It's sad, I remember once when Republicans were actually logical.

[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.Buddha_basic

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

But see Bush was in office during a war, whereas Clinton was not.

You make that comment like this war was the only option, and was executed perfectly. I beg to differ.

What other option was there? The U.N. said there would be consequences if Saddam Hussein didn't come clean about his development of WMD's. And I never said it was managed perfectly but that's not all Bush's fault. We went into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein to help the Iraqi people. If we just left after we overthrew him then Al-Qeada would've overrun the place and all our efforts would've gone too waste.

What was the reason to invade iraq in the first place? I dont think anyone in their right mind today would say it was a good decision. And there actually was a report (20/20 or dateline or something) following genearl Raymond Odierno who had just taken over command from patreus. They specifically asked Iraqi citicens if they wished the americans were gone at the cost of Saddam still being in power. They said yes, because at least they had simple amenities (water, electricity).

The truth is, we had terrorist forces going INTO iraq, to fight americans, after we invaded. Its not the other way around.

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

halfirishhomer

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.halfirishhomer

You know you'd be right if that was true but it's not. There has been a flip flopper this election though. He's voted for that 700 billion bailout and wants to buy up all the bad mortgages then turns around and cries how his opponent is a socialist. In fact you even have a picture of him in your sig.

And yea thats antoehr thing. The republican party is yelling "socialist" when thats clearly not even true. Its just a scare tactic and it goes back to mccarthyism back in the 50's.

Really because redistribution of wealth is a socialist tenet, so how is Obama not a socialist?

Wow I don't even know where to begin. Wealth is always being redistributed. How do you think the roads in your neighborhood are built? How do you think policemen and firemen get payed? If you don't know, it's through taxes, and if you don't understand how those are examples redistribution of wealth then I'll be more than happy to explain.

The thing that Obama is trying to accomplish through his tax plan is to give struggling Americans a better opportunity. Now you can cry and moan how that's one of the tenets of socialism all you want, but that's one of the tenets that this country was built on. Not economic equality, but equal economic opportunity.

McCain once said that the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were a bad idea and were unfair to America's middle class, and he was right. All the Bush tax cuts did was make the rich richer at the expense of making the poor poorer, and now John McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent.

[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

septemberluc

But genocide and destruction of Israel is perfectly fine. :roll:

[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

septemberluc

We were talking about invading Iraq for months, are you really stupid enough to believe that he wouldn't hide them if he did have them? But if you still believe he didn't have them, then what do you have to say about the iraqi general who witnessed them moving the weapons into Iran?

[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

septemberluc

And what about Darfur? And north korea? The simple fact is, Bush used his "jesus told me to" speech, and the 9/11 attacks to drive america into a war that failed from teh beginning. And now people that cant seem to admit it was a catastrophe,and instead use the fact saddam killed his own people, and WMDS taht werent there, as reasons why we're over there.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

Coffee_Blade

But genocide and destruction of Israel is perfectly fine. :roll:

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

halfirishhomer

We were talking about invading Iraq for months, are you really stupid enough to believe that he wouldn't hide them if he did have them? But if you still believe he didn't have them, then what do you have to say about the iraqi general who witnessed them moving the weapons into Iran?