• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama's 95% Illusion

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JS80

lol that is the weakest rebuttal to a factual article i've ever seen. Funny how salon states the WSJ editorial is "in the tank" for the GOP, when they and all of other print media is "in the tank" for the donks.

Factual article? Check again, it's printed in the OP-ED section of the WSJ...and it's there for a reason. And the WSJ is by far the most biased editorial section of any major news outlet, it makes the Washington Times OP-ED section look like it was overseen by Noam Chomsky.

"Factual", "biased", etc, are not words defined by YOUR political views.

Analyzing a tax plan = Fact, NOT opinion. All that salon piece stated was that the "poor" pay FICA. The WSJ piece already acknowledges that but it's also assumed that it's not considered a "tax" for analysis purposes because of the purported benefits one receives from paying it.

Wrong, it is a editorial.

the title of the Article

"It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

then the article goes on to poorly explain why Obama is cutting Taxes, but rather adding credits that reduce your tax liability
 
Neither campaign's website has anything more than talking points regarding their proposed tax plans (Obama's; McCain's). Neither gives a listing of actual marginal tax brackets. Thus, everything they are saying in the ads is pure marketing with no substance. It's ridiculous and unacceptable that I can't go to either of their websites and actually calculate how much my tax burden would differ under the two candidates. Both = fail.
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: JS80
He's quite the magician.

Insightful as always.

As for magic, it's McCain who needs to pull a rabbit out of his hat right about now.

Actually, given that Obama is the one who's going to be elected, I'm far more terrified of his magic than McCain's.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The problem is that republicans take offense at taxes, but taxes are a symptom. The disease is spending, and their party is afflicted by it more severely than the democrats. Indeed, the indisputable reality shatters the conservative illusion, that reality being that for several decades now republicans have increased federal spending at a rate exceeding the democratic administrations during this time.

If you don't like taxes, the chemotherapy, why don't you embrace preventative medicine and not get cancer in the first place? Cut the spending. Your party keeps smoking and then cries foul when told it needs chemotherapy. If you don't get that round of chemo now, you'll need two later, and you may not live, either.

You mean like McCain said to freeze all federal spending other than veterans healthcare?
 
This is an interesting topic regarding Obama's economic and tax plans. Nobody has really been talking about what he is planning to do with these refundable credits. I took a look at his plan 2 weeks ago and had to reread that part just to make sure I understood what it says.

Do we as a nation want to hook another class onto govt handouts? Make them beholden and dependent on big govt like the poor?

Our progressive tax system has grown to the point the only way it can get more progressive for nearly half of the country is if we hand them money from another class.

McCain is failing to address this issue. More interested in going after Bill Ayers.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Upper middle class gets screwed - equivalent to a $500/person handout to everyone else

Good

Dave, its too bad they can't write an economic plan that just screws you over...now that would be great, would feed right into your chicken little rants.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
This is an interesting topic regarding Obama's economic and tax plans. Nobody has really been talking about what he is planning to do with these refundable credits. I took a look at his plan 2 weeks ago and had to reread that part just to make sure I understood what it says.

Do we as a nation want to hook another class onto govt handouts? Make them beholden and dependent on big govt like the poor?

Our progressive tax system has grown to the point the only way it can get more progressive for nearly half of the country is if we hand them money from another class.

McCain is failing to address this issue. More interested in going after Bill Ayers.

Betting many here are fine with the Robin Hood strategy.
 
I did this a few months ago... I wrote it down... uggaah... hear it is...

I only made $17,959 last year. My 2007 itemized tax list:

federal taxes
$955 - federal income tax
$1063 - social security tax
$249 - medicare tax
$193 - federal gas tax
$21 - federal telephone tax

state & local taxes
$327 - state income tax
$300 - state sales tax (approximate)
$120 - state sales recovery tax
$98 - state gas tax
$78 - vehicle registration tax
$25 - driver's license tax (amortized)
$23 - fishing license tax
$17 - state telephone tax
$8 - highway toll tax

invisible taxes [if you think it doesn't effect how much you're paid, you're a fool!]
$1063 federal payroll tax my employer had to pay on my behalf
$who knows? - state unemployment tax my employer had to pay on my behalf
$who knows? - state workers' compensation premium tax my employer had to pay on my behalf

The total taxes I keep hearing I didn't pay last year: $3,477

Again, I only made $17,959 last year. What am I doing wrong?
 
Obama is talking about playing robin Hood.

Why is no one wanting to address the spending issue.
Cut back entitlements - force the trimming of overhead/waste.
Put the government on a strict budget freeze across the board or even better, force a 10% in all budgets.

It might cause Congress to scream, but it would be benificial to the country.
 
Originally posted by: xenolith
I did this a few months ago... I wrote it down... uggaah... hear it is...

I only made $17,959 last year. My 2007 itemized tax list:

federal taxes
$955 - federal income tax
$1063 - social security tax
$249 - medicare tax
$193 - federal gas tax
$21 - federal telephone tax

state & local taxes
$327 - state income tax
$300 - state sales tax (approximate)
$120 - state sales recovery tax
$98 - state gas tax
$78 - vehicle registration tax
$25 - driver's license tax (amortized)
$23 - fishing license tax
$17 - state telephone tax
$8 - highway toll tax

invisible taxes [if you think it doesn't effect how much you're paid, you're a fool!]
$1063 federal payroll tax my employer had to pay on my behalf
$who knows? - state unemployment tax my employer had to pay on my behalf
$who knows? - state workers' compensation premium tax my employer had to pay on my behalf

The total taxes I keep hearing I didn't pay last year: $3,477

Again, I only made $17,959 last year. What am I doing wrong?

Single, no children, no home. Congress doesn't care about you.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Obama is talking about playing robin Hood.

Why is no one wanting to address the spending issue.
Cut back entitlements - force the trimming of overhead/waste.
Put the government on a strict budget freeze across the board or even better, force a 10% in all budgets.

It might cause Congress to scream, but it would be benificial to the country.

As much as i appreciate your ideas, i'd appreciate more birds in ths sky right abut now.

I need fast hard and hard to target and i don't have that.
 
With the Obama plan the single middle/working class are going to get creamed. The people with kids get almost all the tax breaks. Obama can claim all he wants he will get the rich. The rich will find ways to pay less. The burden will be on the rest of us with out kids who can't afford a team of lawyers and accountants.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: xenolith
I did this a few months ago... I wrote it down... uggaah... hear it is...

I only made $17,959 last year. My 2007 itemized tax list:

federal taxes
$955 - federal income tax
$1063 - social security tax
$249 - medicare tax
$193 - federal gas tax
$21 - federal telephone tax

state & local taxes
$327 - state income tax
$300 - state sales tax (approximate)
$120 - state sales recovery tax
$98 - state gas tax
$78 - vehicle registration tax
$25 - driver's license tax (amortized)
$23 - fishing license tax
$17 - state telephone tax
$8 - highway toll tax

invisible taxes [if you think it doesn't effect how much you're paid, you're a fool!]
$1063 federal payroll tax my employer had to pay on my behalf
$who knows? - state unemployment tax my employer had to pay on my behalf
$who knows? - state workers' compensation premium tax my employer had to pay on my behalf

The total taxes I keep hearing I didn't pay last year: $3,477

Again, I only made $17,959 last year. What am I doing wrong?

Single, no children, no home. Congress doesn't care about you.

BINGO!
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Obama is talking about playing robin Hood.

Why is no one wanting to address the spending issue.
Cut back entitlements - force the trimming of overhead/waste.
Put the government on a strict budget freeze across the board or even better, force a 10% in all budgets.

It might cause Congress to scream, but it would be benificial to the country.

As much as i appreciate your ideas, i'd appreciate more birds in ths sky right abut now.

I need fast hard and hard to target and i don't have that.

Politics son, politics:disgust:

Internal and external

 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JS80

lol that is the weakest rebuttal to a factual article i've ever seen. Funny how salon states the WSJ editorial is "in the tank" for the GOP, when they and all of other print media is "in the tank" for the donks.

Factual article? Check again, it's printed in the OP-ED section of the WSJ...and it's there for a reason. And the WSJ is by far the most biased editorial section of any major news outlet, it makes the Washington Times OP-ED section look like it was overseen by Noam Chomsky.

"Factual", "biased", etc, are not words defined by YOUR political views.

Analyzing a tax plan = Fact, NOT opinion. All that salon piece stated was that the "poor" pay FICA. The WSJ piece already acknowledges that but it's also assumed that it's not considered a "tax" for analysis purposes because of the purported benefits one receives from paying it.

Spinning a tax plan to score political points is not equal to "analyzing a tax plan". There is a clear political objective, and just as clearly a selective interpretation of the facts to present the kind of conclusion you and winrar111 like...that does not mean it's accurate or truthful.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Obama is talking about playing robin Hood.

Why is no one wanting to address the spending issue.
Cut back entitlements - force the trimming of overhead/waste.
Put the government on a strict budget freeze across the board or even better, force a 10% in all budgets.

It might cause Congress to scream, but it would be benificial to the country.

All the spending proposals I've seen indicate clearly that McCain will increase spending more and faster than Obama. So if we gotta spend it, it may as well go back to the people (what you're calling Robin Hood) instead of to the special interests. Just my opinion.

And everyone cries about taxes. Forget about taxes, that's just petty bickering. The only thing that matters is spending. If spending is increased, then so are your taxes. Period.
 
Originally posted by: quest55720
With the Obama plan the single middle/working class are going to get creamed. The people with kids get almost all the tax breaks. Obama can claim all he wants he will get the rich. The rich will find ways to pay less. The burden will be on the rest of us with out kids who can't afford a team of lawyers and accountants.

As a single guy with no kids who's comfortably in the middle class, I can honestly say I don't really care. I like more money, who doesn't? But I'm getting by just fine, and there are a lot of folks out there who aren't...and I'm getting pretty fucking tired of this whiny attitude of "I want more money, and screw the rest of the country" displayed by my financial peers.

There are certain things the government needs to do, and it takes money to do those things. And I'm fine with a disproportionate amount of that money coming from folks like me or folks who make far more money. You know why? Because that's the only way the system is going to work. I pulled my head out of my ass and decided that, while I personally might like to have way lower taxes, that's probably not a very good idea in the long run. Because liberals don't want to give up public education, and conservatives don't want to give up the defense budget...and that's fine, those things are good uses of money. But I find it totally ridiculous when people who are well off demand that we cruise the aisles of Wal-Mart, looking for poor people who "don't pay their fair share".

I pay a lot of taxes, I don't use very many government services, and I manage to not make whining about it the centerpiece of my political philosophy...it's really not that hard.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford

In any case, your ranting aside, I think we're saying the same thing about their respective tax plans...we just disagree about what is "fair". McCain's plan benefits those with plenty of money already, while Obama's helps those who could use a hand. If you think Obama's is "unfair", that's a perfectly valid opinion. But please don't hide behind the lie that McCain is doing anything but screwing the non-rich so the rich can get a bigger tax cut.

Sure. In return, please don't hide behind the fact that a refundable 'tax cut' is nothing more than a redistributionist welfare payment by a fancy name.

Because that's the only way the system is going to work. I pulled my head out of my ass and decided that, while I personally might like to have way lower taxes, that's probably not a very good idea in the long run. Because liberals don't want to give up public education, and conservatives don't want to give up the defense budget...and that's fine, those things are good uses of money. But I find it totally ridiculous when people who are well off demand that we cruise the aisles of Wal-Mart, looking for poor people who "don't pay their fair share".

Why is it the only way the system will work? There are 2 obvious facts here:

1. We have a deficit.
2. It's easier to collect a dollar of tax from the poor than it is from the wealthy.
 
Back
Top