Or Obama's 3.5 trillion in taxes
Posted By: wow!!!!!!! on 2008-10-13
In Reply to: Wait a minute. What's that I see trailing behind me? - It's the double-digit rat pack.
xx
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
A trillion here, a trillion there, why doesn't congress take a pay cut? nm
x
Obama bailout up to just short of a trillion....
and he has been in office HOW long? lol. Doesn't count the billions we already spent. This is new spending. Talk about spending like a drunken sailor....lol. Hello democratic majority. LOL.
Yes, everyone will pay more taxes under Obama...
By Ned Barnett,
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1. |
Three more tax Lies at the link: http://www.americanthinker.com.....ncrea.html
F: Obama is going to raise MY taxes...
DH and I don't work hard to give to those who can't/don't/won't.
MQ pays tons for those taxes of Obama's
They certainly must for so many MTs to be all atwitter over this plan. Fred Thompson said it perfectly last PM.
So those "moneybags" need to stop griping about MQ and how crappy it pays. You think you have less in your pockets now? You think this crap he's promising is free? How ignorant!
Gee, you must be a millionaire if you are worried about Obama and taxes.
Tdd
Problem is, the taxes Obama does raise
nm
Compare your taxes under McC and Obama plans
I just did mine and I pay less taxes under Obama.
http://www.electiontaxes.com/
obama's voting record on taxes
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
Yeah, and now put Obama in there to raise taxes
nm
Obama says he hates paying taxes
++
It's called "trickle down taxes"....all of Obama's plans....sm
in the end, will RAISE the price and cost of all those businesses who offer services and practices to all of US.....his raising THEIR taxes will RAISE what we spend out of our pockets....not to mention every other TAX which may not be INCOME TAX, will skyrocket, under Obama.
Geez....do all your reserach and do the math
McCain would start new jobs, Obama new taxes.nm
x
What the chart shows is that Obama is going to raise taxes on the people....
who employ the people in the other brackets. Trickle down will not be beneficial. What is wrong with giving the middle class a break? They are already supporting most of the lower class anyway. THe lower class already pay next to nothing in taxes. Oh I forgot...economic parity, redistribution of wealth....good old Marxist values.
How much is $1 trillion?
Million...billion...trillion. We get so used to hearing these words that they have no meaning. They even sound alike, so we forget how much larger a billion is than a million, and how much larger a trillion is than a billion.
Imagine that you're holding ten $1 bills in your hand. Lay them down on the table one at a time at a rate of $1 per second. 1...2...3...4...etc.
Okay, you've now just spent $10 in ten seconds. To spend $1 trillion at this rate would take you 32,000 years,laying down $1 every second of every day of every week of every year. Spending Obama's $3.75 trillion budget would take you 120,000 years.
Put another way, the first homo sapiens is thought by evolutionists to have appeared about 110-120,000 years ago. Personally, I don't think so, but let's say he did. If Mr. H.S. had discovered a pile of $3.75 trillion lying around, and if he and one of his descendants in every generation since then had spent the money at a rate of $1 per second, his descendant in the year 2009 could have handed the last dollar to Obama.
I've just received this news flash. The search for the H.S. descendant has failed. In his place, American taxpayers will hand our last dollar to Obama instead. Anyone who believes that tax increases are coming only for those who make $250,000 and up are deluding themselves. If nothing else, the prospect of raging inflation lies ahead, and we all pay sales taxes as a percentage of the price of everything we buy, so if the tax bill isn't in your annual return, it will come through the back door, down the chimney or some other way.
Agree with that but where is the other 3 trillion
Obama's social programs will need minimum of 3 trillion MORE to pay for all those government agencies, deep pockets to oversee all those government agencies, and then more government agencies to oversee those government agencies to make sure they are doing what they're supposed to be doing....yea, right, I'm not falling for it.
3.5 trillion dollars and that's a low ball estimate. where will it all come from after he brings our money back from Iraq? No one wants to address that.
He can't get that kind of money from the 5% rich he seems to have so much bitterness towards, so where will it come from?
This is nothing to celebrate, unless another trillion
nm
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion
(Okay. Everyone in Congress and the White House, empty your pockets.)
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion (Update1)
By Mark Pittman
Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.
"If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that's what they don't want us to know," said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets.
The Fed stepped into a rescue role that was the original purpose of the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The central bank loans don't have the oversight safeguards that Congress imposed upon the TARP.
Total Fed lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time Nov. 6. It rose by 138 percent, or $1.23 trillion, in the 12 weeks since Sept. 14, when central bank governors relaxed collateral standards to accept securities that weren't rated AAA.
'Been Bamboozled'
Congress is demanding more transparency from the Fed and Treasury on bailout, most recently during Dec. 10 hearings by the House Financial Services committee when Representative David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said Americans had "been bamboozled."
Bloomberg News, a unit of New York-based Bloomberg LP, on May 21 asked the Fed to provide data on collateral posted from April 4 to May 20. The central bank said on June 19 that it needed until July 3 to search documents and determine whether it would make them public. Bloomberg didn't receive a formal response that would let it file an appeal within the legal time limit.
On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request, expanding the range of when the collateral was posted. It filed suit Nov. 7.
In response to Bloomberg's request, the Fed said the U.S. is facing "an unprecedented crisis" in which "loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects."
Data Provider
The Fed supplied copies of three e-mails in response to a request that it disclose the identities of those supplying data on collateral as well as their contracts.
While the senders and recipients of the messages were revealed, the contents were erased except for two phrases identifying a vendor as "IDC." One of the e-mails' subject lines refers to "Interactive Data -- Auction Rate Security Advisory May 1, 2008."
Brian Willinsky, a spokesman for Bedford, Massachusetts- based Interactive Data Corp., a seller of fixed-income securities information, declined to comment.
"Notwithstanding calls for enhanced transparency, the Board must protect against the substantial, multiple harms that might result from disclosure," Jennifer J. Johnson, the secretary for the Fed's Board of Governors, said in a letter e-mailed to Bloomberg News.
'Dangerous Step'
"In its considered judgment and in view of current circumstances, it would be a dangerous step to release this otherwise confidential information," she wrote.
New York-based Citigroup Inc., which is shrinking its global workforce of 352,000 through asset sales and job cuts, is among the nine biggest banks receiving $125 billion in capital from the TARP since it was signed into law Oct. 3. More than 170 regional lenders are seeking an additional $74 billion.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would meet congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.
The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg lawsuit, filed in New York, doesn't seek money damages.
'Right to Know'
"There has to be something they can tell the public because we have a right to know what they are doing," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
"It would really be a shame if we have to find this out 10 years from now after some really nasty class-action suit and our financial system has completely collapsed," she said.
The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks that handed over collateral including stocks and subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site.
Borrowers include the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup and New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., the country's biggest bank by assets.
Banks oppose any release of information because that might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group, said in an interview last month.
'Complete Truth'
"Americans don't want to get blindsided anymore," Mendez said in an interview. "They don't want it sugarcoated or whitewashed. They want the complete truth. The truth is we can't take all the pain right now."
The Bloomberg lawsuit said the collateral lists "are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression."
In response, the Fed argued that the trade-secret exemption could be expanded to include potential harm to any of the central bank's customers, said Bruce Johnson, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle. That expansion is not contained in the freedom-of-information law, Johnson said.
"I understand where they are coming from bureaucratically, but that means it's all the more necessary for taxpayers to know what exactly is going on because of all the money that is being hurled at the banking system," Johnson said.
The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net;
Last Updated: December 12, 2008 11:35 EST
Like the 2002 Bush $1.3 trillion tax cut for the wealthy
decimated the $128 billion FY 2001 surplus, shifted the tax burden to the middle class while he went on a deficit spending spree and brought their ever diminishing numbers to their knees by September 2008? You want me to vote for the guy who backed up these policies 90% of the time, the same guy who has yet to utter the words "middle class" in a public forum during this entire campaign? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances on the change train.
Correct....or the 3.5 trillion dollar social programs
@
Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout...sm
Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout
Obama and his staff receptive to ideas, Doyle says
By SCOTT BAUER • The Associated Press • January 3, 2009
MADISON — Five Democratic governors are asking the federal government for a $1 trillion bailout package, including $250 billion for education and $150 billion in middle class tax cuts.
Advertisement
The governors from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio on Friday said they have presented their plan to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team as well as congressional leaders.
They said that level of federal aid is needed to deal with unprecedented state budget shortfalls in 41 states and Washington, D.C., that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pegged at $42 billion for the current fiscal year alone.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle said congressional leaders and the Obama team have been receptive to the governors' ideas.
"That's not to say they've told us this is what they'll do or they're with us all the way," Doyle said. He also said other governors were involved in creating the plan, which grew out of an early December meeting that Obama had with the nation's governors.
Obama's aides and congressional leaders have been talking about a package roughly half the size of the two-year plan the five governors proposed Friday.
A $1 trillion is equal to 6.7 percent of the gross domestic product, the U.S. economy's total output in a single year. A package of that size is likely to draw significant opposition from congressional Republicans and concern from moderate and conservative Democratic lawmakers who oppose large budget deficits.
In addition to the money for education and tax cuts, the governors said their plan includes $350 billion for road construction and other infrastructure projects and $250 billion for social service programs such as Medicaid.
The governors all said their states are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls that will require deep cuts to services and possibly irreparably harm their education systems.
"We aren't crying wolf," Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said. "These are real circumstances, unprecedented situations we are facing."
Ohio's budget deficit could grow to $7.3 billion even after $1.9 billion was cut from its current budget, Strickland said.
A forecast from Global Insight shows that the economy hasn't hit bottom yet.
National economic growth is now expected to drop 1.8 percent this year, rather than increase 1 percent.
The U.S. labor market is expected to lose 3.7 million jobs during the downturn, with unemployment reaching 8.7 percent in the first half of 2010, it said.
That forecast assumes there will be a $550 billion federal stimulus package, roughly half of what the governors requested.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090103/GPG0101/901030590/1978
A trillion dollars being spent, 1100 pages
and the American people aren't allowed to look at it let alone the house and senate don't get time to read it? WTFrig is that all about?
President Obama=bigger taxes, bigger government, and a profound change in society and culture
Over a $10 trillion dollar deficit today? That didn't happen on O's watch.
Yes, they need to trim down a lot of the programs crammed in the current stimulus package. But I don't approve of McCain's, either. Giving the top 10% a tax break benefits NO ONE but the top 10%. They drink imported wines, buy designer clothes and travel to foreign destinations - how does that benefit the bulk of Americans? It takes $30,000 to $40,000 in gas just to fill up their yachts - who does that benefit? Not us. Instead of "screw the poor!" - how about "screw the rich!"
You won't pay more taxes
The fact of the matter is McCain's tax proposals are the same as Bushes - he wants to make the tax cuts for the rich PERMANENT. Therefore, the burden of taxes falls on the backs of the middle class. Yes, I worked for Children Services - by taking in foster children and adopting hard to place children the parents receive quite a few entitlements - that is true. (I'd rather work - I saw how hard it was to raise "damaged" children). I had a weekend foster child, as a single mother, with my own 2 children and custody of my neice and never applied for food stamps, medical care, etc. My husband took off and dodged state-to-state to avoid paying childsupport. How we managed, I guess it was just easier then. Obama's tax plan does not include YOU at your tax bracket - you will benefit from his plan - are you benefitting from Bush's? I know we aren't. I'm not asking for pity. 1 out of 3 people will get cancer. I paid for my disabiity insurance and I am still fighting for my benefits (they play games and lie to delay payments), so I will scrap aluminum and do whatever I have to in order to keep food on the table. I'm not lazy. I worked hard raising my children by myself, bought my own home and did not remarry until my kids were adults. I had to write to state representatives in order to get my insurance disability to MOVE. I have written my state representatives before when my ex-husband was dodging child support. I learned to lean Democrat while working at Children Services and also by all the things I learned in college. Those dem state reps helped me and even called me at work to ensure the Bureau of Support was doing their jobs. How can I argue with that? Please read the issues on both candidates and don't believe everything you hear on the news and read on this board. McCain's attack ads are lies and that's sad as we considered him when he ran against Bush. Now he is just another Bushie.
Taxes
mCcain gives back rich. Obama to give back to middle class. Simple as that. I have never attended any institute of higher lurnin so that makes me sure I am right. Too much knowledge a dangeris thingie.
More about taxes...
My personal taxes (single renter w/no dependents) WERE higher under Clinton, but there was only ONE reason for that: I was making a LOT MORE MONEY BACK THEN.
That's when my MT paycheck was at it's highest ever, about$40K per year. Since then, my income has gone down (thanks in large part to nobody in Bush's term in office doing diddly to stop the hemorrhage of our jobs out of the US & off to India, Pakistan, Philippines, etc.
And to make things worse, these same companies selling our livelihood down the river were getting REWARDED monetarily for doing so.
So now, I make half of what I made during the Clinton years. (About $20K/year, for doing about twice the work.) Retirement is now almost a virtual impossibility, thanks to the tanking of our stock-market-driven 401K not only after 9/11, but today as well.
I just hope, if we end up with 4-8 more years of this greed on Capital Hill, and throughout our nation's corporate world, that everyone gets used to paying for those who will have nothing. If I lose my job and/or health insurance, then I, too, will be contributing to the money-pit that hospital emergency rooms have become (and which is why they're closing one by one), because that's where I, too, will have to go for my medical care.
Taxes
McCain will raise taxes too. How else is he going to fund his wars? Not to mention Bushes bail out of his cronie Wall Streeters, never mind that those execs collected millions in bonuses before they ran the companies into the ground. We taxpayers are left to pick up the tab. If Obama sticks to his guns he won't raise taxes on MOST of us, certainly not me, as I don't come close to an income over $250,000 per year...wish I did, I'd be happy to fork over a few extra tax dollars.
taxes are taxes
you don;t get to chose where your money goes. Only United Way does that.
that would still be taxes... nm
x
Even more taxes for us
So Obama plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That equates to more $ from our pockets, just in a different form. If that's not bad enough, see below--and Snopes is leftist, so they wouldn't publish this unless it were true. They probably cringed as they posted it. Y'all must be making some huge bucks at MQ to want even more $ taken out of your checks. If so, then why all the griping about lost wages? Can't have it both ways!
Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 12:00 PM
We could resolve this financial crisis by CLOSING the books on the fourteen listed programs..............WHERE IS THE CONGRESS???
Read this! It will open your eyes for sure!
Don't miss the Total at the bottom.
WONDER WHY YOU DON'T HEAR MUCH ABOUT THIS IN THE DEBATES. NONE OF THE
PEOPLE THAT RUN THE DEBATES (TV NEWORKS), WHO ASK THE QUESTIONS WILL
ALLOW THIS TYPE INFORMATION
TO GET OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
THE DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICANS GO HIDE WHEN THESE QUESTIONS ARE
ASKED, WHY? WHAT COSTS MORE PER YEAR THAN THE IRAQ WAR?
Answer: Illegal Aliens Cause Massive Cuts For US Seniors. I hope the fo llowing 14 reasons
are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick
of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts:
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also,
as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants
In The United States'. http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message, but on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on
SEND THIS TO ALL YOU KNOW. THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO
KNOW THIS INFORMATION, UNLESS THEY DON'T MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY WITH
ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO DIDN'T PAY A DIME.
LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON 'PEOPLE POWER' AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT OR INDEPENDENT! KEEP IT GOING.
Taxes
Would I have a yearly capital gain of $250.000.--, I would GLADLY pay more taxes, actually only 3 percent more.
40% of that 95% DON'T pay taxes...
where is all the money coming from to pay for all of his programs?
Everyone has to pay taxes, sorry
That's the way it works in our society. It's been backwards for years with the rich getting all the breaks. If you make a lot, you pay more. What is wrong with that?
I doubt that YOU have to worry about it mtstar.
No, we don't need more taxes
but we're gonna get 'em anyway regardless of which one is elected. How else is that 700 bil bail-out gonna get paid back?
I pay taxes
and I need a break. I know plenty of others are in the same boat also. It's not like only rich people pay taxes. Come on now.
Many of those wealthy people have gotten there by taking advantage of lowly workers who can barely pay fundamental bills. How many times are people on this board bi+c#ing about working harder for less and our jobs going to other countries!
Have you tried to get a new job lately? Multiple rounds of testing and endless interviews to the point where you'd think you were trying to get a CEO position ... when in reality it pays barely over minium wage. pRIcEleSs!
Not all of us poor people aren't working hard or are blowing money on extravagance!
Taxes
Well, then, maybe you'll appreciate the tax break you will see under his administration.
Sin taxes.........sm
I understand the brewers' outrage, but "fair is fair." Smokers have been taxed out the wazoo on cigarettes and they are about to go up another $0.61 per pack as a means of paying for Medicaid. Personally, I don't think it is fair to tax any particular class of person based on their habits to fund government spending. What's next? A tax increase on knitting needles or perhaps scrapbook materials?
Regardless of where the taxes
come from (state or federal) they will still rise because of the cap and trade Obama wants to institute. IMO, still his fault because he said himself during his campaign that this would make energy costs skyrocket. He knows instituting cap and trade will raise costs for all consumers. Why do some people continually give Obama an excuse for everything. Nothing will ever be his fault. He is so perfect and wonderful and who cares if he does something that will end up raising prices on utilities, gas, groceries, etc. Not like are economy is suffering or anything or that people are barely getting by. But hey.....Obama is such a great guy...gosh darn it.
So maybe if we don't pay our taxes, the gov't. in
If so, count me in! This year the gov't. is probably only going to get a note from me saying to bill it to AIG. They can afford to pay my share.
Taxes......
Obama’s plan would raise fuel prices by 6% and power prices by 7% on average in 2012...
you think that ain't a tax? This is on the average U.S. citizen of which I assume you are one of? You don't mind paying more for your power so you can continue to work making less and less?
And that is just the beginning....
Taxes, foreclosures, the Dow...sm
Home sales and foreclosures are up!
I hope dems do raise taxes on the rich, the million dollar and up club. I am a supporter of the flat tax. 10% (or whatever number that makes sense) across the board. Even Bill Gates other mega millionares have said themselves that the tax breaks they have received of late are unneeded.
The Dow Industrial. Now, this to me is a joke! When you have a sister and friends lose their job due to factory downsizing. Two more factories completely move overseas for lower overhead costs leaving 500+ people with no jobs. Of course the companies' stock is doing good, but now I'll ask you what does that mean to regular Joes?
Unemployment. We are doing good on that. Most everyone who wants a job is able to find work in my city. May not pay much of anything, but there is work nonetheless.
taxes, foreclosures, the Dow...
The Dems will not raise taxes on the rich. In case you had not noticed, most of the Dems in Congress ARE the rich. I am also a proponet of the flat tax; however, the Dems will never pass that either because the very low income folks will squeal (stating 10% of 10,000 hits them much harder than 10% of several million for millionaires) and it is the very low income folks who keep voting the Dems in. although those same who will complain about 10% of $10,000 also get so muuch in aid they end up better off than most hard working middle class families because of entitlements, also a Dem product, that the Dems tax the rest of us (you included) to provide for these folks so they will continue to vote for the Dems. Pretty good for Dems when it works. Trouble is, it benefits the rich club Dems and pretty much shafts the rest of the Dems, and why they can't see that is a source of wonder for me. The Dems act like rich people are the only people that got tax cuts. I don't know about you, but I brought home more on my paycheck after the Bush tax cuts. I know that the marriage penalty removal helped a LOT of people. But the Dems want to roll that back, because that was a moneymaker for them to put out in more entitlements. You should really look into what is going on before deciding that more taxes are a good thing, because trust me, it will NOT be just on the millionaire club.
As to the Dow, you better hope it stays up. Because the Dow are all the companies all over this great nation who employ many of us. Factory downsizing was slowed way down by those horrid Bush tax cuts. Factory downsizing has happened since the beginning of time and will always happen. If the Dems roll back the Bush tax cuts, stand back. You can look forward to a lot more.
Yes, unemployment is at record lows. If Dems roll back the Bush tax cuts, look out. Because medium business, mom and pop businesses, small folks who employ a LOT of people in this country will have to cut back again. Look for it to rise if tax cuts rolled back.
Stealing taxes
Actually, I had the same thing happen. I know you're mad. So am I. But you absolutely must remember the core truth -- the reason you had a tax bill that was more than your fair share and more than you could come up with by April 15th in the FIRST place was because democrats are leaning on you to fund the vote-buying giveaways with YOUR labor, YOUR income which they believe to be theirs. You are supposed to thank democrats for what they LEAVE you with, not grumble that they enforce their sick idea of social justice and obligation on people who actually get up in the morning and go work. I did the math. I had some of their constituency who are sucking on the government teat live with me for a homeless few months. I will never do that again. We are rapidly approaching a point in this country where half the country is living free off the other half. This economy will collapse when more than half live off less than half. Meaning me. And you. Remember, that you will never qualify for any government benefits under democrats because you work. You will however, qualify for their giveaway program, just not as a givee. At least the Republican plan is to share the burden of common needs (roads, defense) and let people who work hard keep as much as possible. Don't get me wrong. I am no lover of that RINO capitulator our party is running. He's made good press and put forth his false front of courage and honor, but every time he has had a chance to take a stand since he got into politics, he has compromised with the socialists. Please don't forget -- Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried and it always will. Nonconfiscatory capitalism works. Unfortunately, we don't have that in America anymore. But we do have socialism. All socialist economies eventually collapse to third world status unless they are coupled with a political system of tyrrany and fascism. Please don't vote for the communists.
PP comes out of our taxes. NOT a private org.
Why do you think so many taxpayers are sick of it? When does the "tax us til it bleeds stop?"
Go to www.barackobama.com/taxes/
A lot more information on his website....just look.
Go to www.barackobama.com/taxes/
This will answer your questions. Actually small-business owners will be given a tax credit. It's all on the website.
I TRIED ignoring them, but my taxes won't go away!
He will raise taxes for us all.
No way to set up these government programs of his without taking money from all of us.
So you're saying more dem taxes will help
xx
He HAS to raise taxes, no way around it
All those programs will not appear out of thin air. He will grow government bigger than ever...new departments, more employees for those departments, more of my tax money blown to heck and back. People actually believe ALL this can be done with TAX CUTS!! They are in total denial.
This man have voted REPEATEDLY to NOT NOT NOT cut taxes every darn time it has come up and has pushed for tax INCREASES. For those nonbelievers, all they gotta do is go look at his voting record. It's there for the scrutinizing.
Read his lips.....
He knows people are running scared and he can zoom in and steal their good sense with telling them he will cut taxes. BUT, as soon as he is in office, it won't happen and who will he blame then? Everybody but himself!!! He will not take any responsiblity for that either.
|
