Obama took one on the chin tonight!

[240 is Back]

Rob, that was an off the cuff statment when he said that. It's like asking "What is rich" quick response "I dunno, how does $5mil sound"?

He should still avoid them though.

Off-the-cuff statements from the most powerful man in the world carry a ton of weight.  His casual statements about "bomb bomb iran' and 'why not make it 100 years' and 'never again will we fight a war for energy needs'.... they do a lot to recruit jihadists overseas. 

If mccain is elected, Ahmedijnutbag will be able to say - with video proof - that the US president wants to bomb iran, bombed iraq for oil, and will be in the region for 100 years.  That's an amazing recruitment tool for jihadists, and ensures his people vote to keep him in power.

Mccain has to be smarter than that.  He has to be dignified and controlled.  Act as if everything he say will end up in a textbook one day.

[Decker]

Decker, $250+ a year isn't rich. That's upper middle class in the Maryland/N. Virginia area. That tax will hit a lot of working families and retired military (who are still working) where I live. I simply can not afford to vote for this guy. He's taking away money from me to invest for my future and the future of my wife and kids.

Obama talked about the context of what rich meant, i.e., taking into account that $250k is not the same in New York as it is in Crawfordsville, IN.  Any tax will take away money from your pocket.  I think you're right in pointing out that the problem is the runaway spending.  However we keep re-electing these guys b/c they bring home the bacon--gov. largesse.  Ultimately, this points back to the People.  It's a vicious cycle--they spend too much but we re-elect them b/c they bring home the governmental spending.

True sacrifice is damn near dead.  We've mortgaged our futures and the bills are due.

As far as our county's crushing debt. What would any one of us do if we were in debt because we were spending more than we were taking in? Say, "Oh my God, I need to get a better paying job so I can spend more?" Unlikely. Any sane and responsible person would look at ways to spend less and re-prioritize how our money is pissed away.

Why should we, as taxpayers and voters, expect any less from the knobs we elect into office?

Did it make sense to pre-fund Soc. Sec. in the 1980s only to raid the trust?  Or offer a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut when the country is quickly becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese?

The bills have to be paid at some point.  The money has to come from somewhere.  Politicians go where the money is at.

I know you want to keep more of what you earn.  I do too.  Look at the Clinton tax hike, that didn't crush the wealthy.  They did rather well (for many other disparate reasons). 

The money has to come from somewhere.  The Borrow and Spend policies of McCain will end up costing our country much more down the road.

[youandme]

All of the news channels are picking up on this.  Pro-Choice voters really want to see the abortion issue go away from the debate arena, but it's just not going to happen.  Information like this (Obama voting against a purely evil bill to allow doctors to literally kill babies that survive botched abortions) will be a very hot topic. 

What do you make of it? Pro-Choice voters are even turned off by it.

Has he came out, and defended the reasons why he voted for it twice?

[shootfighter1]

Well, Biden just proposed 1 billion of our tax $ to Georgia, in addition to the aide, $ and supplies already sent.  Looks like no one respects our national debt. 

$250,000 per household (thats two earners so $125,000 per year per person) is upper middle class in many areas of the country.  But remember, Obama is going to raise all sorts of taxes, not just income taxes on the upper middle class & wealthy.

240, your right...McCain needs to avoid the off the cuff comments.  His point was that he does not want to raise taxes on everyone.  Some people ignore (or have no idea) the fact that we already have a graduated income tax.

[shootfighter1]

Weary...yes.  Sometimes when your typing fast, spelling goes out the window.

[240 is Back]

240, your right...McCain needs to avoid the off the cuff comments.  His point was that he does not want to raise taxes on everyone.  Some people ignore (or have no idea) the fact that we already have a graduated income tax.

When the most powerful man in the world will say, in one evening that being worth $5mil is rich, and he's like "everybody to be rich!"...

It makes me question his judgment.

He is saying things he didn't think thru, or he is talking down to us, trying to give us a line of BS that "elect me and we'll all be rich!"

Either way, the leader of the free world needs to have better judgment than that.  I want to see a well-spoken, calm and collected guy who weighs the options before blurting out numbers.

Will he just blurt out numbers during high level negotiations with Russia or a nuclear Iran?

[shootfighter1]

I understand your concern and I agree, he needs to be more careful of the off the cuff remarks.  Same thing with Obama's "above my paygrade" comment.  Thats what happens when there's no script...we will see some minor mistakes/misspeaks. 

However, its obvious that he is not promising, in any way, for everyone to be rich.  Thats ridiculous.  I took it to mean that he wants everyone to have the opportunity to be rich, whatever $ amount that is to the person, and wants people to keep a greater % of what they earn.  Actually, I don't see how anyone can really interpret that another way.

[Decker]

...
$250,000 per household (thats two earners so $125,000 per year per person) is upper middle class in many areas of the country.  But remember, Obama is going to raise all sorts of taxes, not just income taxes on the upper middle class & wealthy.

...

Obama's plan promises to not raise any tax on the middle or lower class.  In fact, his plan has a tax cut for those people. 

We'll see if he lives up to that promise if elected.

[shootfighter1]

I hear ya Decker but he said it himself....households that make over $250,000 are likely to see higher taxes.  My point is that in many areas that is upper middle class, not wealthy.

The super wealthy in this country are people that make over 1 million per year and there are plenty of them... business CEOs, etc.  If taxes were raised just on those people (or income that falls above that), it would be less of an issue.

[Dos Equis]

My wife surprised me with digital cable tv on Saturday.  Shocked to death was more like it, so I got to see the questioning...it wasn't a debate.

Obama's tax hikes will hit the rich.  Who are the rich?  Like Obama said, the top 4% or so income earners---that's 250k+ per year.

Obama's income tax increase modestly hits only the rich.

Obama's payroll tax increase hits those earning above the SS wage base which is $102,000 for 2008.  So the payroll tax cap for SS is removed.

Why tax the rich or well-to-do?  That's where the money is.  And lord knows, the country is in crushing debt. 

We have to pay our bills.

We cannot continue the trend of borrow and spend.  That's McCain's way and it is unsustainable.

Welcome to the 21st century.   

I disagree.  "Rich" isn't determined by income.  Does his plan exempt small business owners who gross $250K a year? 

[Dos Equis]

In all fairness, Mccain is about 25 years older.

Of course he's more experienced.  I'm sure Strom Thurmond or Byrd or one of those 90-year old senators has about 20 more years experience than Mccain.  Are they better than Mccain because of it?

Strom Thurmond has been dead for five years. 

[240 is Back]

wealthy = $5 mil per year.

To think it's anything less it traitorous liberal thinking!

[240 is Back]

Strom Thurmond has been dead for five years. 

then in that case he's off the list.

Byrd is still alive and kicking.  He's 25 years older than mccain and therefore has the same advantage in judgment and wisdom that mccain has over obama.

[Decker]

I hear ya Decker but he said it himself....households that make over $250,000 are likely to see higher taxes.  My point is that in many areas that is upper middle class, not wealthy.

The super wealthy in this country are people that make over 1 million per year and there are plenty of them... business CEOs, etc.  If taxes were raised just on those people (or income that falls above that), it would be less of an issue.

I have to agree with you on that point--250k incomes do not guarantee 'wealth.'

I think Ed Wolff had the right idea when he recommended a moderate 'wealth tax.'  The economic elites don't make their money in income for the most part.  They make it in capital gains--buying/selling property/business, stocks etc.


http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

[Decker]

Welcome to the 21st century.   

I disagree.  "Rich" isn't determined by income.  Does his plan exempt small business owners who gross $250K a year? 

It's good to be here.  If it weren't for my company cellphone, I wouldn't have one of those either.  My wife is rather ascetic when it comes to the luxuries of life.

I agree with you.  'Rich' should be defined by net assets or something like that.  Earned income is not a big factor to truly wealthy people.  Passive income is though.

I'm not sure what Obama proposes for the taxation of closely held businesses.  So far, I've just been paying attention to the income taxes.

[youandme]

I hear ya Decker but he said it himself....households that make over $250,000 are likely to see higher taxes.  My point is that in many areas that is upper middle class, not wealthy.

I agree, it's even a more stupid play on words on Obama's part. What is he trying to say that 5 million does not make someone "rich" but it should be 250k + you are rich, so he can tax you on that?

250k + in many parts of the united states, is not much money.

Rick Warren should have asked Obama about his decision to let labour indiced abortion survivors die in a hospital kitchen sink.

[Colossus_500]

What do you make of it? Pro-Choice voters are even turned off by it.

Has he came out, and defended the reasons why he voted for it twice?

Don't know how the story's going to play out, but I definitely think it's going to service at a pivotal point in the election.  Missed the news last night, so I didn't catch anything. 

He hasn't said anything yet, but I know that there were rumblings in the morning news yesterday.

[w8tlftr]

Obama talked about the context of what rich meant, i.e., taking into account that $250k is not the same in New York as it is in Crawfordsville, IN.  Any tax will take away money from your pocket.  I think you're right in pointing out that the problem is the runaway spending.  However we keep re-electing these guys b/c they bring home the bacon--gov. largesse.  Ultimately, this points back to the People.  It's a vicious cycle--they spend too much but we re-elect them b/c they bring home the governmental spending.

Here's where we agree, Decker. The problem is run away spending and basing budgets on projected spending and projecting intake from tax revenue. Of cource, we the people, are ultimately to blame. We get the government we deserve.

True sacrifice is damn near dead.  We've mortgaged our futures and the bills are due.
Did it make sense to pre-fund Soc. Sec. in the 1980s only to raid the trust?  Or offer a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut when the country is quickly becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese?

Nope. That makes no sense at all. I blame both parties for selling our country out. I'm sick and tired of the American public being held hostage by the two party system.

The bills have to be paid at some point.  The money has to come from somewhere.  Politicians go where the money is at.

Sad but true. That means they hit up the working schmucks like you and me.

I know you want to keep more of what you earn.  I do too.  Look at the Clinton tax hike, that didn't crush the wealthy.  They did rather well (for many other disparate reasons). 

The money has to come from somewhere.  The Borrow and Spend policies of McCain will end up costing our country much more down the road.

In all fairness to Clinton he did lower the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

Let's be fair here, D. Both parties borrow and spend (what they don't have).

Here's an interesting article I read on WSJ.com. Give it a read if you have time.

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[ToxicAvenger]

I know your pro choice, as am I in some instances, but what is your take on Obama voting no "for life support for babies born when induced abortions fail"?

i think thats sick...if it is true

[Decker]

....

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Bush tax cuts stimulate growth but they don't stimulate enough growth to pay for the cost of the tax cut.  The tax cut is a net loss to the government's revenue.

If Obama's elected, there will be unintended consequences to at least one of his tax hikes.  If he removes the SocSec wage base cap, that will kill a certain type of fairly popular tax qualified retirement plan.  That could be bad if employers with such plans decide not to choose a new type of QRP.

I think we both see that this problem of spending ultimately comes from the People.  If there was a public demand for economic sanity in government (sort of like the impulse underlying much of Ron Paul's candidacy), we'd clean things up in a hurry.

[w8tlftr]

The Bush tax cuts stimulate growth but they don't stimulate enough growth to pay for the cost of the tax cut.  The tax cut is a net loss to the government's revenue.

If Obama's elected, there will be unintended consequences to at least one of his tax hikes.  If he removes the SocSec wage base cap, that will kill a certain type of fairly popular tax qualified retirement plan.  That could be bad if employers with such plans decide not to choose a new type of QRP.

I think we both see that this problem of spending ultimately comes from the People.  If there was a public demand for economic sanity in government (sort of like the impulse underlying much of Ron Paul's candidacy), we'd clean things up in a hurry.

Spend more than you take in and (omg) you're in the red.

It's our own damn fault.